Sore-Loserman [Archive] - www.ifish.net

SSPey

12-14-2000, 08:58 PM

That schools depend on logs is one of the greatest mistakes of Oregon's legislature.

I've devoted my LIFE to studying forests - in particular old growth forests - and so have spent a lot of time learning about them, thinking about them, speaking with others about them, and of course tromping through them. I'll answer your questions in turn:

you asked: .What does an "old growth" have over a "second growth".?

Old growth forests are more diverse. This confers resistance and resilience to disturbances such as pathogens and extreme weather that can kill younger managed stands. Also, old-growth forests provide habitat for a greater diversity of wildlife, and yes, wildlife includes animals that aren't important game for hunters (woodpeckers, amphibians) as well as animals that sometimes are (bears). In western Oregon , more than 130 vertebrates use fallen logs for breeding, feeding, or resting (shelter).

you asked: As far as that goes how do you know that is "old growth"?As for a forest being "old growth"tell me how you come up with this?

The easiest way to tell an old-growth forest is from its structure. It contains a diversity of species, often spaced widely, but their large crowns create areas of deep shade. When fire, disease, pathogens come in, they can take out certain "weak" individuals and thus create gaps between stronger trees. This combination of deep shade in most areas, and gaps in others, results in a patchwork of light that creates microclimates for understory plants. Some specialized BUGS feed on specific understory plants, and serve as food for both specialist and generalist predators. The lods and snags also contribute a lot of structural diversity that different organisms need to survive. So, in this way, structural diversity leads to biological diversity. We know that biological diversity couteracts the catastrophic effects of disease and bad weather, and so diversity in old-growht forests is good.

you said: Its funny how the people that know the least about a forest sure think they know alot..

Well I don't claim to know everything - I'm sure you know a heck of a lot more than I do about how to cut big trees.

you said: Sustained yeild is where it is now.

Much of what is considered "sustainable" in Oregon is not well defined, nor understood in any real scientific terms. Before long, fertilizer will be needed to get forests to grow as fast as they do now, because the rate of cutting is removing nutrients faster than they are being replaced from the atmosphere and rock weathering. This is not sustainable.

you said: I don't care if it's "old growth" or whatever if its time to harvest it's TIME.Or should we let it rot and fall down for the bugs to live?

as phish on said, yeah, let the bugs live. By keeping areas of old-growth forests intact we can have undisturbed "natural" forests to use as reference systems to understand how to do management with the least amount of long-term harm. We can work more truly towards sustainability by understanding what nature has spent millions of years constructing. There's plenty of area in managed (so called sustainable) forestry already. Sustained yield amounts to timber mining, plain and simple. We take big logs, strip the bark off, and mail them overseas so workers in mills over there can feed their kids. We're giving away our precioius resources in the most harmful way possible. We need to be internally consistent, true "conservatives" in the origin of the term as coined by Teddy Roosevelt, and realize that the world works over timescales much longer than you or I will ever get a chance to experience. We are but little arrogant blips, and we like fishing!!

Salmonator

12-14-2000, 09:12 PM

I am far from a tree hugger, but I almost cried the day when drove up to our favorite section of old growth woods on Snow Peak to find it gone. There was no rivers or lakes in this particular place to attract us. Just the cool shadowy feeling that only a stand of old growth can give you. I think there's a place, time and method for harvesting trees, but old growth should be no part of it. Joe

Timber Man

12-14-2000, 10:27 PM

floatnfish....You tell me this....Will a tree grow better on undisturbed ground or ground that has been filled and compacted?

SSPey

12-14-2000, 11:20 PM

Where will a tree grow better? Well, it depends: different trees, soils, slopes, and climates will give you very different answers to that question. The oversimplified nature of your question demonstrates with utter clarity why it is so important to learn how different forests work before we destroy them.

Now, if you want to talk about podzolization, hardpan formation and impeded water drainage in the cool climate, high rainfall, low slope, high clay soils of near coastal areas in the northern sections of the Pacific Northwest and BC that originally supported spruce-cedar-hemlock forests (but which have been converted to douglas fir plantations - BIG mistake), then just say so ... 'cuz your question is WAY too general.

So yeah, I can easily provide examples that match your favored answer to the oversimplified question you posed - but I won't rest there just because you want to believe that growing trees for wood production is the most important reason that forests exist. The relevant point is more fundamental and broadly relevant: forests provide many functions that people take advantage of, including the maintenance of biological diversity, wood production, fish and wildlife habitat, water and air quality, and recreational value.

It ain't just about the board feet.

Hoosier Daddy

12-15-2000, 12:26 AM

I'm just glad Bore is gone. I'm sure we haven't heard the last of him yet though. Bush may not be too bright, but he'll pick a good cabinet, and they do all the work anyway.
As for trees: I'm not anti-logging, nor am I an environmentalist, but we all know that a tree planted today will be cut down in 40-60 years or less. But hey, I live in a wood house too. Kind of like vegetarians, hey, at least my food (MEAT) has a chance to run away!!

_LIPPEE

12-15-2000, 12:28 AM

Cut all the timber you want timberman, we need all the clear cuts you can give us.makes great killin areas.

PeterMac

12-15-2000, 07:06 AM

FnF - You say 5% of the forest area is old growth. Can you quanitify that in acerage? Also, how much of the protected federal land is close to contributing to that number? Also, you mention all these little microenvironments. Seriously here, if they exist in only 5% of the remaining forests,a) how much good can they be doing to the overall picture, and b) why the heck do we need them and c) how much different are the ones found in a 200 year old forest which there are allot of? Can't the protection of watersheds, via sensible logging practices be accomplished? Why do we really care if we lose a little insignificant specie here or there? We are over populating this planet in a big way, and it is not going to get any easier to whatch our every step. We have to acept that a specie may get lost along the way.... I am not saying that I am for it. Only that it is going to happen.

BTW - you are 100% correct about the mistake made by replanting coastal forests with Doug Fir. This is going to create problems for a long time.

Don't take my questions as flippant. i am serious, and you seem to be relatively informed.

PeterMac

------------------
If you think old growth forests are beautiful, you should see the lumber they make!!

chuck 'n' duck

12-15-2000, 08:02 AM

PeterMac:

No offense intended, but if you carefully reread the posts by floatnfish, you should be able to understand "why the heck do we need them".

If you still don't get it, here is a quote of what he said, "...By keeping areas of old-growth forests intact we can have undisturbed "natural" forests to use as reference systems to understand how to do management with the least amount of long-term harm. We can work more truly towards sustainability by understanding what nature has spent millions of years constructing."

Chuck 'n' Duck

Phish_on

12-15-2000, 08:27 AM

floatnfish - thou restoreth my faith! Thank you for expressing so well what seems so obvious to me.

PeterMac, you ask: "Why do we really care if we lose a little insignificant specie here or there?"

Insignificant, like Oncorhynchus kisutch ... or O. clarki? Are you God, do you get to decide which species are "insignificant"? Homo sapiens, perhaps! Every species we lose brings us closer to our own extinction (I'm not claiming that as a fact, just a feeling I have). Life on Earth is a complex system, and when you take out enough components, the system will fail. I don't believe any of us are smart enough to guess which components are expendable.

Anyway, I'm glad to know that a FEW people can see beyond themselves and beyond today.

PeterMac

12-15-2000, 08:31 AM

CnD,

No offense taken, thanks.

Like a template. Okay then, fine, I can see the logic in that statement. But given that, if that is why we truely need them, then how many of these "labratories" are really needed? Why tie up all remaining old growth timber? I suspect that there are millions of old growth acres protected right now.

PeterMac

------------------
If you think old growth forests are beautiful, you should see the lumber they make!!

PeterMac

12-15-2000, 08:34 AM

Just making a point there Phishy. Haven't seen any dinasaurs lately, but we seem to be doing allright.

------------------
If you think old growth forests are beautiful, you should see the lumber they make!!

Hoosier Daddy

12-15-2000, 08:38 AM

Look at this percentage thing another way. If only 5% of forests are old growth, what exactly do we have to gain by cutting them? Seems like a pretty small amount of timber in the grand scheme of things. Just a question.

Salmonator

12-15-2000, 08:40 AM

A fisherman as much as anybody should be concerned with keeping as much of a natural environment intact as possible. You ask why we need these small insignificant species in the first place. That mentality is no better than those who would just as soon put up more dams or log buffer zones (for our economic benefit) than worry about a few insignificant species of native salmon or steelhead.

Phish_on

12-15-2000, 09:16 AM

I hadn't heard that humans killed the dinosaurs. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

I can't consider timber harvest a force of nature. TimberMan will disagree on this ...

(TM, did you kill all those dinos ?)

PeterMac

12-15-2000, 09:23 AM

Sal,
I have always supported conservative logging practices like buffer zones, stream enhancement, etc. Not only support, but practice them as well. And Phish, no I don't think I am God. Just asking questions.

------------------
If you think old growth forests are beautiful, you should see the lumber they make!!

[This message has been edited by PeterMac (edited 12-15-2000).]

Deleted User

12-15-2000, 09:27 AM

Leave the trees alone. Grow and harvest hemp. I'm not talking about weed ("the gateway drug" :rolleyes http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif, but actual industrial hemp.

I'm not a pot smoker. I tried it twice (I even inhaled!) and it just made me tired. I am instead someone who has done some reading.

Can anyone explain to me why we SHOULDN'T grow and harvest hemp to replace much of the products made my harvesting trees?

PeterMac

12-15-2000, 09:29 AM

Fob,

What kind of products can it replace?

Osprey

12-15-2000, 09:41 AM

Industrial hemp...good idea but the Timber companys (big money)
won't go for it.
All our paper products and a lot more could be made from this,I'm sure there are more. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

------------------
Row quietly and fish a Cataraft !!---
Release all Wild Fish --<'))>><

SSPey

12-15-2000, 09:42 AM

Hi Fobbman,

You raise an intersting question about growing hemp. I'm not all that excited about it for two reasons.

Hemp provides little or no habitat or food resources for native species of birds, bugs, and bunnies (T.I.C.) - it is grown in monoculture.

Hemp grows fast, takes up a lot of nutrients from soil, and these get carted off with the hemp when harvested. Pretty soon we'll need to fertilize fields that support hemp just like we fertilize agricultural crops all over the world. Fertilizing crops leads to a variety of problems (the way it is usually done) and is not sustainable.

Intensive agriculture is not going to solve the world's problems, it will solve some in the short term, but in the long term will make many worse. Again, we need to look to nature for answers on how to live with the worlds biological systems. Intercropping of different varieties of plants is a step in the right direction. This is true for agricultural fields AND forests.

Hoosier Daddy

12-15-2000, 09:48 AM

FnF: You do this for a living don't you??
Good points all.

Deleted User

12-15-2000, 10:01 AM

Paper products are primarily what I was thinking of on the tree-replacement front.

As for the soil nutrient issue, it's my understanding that there are several currently-cultivated crops that do things similar to this and that the farmers go through a rotation of crops to help deal with this. Wouldn't this also work for hemp?

If anyone is questioning what this has to do with fishing, look no further than the continued rivershed damage that is done by clearcutting.

Phish_on

12-15-2000, 10:19 AM

Hemp fiber (stalks)can be used for paper and cloth. Hemp seeds are rich in oil and protein, with many uses from food to fuel. (Used to be used for paint ...) The biomass from the leaves could produce fuel alcohol.

Interesting to note that competition from industrial hemp was the actual political motivation behind prohibition in 1937 - timber (Hearst) and petro-chemical (DuPont) interests leading the way.

Who still believes that smoking weed leads to violence and insanity ? These were the arguments used to pass the prohibition of hemp - also that it led white women to fornicate with Negro jazz musicians ...

This thread gets more interesting all the time?

"I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the Communist Party"

Deleted User

12-15-2000, 10:25 AM

Phish-

Another big opponent to hemp growing was the cotton lobby, FYI.

Negro jazz musicians? So hemp also gives people a refined taste in music? Sounds like it may need to be prescribed for some.

And if industrial hemp does become legal to grow then I may need to become a black jazz musician.

Fishhead

12-15-2000, 11:16 AM

I for one work for a large paper company.I find it disturbing to say the least that when I drive up the Wilson river or the Trask river and see what they have done to those water sheds it makes me sick. The water sheds should be left alone PERIOD!! And people wonder why the fish are'nt coming back like they used to.The logging should stay away from the rivers.I guess the damage has already been done but when they log right down to the waters edge it just dose'nt make sense.Take a look the next time you go up that way.Tell me if you don't think that slash cutting is doing harm to the spawning reds and I'll tell you bull...I need to make a living from the timber industry too,but not at that expense-Fishhead Vic

[This message has been edited by Fishhead (edited 12-15-2000).]

SandySteel

12-15-2000, 06:42 PM

Looking at the posts I see that Timber Man went quiet. It's hard to argue with science. I think it is also increasingly hard to be an angler who is in favor of cutting down trees in a way that is detrimental to rivers and is why I find myself standing increasingly on the side of environmentalists. Did anyone catch the article in the Oregonian about hyperheic flow and how it affects salmonids. Fascinating. To get back to the original topic, what really frightens me right now about a Bush administration is the idea that Slade Gorton might be head of the department of interior.

steelyhornhntr

12-15-2000, 07:36 PM

The best thing about G.W. becoming our next president is that Al Gore will not be our next president!!! The second best is that now I'm accepting ideas for a new country for Alec Baldwin and his freaking liberal bride.. He went public crying that if G.W. becomes the next president that he will leave the country.. I sure hope he sticks to his promise!!! Two less raging hysterical liberals and were all better off..

Timber Man

12-15-2000, 07:48 PM

SandySteel---I have been fishin not talkin on a computter...To cut old growth doesn't mean the fish are being endangered nor does it mean humans are in danger.I believe in leaving a buffer but I don't believe in leaving trees standing just because you all like to look at them and call them "old growth"Timber is a renewable resource.As far as a simple question so you call it FNF you know that trees grow better on disturbed soil so you avoid the question with a bunch of ideas that YOU may have.This is all in what you believe....you want to save trees yet I still keep mowin them down..Thats the problem with all you TREE HUGGIN HIPPIES nothing is ever good enough save the earth to hell with all human life earth is more important...We log now in most cases on a sustained yeild yet that isnt good enough yet you buy lumber and wipe your @$$ with paper...What all you folks see is timber companys logging there ..OWN..thats right OWN land it is not yours..I dont hear any of you whining about trees being cut to build yourself a new home..corse not that is for you..Its funny you folks think don't log the U.S. do it in canada and ship it down here..don't you think the trees in other places are as important as the trees in the U.S.or is it just for the sake of your sight seeing pleasure?"EARTH FIRST WE WILL LOG THE OTHER PLANETS LATER"TM

------------------
You think old growth
looks good,You should
smell the sawdust as
I'm falling one!!!!!

[This message has been edited by Timber Man (edited 12-15-2000).]

SSPey

12-15-2000, 07:49 PM

While Gore was non-commital about Snake R. dam removal, Bush was definitively against it. So yeah, if Slade becomes Interior Sect., then we're one step closer to kissing those 'nookies goodbye. What a legacy.

Deleted User

12-16-2000, 02:57 AM

Thanks for the interesting and important insight FnF. I will add a dose of what I see, and what scientists say, is the reality at the end of my post. First, I want to address some things in this very interesting topic (not the election this thread was named for, but what it has become concerning people and the environment). ...

TM & PeterWac, if you are so interested in non-protection of old growth forests so that they can be cut down, then what does that say for the credibility of the fictional term "sustainable yield" forests? If it's sustainable, why in the hell do you need to cut the 5% of remaining old growth? Hmmm ...

You 2 timber industry members keep mentioning our need of wood for our houses; so essentially espouce 'accept all the timber cutting and shut up'. Why has the timber industry historically lobbied to block timber product alternatives, such as the industrial hemp mentioned above? And the use of alternative building framing materials such as aluminum and jet-age plastics; both less parishable than wood and already in some residential house construction?!? Oh that's right, because of blind self interest! http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif . ...

I will add some other important factors for keeping the world's old growth forests and wild plant populations alive and healthy: 1 - They supply the world's oxygen. 2 - They are natural polution fighters that actually cleanse the air of some polutants (not a well known fact). 3 - They provide a myriad of presently used medicines to keep people alive and healthier. Remember, you claim it's people that's important; save people's jobs, not trees or animals (actually what's most important to you is money, more than people). And by conservative scientific predictions, the world's old growth forests will provide a lot more of incalcuably valuable medicines in the future, IF THEY ARE THERE! 4 - As FnF started to alude to, these forests are necessary for essential ecosystems. Yes TM, including the bugs. Without enough insects we would not only lose the fish quickly, but we would hasten the extinction of animals and ultimately the human race earlier than would happen otherwise. 5 - Significantly reducing the amount of and natural beauty of our forests will reduce the quality of life immeasurably, especially for us "hippies" (which as described unwittingly by TM would mean intelligent people with souls and inate appreciation of the world's natural beauty - not somebody that smokes hemp). ...

Now for the dose of reality; and I'm not the source, only the messenger. Don't be angry at me about the truth. ... It is only a matter of time before the human race becomes extinct; whether by our own collective shortsighted actions or something like the giant astroid collision with Earth that killed off all the dinosaurs. With that a given certainty, which of 2 scenarios would you prefer to happen hence forth: A - Continued unchecked population growth that will quickly use up the earth's resources, especially with selfish special interest resource overuse, and choke the planet with more polution, hunger, and violence much worse than what is intollerably going on already? Making for an unacceptable quality of life for the unconsionable future masses that some people think 'deserve a chance to be born irregardless', and join in on the inevitable miserable choke fest? ... Or B - From this point on, responsible population control and wise genuine sustainable use of this earth's resouces? So that we can have a much better quality of life now and in your own and children's lifetime; and a chance for countless future offspring generations to be born, which in the proper 'B' scenario will enable many times more people to be born and serve the lord and enjoy a chance at a quality life than would be born given continued uncontroled birth rates? To me this is a no-brainer! For those that are against birth control and very early termination of unwanted pregnancies (pregnancies of which are carried out lead to a very high percent of unhappy negative impact criminal people), you're philosophy would rob opportunity for immensily more human life in the long run than would be possible by poorly thought out irresponsible unchecked human population growth now (BTW, I'm against most non-early abortions). In other words, your philosophy of promoting or saving every potential opportunity for more human life now will ultimately take away many more times the opportunity of human life in this world's future; while at the same time making for a poor quality of life in the very near future. ...

Wow. That ought to make me popular with a few people; not! I can't be concerned with that. I'm only the messenger of reported and common sense reality.

[This message has been edited by RT (edited 12-16-2000).]

Deleted User

12-16-2000, 04:07 AM

Do we have the right to just arbitrarally say that if a certain species gets in the way of human progress to hell with it? So what if it goes extinct? I don't for one believe we do. We got in this mess by irresponsible forest management and unfortunately when someone speaks out about it the are branded extremists. Hell let's log right down to the friggin' rivers edge after all we wouldn't want to deny someone from building that wood deck out on their patio would we? and by all means lets let those cows graze and defecate right down to the rivers edge too! It's like RT said our shortsightedness will do us in! So keep cutting you guys. What are the three scariest words you've heard lately? The ones that scare me the most are "President George Bush" If you appreciate the natural beauty we enjoy here in the NW they ought to scare you too!

Timber Man

12-16-2000, 09:24 AM

OH!!!!I forgot its the logging practices that have made our fish runs decline!!
NOT NETS!!!!!

------------------
You think old growth
looks good,You should
smell the sawdust as
I'm falling one!!!!!

Centerpin

12-16-2000, 09:55 AM

FnF,

It is our job to harvest the decadent old trees so future generations can profit from a higher quality second growth product. We have reached the point where very small percentage of our old growth is sawlog and the majority is pulp. If we don't liquidate this decadent pulpwood and establish road networks and access it will become uneconomical to harvest these lands in the future. Intensive forestry over a smaller landbase is the way of the future. It can't be done with low quality wood.

I also think your definition of "old growth" is text book driven with a lot of facts left out. If you want to talk about text books then we can discuss why clear cutting and the harvesting of our forests is ecologically sound. Most of the time guys will only use enough information to suit their purposes.

Here are a couple of questions for you:

Why is everyone concerned with protecting coastal old growth forest when companies are ****** the interior stands of pine and spruce which are of equal or older age? Does size matter?

Why are we concerned with protecting the remaining old growth forests (small percentage) when they are pretty much useless to fish and wildlife in their current isolated state? Wouldn't it be more effective to protect some of the older second growth and promote old growth characteristics so they become more productive to wildlife now and in the future?

The thing with trees is you can't stop them from growing. Instead of being short sighted we should be looking to do it right the second time around. Trees give us this chance, but in my areas we are liquidating the second growth and are ******* our second chance away. Meanwhile everyone is out protesting on the coast while the companies are laughing all the way to the bank as the run ruffshod over the second growth stands

kinaye

12-16-2000, 11:23 AM

Bravo, RT! Every enviromental problem we are having goes back to one thing. It seems most enviro's are just putting out fires. The reason we still need to cut old growth is that sustainable yield can't keep up with our growth (or will not) but eventually we will have also ran out of old growth also.
It would seem to be our destiny, cut every tree, suck out every drop of oil, kill every fish. People like Timberman are the disgusting height of this human condition. Our own intelligent ego says we can do what we want. Look at me, havin 5 kids. Look at me drivin an Expedition to the Bon to buy panties. Look at me cuttin down this old growth. Take that, you *******, mother Earth.
Ha Ha make room for me I am human. We'll just cut logs on the next planet once we are done here, what a shortsighted bunch of dumba**es we are. Full of excuses for our own demise.

Centerpin

12-16-2000, 01:13 PM

I will ask Timberman how much breakage and wasted wood is created when falling older stands of timber. The younger "old growth" in the 200-300 yr range is far superior as it has not been exposed to as much disease or rot. Sawlogs require less handling and generate a higher revenue per cubic meter. There is also a higher lumber recovery in logs with fewer defects. Fine grain vs coarse grain that needs to be addressed by the marketing guys. A couple of reasons for clearcutting include the control of disease such as the pine beatle and root rot, the mimicking of natural deforestation such as wildfire or windthrow. The opening size in BC has been reduced to less than 40 ha on the coast and something like 80 ha in the interior. The size has been reduced to better match these natural disturbance events. I personally feel that larger openings are better and reduce the fragmentation that is occuring in our watersheds. Larger openings also make it more economical for forest companies and lead to fewer road networks within our watersheds. I would rather have intensive forestry in the more productive lower elevation forests than in our headwaters. Headwater logging has been the most detrimental type of logging we have encountered to date. I would rather see logging to the river bank on our lower reaches than the deforestation of our upper elevation headwater forests. The removal of our headwater forests leads to downstream impacts of higher high flows and lower low flows. On many of my Vancouver Island streams we will have to wait 50 or 60 years for the upper elevation forests to recover. In the meantime they will have gutted the lower elevations and be ready for a second pass in the upper elevations.

steelyhornhntr

12-16-2000, 02:01 PM

For those of you Dam lovers/haters now is a very good time to take a hard look at just how important to us they are. We've become very dependant upon them an until we develop efficient alternatives I think you guys with sledge hammers at the ready should rethink your stance. People first or fish first?? Right now there is reportings of huge energy crunches going on. Kaiser Aluminum is currently scaling back in order to allow more electricity to power YOUR microwave oven.. Just think without our hydroelectric power most of you wouldn't have a job to go to on monday.. Boy, this couldn't come at a worst time. With Christmas credit cards max't out and no job to go to because they shut you down to conserve electricity you might be in a dire situation.. Lucky for the Kaiser people who were layed off Kaiser has agreed to "supplement" their layoff..Hell we wouldn't even be able to ***** back and forth without power.. Since I work outside I'd still have a job but I might as well stay there because my wife would be unbearable without her "power"!!

DanS

12-16-2000, 02:27 PM

steelyhorn,

Those Snake river dams produce a whopping 4% of the power consumed in the northwest. So if they were removed, you could expect a 4% increase in your power bill. Turning off your Christmans lights could make up the difference.

And before Kaiser cries too loud, maybe they could explain why their smelters are 15% less effecient than the aluminum industry standard. Besides, the regulation/deregulation of power companies and their rates, along with the increased energy usage on the west coast, mostly by large computer companies, are really the issues we should be discussing.

The Snake river dams are more important to the aluminum and shipping industries than they are to the vast majority of northwest power consumers. If Kaiser and their fellow northwest smelter operators could run their smelters as efficiently as the rest of the aluminum industry, they might not be in such a tight spot. I personally see no reason for using this power crunch as a reason for keeping the lower Snake river dams.

Fish on......

SSPey

12-16-2000, 02:44 PM

Snake River dams provide only 3% percent of power used in the PNW. They were built for irrigation, and partial breaching would still allow water withdrawls for agriculture while saving fish - breach them now. Greater energy efficiency could easily save up to 15-20% of our energy use - much more than provided for by Snake River dams.

And on the clearcutting topic:
Younger "old-growth" stands in the 200-300 year old range is not really relevant in discussing management. No current management techniques operate on 250 year rotations, and massive clearcutting did not occur in 1750 in the PNW, when the US wasn't even a country yet. Yes, 200-300 year old trees in today's landscape make fine timber, but again the point is that they have other values that need to be considered before clearcutting. Selective harvest and management for diversity (as practiced in some areas of Europe, where they're realized the importance of multiple-use long-term forest management) is the wave of the future, in both lowland and upland forests.

you wrote: The opening size in BC has been reduced to less than 40 ha on the coast and something like 80 ha in the interior. The size has been reduced to better match these natural disturbance events.

OK - but the frequency and distribution of gaps from naturally occurring disturbance events over the landscape is much lower than what currently results from clear cut logging. Naturally, a small percentage of the landscape at any one time was in a "gap" or "clearing" phase, even with large scale fires. The undisturbed surrounding areas provided refuges, as well as sources for repopulation of disturbed areas by animals and plants. In current times such a large percent is in "gap" or "young forest" phase that these repopulations sources - the sources of diversity - are at an all time low.

you said: I personally feel that larger openings are better and reduce the fragmentation that is occuring in our watersheds.

I agree at one level, that fragmentation is bad, but at a more fundamental level clearcutting doesn't need to be the only alternative. Selective logging and intelligent maintenance of old-growth charateristics over large areas of regrowing commercial forest will allow us to maintain ecological values AND get quality timber. Managed landscapes are here to stay - we can do it better, that's all. There will be less profit for management, but more jobs for people, because management will move away from mechanization and towards people/information based management. Maybe then logs will command fair market value for the fantastic commodity that they represent, and also alternatives (mentioned by RT and others) will get fair consideration.

you wrote: I would rather see logging to the river bank on our lower reaches than the deforestation of our upper elevation headwater forests.

I argue that there is NO acceptable place to log directly up to the river's edge. Riparian forests support more wildlife than any other type of forest - these are the biological hot spots and need to be preserved above all others in all cases. In particular, lowland riparian forests are the most of the most in terms of biological importance.

There are alternatives to clear cutting, both from the forest management perspective and from the social perspective. I appreciate your comments and thoughts on this topic, as you raise some interesting points, and only ask that you consider a broader range of possibilities than is usually floated through commercial forestry's public relations offices.

wiser

12-16-2000, 02:55 PM

Maybe it's time for some of the people posting on this board to read, better yet, view "The Lorax". Even the hardest headed should be able to relate to what can happen.
Old Growth and Trufulla Trees do have something in common.

steelyhornhntr

12-16-2000, 03:44 PM

DanS, I appreciate your comeback. Very good! However, where is the other 96% of the power going??

Centerpin

12-16-2000, 03:50 PM

Extinction is a fact of life although we do not want to deliberately cause the extinction of any species. Before our brief existence species kicked the bucket and not one dinosaur blinked an eyelash. We arrive and now we think we have a noticeable impact on our surroundings. In actual fact we are insignificant in the big pictures so just enjoy your place in time. In BC forest management was virtually non existent until the late 1980's. In under a decade we have moved to some the most restrictive forest practices in the world. Now our regulations often hinder the ability for flexible management. Everyone wants to do the right thing although through regulation or ignorance we often achieve the less desired outcome. I don't know Timberman but I do know that in the course of cutting down trees he would do everything in his ability to minimize the impact to the environment.

Deleted User

12-16-2000, 05:55 PM

CP, gotta call ya on your last sentence there. You said you 'know' Timberman would do everything in his power to minimize the negative effects of timber cutting. You don't 'know' that, you hope that, along with the rest of us repsonsible people. Better re-read at the bottom of all his posts; it says something like: 'You think the old growth forests are beautiful, you should smell the sawdust as I fall them'. Doesn't sound like a guy that "will do everything in his power to minimize timber cutting's negative impacts". It sounds more like a guy that will do everything in his power to maximze timber cutting profit and self income, irregardless of future impact; which is consistent with his other postings on the subject. And it surely sounds like he genuinely gets off on falling trees. ... However, I'm not saying he isn't a good guy otherwise; I am optimistic that he is. - RT

Timber Man

12-16-2000, 06:28 PM

Centerpin-Breakage is less then 5% depending on the ground.Flat ground is around 1% and steep ground can go as high as 5%.As most of you think it's just falling a tree!wrong it takes years of experience in all types of terrain to be even close to an (experienced faller).Even then you can be injured at any given moment.

For example-I am 33 I started cutting timber when I was 15 in the summer.Since it has been my only sorse of income.9 months ago I had a tree roll and Tear my knee up.I have had reconstuctive surgery and now have degeneration of the knee joint which I will need a replacement of the joint in 5yrs or less.That makes me 38 at the most and the joints only last 10yrs.I am not bitter about this nor do I think the timber industy needs to stop cutting.This is what my family has supported they familys on for 4 generations.If you were in my position and logging had been part of your life as long as you can remember you would feel the same as me.I believe in clear cutting whether it is old growth or second growth.I dont believe in cutting up to a streams or rivers.I have spent my whole life in the woods and have seen the effects that loggin has made.The timber industry has been cut by 80% since the early 80's yet it isn't good enough.Why do you think lumber is so high!Because of the lack of timber being harvested!

Put it this way-You have ajob and thats all you know how to do,someone comes in and says you are done and your job is gone,what would you say?

I hope you would stand up for yourself and family and fight,Or is a tree (that grows back) more important then your children that need a roof over there head and food on the table?TM

------------------
You think old growth
looks good,You should
smell the sawdust as
I'm falling one!!!!!

Timber Man

12-16-2000, 06:33 PM

RT- one thing about it atleast I enjoy my job..And just because I enjoy the smell of "old growth" doesn't mean I want to **** the forest of all trees.And yes I am a responsible person and enjoy the outdoors.Cutting timber doesn't make you an irresponsible person-RT-TM http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[This message has been edited by Timber Man (edited 12-16-2000).]

SSPey

12-16-2000, 07:13 PM

The timber industry has declined since the 1980's because that was the full-on peak of its operation - with Reagan and friends - and living by the mantra "cut and cut and cut and cut" eventually you run out and have to wait for the stuff to grow back. And yes, some of the stuff is off limits because it serves other purposes for society as a whole. Reagan's administration and policies provided a false sense of timber inexhaustability that the industry is currently having to deal with - a landscape littered with 15 - 20 year old forests. Poor planning, promoted by short sighted government policies, plain and simple, has lead to our current timber situation.

When the stock market hits a low and those 20-something stockbrokers and stockbroker's secretaries and bicycle couriers are out of a job, do they cry foul that this is how they make their living and claim that the government should bail them out? They adapt, learn new skills, and move on. And so must we all.

Timber Man

12-16-2000, 07:31 PM

If thats the case then FNF maybe you should adaped to the fact that we will still keep cutting trees.And maybe you should move on.Maybe if you guys looked at the logging practices now days in the state of Washington(not oregon I dont live there so I don't know)) you would see that there is a big change from years past.You would see our buffers of class 4and5 water is at least 150 ft and in most cases 200 to 300ft.Any wet lands has 50 ft.Even if it only holds water a small portion of the year.And by LAW all clearcuts are replanted.The replant has to be within 3 years of harvest.The reason for this is to let the land come back to a natural state as much as possible and after that trees are planted in areas that haven't already started to grow naturally.TM

[This message has been edited by Timber Man (edited 12-16-2000).]

Deleted User

12-16-2000, 07:40 PM

Now what do ya think CP?

Centerpin

12-16-2000, 09:11 PM

I still believe that Timberman would do everything in his power to minimize the impact on the environment. He will do a good job because he doesn't know any other way. Some people think I am a poacher and an unethical fisherman because I kill wild steelhead or because I kill my limit. Does that make me a bad person or a threat to the resource?

Spooled

12-16-2000, 11:42 PM

Hey Timberman, you say to thank the timber industry for our schools about 50 posts back. How do they build schools in Kansas or Nebraska or any other state without timber industry. Maybe they are on to something we don't know about out here yet.
I realize that people must make a living, but if I were a logger nowadays, I would have my children learn a new way of life as I feel the future is just not as bright in that industry as in others. I am certainly a user of your industry's products, but see the day when alternatives will be a more responsible choice. I am sure you want the best for your family as I do for mine, but at some point all things come to an end. I work in the automotive industry and our day is coming too. I hope my children choose a different profession, even though this one has been good to me. It's all about the future. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

SSPey

12-17-2000, 12:21 AM

THANKS to RT for getting to the crux of the matter. Population controls is the only answer - Malthus, an economist from the early 1800's, saw this coming a long time ago.

Now Centerpin - I'm game - Want to tell me how and why clearcutting as currently practiced is ecologically sound? I'm especially interested in hearing any argument that doesn't focus on decadent trees. This "decadent" is a loaded term, of meaning only in the human context, of what WE consider useful for our own immediate ends. We've so screwed with the natural disturbance regime in Northwest forests, and it is important to realize that there are very important differences between the natural disturbances of this region versus clearcutting.

Do you really believe what you wrote about "higher quality second growth product?" I'm gonna sick Timberman and PeterMac on you for that one. Dem rings be tight, man.

you ask: Why is everyone concerned with protecting coastal old growth forest when companies are ****** the interior stands of pine and spruce which are of equal or older age? Does size matter?

I answer: The reason people care about the coastal forests is because they are more diverse and endangered than the interior forests. Coastal forests are not the only ones worth protecting, but they rise to the top of the list pretty fast. And they support salmon! And they're REALLY impressive and have high recreational value.

You ask: Why are we concerned with protecting the remaining old growth forests (small percentage) when they are pretty much useless to fish and wildlife in their current isolated state?

I answer: They aren't useless, but you're correct in that most indicators show that even protected stands are insufficient to protect many species, particularly those with large home ranges (e.g. bears). Work as shown, for example, that populations of sensitive species in many National Parks are declining, albeit at a slower rate than non-protected areas. The extent of protected area does matter. Is this a reason to squander protected areas that remain? No, it is a reason to EXPAND them. Which leads to your next question:

you ask: Wouldn't it be more effective to protect some of the older second growth and promote old growth characteristics so they become more productive to wildlife now and in the future?

I answer: There is already work that shows how to promote old second growth characteristics. Is that practiced on a large scale? Absolutely NOT. Should it be? Absolutely YES! Can managing stands for older characteristics help increase the ecological value of the paltry old-grwoth stands that currently remain? I hope so, and we NEED those remaining old growth stands to serve as a model for how to manage second growth stands in ecologically sound fashion.

You say: we are liquidating the second growth and are ******* our second chance away.

I totally agree with you - and now some problems are starting to kick in to stands that are entering the thrid rotations - disease, poor growth - we're simply not thinking long-term and using ecological knowledge. Clear cutting and monocultures are not ecologically sound, not sustainable, but business as usual is REALLY easy.

Don't get me wrong - I use wood products all the time, and fully understand the need to have forests to meet society's needs. But society must re-evaluate its needs, seriously consider alternatives to business as usual, and have longer-term vision than we are used to. Clearcutting will go the way of the splash dam, like it or not. Its just a matter of time.

fishhead5

12-17-2000, 07:05 AM

TM, you got to realize that if it doesn't affect them in their everyday life, they don't care what it does to anyone else. They drives their cars and boats that pollute, they run their lights and heaters that use electricity (that comes from dams, oops I said a really bad word) I'll bet some of them even burn wood or use a pellet stove. But they recycle some, so they are doing all they can. Put them all on an Island and let them live by their rules. It would be interesting wouldn't it.

Fishhead5

Steve

12-17-2000, 02:13 PM

Lets put this back into perspective, the congress mandated in late 60's all of the 70's and the early 80's that the Forest Service take 110% of the allowable cut to pay for raiding the Social Security coffers to pay for Vietnam. Remember Social Security the hot issue that everyone wants to save? Most if not all of the school districts get a part of the reciepts from logging, In other words logging has paid, is paying, and will be paying for generations of school kids. Next the term OLD GROWTH is a term assigned to Douglas Fir, hold on here,,,the Cascades where originally covered with vast stands of White Pine, the first settlers coming to the Northwest found vast tracts of land with dying pines from White Pine Blister Rust, Firs were not the dominate species...pines where. Old Growth Fir average 400 to 1000 years old and most are in preserved / regulated area...like Bull Run the water source for Portland...small pockets remain on the National Forest but also protected. The areas in controversy are actually second growth 100 to 200 years old
the saw mills long ago reconverted to handle these smaller logs...and all but a very few could handle a true O.G. Steve

OneLastCast

12-17-2000, 05:34 PM

I was just sitting back letting all this go bye. There have been some very good arguements on both sides of the aisle. But since some of the most honest straight forward people I know are loggers and things were getting tense I had to reply.

What is the difference of what timberman does regarding the taking of a resource in respect to what a fishing guide does in a taking. When in actuality it is starting to appear that the fishing resources may not be as sustainable as timber. Could it be that it is possible that fishing guides may have as much if not more of an impact on their resource proportionately as does a faller on his?

OneLastCast

Deleted User

12-17-2000, 06:53 PM

Interesting OLC. And it would be hard to argue against your point. Although I wouldn't single out guides either. The fact is all of us have impacts on the resources. We all need to do our part to help the cause. Means sacrifices. Some will be mandated by the Gov. via the FED. ESA. It will have a broad range effect on all of society, not just fishermen and the timber industry. ...

TM, my appology to you if sensed any personal anymosity toward you because you're in the timber cutting biz. It's not personal TM. I've heard you're a good guy and I accept that. What I have a problem with is simply the issue of cutting the small remaining old growth forestation. It doesn't need to be done and it has multiple negative ramifications. That's all. - RT

Trick

12-17-2000, 08:42 PM

What is boils down too is the one common thread that brings all the writers and readers of this forum together. It is the love of fishing and the outdoors. We all have a common hope that what we've grown up enjoying most of our life is fishing and deep down most of us realize that we've screwed up just about everything we touch and we truly are unsure how to totally erase our footprint in nature. We mis-manage our resources from timber to fish to you name it. Timberman should be ashamed for his abuses and statements, but no more than me or any of you, unless your living off love in a mountain cave somewhere. I'm convinced like some of you that our time is limited as a species, but somehow I know the planet will survive us and once again rise from the ashes.

That word "sustainable" is a bogus term and is based totally on fiction. Until we begin mandatory sterilization practices in this world, nothing is "sustainable".We need to conserve as much as we can and try to stretch it as far as we can and hope that were not around when the population exceeds the carrying capacity of our planet. Man, just imagine what lies ahead for future generations. I'm truly scared for them.

Don't get me wrong, I think we need to use our best judgement to sustain and better our way of life.That includes proper resource management, pollution control, birth control and the like. I feel like a hypocrite because I know I should do more and don't. Do I tune my car up on a regular basis to keep from polluting? Do I recycle everything I can? Do I really need to put up x-mas lights every year? Could I put that brick in my toilet tank to save more water? Do I really need a x-mas tree each year? Everyone of us falls far short of glory. Lets keep our chins up and continue to plow forward. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

How's the fishing?? Caught a 13+ buck native steely on the Necanicum a few days ago on a #4 chrome buds. I tried everything in my box that day and fished the Wilson, NF Nehalem, Necanicum and Big Creek and that was the only fish caught bewtween me and three other freinds that day. We had fun trying. My first fish of the winter season. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Timber Man

12-18-2000, 09:52 AM

sgs made this post on another thread thought it would fit right in over here--

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is anyone else out there amazed when they hear of or meet other N.W. fisherpeople that spend any time on our rivers here that don't think that OUR forests have been abused and exploited? I find it hard to believe that someone could float the Nestucca or drive up the N. fork of the Nehalem and think that this is responsible forestry that is truly benefitting our state and country in the long run. There is a common theme in extractive industries. Big industry comes in and sets up shop. Naturally the working class initially support them because they "support the schools", the roads etc.. Industry makes believe that they truly care about the people and are there for the long run. They take what they want and then they leave with noone really benefitting in the end except the stock holders and those at the top, leaving their wastes and troubles behind for the next generations to deal with.
There will always be forestry in the N.W. and there should be, to a lesser extent, but what has been done out here is a crime that continues on today.

Deleted User

12-18-2000, 10:45 AM

Timberman-

If you are concerned about the future of your selected occupation, then go back to school. My dad will turn 51 at the end of the month and he's going back to school to learn how to operate heavy machinery, thanks to the VA. His body won't let him do much of anything else, but he's not rolling up into a ball complaining that his life is shot.

There are a LOT of grants, scholarships, and LOW interest loans out there that can put you into a field where you have more of a future. Take a look out there.

Phish_on

12-18-2000, 11:25 AM

In response to OneLastCast:

No difference - don't kill wild fish, don't kill ancient forests.

Harvest planted fish and planted trees. Simple?

Hoosier Daddy

12-18-2000, 01:00 PM

I think we would all agree that our corner of the world has a population problem. I got to thinking about this while reading RT's Post Now message. Most if not all of our problems in the natural resources come from mismanagement and/or overuse, very little of what we have now is by accident. This in turn stems from there being too damned many of us in the first place. Now, we have fewer resources and more competition. The problem here is that none of us want to give anything up, we are all pretty convinced (probably rightly) that we already have given enough up. This question goes deep. In order for any of us to make a difference, we have to be willing to sacrifice. I made a reply in one of Dave's posts about this but I'll repeat it here. Are we as sportfishers willing to forgo fishing for one or two salmon generations (say 4 years) in order to replenish stocks? What I am saying here is all hypothetical, because it would depend on someone having the guts to suggest it and make it stick, with all interest groups, gillnetters, sportfishers, tribes, etc., which ain't gonna happen. But the point is, we have limited resources across the board, not just with salmon. Are we willing to stop fishing for a while, give up our SUV's, use particle board instead of old growth, eat less beef to put public lands ranching out of business, turn off the lights more often to save Columbia River water/power, foot the bill to create railways instead of using barges and reservoirs, etc, etc. Don't pick holes in my examples, they are just that, and there's a million sticking points to each one, just take the idea, you know what I mean. It's pretty clear that we don't have near enough of ANY natural resource at the moment, and at the risk of sounding like a tree/bunny-hugger, we all are going to have to show we are willing to sacrifice a little (or a lot) to make a difference, and we means every single group around.

Timber Man

12-18-2000, 01:37 PM

Since you all think our "old growth forest is so important to clean the air and emit oxygen. research this bit of info.

A stand of timber that is growing at a fast rate which most do until 100 years old uses cabon dioxide and emits oxygen.

An "old growth" uses very little carbon dioxide and emits next No oxygen.

Food for thought for all you OG huggers.Please dont reply until you have reseached I'm tired of all the false statement that I have already read.TM

Phish_on

12-18-2000, 03:17 PM

Don't need research.

I've lived in Oregon for 41 years, seen plenty of old growth, seen plenty of tree farms, seen plenty of clearcuts and landslides.

I KNOW THIS - when you cut down an ancient forest IT IS GONE. For 1,000 years. Well I DON'T HAVE 1,000 YEARS and I want that 3% of ancient forest left alone.

Don't need research - I know what I feel when I visit an ancient forest, and brother - IT IS A RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE. And I don't hear the creator of the forest saying "It's YOURS - DESTROY IT!" In the long run, it going to be worth more left standing ... just trust me on this one.

Call me a "tie-dyed tree-hugging hippie" - go ahead - THAT'S WHAT I AM.
___________________________

Then I did some quick research anyway.
http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/1997/December97/old.htm
http://forests.org/archive/general/plnewfor.htm
http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/cana9899.htm
http://raysweb.net/specialplaces/boreal-articles/oldgrowth.html

I know "Don't believe everything you read on the Internet" - - even if it comes from Timber Man hisself

[This message has been edited by Phish_on (edited 12-18-2000).]

Timber Man

12-18-2000, 03:34 PM

Phish_on- First it was 5% now it's 3%. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif.Come on make up your mind!!!TM

I dont go by what the Green Piecers fabricate!!

[This message has been edited by Timber Man (edited 12-18-2000).]

Phish_on

12-18-2000, 03:36 PM

goodness ! You have been busy !

http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Extreme

12-18-2000, 03:42 PM

To earn money for college (Fisheries Degree) in the early '80s, I set chokers for Klickitat Logging Co. Our logging trucks had the bumper sticker that read "EARTH FIRST....LOG ALL THE OTHER PLANETS LATER".
I learned a-lot while I worked for K.L.C. and saw both sides of the fence. However, from my view, I felt Forestry officials and all the so called protectors of ecology were way too forgiving and generous to the logging companies. Both sides bring up the usual good points and dilemmas here.
Without creating a huge post, I will say that I feel that we (Mankind) have not explored all the alternatives to using wood or substituting electricity in our lives. Until we do, our fish are in peril.
x

Timber Man

12-18-2000, 04:12 PM

Thats nice extreme!! take loggers money then stab them in the back.Sounds like a true SORE lover.It was Ok when you needed the money for school but now **** on it huh..These are the types of people I am refuring to.TAKE TAKE TAKE then change face!!

THEY CALL THAT 2 FACED!!

[This message has been edited by Timber Man (edited 12-18-2000).]

Hammer Bob

12-18-2000, 09:36 PM

Hey TM perhaps you could supply some references to back up the statements you made below. It might help us understand your viewpoint. It is pretty easy for anyone to make statements that "this is false" or "this is true" but it is another thing to back up your (in a rhetorical sense) points of view with references which support the "facts" which are being thrown about.

Quote from TM's post
"A stand of timber that is growing at a fast rate which most do until 100 years old uses cabon dioxide and emits oxygen.

An "old growth" uses very little carbon dioxide and emits next No oxygen.

Food for thought for all you OG huggers.Please dont reply until you have reseached I'm tired of all the false statement that I have already read.TM"

SSPey

12-18-2000, 10:39 PM

There is a measure of truth to the words that TM wrote about oxygen and carbon dioxide, although his time scale was a bit off. Here we go into Ecosystem Science 101. Old-growth forests have reached what scientists call a "steady-state" biomass, which means that trees are growing as fast as dead trees are decomposing, and so organic matter in the ecosystem doesn't accumulate. The production of organic matter is ultimately linked to plant growth via photosynthesis, which consumes carbon dioxide and emits oxygen. The decomposition of organic matter does the opposite, consumes oxygen and produces carbon dioxide (humans do this, as do all animals - a fundamental difference between plants and animals). So if plant growth (photosynthesis) is balanced by decomposition (respiration) as it is on average in many old-growth forests, then there is no net gas exchange. So TM is right about old-growth forests.

Now, there are caveats about what happens to this under changing climate (happening now) and changing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (happening now), but lets leave those details out, not really as important. I'm leaving them out for the sake of simplicity, but just to cover my butt, let me say that these new conditions would temporarily tip the balance towards extra forest growth, which sucks up carbon dioxide and produces oxygen. But this effect only temporary, and the effect is small for the immediate future. Ignore this stuff, details for the interested.

Several points:
1) time scale
2) trees and air pollution
3) what values of forest?

1) Time scale. When a forest is clear cut, trees grow and suck up carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. And this rate of tree growth is fastest up to about 100 years, as TM noted. Here's the deal, though. Even though the trees are growing quickly after the clearcut, decomposition (the opposite of tree growth) is actually occuring at a faster rate than tree growth for the first 20-50 years. This happens because the clearcut allows more sunlight to reach the soil, it warms up, and decomposition of organic matter is faster. So for the first 35 or so years after a clearcut, forests actually suck up more oxygen than they produce. After 35 years, the opposite happens. If you clearcut a stand at 70 years, you essentially have no net change in carbon dioxide or oxygen. If you let the forest grow for 600 years and give the soil and logs a chance to accumulate on the ground, then you continue to produce oxygen and suck up carbon dioxide. So what I'm saying is that forests produce oxygen and suck up carbon dioxide for at least 600 years in this part of the world, maybe longer (and again I won't do into details why, not important for the broader point).

If we keep some forest stands "off limits" or delay the time to cutting, then that carbon dioxide is essentially in the bank, locked up in trees and organic matter in soil. As a result, that's less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and less global warming. And before anyone gets on my case about global warming, let me say that 95% of earth scientists believe that the problem is real and have signed protocols to that effect. Its the 5% who receive research dollars from the utilities (read: bought off) that get a lot of press by questioning the legitimacy of global warming, and global change. The press doesn't have a story unless there is a good and bad guy, ya dig?

2) Forest filter out air pollutants, like traces of heavy metals (lead) and other nasties (dioxins, PCB's) that occur in the air we breath. The trees don't really use this stuff, but they lock it up.

3) Forest Value? Understanding how forest age relates to carbon storage is a big part of scientific research right now. TM has hit the nail, if not exactly on the head. Here's some food for thought. A landscape that is 100% clearcut all the time, versus one that is 100% old-growth all the time, has the same net exchange of carbon dioxide MINUS the single forest the first time that it was clearcut. That first clear cut winds up in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide eventually, and it consumes oxygen. But it is not an additive problem every time there is a clearcut - lumber decomposes as does paper from mills, and the trees are growing back - so the gas exchange only happens once. Fill the bucket, empty the bucket - we have only one bucket to work with here, and MY vote is to see the bucket full, or at least half full, for all the goodies that it provides. That stuff was covered before (biodiversity, fishies, nice places, etc..). Why should the bucket by 95% empty?

Sorry RT, no proofreading. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Extreme

12-19-2000, 07:23 AM

Yo Timberman and friends,
I'm not going to get too roped up here with this thread. It's a huge issue. TM, call me two faced if ya want but I was simply trying to add some credability (My logging experience) to back up my last comment about mankind exploring alternative resources. We (Industry) have a responibility to have as close to zero impact on the environment as possible. Fish are a great indicator species. When we start to lose them it's time to fix things. If we keep on taking (Take, take, take) what's going to be left and how long can it go on? I feel that the last decade has seen a turnaround in our thinking. We're recycling more, glue lam beams, papertrees, etc. We're already too late for many species but there is still time for others. Some industry is realizing that it is not just about $$ too. This helps. My $.04 now.
x

PeterMac

12-19-2000, 08:07 AM

Extreme - I want to suggest that your experiences in the early '80s are way outdated compared to logging practices today.

PeterMac

Timber Man

12-19-2000, 01:37 PM

Since alot of you have an idea that taking timber has a negative impact on earth,then you do this.I want all of you to stop fishing and taking fish you folks are having a negative impact on fish runs.And dont harass the fish by C&R.It also could have a negative impact.TM http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/mad.gif

SSPey

12-19-2000, 02:01 PM

Taking hatchery fish has a positive impact on fish runs, gets rid of those second class fish that dilute wild gene pools. C+R with single hooked barbless flies has far lower mortality than bait fishing (gonna open a can o' worms on this one, pun intended). I try to do my part to balance my desire to have fun with what science tells me is needed for a sustainable planet. And yes, I BIKE to work, wish I lived closer to a good river and I'd probably BIKE there too and work less.

wiser

12-19-2000, 03:04 PM

TM
I'm not sure two-faced is the right term. It sounded like Extreme logged to make money for school some time ago. Now he says logging Old Growth, or maybe logging in general, was not good for the environment or fish. Sounds like he should be called educated, not two-faced.

Phish_on

12-19-2000, 03:36 PM

Page 3, huh? Is anyone on the verge of changing their mind? I'm not. I'll wager TimberMan is not.

Shall we move along? Thanks for arguing, it's interesting to know the arguments from The Other Side.

happybrew

12-20-2000, 04:05 PM

Okay RT! Put up your dukes! Let's settle this mano a mano! http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I agree with you that our environment is in danger. I agree that something must be done quickly. I disagree with you on the cause. I think the cause is human selfishness. We want everything we can possibly own. When we run into environmental problems because of over-consumption, we instantly want to limit the number of people consuming, rather than limiting what each person consumes. That baby, if it is carried to term, threatens someone's ability to continue consuming as much as individually possible, so rather than share the resources, it is decided to kill the baby.

There are many causes of environmental degradation. No one wants to look at themselves as the reason. It's easier to blame others, to tell others what they can and cannot do. The reasons are within us, not outside of us, and that is the only way the problems will be fixed. We don't need abortion and artificial birth control. The most effective form of birth control is abstinence. But that's too hard, isn't it. Wasn't there speculation in the thread about cross-gendered salmon about the cause being estrogens from birth control pills being flushed through the sewage systems and into the rivers? It's food for thought. We do violence to our environment. We do violence to our own bodies. All in the name of 'pleasure'. Or at least what passes for pleasure.

We need to stop putting ourselves first, and start putting others first. This is the only true hope for the human race.

happybrew

Phish_on

12-20-2000, 04:29 PM

Interesting that we can bend this discussion to our selected cause.

Selfishness a.k.a. "looking out for #1" is rather instinctive isn't it? A matter of survival.

Perhaps, rather, we can still be selfish but use our SUPERIOR INTELLECT to anticipate the long-term effects of our actions - and act in ways that can benefit us personally by helping the world and communities we live in.

There that was some bleeding-heart liberal crapola, wasn't it. Hi-ho - a closed mind is an empty mind.

happybrew

12-20-2000, 05:05 PM

Absolutely Phish On! That's why I like you.
You almost get it! Selfishness is instinctive. Watch any toddler and you will know. But we have the intellect to move beyond it. The U.S. consumes huge amounts of the world's resources. Other countries get by with less. I'm not saying turn into a Third World economy, but how much is enough? How just is it to keep other countries down through loaning corrupt governments huge amounts of money for their personal bank accounts, then forcing the populations to sell their resources dirt cheap in order to repay those loans, did not benefit from those loans. That is selfishness on a national scale, and we are all guilty. When they cannot afford other forms of energy, they cut down their own forests for fuel, degrading their own environments, so that we can have cheap oil, minerals, and timber. Selfishness is an attitude that pervades all aspects of our economic system.

I'm not trying to make anyone feel guilty, and I don't think I'd succeed at that if I tried. I'm not trying to tell anyone they are entirely wrong. We all have important insights into the problems we face. But I am trying to get people to think about it a little more deeply. That's all.

happybrew

kinaye

12-20-2000, 05:28 PM

Don't forget the ultimate selfishness--having more then two children. K

DanS

12-20-2000, 05:50 PM

happybrew,

If you're claiming that artificial birth control is a bad thing, then I think you need to open your eyes a bit wider. Birth control is appreciated by those of us who enjoy sex (GASP!), but aren't interested in having more children. If it was used more in third-world countries, and we could actually get them to use it, you'd see less famine and better living conditions.

Humans consume resources and produce waste. There is a finite limit to the number of people the earth can support, especially when the profit motive is figured in. When you consider that your quality of life depends on having your "own space" where you can escape the ratrace, the number of people that can live in a given area is even less.

While the politics of the environment can be categorized as "fishing related", you anti-abortion comments really belong in a letter to the editor. No offense, but I don't think we need the pro-choice/pro-life issue becoming the next debate on the board.

Cohodependent

12-20-2000, 06:19 PM

I have to admit that as I get older I am getting more and more anti logging. I have never considered myself a tree hugger, but I really am starting to get alot of anti-corporation feelings. I have pretty much come to the conclusion in my my own mind that there should be no commercial logging on our public lands period. The timber companies can do as they wish on their own land as long as they maintain the buffers along the streams, but why are we allowing our public lands to be harvested anymore? Our government subsidises the timber industry, the mining industry, the cattle industry and so on and so forth. Now we as individuals are expected to pay trail fees to hike or camp in our public wilderness areas, on trails that are not maintained and this money does not even go back in to the local forest. I am all for paying fees for camping in camp grounds and at state and national parks, but I tend to go to areas where there is nobody around. It seems that the corporate intrest in this country that are starting to take over and no body cares. It will not be long before the Forest Service is selling concessions to private corporations in order to maintain their funding. Tourism in the forest has the potential to generate more dollars that logging ever thought about and like it or not, recreation will eventually push logging out. Our population is ever expanding and more and more folks are going out into the woods and when more and more buisness are started to take advantage of this then we are all in trouble. We all pay our taxes, and the forest belong to all of us. Why should a few companies be allowed to profit. Several post back some on mentioned that Kaiser Allum. has scaled back to save electricity so we can run our microwaves and christmas lights. While it is true that they have shut down opperations it is not to conserve energy for us. They have the contractual right to sell off their surplus power at a profit. It is now more profitable for them to sell power than it is to sell aluminum. The last article I was on the web that said they were on the verge of making 150 million dollars in the past few weeks by selling their power on the open market at something like $1200 per k/hr. Now these numbers may not be exact but do the research your self I saw the stories yeasterday on yahoo. This is power that is being generated on OUR rivers, that is being sold at a discount to keep their plants in operation, and they have the RIGHT to shut down, lay off their employees and sell the power that WE sell at a discount for a PROFIT?? This does not seem right. This is not the cowboy way! This our country, our government is supposed to work for us but instead a few corporations are making the money at our expence. I look forward to the day that I can take my children and grand children out into the mountains to areas that have never heard the sound of a chain saw. If there are any of you that have been up to the Tongass Nat. Forest you may have seen the huge clearcuts that extend right down to water of some of the most incredible bays and inlets there are, but since nobody lives in the area they are allowed to go on. Ketchikan Pulp (Louisiana Pacific) is one of the bigger outfits up there and they want to log it all and one of their biggest investors is a US Senetor. There are other sources for pulp so why are we alowing it to happen on our public lands?

Any way, thanks for you time.

AJ

fishhead5

12-20-2000, 07:52 PM

Tman, 12 more posts and you too will pass a hundred.

fishhead5

happybrew

12-20-2000, 08:08 PM

DanS. I am merely responding to what RT said. I did not bring it up. If someone says something that I feel strongly about, I will respectfully post a reply. I do not expect anyone to agree with what I write, in fact I expect quite the opposite. If someone wants to advocate what I consider to be anti-family policies, I will offer what I consider to be a good alternative to fix the problem. I don't really think you gave what I wrote much thought. People naturally go to what pushes their buttons- birth control and abortion, ignore the rest of what I said.

happybrew

happybrew

12-20-2000, 08:15 PM

By the way, Dan, China has instituted those policies, yet has a crappy standard of living, over 100 million unemployed, government oppression, and a demographic base that will become increasingly elderly and unable to support itself. They lead the world in air pollution. The only envirnonment left in China is what cannot support human habitation. Tell me how mandatory birth control and abortion has solved any of their problems. I can tell you, however, that a more equitable distribution of wealth and a government that respects human life and liberty would do them a world of good.

happybrew

SSPey

12-20-2000, 08:19 PM

With the new administration, the Tongass is essentially history. For you doubters, search under "Tongass" in the archives of this webpage in four years, and I hope to G** I'm wrong http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Hammer Bob

12-20-2000, 08:24 PM

Happybrew, you are only taking a small piece of China's cultural heritage and trying to use it to support your point of view. I agree with DanS this topic does NOT belong on this forum. If you wish to continue the debate with him I respectfully request that you trade e-mail address and do so in private. You have accomplished what you stated you set out to do and that was to reply to RT's statements you now are escalating the issue and in my opinion this topic does not belong here. If you wish to debate this issue with me feel free to e-mail me.

HB

happybrew

12-20-2000, 08:30 PM

I find it very interesting that when people who are pro-abortion state their opinion, it is accepted as normal, but any reply by someone who disagrees is labeled inappropriate, something that should be stated somewhere else. I will reply as long as others do.

happybrew

Hammer Bob

12-20-2000, 08:42 PM

Happybrew, your most recent posts have been directed at DanS. In my review of his posts I only note that he stated that the pro choice/pro life issue should not be debated in this forum. You stated that you were only replying to RT's comments. You have done that. I also agree with DanS that the pro-choice/pro-life issue does not belong in this forum. You state that you will reply on this issue as long as others do. No one has...only you stating your beliefs.

happybrew

12-20-2000, 08:50 PM

If you think the topic does not belong here, then please tell that to RT. He is the one who originally posted it, and I stand by my right to reply. It seems you don't think I have the right to reply in the forum the topic came up in. Hmmm.

happybrew

Crusty

12-20-2000, 08:53 PM

I'm pro-life. To quote Woody Allen, "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work...I want to achieve it through not dying."

Crusty
(Who intends to live forever - so far, so good.)

Hammer Bob

12-20-2000, 09:15 PM

Happybrew, this is my last post on this topic. You are obviously free to do as you please.

After your reply to RT's post DanS posted the following reply:
"While the politics of the environment can be categorized as "fishing related", you anti-abortion comments really belong in a letter to the editor. No offense, but I don't think we need the pro-choice/pro-life issue becoming the next debate on the board."

After this you stated:

"DanS. I am merely responding to what RT said. I did not bring it up. If someone says something that I feel strongly about, I will respectfully post a reply."

You acknowledge that you have responded to RT's post. I then agreed with DanS that the issue does not belong on this board and encouraged you not to continue to escalate the debate as per your China post. After this you post:

"It seems you don't think I have the right to reply in the forum the topic came up in."

I have never stated that I believe you do not have the right to respond to the original post and both you and I acknowledge that you have done so. My beef is that you continue to try to extend the debate on the issue beyond your first response to the issue. There have been no other posts concerning this topic,other than cease and desist pleas, since your original reply to RT..except yours!

happybrew

12-20-2000, 09:23 PM

I'll leave you with the last word, then Bob.

happybrew

Deleted User

12-21-2000, 12:18 AM

This thread is primarily about resourse decline (particularly forests). Re-read the post of mine you refer to Happy. It's on pg.1, posted on 12/16 at 2:57 am. ...

My reference to responsible birth control and 'very early only' unwanted pregnancy termination were in the context of necessity for the long-term survival of the human race on this planet due to declining finite resourses and increasing polution. Not about having more resourse luxuries by means of popultion control measures! It's unfortunate if you see it in those skewed perspectives. And, in case you or anyone else has their head in the sand about the inevitability of human sexuality and activity, let me remind you that it is a God and nature given gift of human expression and pleasure as well as for reproduction. In fact, socialogic and physiologic health scientists say that it is not only very normal and proper but it enables the greatest chances for the best of mental and physical health. In other words, sex is OK. More than OK. It is a very important part of our human makeup; including outside of merely for progeneration. At the alarming rates of world population growth luxury is of the least long term concern. Of primary concern is a tollerable quality of life, and ultimately the survival and continuation of the human species. That's why people with insight and foresight get angry about the lack of the understanding of that reality by many of the pro-lifer hardcores. In the long run their agendas would cause much more suffering, kill many more people, and prevent the birth of many more people than would be 'saved' in the shortsighted near future! .....

Go ahead and take your rightful opportunity to reply Happy, or anyone else. Then since I agree with the others that this doesn't really belong on this BB, and was only brought up in context of the declining resourses issue in this thread and it's affect on fishing and all of life, if it doesn't go away reasonably quickly it will need to be locked out as an unresolvable issue on this BB. For those that missed your post about yourself, I will repeat that you mentioned you are the 10th of a 10 child family. That likely affects your perspective. Just realize that nobody is saying that you were born a wrong, as you aluded to before! We are talking about now and hence forth. Again Happy, only AFTER you get another chance to reply to the reality of the above will this thread be closed. If you hurry you might get to have the 100th post. - RT

[This message has been edited by RT (edited 12-21-2000).]

Steve

12-21-2000, 01:02 AM

I am grumpy tonight,so bare with me...extinction is up to nature, it is foolish for man to play god, one example is the Dusky Canadian goose, one earthquake sealed it's fate, all the special regulations and early closures have not significantly increased their numbers since 1967...Snow geese on the other hand are so out of hand that their habitat has been damaged beyond repair. Seattle wants to kill 60,000 geese because they SHE YAT on the park lawns. If you want to see Over Population look at Multnomah and Washington counties. All the farm land between Portland and the coast range is being broken up for Tract housing...when that is filled up the builders can start moving south...like a CANCER...never gets smaller.....VENT

Deleted User

12-21-2000, 01:28 AM

Steve, if you are aware that humans, along with their intelligence and activity, are a part of nature and so strongly intertwined with the old school thought of what nature was only thought to be (such as plants, animals, fish, birds, mountains, waterbodies, and the atmosphere - in other words, all that is not human), then yes, nature is what determines extinction. I don't see us as playing God. I see us as being a part of nature; while also 'playing with fire' so to speak. Therefore, we ought to do what we can to properly preserve nature; which includes an appropriate balance of fish, trees, people, rivers, air quality, etc., and etc. We can't stand by and say that "nature" is controling extinction so let's not be concerned with preserving habitat. I see that as a copout and a non-reality, likely for a self-serving purpose. We are nature! - RT

fishhead5

12-21-2000, 06:36 AM

"You can always tell a fisherman,
But you can't tell him much."
-Corey Ford-
http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Pilar

12-21-2000, 07:00 AM

"The earth does not belong to us,
We belong to the earth"

Chief Seattle

If you think depleting natural resources is a good or necessary thing then you must be making a living from it. No other explanation can justify such short sighted thinking. Period.

The bend is your friend!

Bait O' Eggs

12-21-2000, 07:22 AM

Gotta throw my $0.02 in the ring.

I love kids and would love to have a whole baseball team of little ones. I also believe this rock isnt big enough for the people who live on it already. Some people require more space than others. I think we all should live on at least 1000 arces per person. Personally I cannot allow myself to make the problem worse than it already is. When I had my second child I went down and had the ultimate birth control for a man. Now I just lay around on the porch wanting to sleep (jk).

It is usually (not always) people who like things like golf and movies whio thinks having a ton of kids is just fine. Because when the movie theatre gets full, or the golf course is full, somebody will just make another one.

I love to fish and hunt. There are only so many rocks to stand on along the river bank, and so many canyons for the deer and elk to live. We cannot make more rivers and canyons. Hence I make a sacrifice in my life to only replace what is already here, myself and my wife. Do I disagree with the anti abortionist, yes, very much so. But then again they can do what they want, I do what I find necessary for me to sleep at night.

Hoosier Daddy

12-21-2000, 09:24 AM

Who gets to be the page 3 girl??

"We are only borrowing this world from our grandkids"

Deleted User

12-21-2000, 09:48 AM

I guess it's time for me to weigh in on this topic again. My wife and I strongly disagree on politics and that has caused some rather "heated" discussions. I am quite left of center and she is quite right of center so you can imagine the exchanges we had during the recent election. My point is that it is okay to disagree but when it comes to name calling then it has gome too far! I belonged to a blues music BB and you wouldn't believe the acrimony that took place there! Death threats, stalkings and threats of mail bombs. Just because of disagreements on the blues! I left that board because of it and STILL get hateful email because of my opinions of blues music. So I consider the Sore-Loserman topic pretty tame in comparision, Let's enjoy what we have here and try not to wear our feelings on our sleeves so much. I have met some really great people here and have made some friends hopefully and learned a hell of a lot about fishing after I thought I had it all figured out. There are some of you I strongly disagree with on your views of politics,the enviorment and our next president but hey I would still loan you my extra reel if yours broke and we were fishing together. In fact take Jennie for instance, I am so totally against her catching more fish than me that I sent her some old okie drifters. What she doesn't know is I painted them with some secret fish repellant and she won't catch any fish with them and they will cause her waders to leak but please don't tell her http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif Anyway just my .02 worth.
Bigstew

PS-Mano a mano really means hand to hand not man to man...that would be hombre a hombre.

SSPey

12-21-2000, 10:43 AM

I used to frequent a place called "Manos Diner" always though it should just be called "Hands Diner" but that conjured up weird images so I stopped going there.

There is no reason for any of this to get personal, but its difficult over the internet to communicate clearly and its always important to remember don't write anything here that you wouldn't say to someone's face.

HOGTIDE

12-21-2000, 06:53 PM

The only reponse ever given by Mother Teresa to the question of abortion was to return to a reporter cuddling a newly born infant and ask, "Is 'this' what the world is so afraid of?"

Children are blessings. Teach them the importance and sacredness of life and they will contribute to the quality of our existence.

[This message has been edited by HOGTIDE (edited 12-21-2000).]

Trick

12-21-2000, 09:40 PM

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't advocating that anyone give up their right to have children, I'm concerned with the financial rewards given to all of us, regardless of financial status, for having children. It's a life style choice for us. I love my kids and I'd die for them and the tax breaks wouldn't have changed anything for me but I think a financial incentive may sway some to get some form of birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancies and prevent some (yes, they are out there) for having children solely for financial purposes.

I think the quality of life for us and our children will be improved in the long run if we start changing some outdated flawed logic in our financial reward system (tax and welfare structure).

I don't want to get into an abortion discussion. I'm advocating that we help promote preventing unwanted pregnancies with changes in our system.

Take a kid fishin'...they'll love you for it.

[This message has been edited by tshickam (edited 12-21-2000).]

Trick

12-22-2000, 12:19 AM

I'm going to be a hypocrite again and ask a question. BOE, if you only had two kids to replace you and your wife by the age of 25, each of those kids had their one replacement by 25 and that child had a replacement by 25. You are now 75 and have three people sucking resources from the planet with the intent to replace only yourself and this problem will continue to compound as life expectancy increases with each passing year.

I think the only logical solution to this problem in our country outside of some communist plot to sterilize children at birth is to stop giving financial rewards to people for having children in the first place. No more additional welfare rewards for low income mothers that have additional children. Get rid of all tax breaks for citizens that make the choice to have children. Reward the people that make the choice not to have children with additional tax incentives.

Why does this make me a hypocrite. I made the choice to father three children and I take advantage of the tax structure and use every deduction I can think of within the letter of the law.

I would love to see the reward system change in our country. I'd be willing to pay taxes to reward people for not having kids instead of the way it is now.

Did I win the popularity contest??? http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif