--
Joe Zorzin
"Clear Cut" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Joe Zorzin" wrote:

"Clear Cut" wrote in message
...
If you are interested in US statistics, spend some quality time with:

http://fia.fs.fed.us/

The Forest Inventory and Analysis program of the Forest Service has
been
in continuous operation since 1930 with a mission to "make and keep
current a comprehensive inventory and analysis of the present and
prospective conditions of and requirements for the renewable resources
of the forest and rangelands of the United States."

And it's been proven to be next to worthless, at least for the
Northeast, by
Karl Davies, consultant from Mass.- since their inventory methods don't
measure tree height, nor tree grade. See www.daviesand.com.

Joe,

When used inappropriatlely - yes FIA is beyond worthless - it is
actually harmful. Karl makes the point that the FIA is inappropiate as
the Continuous Forest Inventory system for the managment for
Massachusetts forest. I agree. To be usesed in this manner, it would
have to have a much larger sample size, more variables (like grade)
measured on each plot, and a higher level of quality assurance. That
would cost a good chunk of change.

FIA does provide a comparison between inventory periods at a resolution
that is regional in scope. That is what it is designed to do.

But, that very same research could have and should have been done better-
by, as Karl says, measuring heights and grades- with little extra effort and
cost. Karl's slam of the FIA system is much deeper than even this, but I
don't remember all the details. If he happens to see this thread, perhaps
he'll elaborate.

And, as you say, it's not meant to be the CFI system for Mass. or the
Northeast- however, too many people make referances to FIA as if it were the
definitive answer as to volumes and growth.

But, look at the description of the purpose of FIA as you offered above,
"make and keep current a comprehensive inventory and analysis of the present
and prospective conditions of and requirements for the renewable resources
of the forest and rangelands of the United States.". That's a HUGE claim.
Perhaps, unless they're going to do it right- they should avoid words like
"comprehensive".




The original poster asked a very broad question and FIA is the best
(only?) tool we have available to answer that broad question at this
time.

These data are not perfect. I am convinced there are errors in the data
- a data set this large has to have them. The contractors are trained,
tested, and subject to a quality assurance program. I have neither the
time nor resouces to check if the contractors met their obligation in
Massachusetts.


By the way, we here in the usenet forestry groups tend to think it's
preferable if people give their true names and what they do for a living-
that way, when they give strong opinons on important subjects- we know who
we're talking to, and what their perspective is. Hiding behind cute names
doesn't add weight to one's comments. I'm always accused of ranting and
raving, but at least I stand up and say who and what I am.



--
Due to SPAM filtering, please add NOSPAM
to email subject to improve your chances
of an actual reply.