April 26 Sat. Tour Tillamook Forest ?

[Jerry Dove]

I posted this on the early thread of the tour. I thought I should start a new one. I meet with ODF this morning. How does Sat. April 26 sound for a tour of the Tillamook Forest. I also meet with a Rep. of the Rain Forest this morning, they will be there. I would like to have as many as possible show up. Let me know what you think. ODF said for you all to let us know what you want to see. This is a real chance for all to get together and look at all sides of the forrest. If we are going to talk the talk, then let's walk the walk. Thanks Jerry

[Thumper]

I'm in.

[Jerry Dove]

Thanks Thumper. Well that's one plus me, that makes two. That's not enough. see what happens in the next couple of days. Jerry

[Barviewrocks]

I will be there!

[rebell]

Jerry, I had allready made plans for 4/26. But this is more important to me, I will reschedule if 4/26 is the day.

[Born to be Wild]

ODF said for you all to let us know what you want to see. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">80 degrees and girls in bikini's!

No, just kiddin' Jerry.
Count me in and me and rebell will work on Brion.

Thanks!
Dan

[Born to be Wild]

By the way Jerry, I didn't follow that thread all the way along, but is ODF, ODFW?
Oh, wait a minute. I get it, graemlins/stupid.gif it must be Oregon Department of Forestry?
Is there going to be any State (ODFW) or Federal Biologist coming along?

Dan

[Thumper]

TTT

[Jerry Dove]

Yes we will ask to have someone from ODFW. We really want this to be a big event. We want to have a lot of questions and answers. Some may not like the answers, but as long as we all agree to listen and have an open mind, who knows maybe we all can learn something. We can even ask private timber operators to come along and get there ideas. (LET ME SEE SOME MORE "YES I'LL BE THERE") THANKS JERRY

[Born to be Wild]

Sounds good Jerry as I am totally ignorant when it comes to logging.
I'll learn something good or bad or better.
Give it some time and I'm sure there will be plenty. :smile:
I figure I could drag along 3 or 4 or maybe a half dozen bod's if need be.
I believe you had a lot of others comit on your other thread and you could always e-mail them if they don't catch on to your newer one.
Sounds like fun and a learning experience to me.

Dan

[Jerry Dove]

we have had enough say they will make it , so I will let ODf know it is a go for April 26. I will let all know where to meet. Please keep this on the top. would like to have a 100 folks show up , we could all learn something. Thanks Jerry.

[skookummark]

Jerry,
Do you have an agenda (topics,times, etc)? I was wondering if it would be OK/appropriate for 9 & 10 year olds? My kids are interested and I'll bet others would be too but it may work better for older kids depending on the topics.

Thanks,
-Mark

[rebell]

TTT

[Born to be Wild]

Jerry,

Got to thinking last night, and what I would like to see on Sat. April 26th, is a tour in the forest along with an ODFW biologist to observe and later after the tour is completed, we all get together for a luncheon and open discussion.

What do you think?

Dan

PS&gt; I talked to a friend of mine today Brad Schoenborn who is very well known in the tackle industry and another friend that is a river guide in this area, and they and there families are very interested in the tour.
Couldn't commit yet at this time due to there unknown work schedule.
It's a ways off yet, and we will get the bod's.

[Jerry Dove]

Keep then coming. Yes bring the kids, after all they are the ones that will have to look after it all later. Jerry

[Born to be Wild]

OK, Jerry,

This what I came up with after researching the Tillamook tour archives.
This is what I have gathered in the two Tillamook threads. Or was there three? Did I miss one?

Committed:
jerry dove
rebell
DepoeBayDan - (probably 2 or 3 others and most likely 6 )
Barviewrocks
Pilar's Mate - (with possibly 2 or 3 others)
Thumper


Maybe's:
norms gone fishing too
Bill Monroe
GutshotApe
brshooter

Inquiries:
THE KIWANDA KID
Wild Chrome
Jennie@ifish
skookummark


Come on ifisher's, sign up!

[ 03-06-2003, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

[brshooter]

Add my wife and I to the list of "Probably". 90 percent sure at this time. Sounds very interesting.

[ 03-02-2003, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: brshooter ]

[Born to be Wild]

Done deal shooter!
As Jerry would say, welcome aboard!
I did place you in the maybe column however, and if you decide you can commit, we will upgrade you.
Jerry's going to have to take care of this responisibility pretty soon though, cause it is his gig, and I am ever increasingly becoming busy.

Brion Lutz, where are you?

[ 03-03-2003, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

[BrionLutz]

DepoeBayDan,

Brion Lutz, where are you?
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I should be on the Columbia somewhere springer fishing with the kids and Jack Glass...at least that's what I set up at the Sportsman's Show in early February &lt;grin&gt;.

Since the tour is sort of a promo by the timber industry for the current logging plan, what you folks might want to do would be contact the Rainforest Coalition since their plan to do the logging in a more salmon friendly and watershed friendly way was the cause of the original freak out. That would seem the place to start.

Jerry mentioned that someone from the Rainforest Coalition was making a presentation but Mari Gest the head of the Coalition was unaware of any invite or tour on the 26th.

Could just be a communication lag between her and whoever Jerry was talking to.

I'm going to keep in touch with the Rainforest Coalition and go on one of their informational tours...hopefully it will be a fishing tour on one of the Tillamook watershed rivers since the Coalition's key is protection of the salmon habitat and watershed.

----- Original Message -----
From: Mari Anne Gest
To: Brion Lutz
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: Tillamook Forest Tour April 26


We have not yet been invited to participate in this tour but if we are I'd love to have you. Thanks
Mari Anne Gest
Executive Director
Tillamook Rainforest Coalition
721 NW Ninth Ave. Suite 280
Portland, OR 97209
Cell: 503-851-8845
Wk: 503-248-0178
Fax: 503-222-1805
marianne@tillamookrainforest.org

"We are continually faced by great opportunities brilliantly disguised as insoluble problems."
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Have fun. I'll send pix of the fish.

Brion

[Jerry Dove]

Depoe Bay Dan: You make me want to cuss, but jennie says we can't do that on this thing. OK This is not a loging show. I am setting this up as an edcational tool!!! the rain col. has been invited through DAVID MASKOUIST, that probably isn't the right spelling. They should get there S--- TOGETHER. ---OK--Jerry

[Jerry Dove]

I AM SORRY DEPOBAY DAN. THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED TO BRIAN. IT JUST MADE ME SEE A BLUR!!!!! YOU TRY TO DO SOMETHING GOOD AND SOMEBODY HAS TO TEAR IT A[PART. SOMETIMES I THINK PEOPLE HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO. JERRY

[Born to be Wild]

Hey, no problem Jerry. I looked at it the same way when I saw Brion's post.
I have made my share of mistakes!
But, I have learned much more since I called you on the phone also.

I originately suggested that we get some bio's from both sides of the issue, and haven't heard any results.
I have been asked by individuals in the valley, what are they going to show us, and what aren't they going to show us?

It sounds like a good deal, but, is a little lopsided as it stands.
Don't get me wrong, and I'm all for it, but, it seems to be a propaganda tour as I once posted (but deleted).
I have learned off the site since, that is exactely what it in all probability it will be.

I have since heard of the "butherism" that continues to go on, and I have seen it first hand on a wild coho stream survey I went on in January.
I have been suggested that maybe we make this a dual tour, (Forestry and...) someone like Brion.
Maybe the "rain forest coalition" as he suggested?
I believe the way you have this set-up would be like the tobacco company taking us on a tour of there plantations and saying, "isn't this nice, all these crops & all these employees and we are funding your schools"!
Just like there propaganda adds on TV!
That doesn't make it good, or right.
I can get some bod's there, but am loosing interest unless this is going to be a fair shot at the real deal.
I heard but don't know if it is true, they (forester's) leave more buffer off the roads than on the streams, just to hide the devestation from the people.
And, I don't doubt that, because up to 4 years ago when I used to hunt, you got back there, and it was an abortion! I couldn't believe my own eyes what I saw!
It was like a "Lunar" landschape!
It got so bad, the Elk didn't hardly have a place to hide!
Sorry Jerry, I will go on the tour regardless, but unless there are both sides represented , I know I will not gain much.

[Barviewrocks]

I for one will make sure I get something out of this. I do not often get the opportunity to talk with the forestry people in a non confrontational situation to see what their plans are for managing the forests and river habitat. As I understand it, these are the people that are empowered to managed the forest and spawning habitat. I have a lot of questions that I would like answers from the source as opposed "I think I heard" which is questionable. In the end, success for me will be determined if I can identify some opportunities to help out the situation for improving spawning of wild fish in the rivers.

[Jerry Dove]

DAN&lt;DAN&lt;DAN--I do not know how to say it any better. I plan on having all sides of the issues present. ODF has asked and I have posted, what do they want to see?? ODF wants you all to set the tone. Gee who knows I might get up there and listen and change my mind and say let's not log any more, hell who knows? Well maybe not. I just sent an email to the president of the Oregon motorcycle Ass. and invited them. When you hear people making comments, then invite them along. Dan This logging that you talked about that the elk stay out of, where is it? Let's take a look at that, that could be one site to stop at. Any others that you or any one else can think of, let me know. thanks again Jerry

[rebell]

We need you there brion!! We need people who use the forest in every way imaginable. The purpose of this trip to me is to see what everyones perspective of the forest is.

I know logging, I know fishing, I also rode motorcycles all over the Tillamook forest for years. My first concern is the fish, I am going to make sure they are being protected. But I am going with an open mind. If I don't like what I see, all will know it.

I can't understand why anyone that is against logging, or the current plan for the Tillamook forest would not want to participate. This is your chance to speak out to the people who are making the plans for the Tillamook forests future. Anyone who really cares about the fish and the area in my mind has to be there. Saying that it is only a promo for the current plan, is being closed minded and bullheaded.

If you really care, YOU WILL BE THERE!!!!!!!!

[ 03-05-2003, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: rebell ]

[Jerry Dove]

I talked to ODF today. They suggest you all bring your own lunch. That might be best. Maybe Tillamook Anglers can brings soft drinks. How does that sound. Also they want to hear about what you want to see and hear. Please email me with your concerns, questions, or what ever. I will forward them to ODF. I have copyed everything so far and have given it to them. Let's really make this something that all will rember. OK . Thanks Jerry

[norms gone fishing too]

is this a walking tour or driving with stops for questions at differnt places
need to know befor i can says ya or na
thanks

[Born to be Wild]

rebell, barviewrocks, and Jerry.

I appreciate everything you guys said.
And I was only implying the suggestions I have heard off the site by members and non members.
I am not a closed minded individual, and Jerry you stated you want all or both sides reprsented in this tour.
I applaud you for that!
I will make the tour, and will promote it even more after reading your replies.
I think this a great Idea Jerry.

I am very nieve when it comes to habitat and logging practices, and it is a new issue that is gaining importance to me, because I do care and have fought and stressed over the importance of wild fish.

The problem I have found with a
lot of Portland folks, April 26th is right at the peak of the Willamette Spring Chinook season right in there back yard!
It's a tough decision to give up that wonderful fishery on a Saturday (especially for "weekend warriers") right smack in there back yard, to drive 2 hours to the Coast.
And that is a major conflict with many!

Keep up the good work, and I need to make a phone call before it gets too late and hopefully report on todays encouraging ODFW ocean Salmon meeting in Newport.

[ 03-06-2003, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

[BrionLutz]

DepoeBayDan,

I have been suggested that maybe we make this a dual tour, (Forestry and...) someone like Brion. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Wathchutalkin Willis!!

I'm on the receiveing end of the "tours". If I could give the tours, I'd really know it all &lt;grin&gt;. If I hear from the folks at the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition that they are doing any informational tours, I'll post the info on IFish.

I'd go on Jerry's tour if I hadn't made some heavy duty fishing plans. Good to get the views of those who want to stick with the current plan and why.

However, that's kind of the peak Springer time (I hope) and I've got trips organized.

Brion

[Born to be Wild]

Brion, did I forget to mention that it was "kind of the peak Springer time"? &lt;Grin&gt;
I was suggested by someone that the best time of year to do a tour was in the winter months.
That way you could see through the trees a bit better. (reminds me of the my old hunting days).
What the heck are you doing on here anyway you PC geek? :grin:
You're suppose to me in Tahoe or somewhere with kids in skiing comp.
Don't tell me you have some kind of cell internet, because if you do, I will keep some of my "top secret" fishin' holes off of here. :grin:

I don't really care who goes on this tour, I am just there for the learning benefits as long as both sides are represented.
Not to mention meeting some ifisher's.

Dan

[F F Jack]

Jerry,

Would it be possible to post a map of the Forest Tour, for those who are unable to attend on April 26?

Please post the names of the representiatives from O.D.F. & O.D.F. & W, so those unable to attend, can speak with them if they wish.

Is Tillamook Anglers a sponsor of this tour?

[Born to be Wild]

Big Dog,


http://www.ifish.net/cgi-local/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=021611

http://www.ifish.net/cgi-local/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=021637

And if you want to go back to where this all started:

http://www.ifish.net/cgi-local/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=021090

[Born to be Wild]

After searching the Tillamook tour archives, I found this started 3 threads back.
I just updated the list by making 2 changes.

Committed:
jerry dove
rebell
GutshotApe
The Greek
DepoeBayDan - (possibly 2 - 6 others)
Barviewrocks
Pilar's Mate - (with possibly 2 or 3 others)
Thumper


Maybe's:
norms gone fishing too
Bill Monroe
brshooter

Inquiries:
THE KIWANDA KID
Wild Chrome
Jennie@ifish
skookummark


Come on ifisher's, sign up!
We have a long ways to go.

[Jerry Dove]

No this is not a walking tour. I can post the names of agency folks after I know for sure who will be there. I would hope all could give up a day of fishing for something worth while. Brian, folks would really like for you to be there. The Oregonian ( Bill Monroe) and Statesman Journal ( Henry Miller) are both going to try to be there. Yes the Rain Forest group will be there. Please invite any other groups that you can think of to invite. Let's really make this interesting for all. Jerry

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by DepoeBayDan:
It was suggested by someone that the best time of year to do a tour was in the winter months. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I disagree....the best time to get a good idea of the adequacy of streamside buffer strips (that are supposed to provide shading for the stream and LWD recruitment) is in the growing season when all the deciduous brush & trees are fully leafed. By April 26 most everything but bigleaf maple will be in full summer foliage and even the maples will be 2/3 or more fully leafed out. So April 26 would be a good day to do it :cool: . It is easy to come to the wrong impression :whazzup: if you make judgements on buffer strip adequacy in the winter months.

[Born to be Wild]

I would hope all could give up a day of fishing for something worth while. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I don't think you implied that fishing is not worthwhile?

I tried my darndest to talk him into going along, but problem is as with a
lot of Portland folks, April 26th is right at the peak of the Willamette Spring Chinook season right in there back yard!
It's a tough decision to give up that wonderful fishery on a Saturday (especially for "weekend warriers") right smack in there back yard, to drive 2 hours to the Coast.
And that is a major conflict with many! <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Tasty critter's Jerry and Springer season only rolls around once a year. I think if I still lived up there, it might make a tough decision for me as well.
And some of these guys just go nuts over springers.

But I will be there. I could go up to the Clack and be a "bank magot" or jump in my friends sled, but touring the forest sounds like fun and educational to me.
By the way, I'll be delivering tackle in Hebo and Tillamook on Saturday. If you're around and nothing planned, I'll buy you lunch and compare notes.
Maybe I could drop off the plastics I am donating to the Barview jetty gig, and you could get them to Jennie fish in case I don't make the gig.

Dopey Dan

[Born to be Wild]

Well Gutshot,
It's obvious you know a hell of lot more about forestry than I and most folks on this site.
I'll take your word for that one.
By the way Gutshot, I posted info about yesterday's Ocean Salmon Industry Group" meeting on ifish.
Lookin' good.

Dan This logging that you talked about that the elk stay out of, where is it? Let's take a look at that, that could be one site to stop at. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Jerry. That wouldn't work to well. It's right behind my house in Depoe Bay and that is about 60 miles from Tillamook.
It's back there around the Boise tie gate. I believe it ties to GP property at that location.
It's right off the Siletz River near the "Bulls Bag" which is popular for fishing & hunting.
There is a trib stream (Roy Creek) that flows right through the lunar landschape.
Outch!

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by DepoeBayDan:
There is a trib stream (Roy Creek) that flows right through the lunar landschape.
Outch! <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Take my word for this, too: That Lunar landscape is temporary. The 1st year or 2 after clearcutting it may not look real pretty....unless you're a deer or elk. Then you'd think all that brush looked like breakfast, lunch and dinner. And each year the vegetation recovers a little more, and all of it is good to excellent deer/elk habitat. :wink:

[BrionLutz]

DepoeBayDan,

But he soon realized, I called because I respect his stance (even though I disagree with him on some issues), but we had a good lenghly conversation. I tried my darndest to talk him into going along, but problem is as with a lot of Portland folks, April 26th is right at the peak of the Willamette Spring Chinook season right in there back yard! <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Actually I only just realized why you called when you mentioned it in the message here on Ifish...you were rambl'in on and it was late.

I was suggested by someone that the best time of year to do a tour was in the winter months. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Probably depends on the people. For me the best time would be June/July after the spring run is over and before the summer/fall run starts.

April 26 doesn't work for me...I have 3 kids flying in for two days of fishing with some guides...plans made in early Feb.

I'm sure there will be other times, other tours, public hearings etc. on the Tillamook Coalition plan.

Be good to hear the feedback from the tour from all who go, get as many perspectives as possible.

You're suppose to me in Tahoe or somewhere with kids in skiing comp. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">USCSA College Championships actually. Boston College (that's "our" team) is doing well...girls were 2nd, guys 3rd through the GS competition...you did want to know this?

Don't tell me you have some kind of cell internet, <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Not to shock you but the Tahoe area has had land line phone service for some time now &lt;grin&gt;.

Brion

[Straydog]

GSA,

So, just because habitat destruction is temporary it is ok? :whazzup:

Not in my mind.

[ 03-06-2003, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Born to be Wild]

Not to shock you but the Tahoe area has had land line phone service for some time now &lt;grin&gt;. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I even heard they had a casino!
I was just joking around with you Brion. It's my nature.
But seriously, I don't know how that computer stuff works when you are on the road. PC's are new to me.
I know they have lab tops and I believe I might have heard before something about cell phones & PC's.
Too high tech for me. Last year when I traveled, I checked my mail through web mail at friends and occasinally at the library.

[ 03-06-2003, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

[Big Dog]

Could someone clue me in? I must have missed the post that discussed what you guys (and Gals) are going out to walk through the forest for.

[Born to be Wild]

Updated Tillamook Forest Tour list 3/7/2003

Committed:
jerry dove
rebell
GutshotApe
The Greek
DepoeBayDan - (possibly 2 - 6 others)
Barviewrocks
Pilar's Mate - (with possibly 2 or 3 others)
Thumper


Maybe's:
norms gone fishing too
Bill Monroe (uh, oh yea, Oregonian)
brshooter
Henry Miller (Statesman Journal)


Inquiries:
THE KIWANDA KID
Wild Chrome
Jennie@ifish
skookummark


Come on ifisher's, sign up!
We have a long ways to go.

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Straydog:
GSA,

So, just because habitat destruction is temporary it is ok? :whazzup:

Not in my mind. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Who said there was habitat "destruction"? No doubt about it, clearcut logging CHANGES the habitat......and to the casual observer it certainly may LOOK like destruction......but the logging & reforestaton process closely mimics the natural plant successional process.....and, done properly, logging does not negatively impact fish habitat, at all. If you look into it with an open mind, I think you will find that most loggers, most of the time, do a good job of harvesting the wood without destroying habitat. Logging provides early successional stage vegetation that is critically important to deer & elk.....and not found in unlogged forests.

Its easy to imagine terrible images of whole hillsides oozing mud & silt into the unprotected stream that was logged across, up, down, and thru......and 40-50 years ago, when there was no forest practices act, you might have actually seen some of those......but the on-the-ground reality today is something else entirely.

Going on the tour? :whazzup:

[Jerry Dove]

Dan: there you go again. The area your talking about is not in the Tillamook Forest. It sounds like it might be on private land. Lets stick to the Tillamook. Jerry

[Born to be Wild]

Dan: there you go again. The area you’re talking about is not in the Tillamook Forest. It sounds like it might be on private land. Let’s stick to the Tillamook. Jerry <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">There you go Jerry.
No the land I was talking about is no where’s near Tillamook (60 miles or so to the south).
It is private land (something I didn't understand a few years back).
I is GP or Georgia Pacific land just outside of Boise property.
I remember saying to hunters back then (4-9 years ago), this is good for the deer & elk all these clear cuts.
I do remember some of there responses were something like; "Well, I think they over did it though."
This is kinda new to me, and I was just thinking of the deer & elk back then and not considering our wild Salmonoid’s then. (I wasn't into chasing salmon or steelhead much at that time).
One thing I did notice however is I rarely saw an animal or "sign" in those areas.
I now believe it was because there wasn't enough timber left standing that they didn't have enough refuge left nearby to escape to run & hide. (Just my theory).

My hope is Gutshot is correct in his last reply!
And since this thread or three started, I have been looking into it and it seems that the forest is managed in different ways depending who owns it or who is managing it?
Maybe Gutshot can shed some light on this.

I'm getting more excited about this tour all the time, because it seems there are a lot of unanswered questions for a lot of us including myself.

One last note; when I participated on a wild coho stream survey on Rock Creek (a trib to Devils Lake) this year and two years ago, I was unimpressed with the "buffer" (all 25' in mine and the surveyor’s estimation).
Then again, this is not the Tillamook State Forest.
Dan

[ 03-07-2003, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

[BrionLutz]

GSA,

Who said there was habitat "destruction"? No doubt about it, clearcut logging CHANGES the habitat......and to the casual observer it certainly may LOOK like destruction......but the logging & reforestaton process closely mimics the natural plant successional process.. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Come on now.


At Portland City Club presentation, even the VP of Weyerhauser admitted that clear cutting was a natural disaster.

And what "natural" process is clear cutting timber and the road building supposed to mimic?

The salmon did not evolve and prosper in an environment that included logging at all, much less clear cutting.

It's a given that the logging has a negative impact on the salmon. The only question is the magnitude of the damage different types of logging have on the salmon and are there any techniques that have a minimal effect, an effect that can be tolerated by the salmon.

Brion

[ 03-07-2003, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]

[GutshotApe]

Brion - You should go on the tour.

Yes, a wilderness area might be better for salmon than a managed forest.....assuming it doesn't burn repeatedly like has been happening a lot lately. Done right, according to the rules in the state FPA, which applies to state-owned forests and private forests, logging and roadbuilding do not seriously impact fish. Forest mgmt. creates a lot of good, family-wage jobs and generates a lot of tax revenue, two things Oregon needs a lot more of. And it can be done without damage to fish runs or fish/tourism jobs.

You should go on the tour. :wink:

[rebell]

In the day's that salmon evolved and prospered, we didn't have thousands of so called sport fishermen harvesting them and pointing there fingers at everything else for their decline.

It's time to stop pointing fingers! Like it or not, we as sportfishermen are as much to blame as anything else in the Tillamook area.

I am starting to think that this tour is another waste of taxpayer money, and my time.

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by DepoeBayDan:
[QUOTE] I participated on a wild coho stream survey on Rock Creek (a trib to Devils Lake) this year and two years ago, I was unimpressed with the "buffer" (all 25' in mine and the surveyor’s estimation).
Then again, this is not the Tillamook State Forest.
Dan <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">DBDan - How long ago was the area logged? The current forest practices act rules require Riparian Mgmt. Area widths of 50' (each side) for small fish-bearing streams, 70' for medium, and 100' for large streams. There are minimum standards (conifer basal area) required to be left standing in the RMAs, brush is not to be disturbed, etc. Some logging is allowed on individual tree basis on the uphill side of the RMA if the tree is leaning away from the stream and can be removed without damaging residual vegetation. These rules have been in effect for just a couple years....the old rule required 25' buffer widths on small streams....but that was then.....

[BrionLutz]

GSA,

Yes, a wilderness area might be better for salmon than a managed forest.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">There is no "might" in the science at all. Logging is not part of the ecosystem that created and keeps the salmon alive.

You had claimed clear cutting "mimiced" a natural process and that isn't correct.

....assuming it doesn't burn repeatedly like has been happening a lot lately. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Actually the science and the history assumes it does burn.

Done right, according to the rules in the state FPA, which applies to state-owned forests and private forests, logging and roadbuilding do not seriously impact fish.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I don't think there is any scientist that agrees with that statement.

Forest mgmt. creates a lot of good, family-wage jobs and generates a lot of tax revenue, two things Oregon needs a lot more of. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">It does it at the expense of other industries directly via the destruction of the salmon streams, indirectly by the degradation of the watershed.

You really should read the science and economic report that the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition is based upon.

Brion

[GutshotApe]

Brion - I have a forest mgmt. degree from Univ. of Washington and over 30 yrs experience in the woods....and a lifetime of living in the northwest. I consider myself an amateur naturalist. Clearcut/burn silviculture COMES CLOSEST to mimicking the natural ecosystem that our westside Douglas-fir forests and fish evolved in. Today's FPA ensures that fish habitat is protected and enhanced. Most people with the background I have would agree that the societal benefits of having a portion of our forest landbase (i.e. all of the Tillamook State Forest) dedicated to multiple-use outweigh any negative impacts on fisheries. We can have our cake and eat it, too.

Actually Brion, maybe neither one of us should go on the tour. We should let two people who are undecided take our seats. I am sure I'm right....and I'm guessing you're sure you are right, too. I just wonder what your educational or professional background is that would allow you to be so sure. I mean, when out in the woods, do you really know what you're seeing when you see it? :whazzup:

[Born to be Wild]

No Gutshot, don’t even think of backing out on this tour!
You are the most intellectual person I have seen on this thread, and probably the most knowledgeable person on forestry practices also.
Brion seems to be a good kid, but without basis and facts.
Seems he is involved in a “cultish” rainforest coalition and I appreciate him, but question his authority?
That’s the purpose of this tour!
And if he chooses to fish for springer’s instead, (which I can’t blame him – he had planned it ahead of time with family), but, he looses if we all come to the same conclusion without him!

I just think he is reading a lop-sided bible.
But, I want to find out for myself.

Did I ever say, great Idea Jerry?

Dan

[Born to be Wild]

By the way Gutshot, cool flag!

Dan

[Born to be Wild]

And it can be done without damage to fish runs or fish/tourism jobs.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">If this is what you truly believe Gutshot, and in reality is or can happen, (and I have my doubts, but don't know), then show us and educate the miss-informed.
And life in general will be a whole lot better for the multitudes.

Dan

[ 03-08-2003, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

[SSPey]

I ain't going on the tour, but I encourage those who do to make special effort to look at culverts, roads and ditches - especially where they bleed sediments into streams.

Roads have always been, and remain, a dire serious problem for fisheries due to the silt that they deliver. This remains the case under the FPA

[Straydog]

GSA,

You tout the fact that the handbook for logging has changed for the better.

You promote the timber industry as being a viable economic factor.

What you are missing is the fact that while our forest practices act has changed in recent years, so has our global and local economies and no, timber really is not the economic cornucopia it once was in the NW nor will it likely be again.

I find it real interesting that the local "timber can be our economic saviour" crowd doesn't talk about the roadside logs that were cut and decked by the Forest Service in the Bisquit Fire area. These logs are bucked, stacked and ready for loading right beside the roads. The problem is, the price of logs is so low no one has even bid on them!! The sales that have been offered in the Applegate/Williams Cr. watersheds have gonen for 3 to 5 cents a ft. if bid on at all.

Just as science and forestry have changed with time, so has our economy and the huge influx of soft wood from outside the area.

You also talk about forests burning over and over. That can not be substantiated with fact in many cases if at all. In this discussion you fail to mention that only since, at the urging of the timber industry and Forest Service, we started supressing fires hs the fuel loads built to the volitile level we have now. Slow, cool fire had been the historical norm but with the supression of fires came the invasion of ladder fuels and heavy brush, thus the hot, desctructive fires of today. Clearcutting does not mimic cool, slow moving fires which are what nature provided and what are desireable for forest health.

[Born to be Wild]

It's time to stop pointing fingers! Like it or not, we as sportfishermen are as much to blame as anything else in the Tillamook area.

I am starting to think that this tour is another waste of taxpayer money, and my time. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well rebell,
That's the reason for going on this tour.
We need to dig into the various aspects of what is happening with our salmonids. See what is being done right and what can be improved upon whether it be logging practices, over harvesting, hatchery practices, etc.
And this is a good place to start.

Hope you and Gutshot are there. I will be there myself.
Gutshot obviously has faith in what he believes or he wouldn't attend the tour.
The reason I'm going is to learn something.

I'm going to e-mail Jennie in a few when I'm done here and ask her to pull the plug on me so I can refrain from replying on this site untill I take care of myself and get well.

I have a terrible time dealing with some of the negative attitudes on this site presently.
Not on this particular thread, but on some others.
I've been dealing with the uneducated, bullheaded, barbershop/barstoll biology of the coastal mentality here for 9 years now and running and it has taken it's toll on me.
We have made great improvements on this part of the coast and have proven we have taken the right steps.
That's not to say we can't do more.
But the "bashing" continues.

I made my case at the ODFW meeting the other day, and removed a large burden that I have been dealing with for 4-5 years regarding the handeling of wild coho out in the salt.
It was real stressful considering I was basically pointing my finger at the guys that I do business with.
But my sole purpose was that they might disscuss during and after the meeting better ways to handle these very important fish.
I do know I got the ball rolling.

Now I'm going to work on myself.
See ya at the tour on the 26th.

Dan

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Straydog:
GSA,

You promote the timber industry as being a viable economic factor. What you are missing is the fact that while our forest practices act has changed in recent years, so has our global and local economies and no, timber really is not the economic cornucopia it once was in the NW nor will it likely be again.


You also talk about forests burning over and over. That can not be substantiated with fact in many cases if at all. In this discussion you fail to mention that only since, at the urging of the timber industry and Forest Service, we started supressing fires hs the fuel loads built to the volitile level we have now. Slow, cool fire had been the historical norm but with the supression of fires came the invasion of ladder fuels and heavy brush, thus the hot, desctructive fires of today. Clearcutting does not mimic cool, slow moving fires which are what nature provided and what are desireable for forest health. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">No, I never said the timber industry is the cure-all for the region's economic woes. For one thing, since the heyday of the industry 30 yrs ago the population of Oregon has doubled. Even if we had all the oldgrowth back and could log it like before, the industry wouldn't be the Big Dog it once was in Oregon. But it could still be a major factor in a healthy sustainable economy for Oregon....not utilizing our forests would be like Iowa not growing corn. Its one of the few significant, renewable, natural economic advantages we have.

Straydog - Please don't try to argue forestry or forest ecology with me....its obvious you don't know much about it. No slam intended....but I think its true.......i.e. you apparently never heard of the huge, destructive Nestucca Fires of the 1840s...burned over a million acres in a series of burns.....almost everthing from the Umpqua to the Nestucca and from the coast to the valley. The Siuslaw N.F. now covers much of the burned area....and has a 100-150 yr-old natural stand of very nice timber. The westside Douglas-fir Region forests have a much different fire ecology than the forests you are be referring to. These forests go for long periods with no fire....then after decades or centuries of fuel build-up, they burn when the right combination of lightning strikes followed by dry, east winds occurs. I once heard the estimated average fire cycle for the Siuslaw Nat'l.Forest is about 90 years on any given site.

In the Klamath and Siskyou Mtns there are different forests with totally different tree, shrub and brush species....where what you say about a fire ecology featuring relatively frequent, slow moving ground fires occurs more frequently....and may dominate in some areas. Of the 500,000-ac Biscuit fire, 300,000 acres didn't burn hot and there are many islands of unburned green timber. But, 200,000 acres that burned was mature timber that was killed. Got any idea how much local school revenue 200,000 acres of mature timber would have generated if put on a sustained-yield harvest schedule? Having logging roads in there would have made putting out the Biscuit fire easier, too....might have kept it under 10,000 acres instead of half a million.

Yes, I suspect there may be a potential glut on the market if even just a small portion of roadside logs are decked and put up for sale....didn't I read where R&R shut down the last mill around there recently? Believe me, if a sawmill felt it could rely on a steady supply of timber from the area, one would step up and operate it. But the dead timber will be no good in another year or so....I'll be surprised if much of is salvaged. And, just as the Tillamook Burn reburned three times at 6-year intevals, over the next decade or two we will very likely see reburns in the Biscuit fire as the killed trees dry out, limbs fall and accumulate, and lightning and east winds do their natural thing.

You can plan on seeing a lot of really nice, red sunsets from Grass Pants in the coming years. :wink:

[Straydog]

"Straydog - Please don't try to argue forestry or forest ecology with me....its obvious you don't know much about it...........

......In the Klamath and Siskyou Mtns there are different forests with totally different tree, shrub and brush species....where what you say about a fire ecology featuring relatively frequent, slow moving ground fires occurs more frequently....and may dominate in some areas."

I guess even with my lack of a degree and your experience, even I a mere mortal have learned something. No, I may not "know much about it" in your technical terms however almost 30 years of observing and managing my own small woodlot and about 10 years involved in natural resource volunteer work I have learned a few things.

I concede I was comparing the nature of our local forests to that up north and now realize the error of my ways in that regard. Thanks for pointing that out.

Tell ya what, I won't argue north state forest ecology with you if don't argue south state mill closures and wood gluts with me.

No, R and R has not closed. They have announced they will shortly if a buyer is not found. The employees are exploring ways to buy it as are other entities, one most suprising but I will not share that at this time.

Two lumber supply companies shut down in the valley this week due to low prices and an ongoing glut in the market. (not potential, real and ongoing) I sat next to a life long friend at my daughters Basketball game to day. (warriors Rule!! 36-20!) He works for one of the two remaining mills in GP. He said he has been shut down for two weeks. I asked if it was from wood shortage. He laughed, said "nope, we can't sell the wood we got, we sure don't need more."

Yes, the timber industry has a place in our economy and should provide some good jobs, but many down here are promoting it to be our savior and it can not. The most frustrating part is that our elected reps. seem to be buying into the misconception.

[BrionLutz]

GSA,

I have a forest mgmt. degree from Univ. of Washington and over 30 yrs experience in the woods....and a lifetime of living in the northwest.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Forest management is how to run a timber industry. The forests don't need any "management", the timber industry does.

Nothing wrong with that but it doesn't change the fact that everything about the timber industry has a negative impact on the salmon habitat.

The only real question is what (if any) level of sustainable tree cutting can be done while only having a minimal impact on the wildlife, salmon and the watershed.

Clearcut/burn silviculture COMES CLOSEST to mimicking the natural ecosystem that our westside Douglas-fir forests and fish evolved in. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Like dying in a car wreck at 25 "COMES CLOSEST" to dying at home at 85?

"mimic" and "comes closest" are meaningless terms in this context.

Today's FPA ensures that fish habitat is protected and enhanced. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The EPA, Interior, etc. are embattled with the biologists and scientists being ruled by right wing ideologues who's only interest is how to make money polluting the air, water, etc.

Good Lord...Sec of Interior Norton is a mining lobbyist whose claim to fame was winning the right to dump poisonus tailing into trout streams.

The biologist with NOAA Fisheries had to go in the Whistler Blower protection program over the Klamath salmon kill Norton engineered.

Most people with the background I have would agree that the societal benefits of having a portion of our forest landbase (i.e. all of the Tillamook State Forest) dedicated to multiple-use outweigh any negative impacts on fisheries. We can have our cake and eat it, too. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The timber industry is only group getting any "cake" out of destroying the forests. I'm sure those with that "background" would agree that they should be able to profit from taking public resources and destroying other industry groups...but then that's what the debate is about.

I am sure I'm right....and I'm guessing you're sure you are right, too. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Only thing I'm sure I'm right about is the overwhelming consensus from the scientists that logging damages the forest, the watershed and the wildlife including the salmon. I don't claim any expertise. I do claim that the scientists say that logging damages the forest ecosystems.

The timber industry is like the tobacco industry, all the science is against them but they keep insisting it's not.

You mentioned the 25' setback and how the industry is up to a 100' setback, what you neglect to mention is the same arguements you make now were made by the timber industry opposing the 25' setback and opposing the 100' setback.

You are bragging about something they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do.

As a relevant example, we have the study done by the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition.

Instead of talking in generalities, let's look at this specific example.

It seems to lay out the science and the economics very clearly. I have not heard any detailed critique of their facts and figures.

Brion

[GutshotApe]

Actually Brion, my degree is a B.S. in Forest Resources. My biggest complaint about UW's forestry school is that it minimized the business and logging aspects of forestry....turning forests into treefarms.....and concentrated on the sciences, forest ecology, soils, water, wildlife, etc....now, if I'd said my degree was from OSU, your comment would be somewhat more accurate (its a trade school) :wink: .

You're correct....a managed forest has some potential to negatively impact salmon habitat...mostly due to road-related erosion. The industry has made great strides in recent years to minimize the negatives. So, instead of getting 100% of theoretical salmon production from a wilderness watershed, a managed forest watershed might produce only 98% of theoretical potential...the 2% loss is the tradeoff for jobs, tax revenue for schools & govt., improved deer & elk habitat, forest products and other benefits.

Your ignorance is showing again Brion....the Forest Practices Act is a state law and has nothing to do with the federal govt, Sec.Norton, etc. Impartial audits support the claim that something like 99% of forest operations meet the requirements of the Act.

The only people who seem bent on destroying other industry groups are those in the enviromentalist industry....What you seem to be afraid of is that the Tillamook Forest is a perfect example of the high productivity and renewability of our westside forests and it could be used to show how forests can be managed for multiple-use benefits without harming fish habitat.

Instead of touting the Rainbow Forest Coalition's plan, or whatever, you ought to read the Tillamook Forest plan. It was a joint effort involving all stakeholders....worked out over a period of years....protects wildlife & fish very well.....provides other benefits.....And you should familiarize yourself with the FPA....

By the way, Brion, you never did tell us what the source of your expertise on forestry issues is. Why is that? :whazzup: :wink:

[Born to be Wild]

GSA,
You made the comment:

"You're correct....a managed forest has some potential to negatively impact salmon habitat...mostly due to road-related erosion".

Is that why when I hunted a few years back that in some forestry practices they put these shallow trenches in a certain area near Drift Creek running across the road. I would suspect they were there to funnel water off the hillsides instead of erosion down the road.
They were a pain in the rear, and I suspect since I did much of my hunting on a Honda XL350 (enduro), I irresponcibily used them as "whoop de do's" (.308 on my back and all).
Geez, it kind of scares me to think back at what I used to do with that rifle on my back on that motorcycle!
But, before you come pick on me Brion, I mostly stuck to the roads & landings.
Without roads, I wouldn't have harvested near as many deer & elk, because I wouldn't have gone 5-8 miles back there, and I'm sure as heck not going to pack an animal out that far!
Dan

[BrionLutz]

Brion,

You're correct....a managed forest has some potential to negatively impact salmon habitat...mostly due to road-related erosion. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You mean the biologists and other scientists are correct that logging harms the salmon habitat, other wildlife and plant life and the overall watershed.

But we already knew that.

The industry has made great strides in recent years to minimize the negatives. So, instead of getting 100% of theoretical salmon production from a wilderness watershed, a managed forest watershed might produce only 98% of theoretical potential...the 2% loss is the tradeoff for jobs, tax revenue for schools & govt., improved deer & elk habitat, forest products and other be benefits. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well...certainly as more and more science has been brought to bear, logging has been cut back a lot mostly due to it's species destruction, salmon being one of them.

Your ignorance is showing again Brion....the Forest Practices Act is a state law and has nothing to do with the federal govt, Sec.Norton, etc. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Might be if I had mentioned it but since I didn't perhaps the "ignorance" lies elsewhere.

You had mentioned EPA as protecting us from the predations of the logging industry but I pointed out that EPA and other Federal agencies are currently run by industry lobbyists like Sec. Norton who has had a particularly devastating effect on salmon. FYI, National Forest management falls under Sec. Norton's pervue.

Perhaps you meant Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, that's generally known as DEQ (http://www.deq.state.or.us/). I'll skip the biting editorial comments.

The only people who seem bent on destroying other industry groups are those in the enviromentalist industry.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Except there is no "environmental" industry &lt;grin&gt;. There are however groups like the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association and Tillamook Guides etc. who are fighting for their businesses and jobs...and the salmon.

Instead of touting the Rainbow Forest Coalition's plan, or whatever, you ought to read the Tillamook Forest plan. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You keep avoiding this specific, relevant study. This work in fact mentions the current Tillamook Forest plan and is very specific in the flaws of this timber industry friendly plan.

Economic Report Released: January 2003 - Economic Realities in the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests, by Phil Ruder (Pacific University) and Thomas Power (University of Montana). (http://http://)

Keep in mind Jerry's tour was in response to NSIA, TGA and other industry groups being supporters of the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition. Yet it appears no one who opposes the plan has read it or is really responding to it while the Coalition has responded directly and in detail to the current plan.

Brion

[BrionLutz]

Rebell,

In the day's that salmon evolved and prospered, we didn't have thousands of so called sport fishermen harvesting them and pointing there fingers at everything else for their decline. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Actually we did...Native American's lived on the fish. First migration is dated around 35,000 BC. No noticeable effect on the salmon.

So, using your historical model, we can't really blame commercial or sport fishing.

Logging is certainly not the only culprit. The dams are even worse.

However, regarding the Tillamook Forest, with the salmon fighting extinction and watershed issues becoming increasingly important, we need to focus on the sustainable resources like salmon.

Logging had it's day but it harvested a crop with a 1,000 year timeline and made a pile of money but it damaged other industries while doing it so time for new management.

Brion

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by BrionLutz:
Well...certainly as more and more science has been brought to bear, logging has been cut back a lot mostly due to it's species destruction, salmon being one of them.

You had mentioned EPA as protecting us from the predations of the logging industry but I pointed out that EPA and other Federal agencies are currently run by industry lobbyists like Sec. Norton who has had a particularly devastating effect on salmon. FYI, National Forest management falls under Sec. Norton's pervue.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Most of the logging cutbacks have been based on political considerations.....not science.

If logging is so destructive, how do you explain the strong runs of coho in the three coastal lake systems that are being proposed for a wild fish harvest next year? These 3 watersheds have been heavily logged over the past 60-80 years. Most of the 2nd growth was logged off in the 1980s and '90s. I participated in a lot of it. The state forest practices act applies to state and private lands - which make up the majority of land in the 3 watersheds and where most of the logging happened. Most of the logging took place under no rules (pre-1971), then official, legal protections came into play with the Oregon FPA when most of the 2nd growth was cut, but they were less restrictive than the FPA rules now in effect....yet, the salmon (and steelhead & cutts) are thriving in these systems and never really bottomed out like most other rivers did in the late 80s-early 90s. What makes these lake systems different from other watersheds?

In my opinion, the MAJOR habitat problem for our coastal streams is a lack of over-wintering refugia....and this is caused by a scarcity of beaver ponds in the headwaters but mostly due to a depletion of large woody debris farther downstream in the mainstem and forks. The 3 lake systems have the same types of tributary streams in similar condition to most other streams up & down the coast. But what is lacking in most other streams is sufficient still-water wintering habitat. The coastal rivers, i.e. Siuslaw, were literally choked with log jams in the 1850s when settlement began. There was a continuous logjam from Florence to Mapleton and on upstream. All the forks had big jams. These were removed decades ago. The lower reaches and tidal areas were diked for agricultural use....eliminating winter habitat for juvenile salmonids. I don't think the main problem with runs on most coastal rivers is in the uplands where the logging happens.....its farther downstream.

And, Sec. Norton is in charge of the Interior Dept. She has the BLM but the US Forest Service is in the Dept of Agriculture, isn't it? We were talking about the Tillamook STATE Forest and the STATE forest practices act, weren't we?

[Thumper]

Brion --- What do the environmentalists see as a reasonable logging of these forests? Is any amount of harvest reasonable?

[rebell]

O.K. Let's say we stop the logging, and that doesnt save the salmon. So we elimenate the comercial offshore troll fisherie, and that doesnt save the salmon. So now let's elimenate the farmers in Tillamook, and that doesnt save the salmon.

Whats next?

We dont have wood and paper, we dont have milk, cheese, butter and beef jerky, and we still have way to many people taking fish out of a small watershed. And we still havent saved the salmon.

Again, I ask, Whats next?

[Born to be Wild]

rebell,

Advise Brion to only shower once a week and flush the comode once a month to save some water for our salmonids.
I mean, I don't think he is doing his part on restoring them to historical records? :shrug:

[rebell]

DBD,

Good suggestion. Seriously though. You could shut down all the logging in the Tillamook watershed and it wouldnt help a thing.

There are bigger issues that brion and others do not want to recognize. It's simply easier to point fingers at something other than ourselves.

So let's put a few more people out of work, so that TGA and the rest of the sportfishing community can continue to **** the Tillamook fishery.

[Born to be Wild]

rebell,

Good point!

The last time I got fed-up with fishing the Tillamook fishery, was 13-15 years ago.
The crowds, the edicut had much to be desired as far as I am concerned!
As Jennie would say: "growing pains".
That doesn't explain the tollernce of "greed" or "exploitation", though.
That's the beauty of this tour though!

I hope we could get someone like Keith Braun (ODFW Tillamook) to come along just to point out the impacts that ocean fisheries (both sport & commercial) have on the fishery, and the bay, river, and tidewater fishermen have on the fishery.
And especially the ignorant or "greedy" that take a poor quality fish just for the "berries" (eggs)!
I've seen it too many times!
I could tell you some stories about a pretty famous guy on the Trask, that would probably upset your stomach.

The whole purpose of this tour is to problem solve, and I am not sure what the many different factors are.
Or what is the largest factor is?

I do realize a couple of things however, I do want to learn what is going on nowdays as far as habitat, and know it doesn't do any good to point the finger in the wrong direction because of greed or being wrongfully informed.

[Straydog]

Rebell,

Rather than completly stopping any of the things you mention one at a time, maybe we could alter the way we do all of them all at once.

Speaking in generalities, not Tillamook specificaly, I think it fair to say we have restricted and cut back fishing to a large degree over the years.

To be fair, we have also altered our logging practices a good deal as well.

I think the combo approach is having some positive impacts.

[ 03-08-2003, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[SSPey]

here's a tidbit from current science to make this more interesting when touring the "healthy" Tillamook forests.

recent research at OSU indicates that much large woody debris in streams historically came from upslope areas, from landslides - not from riparian zones. With occasional catastrophic landslides, the combined delivery of upslope wood and rocks all at once created great salmon habitat over the long haul. These landslides were a shock to the system for a few years, loading silt and boulders, killing fish. But over the long haul, they provided a source of spawning gravel AND the wood to store it. Healthy streams NEED these disturbances.

With current forest practices we've got plenty of landslides - more than we need, really. Road building increases landslides 10 - 1000 fold over natural rates. Problem is this: the 10-35 yr old trees in upslope plantations on the Tillamook and other areas are skinny runty little things compared to mature (100+ year) trees. So now when landslides occur, there aren't big trees making it down to the streams, so there's nothing to hold the gravel in place. And a higher modern occurrence of landslides means more silt and the other disturbing aspects, without the benefits of wood delivery or refugia for juveniles.

oh, ain't science grand?? Don't send your kids to college unless you want them to learn NEW stuff. The old ideas are apparently enough for some people.
graemlins/1zhelp.gif

[rebell]

Im glad somebody get's the point I have been trying to make.

I grew up in Tillamook, I have seen the decline in the fishery with the increase of sportfishing. While the habitat in the upper watershed continually got better. The TGA and the rainforest coalition has no idea how bad things used to be after the burn. The only major habitat destruction has been the bay itself. There no longer is any deep water habitat.

People bring up the 96 flood, yeah it was bad, but flooding in Tillamook has been going on forever. Not all were that bad, but many were close. The flooding will only continue to get worse, we have put dikes up all over the lower river not allowing the valley to flood were it could deposit much of the silt that know runs in to Tillamook bay. So what's next there? Tear down all of the dikes in the Tillamook valley, and tell everyone that you should have never built there, and tell them they have to relocate to higher ground?

It's time for everyone to take a look at the REAL problems. Stop pointing fingers at everything but yourselves. Like it or not, sportfishing is just as much of the problem as anything else.

[rebell]

floatnfish,

What gravel, all the agagrate mining that takes place in the Tillamook area takes care of that.

O.K. Let's get rid of the rock crusher on the Kilchis. Maybe that will save the salmon.

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by floatnfish:
Problem is this: the 10-35 yr old trees in upslope plantations on the Tillamook and other areas are skinny runty little things compared to mature (100+ year) trees. So now when landslides occur, there aren't big trees making it down to the streams, so there's nothing to hold the gravel in place. And a higher modern occurrence of landslides means more silt and the other disturbing aspects, without the benefits of wood delivery or refugia for juveniles. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">No disagreement floatnfish except to point out those runty little trees in the Tillamook Forest are now approaching 50 yrs or older....and are getting to be non-runty in a hurry. Yup, 100 yr old trees would be better....but I've been in the TSF and I know nice 2nd growth sawtimber when I see it.

The truth of what you say about landslides was shown in a UW study conducted on Archie Knowles Creek, a major Siuslaw River tributary which began about 15 yrs ago. The results were counter-intuitive.....the ArchieKnowles watershed had experienced several "sluice outs" where side draws had debris avalanches come down them and deposit large volumes of rocks, gravel, sand, silt and large logs & log chunks in the main creek channel. Slackwater formed above these debris flows...it looked terrible. But the study showed a big increase in spawning gravel and rearing habitat and a corresponding increase in salmon juveniles & smolts. :cool:

[rebell]

Staydog,

We need to cut back more! For one simple reason, we are a lot better at catching them now than we were just 10 years ago. Compared to 30 years ago, there is no comparison.

There are a lot more people fishing than there used to be. And we are a lot better at finding them and catching them.

[SSPey]

GSA - when I said 10-35 year trees I was referring to private timber that is subject to OFPA. Some of the state forests on Tillamook are older and do date back to "the burn" but many still are in the 10-35 year class as well, and they continue to slick them off, plus the average rotation for much private industrial forestry in the Coast Range in 37 years. Collectively this doesn't leave much time for good wood to grow up, not the sort that holds streams together.

[Born to be Wild]

Staydog,

We need to cut back more! For one simple reason, we are a lot better at catching them now than we were just 10 years ago. Compared to 30 years ago, there is no comparison.

There are a lot more people fishing than there used to be. And we are a lot better at finding them and catching them. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Not ot mention modern iventions like GPS, Gamakatsu hooks, LED and chroma-scope fish finders, tough line & power pro, bobber fishing, trick baits & cures, better monofillament tech., graphite rods, better reels, etc., etc.,

Now this thread is suppose to be about logging or forestry pratices.
I hinted at the beginning of this thread, are you possibly pointing your fingers in the wrong direction?
Thank God, we don't have to consider dams & Columbia River gillnets into this equation.
Process of elimination.
My uneducated guess would be:

1. - Overharvest (commercial fishing up north and river, tidewater, and bay sports fishermen).

2. - Hatcheries

3. - Habitat

I know a lot of fishermen don't want to hear over harvest especially those who exploit a fish for a buck or two. (commercial or sports).

Some of those miss informed don't want to hear hatcheries because they believe they create more fish for harvest, but in reality depress wild fish production.
So fight for your hatcheries that depress wild stocks.

Habitat. Well maybe the habitat is worse up there than it is here at home?
Our wild chinook are doing fine here!
They don't have hatchery chinooks dumped on top of them that cause problems with the wild chinook.
They also don't have all the Tillamook guides and everyone and there brother killing spawners either!
We do have more than enough fishermen though.
A couple years ago I ran into a "Tillamook Guide" here asking me questions about the area because he said the fishing "sucked" up there in Tillamook and he wanted to catch his clientel some fish. I say, good ridence.
It's like the commercial fishermen and charters down here. They fish themselves out of bussiness, and they go and exploit another species or area.
Growing pains and greed.

Then there are those that have to have more than 10 wild chinook a year.
So they either launder there license, or buy a one day license, or come down here and exploit some more fish (where you still are allowed 20 wild chinook a year).

I say we make it 10 fish a year here also. I hate to give a motive to the ones that want to exploit these fish for a buck or pleasure too!

Got carried away again. This is about the timber issue.
I want to learn what we are and aren't doing for our wild fish.

Book 'em Dano.
All aboard, say aye!

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by floatnfish:
GSA - when I said 10-35 year trees I was referring to private timber that is subject to OFPA. Some of the state forests on Tillamook are older and do date back to "the burn" but many still are in the 10-35 year class as well, and they continue to slick them off, plus the average rotation for much private industrial forestry in the Coast Range in 37 years. Collectively this doesn't leave much time for good wood to grow up, not the sort that holds streams together. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yeah, private timber will be on shorter rotations than the state-owned forests. I think I read the Tillamook SF plan calls for a 120-yr average rotation? Most private coast range timber owners are looking at 45-65 yr rotations depending on site quality....those trees will be 18" to 28" dbh.....although one local outfit announced they are planning on 25-yr rotations (intensive managed, even these trees would be 16"-18" dbh). They don't own that much land (20,000 ac) and they recently fired the general mgr. who announced their 25-yr plan (don't know if it was for coming up with the plan itself :hoboy: , or for making it public :shocked: ).

Whatever.....but, even if the average of trees entrained in mass wasting events is 37, or 27....won't there still be large wood getting in the streams when an upslope slide off a headwall comes down thru the RMA and sweeps the whole mess, small wood from the uplands, large wood from the buffer strip, and all, into the creek?

And then there's the delicate subject of "Who's paying for all this wood that people want left unharvested for fish?" These are commercial forest lands, zoned as such under Oregon's comprehensive landuse plan, just like there are farmlands zoned as commercial farms. Nobody expects farmers to leave 40% of their crop unharvested to benefit pheasants, quail or fish....they plow and harvest it all, right up to the water's edge....but if the crop is trees, the public has the expectation the landowners will forgo harvest on much of the land they bought & paid for, that is zoned for forestry, and whether or not the anticipated fish benefits are really there....and in what degree.

[Straydog]

Rebell,

Are you kidding with your gravel comments? I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt at this point.

DDD, I thought you were going to stop posting if in a certain condition. :whazzup: All the things you list as also affecting catch rate are probably coverd by Rebell's statement that we are "better at catching them." Frankly, if you consider the numbers of fish in the days of dull old brand x hooks and that old Maxima line I have been peddling for 30 years, (still the number one seller) to the numbers of fish in the water today, it may be a push. We need better gear and techniques to persue far fewer fish.

What we do have though, is a lot more people persuing them, especially in areas close to the metro area of the state.

Maybe we do need to look at limiting the number of guides operating in areas close to Metro markets. If we are going to agree we need less fish being caught and if we are going to agree that 10% of the people catch 90% of the fish and if we are going to agree that guides are the best fish catchers on the water, then it makes sense that be where we first look to control numbers of fish caught by sports.

Can you say "divide and conquer?" Keep preaching we need less sportfishing and see where it gets us...

I guess it makes a difference that I was in the industry as we were losing 10,000 jobs while no one was paying attention except those of us trying to make a living. :hoboy:

[rebell]

straydog,

Of course I was kidding, when I posted that comment last night, it was way past my bedtime.

Agagrate mining is a serious problem in the Tillamook area though.

Im not saying less sportfishing, what I am saying is.......Less harvest. There is a difference.

[ 03-09-2003, 08:16 AM: Message edited by: rebell ]

[Straydog]

Rebell,

I agree that harvest is different than sportfishing to you and I.

To the vast majority it is not.

Thanks for clarifying the gravel issue. There is plenty of spawning gravel in my creek but no mines above me.

I do agree we have some major problems with aggregate mining in some areas......

[ 03-09-2003, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Born to be Wild]

Sorry Straydog,

I'm in the trade also.
But that doesn't affect my judgment when it comes to the greed issues in fishing. And it's not only salmon fishing.

When I moved down here in Nov. 93, I went into business March of '94.
The charters lost there ocean coho season for the first time ever. They pointed the finger at everything, but couldn't even consider themselves in the over harvesting factor.
So they started exploiting Black Rockfish (seabass). Fortunately ODFW reduced the bag limit from 15 rockfish to 10 rockfish. (Which is adequate).
Then they started exploiting dungenous crab to sell more trips. They keep thousands of soft crab every summer now. I've heard fish filleter’s jokingly call them floaters because many of them float at the top of the pot when they cook them.
To this day, when you suggest handling wild coho with more care, you usually recieve a statement that there are no wild fish.

There is one store in Garibaldi that I sell tackle to that won't buy salmon bobbers because he says that once the chinooks make it through the bay; they should be left alone to spawn.
I disagree with that.
A dead chinook is just as dead in the bay as it is in tidewater or the river.
I myself would rather catch a chinook in tidewater than in the bay.

Anyway, I do have an attitude when it comes to a lot of fishermen. They want more, and if they don't feel they are getting there share, they expect others to give up there livelihood whether that be logging, commercial fishing or otherwise.

I really don't know what the big problem is in Tillamook. I made a list of three potential problems.
#1 being over harvest.
Originally when this thread started I had my suspicion that maybe hatcheries were the #1 culprit.
But rebell brought back memories of the last time I fished salmon in Tillamook some 12 years ago or so.
I used to hear the fishermen joke about how bad it was back then when I lived in the Portland area.

Those chinooks harvested in Tillamook are 85% wild chinooks (potential spawner’s).
Do you or anyone else know how many they harvest there each year?

As for logging, I don't know. I would suspect it could be approved upon. This is what I want to find out.
I made a comparison between here and there.
I suspect we have worse logging practices here (private land), but we also have plenty wild chinooks here also.
Nobody is complaining or whining here.
What a breath of fresh air that is!

The only major differences I see between here and up north is we don't have the hatchery chinook or the amount of fishermen they do.
I just don't understand the desire or fight for hatcheries up there when they have a viable fishery on wild chinook.
Sure hatcheries produce more fish for harvest, but at the same time, they hamper wild fish production.
If they harvest 85% wild chinook, then it seems to me they could do without that small 15% of hatchery chinook.
Then the wild chinook might more than make up that 15%?

I'll call Keith Braun (ODFW Tillamook) again tomorrow and ask him in his opinion of the health of the chinook stocks in that area and of the factors which affect them, i.e. sport & commercial fishing in the ocean, sport fishing in the bay and rivers, habitat and hatchery production.
I believe when I asked him before about the logging and habitat issue, he posed the question that even if we shut down everything, how many more fish would that provide?
He did say that there is plenty work to be done restoring habitat from tidewater all the way up, but not near the funding to do that.

I will also ask him how many spawner’s are harvested by the sport fishermen each year in the bay, tidewater, and rivers.
Of course it's hard to tally up those laundered tags.

I think rebell has a valid point:

I’m not saying less sport fishing, what I am saying is.......Less harvest. There is a difference. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">How many of those big wild hog's does a person need to take home?
I wouldn't think it would hurt that fishery if they had a one fish per day limit on chinook?
Or possibly one fin clipped and one wild? (If a fisherman was lucky enough to catch one of those that fall in the 15% category).

My .02 cents.

[rebell]

DBD and straydog, understand that I base my veiws on over harvest by, what I have observed over the years, not science. Biologists may disagree with me. That's O.K. Im not to bullheaded to listen and believe our biologist are doing a fairly good job. They are learning, as we are also.

I base most of my views on overharvest by what I have experienced while guiding in the Tillamook area, and by what I have witnessed since then as a weekend angler.

In 1991 my cleints and myself put 291 salmon in my boats. About 100 of those were late Aug. and early Sept silvers (this of course was before fin clipping of hatchery stocks). So that leaves close to 200 chinooks. I was 1 of over 100 guides working the area. 1991 was an incredible year for Tillamook to say the least. The final 5 years I guided after that, my best year was 150 fish, and as low as 90 fish. I fished every day from Sept. 1 to Dec. 15 strictly for chinook.

It's not hard to see that is way to many fish being harvested by one boat. Now add all the other guides and sport anglers in to the picture. Im not saying we need to restrict the number of guides in the area, I feel we need to limit the harvest because of the amount of people fishing the system. I vote for 1 a day and keep it at 10 per year. With one major stipulation. If you loose your tag, let them replace it with a hatchery fish tag only! And let's make it cost $50.00. Im willing to bet you wont see many lost tags again.

[Born to be Wild]

I vote for 1 a day and keep it at 10 per year. With one major stipulation. If you loose your tag, let them replace it with a hatchery fish tag only! And let's make it cost $50.00. Im willing to bet you wont see many lost tags again. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You got my vote.
Maybe that one chinook a day and also the opportunity to catch a hatchery coho if they need that second fish.

Tillamook is the "big hog" fishery and a ritual to many.
And the businesses and fishermen are exploiting it.
I think most fishermen would be happy with a nice nook and pic's. After the fact. They sure aren't going to vote for it.
I have seen fisheries where everyone was so concerned about reduced bag limits and everone survived.
Perhaps we must learn to share our natural resources a little bit better.

Dan

[Straydog]

Dan,

As I said in my email, I think you are wanting to expound a lot of energy determining what is the #1 cause of our problems when I think it more important to look at and adjust all of the contributors to our problems. From my view, all ranking them does is give more ammo for finger pointing which I think we all agree is getting us nowhere.

Rebell,

I would buy into a one fish per day, ten per year scenario if the numbers and trends determine it necessary AND the other contributing factors in the fish declines are dealt with too. For too long Sportfishing was the easiest and only target when it came to regulations to protect fish.

Also, let's do some very simple yet quick math for perspective. In the history you offered, you and the other guides would have harvested 20000 fish in '91, a banner year, assuming they all did as well as you.

Now, consider how many potential fish are killed in a 100 yard stretch of spawning gravel that gets silted in due to accelerated erosion. (how many eggs in a Redd? How many Redds in a 100 yard stretch of gravel?) How many potential fish are lost by one dam killing 100 fish on their way to the spawning habitat? How many potential fish are killed by one summer of hot weather creating a 33,000 fish kill in the Klamath due to over allocation of water in the entire system?

My point is, we can nickle and dime the fishermen all we want, until we fix the big ticket fish killers, we are only alienating our support base.

Yes, we should all do our part but at the same time, we also must be realistic about what will really make the difference in the big picture.

[ 03-09-2003, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[GutshotApe]

I have always thought one adult salmon or steelhead per day was plenty...

With respect to the diminished wild runs, we do need to evaluate and rank the significance of the various limiting factors in order to properly allocate scarce resources. We don't have enough money to do it all at once.

I think the state forest practices act adequately protects water quality....and given enough time for trees to mature, the riparian areas and no-harvest upland areas will have adequate amounts of large woody debris that will eventually fall into the creeks.

In my opinion, one important area needing more attention is the problem of inadequate road and railroad culverts. There are still scores and scores....maybe thousands....of culverts that partially or totally block salmonid migrations. An often overlooked fact is that juvenile salmon & steelhead migrate up and down the headwater creeks during their 1 to 3 year residence....or they would like to except for culverts. Many culverts that adult salmon can negotiate are completely impassible for juveniles....so if a fry drops downstream thru a culvert it will never get back upstream....leaving habitat underutilized and the fry trapped downstream may not survive due to high summer temps, predation, etc.

[Born to be Wild]

Well Straydog,
I see your point to some extint and this is the forest thread.
In question here is whether or not the practices are inappropriate for wild fish survival. We will see on the 26th of April? (Hurry up and fix those culverts, Gutshot)! :grin:
Keep in mind, you live on the mighty Rogue that has dams, but dams or the allocation of water doesn't pertain to the Tillamook basin.

Rebell did bring up an interesting point however about less harvesting, (not fishing).
I did find the sport fishing catch records for Tillamook Bay and Rivers for 1991:
Tillamook Bay - 10,224 chinook
Tillamook River - 729
Trask River - 5,193
Wilson River - 2,274
Miami River - 149
Kilchis River - 332 (six of those Jennie caught) :grin:
You add them all up and you come up with 18,901 estimated chinooks caught in Tillamook bay and rivers in '91.
And this does not take into consideration the nooks caught outside of the "jaws".
I don't know, but sounds like an aweful lot to me. See what the local biologist says about that when I get up there in the next day or two.


Sport Catch Coastal Chinook (http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/Research&Reports/pdfs/96-98_fallchinookcoastal.pdf)

[ 03-09-2003, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

[rebell]

Straydog,

I am adressing what I feel the real problem is. Tillamook is being over sportfished in my opinion.

Straydog, I have a questions for you. How familiar are you with the Tillamook area, it's forestry history, it's road access, it's fish run numbers? I have seen your posts for the last few months concerning the forestry pratices all over the state, you have yet to point out any direct science. GSA has, I can't, so I don't try. I base my opinions on my experiences growing up in Tillamook. For some reason you seem to want to blame all of the salmon problems on forestry practices. It is only one small problem out of many. In the Tillamook area, the forest is so much better than it was 20 or 30 years ago,(40 or 50 years ago) it can't be compared to the rest of the state.

I am being realistic. I feel the big problem is the greed that the sportfishermen have. If I felt for a minute that it was improper forestry practices in the Tillamook watershed, GSA and I would be locking horns on a daily basis.

Please understand that if I felt logging was a problem in the Tillamook area, I would address it. But the real problem in Tillamook is improper fishery biology.

Go ahead and say it DBD. TAG BIOLOGY! :smile:

[Straydog]

Rebell,

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I posted on one of these threads on Tillamook that I am not talking Tillamook specific and I do not have knowledge of that area.

I guess I kind of got off on a more general discussion again when DBD was talking about the lunar landscape near him.

I am not saying all the fault is logging. I am saying I think there is and has been more destruction from logging to salmon habitat than many are willing to admit. But again, this is based on my knowledge of So. Oregon forests.

I have learned a lot from my involvment on the Middle Rogue Watershed Council, The BLM Resource Advisory Committee, Medford Dist., the Fish Screening Task Force and various workshops and seminars related to these groups. We get a lot of information via presentations with real live biologists of several specialties; soils, hydrology, fisheries, forest management and fire. I don't proclaim to be an expert at any of these but think I learned a lot over the years. I also manage a small streamside woodlot of my own and have a strong interest and curiosity about natural resources and spend a lot of time just observing and learning.

I grew up here and saw what went on for decades in the hills and now spend a lot of time and volunteer effort trying to get it fixed. As GSA rightfully pointed out, culverts and road crossings are big problem. (I will refrain from reminding the readers why the majority of them are there in the first place...... :grin: )

Anyway, I didn't mean to horn in on your conversation or area of background, I just have a deep passion for the issues and do what I can do to make it better. :cool:

[BrionLutz]

GSA,

Most of the logging cutbacks have been based on political considerations.....not science. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Nope...due to the science of killing off various species including salmon.

If logging is so destructive, how do you explain the strong runs of coho in the three coastal lake systems that are being proposed for a wild fish harvest next year? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">We have had a huge cutback on logging...do you think that could explain part of it?

You'd have to ask the experts. I think the report by the NOAA Fisheries noted that more species of salmon have moved to the endangered list.

We were talking about the Tillamook STATE Forest and the STATE forest practices act, weren't we? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Eyup but you brought up the EPA which is Federal. You noted the EPA would protect the salmon. I pointed out that ideologues and paid lobbyists like Norton were overriding the scientists at EPA, etc.

Relevant to salmon, remember she overrode the scientists and killed off 40,000 Klamath River salmon. The NOAA scientist had to seek protection under the Whistle Blower Act for revealing the existing report that Norton ignored.

Perhaps that is what you meant when you referenced "political considerations".

Getting back to the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition plan. A lot of interesting facts...from experts no less &lt;grin&gt;.

Economic Realities: Upon considering the economic effects of an alternative fifty-percent reserve plan for the state forests, we have concluded that the fifty-percent reserve plan is more likely to lead to increased economic growth, both for the Portland Metro Area economies and for the economies of the rural counties adjacent to the forests, than the ODF’s current plan. Given the importance of natural amenities in attracting businesses and households to a region, the reserve strategy seems more likely than the current forest management plan to support expanded job and income creation and economic vitality in Clatsop and Tillamook Counties during coming decades. (http://www.tillamookrainforest.org/display.cgi?page=economics)

Brion

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by BrionLutz:

Eyup but you brought up the EPA which is Federal. You noted the EPA would protect the salmon. I pointed out that ideologues and paid lobbyists like Norton were overriding the scientists at EPA, etc.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brion - I went back and reread my posts and can't find the EPA in any of them..... :whazzup: :wink:

[BrionLutz]

GSA,

My mistake...you said FPA not EPA

Today's FPA ensures that fish habitat is protected and enhanced. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">For the current FPA problems, check out the Rainforest Coalition website.

<a href="http://www.tillamookrainforest.org/display.cgi?page=economics" target="_blank">One economic study focused on the Tillamook Bay Basin alone estimated that management of that watershed in a way that supported recovery of the salmon fishery to historical levels would generate $26.2 to $52.4 million dollars a year in annual benefits (Radtke and Davis 1997 pp. 26-29). This study also estimated that the annual economic return in salmon values to a mile of forest stream that is not damaged by timber harvest may be as high as $4,500 (Radtke and Davis 1997 p. 14).The road construction necessary to conduct timber operations is known to increase the sedimentation of streams and reservoirs (Harr and Fredriksen 1988, Miner 1968, Beschta 1978, Fredriksen 1965 and 1970, and Harr et al. 1975 cited in Radtke and Davis 1996). In some areas of the Coast Range, logging and road-building have been associated with a five-fold increase in slide activity (Radtke and Davis 1996). Increased sedimentation results in higher filtration costs as well as the need to expand reservoir capacity. The costs of removing sediment from water at treatment plants amounts to $17.11 per thousand tons discharged (Holmes 1988, cited in Radtke and Davis 1996). The costs of raising the Hagg Lake Dam to increase capacity have been estimated to lie between $1500 and $2200 per acre foot of added capacity (Montgomery Watson 1999). Decreasing sedimentation through forest protection can provide significant cost savings.

</a>

Brion

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Straydog:
.........culverts and road crossings are big problem. (I will refrain from reminding the readers why the majority of them are there in the first place...... :grin: <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yup Straydog, a lot of the roads were built for logging....but not all. In fact, many of the worst offenders (roads, that is) were built long before logging really got started. I.e. the Siuslaw River road and roads paralleling all the main tributaries (Lake Creek, Indian Cr, Deadwood Cr & forks, Nelson Cr, Wildcat Cr, Wolf Cr, etc.) were built to serve homesteaders, beginning in the 1870s. Wolf Creek (major upper Siuslaw trib)had over a dozen homesteads along it and the roadway they pioneered and improved over the years became an official county road until the 1940s when the last of the homesteaders threw in the towel. That road is typical....it has several impassible concrete pipe culverts that channel fishbearing side creeks under the road that were put there many decades ago - with no consideration for fish. Lots of resident cutthroat trout above the culverts - but few anadramous salmonids. Logging in the Wolf Creek drainage didn't begin until the 1950s and 60s....and there are many other examples like this throughout western Oregon.

I can show you some bad culverts under the Southern Pacific RR spur to Coos Bay....built in 1914 or so....blocking off salmon habitat.

But you're right...the statistical majority of bad culverts were probably on roads built for logging 30, 40 or 50 yrs ago....but the worst ones in terms of habitat blocked off were probably the roads that run alongside the main stems....and many of these were built before logging proceeded above tidewater.

[BrionLutz]

GSA,

In fact, many of the worst offenders (roads, that is) were built long before logging really got started. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I think you may be understating the road building associated with logging. We know the roads are damaging and we know the logging industry is the source and the sole beneficiary of the roads.

And lets not forget they want to build more.

Over 430,000 miles of roads -- more than 8 times the miles in the Interstate Highway System -- cut through U.S. National Forests. These roads, used nearly exclusively by logging companies, are built at taxpayer expense. In 1996, the U.S. Forest Service spent $84 million on forest road construction, and issued another $41 million in road-building credits to logging companies. (http://www.nrdc.org/land/forests/fforestf.asp)

Brion

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by BrionLutz:
......we know the logging industry is the source and the sole beneficiary of the roads.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That's one of the more preposterous statements you've made, Brion. This state's infrastructure, in large part, was built by timber sale revenue (made possible by logging roads) shared with the counties, corporate and personal income taxes generated in the timber industry, the 2 service sector jobs created by each primary production (timber) job, etc....and logging roads are used by recreational users from hunters & anglers to berry pickers to sunday drivers.

BTW, still waiting to hear about your forest mgmt. and forest ecology training, Brion. What's your educational and professional background? Besides repeating the same old, tired, canned enviro rhetoric, is anything you assert based on anything other than what someone told you? :whazzup: :wink:

[Born to be Wild]

If logging is so destructive, how do you explain the strong runs of coho in the three coastal lake systems that are being proposed for a wild fish harvest next year?<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Actually that proposal is for harvest this year. We will know in August and the public will be notified. Not to mention the fact that bass were introduced in these lakes in the mid 70’s which if you look at the charts, they knocked the holy bejeba out of the coho’s, but they came back and been holding there own for a few years. Even during the El ‘Nino years.

Brion,
We have had a huge cutback on logging...do you think that could explain part of it?

You'd have to ask the experts. I think the report by the NOAA Fisheries noted that more species of salmon have moved to the endangered list. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brion these wild coho that GSA was referring to have been holding there own for 10 years now.
Might I add that they have never seen a hatchery on them.
May I remind you about the Gazette article that I claimed had a poorly selected headline that we spent so much time debating. And that the information in it was misconstrued. And that I told you that you were taking things out of text and twisting them around to fit your own agenda.
Well, here is the part you were just referring to copied/pasted from the article.

The scientists suggested changing three populations from threatened or candidate species to endangered: Central California coho salmon, lower Columbia River/Southwest Washington coho, and California Central Valley steelhead. None warranted upgrading or being taken off the list. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Central California coho and steelhead have nothing to do with our coastal wild coho that GSA was talking about. Neither does the lower Columbia River/Southwest Washington coho that has the dams, gill netters, and literally millions of hatchery coho dumped on top of them.
We went from 14,068 estimated OCN (Oregon Coastal Naturals) in 1997 to 304,400 wild coho’s in 2002.
Please don’t bring up “endangered” when someone is talking about our coastal wild coho.
It appears to me you were twisting things around again to fit your one sided agenda.

Dan

[ 03-09-2003, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

[GutshotApe]

Yeah. :wink:

[BrionLutz]

GSA,

GSA: That's one of the more preposterous statements you've made, Brion. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well..quoted anyway &lt;grin&gt;. I believe the quote and link notes the stats are from the US Forest Service. Are you saying their numbers are incorrect?

Over 430,000 miles of roads -- more than 8 times the miles in the Interstate Highway System -- cut through U.S. National Forests. These roads, used nearly exclusively by logging companies, are built at taxpayer expense. In 1996, the U.S. Forest Service spent $84 million on forest road construction, and issued another $41 million in road-building credits to logging companies. (http://www.nrdc.org/land/forests/fforestf.asp)

This state's infrastructure, in large part, was built by timber sale revenue (made possible by logging roads) shared with the counties, corporate and personal income taxes generated in the timber industry, the 2 service sector jobs created by each primary production (timber) job, etc....and logging roads are used by recreational users from hunters & anglers to berry pickers to sunday drivers. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I don't think there is any doubt that the logging industry has profited immensely from cutting down the forests and damaging the salmon industry. The question now is, having cut down the original old growth forests, should the logging industry be allowed to cut down public forests again with the additional negative impact on the salmon, wildlife and watershed.

BTW, still waiting to hear about your forest mgmt. and forest ecology training, Brion. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You were the only one claiming any "expertise". Though you at first claimed you had a degree in "Forest Management" and then corrected yourself and noted it was actually in "Forest Science". A bit disconcerting when an expert forgets what he's an expert in.

Getting back to the numbers, you had previously questioned the age of the original old growth forests. I provided some actual expert references (UC Davis study) which had a 500 year baseline (50m) with a 1,000+ year old (83m)

UC Davis Douglas Fir Productivity Study (http://nigec.ucdavis.edu/publications/annual99/western/WRBond0.html)

I guess we can say your expertise is plus/minus 300%?

I'll continue to cite the experts vs. claiming to be one on the web &lt;grin&gt;.

I just got back from Lake Tahoe, here's some interesting info (from some actual experts no less) on the consquences of destroying the old growth forests. It also calls into question your claim that clear cutting "mimics" any natural forest ecology.

The ecosystem most altered by human land use is the forest. Today's forest is a far different one than existed two centuries ago. It has been altered so much that scientists suspect its "biological integrity" -- a term that attempts to explain the overall health of the ecosystem -- has been compromised. Historically, more than half of the forests within the Tahoe basin would have been old growth. Today they comprise barely 5 percent. (http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/tahoetv/forests.html)

Brion

[BrionLutz]

DepoeBayDan,

Brion these wild coho that GSA was referring to have been holding there own for 10 years now. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">And the cutbacks in logging began in...hmm...1990? (Spotted Owl declared Threatened in June of 1990). Is that about 10 years?

Is there any connection between the decline in logging and the salmon recovery GSA mentioned?

I'd leave that up to the experts.

May I remind you about the Gazette article that I claimed had a poorly selected headline that we spent so much time debating. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Actually I was reminding GSA of the NOAA Fisheries study.

None warranted upgrading or being taken off the list. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The "none" refered to all the salmon species currently listed. The scientists noted that none had improved enough to have their status changed.

I'm not sure if that answers GSA's question or not.

Brion

[SSPey]

There's lots of credible information out there to be had by the interested citizen, and you don't need a degree in forestry or related field to understand and disseminate it. Nor does a degree automatically lead to unbiased interpretation.

Today's FPA neither "ensures" nor "enhances" fish protection. Not even close. It is not legally enabled to ensure anything, and I we don't yet have the scientific know-how to enhance salmonids beyond that which nature can do. What the FPA does is provide "one size fits all" prescriptions that give a slight nod towards something other than outright exploitation. If only it was vigorously enforced. I've seen abuses on the Upper Siletz that are horrendous, and on a stream with the only native summer run population in the Coast Range. The ODF official on that beat should lose his/her job.

Not to mention the abuses that I've seen post-fire down south. Any "protection" is essentially waived post fire in the name of salvage.

[Born to be Wild]

Good point rebell!
I especially like that one about the lost tag.
Hatchery tag only after that.
This issue was addressed at the Salmon River meeting a couple weeks ago.
I have heard of some fishermen busted for this.
The state police are watching for this and some make notes after they check your tag and compare notes with your new tag if they check you again.
But state police are spread pretty thin these days.
But what about those that can afford to buy a one day lisence and use it to prevent too many fish on there annual tag?
A well known fact this is taking place.
I know a sporting goods store in xxxxxxx that will vouch for that one.

I just looked at the handout I recieved at the ODFW meeting Wednesday.
Landing estimates for recreational ocean salmon fisheries:
2002 - Tillamook 8,776 chinook
I would venture to guess this included chinook caught both in the bay and the ocean.
Some of those caught were no doubt chinook stocks heading for other rivers also.
This possibly wouldn't include tidewater or the rivers.
The Tillamook commercials harvested 30,331 chinook and would suspect the percentage of Tillamook stocks in there catch to a much smaller % than of the recreational fishery.
Of course most of the commercial harvest on the Tillamook chinook stocks take place up in BC and Alaska on there migratory route.
2002 was a great chinook year and well above the average for the recreational fishery.

[Straydog]

I agree Floatnfish, well said.

The roll back of protections is poised to take place in the Bisquit fire. Much of the area being targeted is in the headwaters of some of the last of the best unspoiled spawning streams in So. Oregon, if not the West Coast of the lower 48.

Very scarey thought.........

[ 03-10-2003, 06:35 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[GutshotApe]

[ 03-10-2003, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: GutshotApe ]

[GutshotApe]

floatnfish - You're right, a degree in forestry doesn't automatically convey true wisdom and knowledge....but a forestry degree coupled with extensive real-world experience has got to count for more than a good debater with computer skills but little or no real knowledge, who merely regurgitates what others tell him.

The state FPA is enforceable and has all the teeth it needs to ensure compliance, or else. If you think something on the upper Siletz was an abuse and that the FPF needs to be called on it, then DO IT!!! You will either put some light on the problem or you just may find that while it may not look real good, it may not be doing any real harm. I can't speak about that area from experience, but I know for a fact that the FPA is rigorously enforced here on the central coast range....and, knowing how state agencies operate, I'd be very surprised if there is much variation between districts.

Brion - It seems obvious that some people who post on Ifish are merely "pot stirrers"....shills for the environmental movement....whose sole purpose is to instill the seed of doubt in otherwise neutral people. Keep pounding the big lie....keep bringing up things that happened years ago, before the many upgrades of the FPA.....if it looks bad, it must be bad. Throw the baby out with the bathwater....

Yup, I'm biased in favor of wise use of our natural resources....you seem to want no use. :depressed:

[Thumper]

I may have missed Brion's answer to my earlier question. But if not, please tell me what you or the coalition believes is a reasonable level of logging, if any?

[BrionLutz]

Thumper,

I may have missed Brion's answer to my earlier question. But if not, please tell me what you or the coalition believes is a reasonable level of logging, if any? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Quite a bit. Consider that the basic philosophy is to split the forest use 50-50 which represents a big plus for the salmon, wildlife and the watershed vs. 100% use for timber companies.

Despite the heated rhetoric here, consider that the Tillamook Coalitions plans simply slows the increase in the harvest.

Best to look over the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition's actual plan.

While the slower growth in timber harvest volumes under the fifty-percent reserve strategy would lead to less growth in local lumber and wood products industries, the job and income creation at stake in those sectors is certainly less than predicted by the ODF. Moreover, the slower growth in forest products sectors will allow increased growth in other sectors of the economy. The actual performance of the Clatsop and Tillamook County economy during the past three decades provides evidence supporting our predictions rather than those produced by the ODF. (http://www.tillamookrainforest.org/display.cgi?page=economics)

Brion

[BrionLutz]

GSA,

It seems obvious that some people who post on Ifish are merely "pot stirrers"....shills for the environmental movement.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Versus name calling or being a "shill" and "pot stirrer" for the timber industry &lt;grin&gt;?

Are the members of the coalition like the Northwest Sportsfishing Industry Association and Tillamook guides "shills" and "pot stirrers" also?

Consider I've provided actual expert sources, UC Davis forest studies, Coalition economic plans etc. vs name calling and claims of
"expertise".

That the expert sources I've provided contradict some of your statements does present a credibility problem (the UC Davis study on old growth showing 500-1,000 year old trees vs your "expert" opinion of 100-200 as the age of old growth).

Rather than telling us how expert you are, one would think that your "expertise" would allow you to provide actual expert sources and to respond in detail to the Coalition's experts.

Also one needs to look the economic interest. ODF. Those who make money from cutting down the forest have a much greater burden of proof that their views do not represent personal self interest vs. what's best for everyone.

Historically, local county officials, dependent on timber revenues for part of their budgets and long used to considering the state forests as tree farms to be managed to generate revenues for local government units, have supported ODF plans to increase timber harvests. At present, approximately fifty percent of gross revenues from timber operations on the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests fund the costs of government operations such as road building and ODF administration, while the remainder is distributed to Clatsop, Columbia, Tillamook and Washington Counties. (http://www.tillamookrainforest.org/display.cgi?page=economics)

I've posted details from the Coalition plan, yet you have not responded in similar detail with the counter arguements to their plan which is really a very modest proposal.

Brion

[BrionLutz]

Thumper,

But if not, please tell me what you or the coalition believes is a reasonable level of logging, if any?<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">This might be closer to the detail you were looking for.

The 10-year Implementation Plans (IPs) derived from the current ODF Forest Management Plan (FMP) project sustained harvests from the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests at levels even higher than those of 1999 and 2000. The IPs predict average annual harvest levels of 175 million board feet from the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests between 2001 and 2010, a 16.1 percent increase over the 151.6 million board feet average annual harvest in 1999 and 2000 (ODF 2002c). The fifty-percent reserve alternative management approach is predicted to result in harvest levels from the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests of 112.6 million board feet per year for the next twenty years – higher than average harvests before 1999, but below projections based on the current FMP. (http://www.tillamookrainforest.org/display.cgi?page=economics)

Brion

[garyk]

Brion, my understanding is that the current Tillamook FMP, puts the forest on roughly a 50-year rotation.

Has the rotation period under the proposed alternative been calculated?

During the public hearing process, a stong message (which ODF ignored) was to emphasize 'quality' (i.e. older, clear grained wood) over sheer quantity. This would move the forest to a management type more like the privately owned 'Collins Pine Forest' rather than the short-rotation-clearcutting that dominates the Coast Range.

P.S. to GSA - I call foul on your personal name calling! Since you have no problem going to extremes to present the timber industry side of logging, you shouldn't make personal attacks or personal characterizations of those who don't share your viewpoint.

[Born to be Wild]

Floatnfish,

I am curious about; "and on a stream with the only native summer run population in the Coast Range."

What species of summer run fish are these?
Steelhead? Chums? Chinooks?

Just curious and didn't realize we have the only native...

Dan

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by garyk:
P.S. to GSA - I call foul on your personal name calling! Since you have no problem going to extremes to present the timber industry side of logging, you shouldn't make personal attacks or personal characterizations of those who don't share your viewpoint. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">OK, if what I said was inappropriate, then I offer my apologies.

But where did I "go to extremes"? I don't want to log off the wilderness areas...or the riparian zones...but I believe the highest and best use of much of our forestland is to produce multiple uses...timber, fish, water, wildlife, etc. Its that I think a reasoned, balanced approach to resource management is needed....not single use wilderness anywhere there are trees.

For the past 30 years I have witnessed...up close and personal...a steady parade of people with an unrelenting assault on the economic underpinnings of this state. Some of the criticisms were valid...just enough to make the rest sound plausible. Figures lie and liars figure...the claim that they "only want half" is deceptive, too. They want it all and won't stop until they have it all locked up. The hypocricy of the Brion Lutzes of the world is striking....here is a guy who thinks forestry automatically kills salmon so it needs to be reined in some more. Yet the same guy goes to Tillamook, hires a guide who outfits and guides him onto a fish....then he poses for a photo with his big 50 lb wild chinook (and puts it on the internet!), a wild fish killed before it could spawn and perpetuate the race (along with thousands of other wild fish killed by other Tillamook anglers)....and all we hear is the timber industry needs to compromise (if you can call a one-way deal a compromise) yet again.

I'm not going to respond to any more faith* based posts.

* FAITH: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. A.Bierce

[SouthCoastStu]

The "rotation age", of the current FMP is about 100-120 yrs.
It is really hard to sit back and read this garbage. Has anyone posting actually read all or any part of the Tillamook FMP? Do you know what Structured Based Management (SBM) is? Do you know how the Tillamook State Forest came to be?

The driving force of the current FMP is stand type and not the age of the trees that make up the stand. The plan calls for 75% of the forest to be made up of "Older Forest Structure" (OFS). Many characteristics determine if a stand is OFS: tree height, diameter, spacing, limbiness, number of canopies, downed wood, species mix etc. In theory a stand could be 200 years old and not be classified as OFS, or as young as 60. Currently, there is less than 25% OFS present on the forest. Stands will be entered and thinned repeatedly to accelerate the move to OFS. Only once a surplus of OFS (over 75%) is available, would regeneration harvest (clear-cut) take place. The only exception to this is in case of fire or disease (i.e. Swiss Needle Cast). The plan creates more habitat in a shorter period of time, plus creates jobs and revenue for the County. I think it is one of the best compromises in natural resource management that has ever been achieved. It will be real interesting to be around in 50 years and see what fruit grows from this plan.

During the planning process, private industry and the County Commissioners pushed for a higher cut (lower percent OFS). Of coarse, various environmental groups pushed for a higher percentage of OFS, and reserve areas. The ODF plan is a very conservative compromise between timber production and watershed health. If the forest was managed in an industrial fashion, a much higher sustained yield could be achieved from these lands.

I think it was hit on before in this thread, after the burns, the quality of the watersheds health was at an all time low, salvage logging took place without rules. Many poorly constructed roads were built in a hurry to salvage the rotting timber. I’m not trying to justify or apologize for logging practices of the past, just stating the historical truth. Currently, the Tillamook ODF spends about $3million a year repairing, upgrading or vacating these old roads. Currently, more miles of road are vacated than constructed on the Tillamook each year. In addition many different user groups benefit from these roads: hunters, fishermen, OHV’s, hikers, hang gliders etc. If the harvest dollars go away, who will pay to maintain or vacate all the old roads? These watersheds are in the best health they have been in for the last 50 years (thanks in large part to ODF), and will only get better with each passing decade.

Another thing to consider is that this forest, while a State Forest, is really a County Forest managed in trust by the State. Before the burns, private timber companies owned most of the land. Once they salvaged what was economical, they walked away from it and the deeds fell to the County for failure to pay taxes. Now the County was not in the business to take on one of the largest reforestation jobs ever in history, so they signed the land over to State, to be managed for timber production, which the County would get ~2/3 of the revenue and ODF ~1/3 of the revenue. The County could have auctioned the lands off for a few bucks at the time, but someone had the fore-site to broker this deal. It just doesn't seem right to me that some people from outside the county think they can come along at this point and take half of what was once the counties away.

I’ve read the Rainforest Coalitions Plan. Most of the numbers come straight from ODF. There isn’t any real science to the plan, it’s just someone else’s opinion on how the forest could be managed (or not). Will the RC Plan create stronger fish runs than the ODF Plan? No one can tell with any certainty, and if someone professes to know they are liars. It is certain that the County will get less revenue under the RC plan, and there will be fewer timber-based jobs in Tillamook County. Will people not move their businesses and families to Portland if the Tillamook Forest is managed under ODF’s plan and not RC’s? BS!! Will people not jam the Wilson in late December to play bumper boats if RC’s plan doesn’t get accepted? BS!!

I don't even want to go into details about the *crewing that Tillamook County gets on state school funding, and how RC uses that to it's advantage to make the numbers of their plan look good.

[Born to be Wild]

DepoeBayDan,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brion these wild coho that GSA was referring to have been holding there own for 10 years now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the cutbacks in logging began in...hmm...1990? (Spotted Owl declared Threatened in June of 1990). Is that about 10 years?

Is there any connection between the decline in logging and the salmon recovery GSA mentioned?

I'd leave that up to the experts. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brion, I would have to answer NO.
Looking at the wild coho numbers on the chart, it is clear that these fish were doing great from 1955 through 1971 or 1973.
In the mid 70's when they introduced fry & smolt gobbling largemouth bass and crappie, it is also obvious they (wild coho)took a major nose dive at that time.
Then in the early 80's, they started coming back again and in the 90's, they had healthy numbers throughout. (Even through the El 'Nino years).
So, if they were in great shape from 1955 - 1971 or '73, was that prior to logging? I was under the assumption that logging in Oregon started well before that time period.
I think again that is some proof what the lack of hatcheries can do for us! That's the only correlation I see between the success of these fish and logging. In other words, notta.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May I remind you about the Gazette article that I claimed had a poorly selected headline that we spent so much time debating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually I was reminding GSA of the NOAA Fisheries study. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brion, you're side stepping again. If you scroll up you will see I copied/pasted that bit of that NOAA Fisheries study that you so inappropriately brought up addressing GSA.
I explained to you that not one of those species that were downgraded to “endangered” had anything remotely to do with our coastal wild fish!!!
Most all of our coastal wild Chinook are doing great regardless of the logging going on!
Most or all of the ones that aren’t have hatcheries on them.
Most all our wild coho stocks are growing by leaps and bounds, then again, most of the impressive wild coho stocks, don’t have any or small numbers of hatchery coho dumped on top of them. And they too spawn in coastal streams where logging is taking place.
In southern Oregon there are fisheries on wild winter steelhead where there are no hatcheries, and logging is taking place.

But you choose to take an endangered species and apply it to all wild fish and to promote your one sided agenda! I know of several cults that take info and twist it and take it out of context and then try and persuade folks to buy into there false religions. But I get my sources elsewhere straight from the source and not from some organization or cult.

Why is it you never inquire or ask, but always promote? I don’t ever think I have seen you admit you made a mistake?

I am in the infancy of learning about logging or forestry practices so I will read and listen with open ears and ask questions, but if I notice you or anyone else twisting or stating wrongful facts regarding wild or hatchery fish, I will challenge you.
I certainly don’t want the already confused public miss informed!

quote:

None warranted upgrading or being taken off the list.

The "none" referred to all the salmon species currently listed. The scientists noted that none had improved enough to have their status changed. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">And yes Brion, those stocks (some of which almost reached extinction a few years back) are still included on that list.
But, I need not say they are heading in the direction to be removed from that list.
I would be willing to wager money that within the next year or two, they will be removed from that list. And also go another step that there will be a fishery on some or most of them. Some have already reached numbers that could support fisheries.
But responsibly so, fish managers want to be cautious and give them a little more time to see if the trend continues.

Here are a couple quotes by you that warrant some consideration:

Brion: I'd leave that up to the experts.

You'd have to ask the experts. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Dan

[ 03-10-2003, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

[Born to be Wild]

Diamondback,

What can I say?
graemlins/applause.gif graemlins/applause.gif graemlins/applause.gif graemlins/applause.gif

Sure glad you got tired of sitting back and reading.
You enlightened me!
I will still have an open ear and eyes to see, but I very much appreciate your time and imput on this matter.

Now, if you are well versed on the other two "H's" (Hatcheries & Havvest), I sure would like to hear your imput on them as well regarding the Tillamook basin.

Thanks!
graemlins/applause.gif :wink:

[ 03-10-2003, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

[SouthCoastStu]

Thanks Dan, it felt good to vent.

As far as hatcheries go, the juries still out for me. I've picked up a lot of new information this past year, some even from people on this board. I went to the big ODF&W meeting last winter in Tillamook, to show support for increasing fees to keep the hatcheries open. However, I have changed my opinion on hatcheries since then. I think it's time to ween ourselves off the hatchery *** and see what happens. Putting all those hatchery fry on top of the nate's can't have a good effect on the nate's survival rates. Look what's going on down here on the South Coast as compared to the North Coast. Only difference I can see is the sport fishing pressure. I'm sure this won't play well with a lot of people on this board, don't take it to seriously, it's just my opinion. Like I said though, the juries still out, I try to listen to what people have to say.

[BrionLutz]

Garyk,

Brion, my understanding is that the current Tillamook FMP, puts the forest on roughly a 50-year rotation. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I wouldn't doubt it...that would suit the timber industry. Perhaps GSA can answer that question.

A 50 year rotation for a forest with a 1,000 year cycle doesn't sound good. Baseline old growth per UC Davis Study of Douglas fir is 500 years (50m trees) with the oldest trees of 1,000 years (85m trees).

The Tahoe study (see links in previous messages) shows that once the old growth is wiped out, it can be hard to get it back as the ecology to support it is permanently damaged.

What's interesting in the Tahoe study is that a natural forest is about 50% old growth and 50% new growth, younger trees.

The salmon, wildlife and the watershed depend on the old growth forest ecology.

Has the rotation period under the proposed alternative been calculated? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yes. It puts 50% of the forest off limits and focuses 50% on salmon habitat protection. As you see from the numbers below, the timber industry still gets substantial profit from the public land.

The 10-year Implementation Plans (IPs) derived from the current ODF Forest Management Plan (FMP) project sustained harvests from the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests at levels even higher than those of 1999 and 2000. The IPs predict average annual harvest levels of 175 million board feet from the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests between 2001 and 2010, a 16.1 percent increase over the 151.6 million board feet average annual harvest in 1999 and 2000 (ODF 2002c). The fifty-percent reserve alternative management approach is predicted to result in harvest levels from the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests of 112.6 million board feet per year for the next twenty years – higher than average harvests before 1999, but below projections based on the current FMP. (http://www.tillamookrainforest.org/display.cgi?page=economics)

Brion

[BrionLutz]

Diamondback,

In addition many different user groups benefit from these roads: hunters, fishermen, OHV’s, hikers, hang gliders etc. If the harvest dollars go away, who will pay to maintain or vacate all the old roads? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The roads are bad for the watershed so maintinaing and increasing them to harvest the timber in a very aggressive manner (see the numbers) is bad for the salmon habitat.

Too boot, the harvest dollars are not "going away".

That seems to be lost on those who oppose the Tillamook Coalition plan though we see that misconnception repeated.

The 10-year Implementation Plans (IPs) derived from the current ODF Forest Management Plan (FMP) project sustained harvests from the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests at levels even higher than those of 1999 and 2000. The IPs predict average annual harvest levels of 175 million board feet from the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests between 2001 and 2010, a 16.1 percent increase over the 151.6 million board feet average annual harvest in 1999 and 2000 (ODF 2002c). The fifty-percent reserve alternative management approach is predicted to result in harvest levels from the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests of 112.6 million board feet per year for the next twenty years – higher than average harvests before 1999, but below projections based on the current FMP. (http://www.tillamookrainforest.org/display.cgi?page=economics)


These watersheds are in the best health they have been in for the last 50 years (thanks in large part to ODF), and will only get better with each passing decade.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That seems to make the Coalition's case doesn't it? Less logging equals better watershed. Logging always has a negative impact on fish, wildlife and watershed. Not even the logging "scientists" argue otherwise, they simply say it can be "minimal damage".

Before the burns, private timber companies owned most of the land. Once they salvaged what was economical, they walked away from it and the deeds fell to the County for failure to pay taxes. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Another good argument not to trust the timber companies regarding public good. One of the reasons that the timber industry is depending on the Tillamook forest is that poor management of the private land makes the Tillamook one of the few areas of mature growth timber. See the harvest percentage numbers showing increasing dependance on the Tillamook forest.

It just doesn't seem right to me that some people from outside the county think they can come along at this point and take half of what was once the counties away. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Then you'll be glad to know that it is a coalition of many Tillamook County businesses though that begs the question of it being a state forest and the salmon a state resource and national resource.

There isn’t any real science to the plan, it’s just someone else’s opinion on how the forest could be managed (or not). <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That doesn't seem to be accurate for two reasons. All the scientific evidence is that logging damages the salmon habitat. Even the timber industry admit that. Second, the economics are key and there are several non-ODF sources Here are two references just from the website.

<a href="http://www.tillamookrainforest.org/display.cgi?page=economics" target="_blank">One economic study focused on the Tillamook Bay Basin alone estimated that management of that watershed in a way that supported recovery of the salmon fishery to historical levels would generate $26.2 to $52.4 million dollars a year in annual benefits (Radtke and Davis 1997 pp. 26-29). This study also estimated that the annual economic return in salmon values to a mile of forest stream that is not damaged by timber harvest may be as high as $4,500 (Radtke and Davis 1997 p. 14).
</a>

A 1994-1995 survey of recreation use of Oregon State Forests by Oregon State University and the Oregon Department of Forestry estimated that the net economic value received by visitors to the forests was $128.11 per trip. Adjusting for inflation, this would be $151 per trip in 2002 dollars. The net economic value to hunters was even higher, $191 per trip. (http://www.tillamookrainforest.org/display.cgi?page=economics)

Will the RC Plan create stronger fish runs than the ODF Plan? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Less logging will always help the salmon habitat, again not even the logging industry claims logging helps the salmon only that the damage is "minimal".

It is certain that the County will get less revenue under the RC plan, and there will be fewer timber-based jobs in Tillamook County. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Again, the numbers suggest the opposite which is why so many businesses are coalition members.

Brion

[BrionLutz]

DepoeBayDan,

Brion, I would have to answer NO. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">But the NOAA Fisheries study said yes...those persnickety experts again &lt;grin&gt;. However, you did note that salmon referenced by GSA were doing good over the last 10 years. We do know that logging was greatly curtailed starting in the 1980s due to economics and then in the 1990's due to the Endangered Species.

Who knows what the connection is but, according to your timeline of 10 years, we do see a decline in logging and salmon not declining further in the same period.

As you note, lots of other factors so you would want to get with GSA on his examples and the many factors involved.

I explained to you that not one of those species that were downgraded to “endangered” had anything remotely to do with our coastal wild fish!!! <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I think that misses the point that none of the salmon on the list improved to get them off the list.

Another point missed is that logging, as bad as it is for the salmon habitat is not the only problem facing the salmon.

But you choose to take an endangered species and apply it to all wild fish and to promote your one sided agenda! <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">GSA brought up some specific salmon. I simply pointed out that none of the listed salmon has improved and some have declined. I believe GSA was arguing that logging had helped salmon recovery and there seems to be no evidence for this.

I notice you or anyone else twisting or stating wrongful facts regarding wild or hatchery fish, I will challenge you. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You go girl!! &lt;grin&gt;. I'm not sure that Tillamook Rainforest Coalition plan has anything to do with the hatchery/wild issue.

Brion

[BrionLutz]

GSA,

For the past 30 years I have witnessed...up close and personal...a steady parade of people with an unrelenting assault on the economic underpinnings of this state. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Timber has not been the underpinning of Oregon's economy for close to half a century. Consider also that salmon offer a much better, sustainable underpinning.

Even if the logging industry was allowed to go crazy, it would not change the economics.

On the other hand, if we work hard we can restore the salmon and that creates huge business and job creation.

According to Oregon Employment Department Covered Employment and Payroll data, 10.4 percent of the state’s 831,216 employees covered by unemployment insurance worked in wood productsindustries in 1976. Twenty-four years later, forest products industry operations employed only 3.5 percent of Oregon’s 1,607,911 workers. The decline in income and jobs in forest products industries occurred primarily in the wake of the deep recession of the early 1980s, even before the spotted owl controversies that drastically reduced the flow of timber from federal forest lands. The planned increases in timber harvests on state lands would not reverse that decline in the forest products industries. (http://www.tillamookrainforest.org/display.cgi?page=economics)

Brion

[SouthCoastStu]

The roads are bad for the watershed so maintinaing and increasing them to harvest the timber in a very aggressive manner (see the numbers) is bad for the salmon habitat. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I never said anything about increasing the number of roads (please pay attention :grin: ) I said the number of roads is being reduced. Those old roads don't just go away by themselves (maybe in your world :whazzup: ) As I stated before, the ODF Plan is not an agressive plan at all. It may suprise you but a lot of people like having those roads out there to recreate on, what happened to multiple use?

That seems to be lost on those who oppose the Tillamook Coalition plan though we see that misconnception repeated. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The only thing that is lost on me is how Tillamook county could let themselves get screwed out of a lot of revenue by the rest of the state (again). 175-112.6 MMbf X $200/Mbf (my estimate) = $12,480,000!!! That would go a long to upgrading schools in that county. Just because Tillamook county hasn't seen much revenue in the past doesn't mean they won't find something good to spend it on.


That seems to make the Coalition's case doesn't it? Less logging equals better watershed. Logging always has a negative impact on fish, wildlife and watershed. Not even the logging "scientists" argue otherwise, they simply say it can be "minimal damage". <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">It must be real simple in your little world Brion, let's just eliminate everything that has an impact on Salmon (fishing, gas engines, indoor plumbing etc., etc.). Nope, I stand by my statement that overall ODF has done a great job of taking care of these watersheds and should be given the benifit of the doubt over a bunch of nobody, johnny-come-latelys that think they know more than everyone else.


Another good argument not to trust the timber companies regarding public good. One of the reasons that the timber industry is depending on the Tillamook forest is that poor management of the private land makes the Tillamook one of the few areas of mature growth timber. See the harvest percentage numbers showing increasing dependance on the Tillamook forest.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I wouldn't want or expect you to trust anybody Brion, I don't think it's in your nature.

The reason the harvest numbers are increasing is because the timber is growing, not because of some evil plot of the timber industry.


Then you'll be glad to know that it is a coalition of many Tillamook County businesses though that begs the question of it being a state forest and the salmon a state resource and national resource. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Where were these people when the plan was being crafted? Did they express their concerns to their elected county officials?


That doesn't seem to be accurate for two reasons. All the scientific evidence is that logging damages the salmon habitat. Even the timber industry admit that. Second, the economics are key and there are several non-ODF sources Here are two references just from the website.

One economic study focused on the Tillamook Bay Basin alone estimated that management of that watershed in a way that supported recovery of the salmon fishery to historical levels would generate $26.2 to $52.4 million dollars a year in annual benefits (Radtke and Davis 1997 pp. 26-29). This study also estimated that the annual economic return in salmon values to a mile of forest stream that is not damaged by timber harvest may be as high as $4,500 (Radtke and Davis 1997 p. 14).


A 1994-1995 survey of recreation use of Oregon State Forests by Oregon State University and the Oregon Department of Forestry estimated that the net economic value received by visitors to the forests was $128.11 per trip. Adjusting for inflation, this would be $151 per trip in 2002 dollars. The net economic value to hunters was even higher, $191 per trip. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">First, the ODF Plan does propose to manage the watersheds in a way that supports recovery of the salmon fishery to historical levels.

Second, the second study you site was done by ODF & OSU. Which is really imaterial to my point, but you should pay attention graemlins/dork.gif The study doesn't say that the RC's plan will generate this while ODF's plan will not, both/either plan has an equal chance of generating these revenues.


Less logging will always help the salmon habitat, again not even the logging industry claims logging helps the salmon only that the damage is "minimal". <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Simple arguments for simple minds.......

Again, the numbers suggest the opposite which is why so many businesses are coalition members. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Do you sell snake oil in real life? What numbers? What percent of business owners in Tillamook County are behind your plan?

I hope for the sake of the people of Tillamook County, your the best pitch man the Rainbow Coalition has got going.

[rebell]

DiamondBack,

Thank you very much for stepping forward. Your posts nail this issue on the head.

Brion, you may have fooled the Tillamook Guides Assoc. But that's not saying much. graemlins/dork.gif

[Born to be Wild]

Brion, I would have to answer NO.
Looking at the wild coho numbers on the chart, it is clear that these fish were doing great from 1955 through 1971 or 1973.
In the mid 70's when they introduced fry & smolt gobbling largemouth bass and crappie, it is also obvious they (wild coho) took a major nose dive at that time.
Then in the early 80's, they started coming back again and in the 90's, they had healthy numbers throughout. (Even through the El 'Nino years).
So, if they were in great (the wild coho that GSA mentioned) shape from 1955 - 1971 or '73, was that prior to logging? I was under the assumption that logging in Oregon started well before that time period.
I think again that is some proof what the lack of hatcheries can do for us! That's the only correlation I see between the success of these fish and logging. In other words, notta. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Go back in read bud!
You never answered my question! I took you back all the way to 1955 before you were even born.
So, if they were in great shape (the wild coho that GSA mentioned) from 1955 - 1971 or '73, was that prior to logging? I was under the assumption that logging in Oregon started well before that time period.

Who knows what the connection is but, according to your timeline of 10 years, we do see a decline in logging and salmon not declining further in the same period. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">"Who knows what the connection is but"
But, but...
Either you are blind in one eye and can’t see out the other…
Go back in read bud!

I took you back to 1955 and through ’71 or ’73. That’s an additional 16-18 years!
I explained what happened in the mid 70’s when they introduced foreign freshwater bass and crappie.
I suppose you will tell me next that was done by the timber industry?

I think that misses the point that none of the salmon on the list improved to get them off the list. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">No Brion, you missed the point(s) again and continue to do so.
You are brainwashed.

Another point missed is that logging, as bad as it is for the salmon habitat is not the only problem facing the salmon. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Bravo! You finally made a statement that has some logic.
But how bad is that current logging to our salmon habitat?
But, I would like for you to answer that with your personal expertise and training, and experience. Not some propaganda book or website. Anybody can do that from either side of the issue!
I think we should do a poll of how many folks are tired of seeing this thread cluttered up with green letters from your propaganda site.

I simply pointed out that none of the listed salmon has improved and some have declined. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">This is an inaccurate statement and very deceiving. Most of the OCN’s have improved by leaps and bounds. You said none have improved.

I guess it shows again how closed minded you are and your lack of knowledge of what is really going on!
Look what it really says Brion:

Lohn said four other populations showed improvement , though not enough to change their status: upper Columbia River spring chinook, Oregon coast coho, upper Columbia river steelhead, mid-Columbia River steelhead and upper Willamette River steelhead. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Now, that comes from your NOAA “experts” that you so much like to point out.
I think it says “showed some improvement”, which I consider an understatement!
Big difference between your “ none of the listed salmon has improved”, and the experts quote; “Lohn said four other populations showed improvement ”.

Maybe you might want to consider skiing vs. logging for a thread where you have more expertise?

You go girl!! &lt;grin&gt;. I'm not sure that Tillamook Rainforest Coalition plan has anything to do with the hatchery/wild issue. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well, maybe the Rainforest Coalition should take a look at the very complex salmonid issue and realize there is more to the issue than going out and picking some organic mushrooms? &lt;grin&gt;

Last but not least, maybe the Rainforest Coalition and you should consider opening a “natural” store featuring plastic TP, tooth picks, houses, kitchen cupboards, and the “like”.

Dan

[ 03-10-2003, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

[BrionLutz]

Diamondback,

I said the number of roads is being reduced. Those old roads don't just go away by themselves (maybe in your world). <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yes...we know what you said but the increased pace of logging in the Tillamook forest has the opposite effect. I don't see the Tillamook Coalition lobbying to stop any road deconstruction. Logging, on the other hand, requires roads.

As I stated before, the ODF Plan is not an agressive plan at all. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">As the ODF's own stats show, it is very aggressive logging plan so you seem at conflict with the ODF.


By 1999 and 2000 harvest volumes on the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests more than doubled in size relative to the first half of the 1990s. The share of harvests on state lands in the total state harvest amounted to 6.6 percent. Locally, in Clatsop and Tillamook Counties timber harvests from state lands comprise a considerably higher share of total harvests. Between 1980 and 1996, timber harvests from state lands in Clatsop and Tillamook Counties made up 21.6 percent of total harvests in those counties. In 1997 and 1998 harvests from state lands constituted 25.4 percent of the total in those counties, and, by 1999 and 2000, that share had grown to 36.5 percent as the harvest from state lands swelled. The current management plan, approved by the Board of Forestry in January 2001, envisions a continued aggressive increase in timber harvest volumes on the forest. (http://www.tillamookrainforest.org/display.cgi?page=economics)

It may suprise you but a lot of people like having those roads out there to recreate on, what happened to multiple use? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">A lot more people like to fish for salmon and the roads kill off the forest and the salmon.

Forests don't have roads. For folks who enjoy roads, there would seem to be lot of places they can enjoy them.

Just because Tillamook county hasn't seen much revenue in the past doesn't mean they won't find something good to spend it on.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Tillamook will see quite a bit of revenue so that is a non-argument. The question is whether other, more valuable, more sustainable long term revenue sources will be sacraficed for the short-term and one shot timber industry.

As the economics notes, logging is a losing enterprise and the economic growth is in forest as habitat and watershed.

Nope, I stand by my statement that overall ODF has done a great job of taking care of these watersheds and should be given the benifit of the doubt over a bunch of nobody, johnny-come-latelys that think they know more than everyone else. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">And you are entitled to your opinion but the science and economics are against you.

Regarding the "bunch of nobody, johnny-come latelys", GSA tried the "naturalized Oregonian" theme previously...it didn't work too well for him but you are free to give it a go &lt;grin&gt;. Keep in mind Oregon is currently over 50% "immigrant"...it's always been an "immigrant" "Johnny come lately" state.

Interestingly, 70 years ago, most of the loggers were the "bunch of nobody, johnny-come latelys", here for quick buck.

The reason the harvest numbers are increasing is because the timber is growing, not because of some evil plot of the timber industry.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Apparently good timber is hard to find. Considering State forests are such a small portion of the Oregon forests, it seems odd that only on state land do we find the well valuable trees.

That's why the stats show the Tillamook harvest being such a large percentage of the logging.


Where were these people when the plan was being crafted? Did they express their concerns to their elected county officials? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Eyup. But the logging industry had a lot of money from looting the forests and had a lot of political power.

A lot has changed since the forest burned down 70 years ago.

The science has changed a lot. The economy has changed a lot.

I hope for the sake of the people of Tillamook County, your the best pitch man the Rainbow Coalition has got going. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That would be one of those "bunch of nobody, johnny-come latelys".


Guido Rahr III
Chair of the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition and President of the Wild Salmon Center.

Mr. Rahr is a 5th generation Oregonian and an avid fly fisherman. He earned a Masters of Environmental Studies from Yale University and has over 18 years experience working for regional and international conservation organizations, including Conservation International and Oregon Trout, where his work won the President’s Fisheries Conservation Award from the American Fisheries Society. Mr. Rahr has published articles on salmon and river conservation in both scientific and popular literature.

You probably should start with this document:

Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests: Scientific Rationale for the 50-50 Management Strategy- MS Word, 50 kb (http://www.tillamookrainforest.org/display.cgi?page=documents)

Brion

[BrionLutz]

DepoeBayDan,

Go back in read bud!
You never answered my question! I took you back all the way to 1955 before you were even born.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You probably need to look at your original quote which is what I responded to.

Brion these wild coho that GSA was referring to have been holding there own for 10 years now. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I think 10 years ago was 1993 not 1955.

But, I would like for you to answer that with your personal expertise and training, and experience. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Best to stick to expert opinions and the science vs. personal anecdotes.

Sorry you didn't like the facts and figures.

I love'em. Here are some more.

In Saving Nature’s Legacy (Island Press, 1994) Noss and Allen Cooperrider of the University of Oregon suggest that 50% of a region’s land area, properly managed and interconnected, can credibly represent all major vegetation types, maintain viable populations of large predators, and retain some landscapes in which natural disturbance regimes can operate unimpeded. In their case study of Oregon’s Coast Range, the authors observe that 96% of Oregon’s coastal rainforest has been logged, and many endemic species are threatened or already extinct. Based on criteria including known population of threatened species (spotted owls, marbled murrelets, salmon), old growth forest, roadless areas, watersheds, and landform connectivity, they conclude that managing around 50% of the Coast Range for conservation, in addition to Multiple-Use Buffer Zones, would enable the long-term sustaining and restoration of native species. (pp. 120-128) (http://www.tillamookrainforest.org/display.cgi?page=documents)

Well, maybe the Rainforest Coalition should take a look at the very complex salmonid issue and realize there is more to the issue than going out and picking some organic mushrooms? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Maybe.

Brion

[ 03-10-2003, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]

[BrionLutz]

DepoeBayDan,

I think we should do a poll of how many folks are tired of seeing this thread cluttered up with green letters from your propaganda site. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Hmmm...the "green letters" are links with facts and figures.

The "propaganda" site is the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition website.

This thread is about their proposal and the fear and loathing it has generated in some quarters.

Seems appropriate that someone is posting the actual source, though no doubt many might share your perspective that it would be best not to read the actual position of what they blindly oppose.

It's odd that anyone who likes to fish for salmon would oppose the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition plan since it would be a big plus for the salmon in that watershed.

Brion

[BrionLutz]

Rebell,

Brion, you may have fooled the Tillamook Guides Assoc. But that's not saying much. dork <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I think you have it a bit backwards. The Tillamook Guides Association and Northwest Sportsfishing Industry Association support the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition.

It was their support that made me take a look at what the Coalition advocated as far as working to restore the salmon in the Tillamook watershed.

Buzz Ramsey is the head of the NSIA, Luhr-Jensen, GI Joes, Fisherman's and others are some of the members.

They seem to believe that what the Coalition is advocating is good for the salmon.

I believe that Don Swartz, retired ODFW Biologist is the science advisor for the Northwest Sportsfishing Industry Association.

As I mentioned to DepoeBayDan, after looking at all the facts and figures and who supports it, it's hard to understand why any salmon fisherman would not support what the Coalition is trying to do.

I think most of the emotional opposition you see posted here is from folks associated with the lumber industry.

Brion

[Straydog]

Originally posted by DepoeBayDan:
"I was under the assumption that logging in Oregon started well before that time period."

Dan, you might want to find out when logging starting in the watesheds in question. Oregon is a pretty big state. Just because it started in the state earlier dosen't mean it started there earlier.

"But, I would like for you to answer that with your personal expertise and training, and experience. Not some propaganda book or website. Anybody can do that from either side of the issue!"

Coming from a guy who has told us he has no personal knowledge of the timber industry, you are asking a lot from one that has admited the same. Other than a few phone calls to a couple of biologists, I haven't seen a lot of data put forth by you. At least Brion is offering some sources of data. Appears to me you don't even know when logging started in the Watershed you are arguing for. :whazzup:

"I think we should do a poll of how many folks are tired of seeing this thread cluttered up with green letters from your propaganda site."

Getting a little over the top, "Bud"!
My vote is that I am glad Brion is offering some background and source for his opinion.

You would do well to follow his lead. :wink:

[ 03-10-2003, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[garyk]

Diamondback said - "while a State Forest, is really a County Forest managed in trust by the State."

You might be interested to know that this point has been litigated and this position was soundly rejected by the Oregon courts. While this falsehood is repeated by certain Tillamook political interests to advance their position, the fact is this forest belongs to the people of Oregon - not Tillamook County.

Also, regarding Tillamook's professed entitlement to this forest, many folks will likely be surprised to know that Tillamook County voters REJECTED the state bonding measure (which the rest of the state passed) to raise funds for re-forestation.

If were gonna bring up history - let's be accurate.

Regarding habitat conditions. 50 years ago, the rivers had a lot more logs and complexity. This has been lost. Saying the rivers have better habitat now, ignores previous conditions.

Finally, regarding roads. Lots of public access can be had at a density of less than 4-5 miles of road per square mile of forest, which is the average road density per ODF.

[Born to be Wild]

Brion, you are proving yourself “bull headed” or ignorant!
I suspect, brain washed.
Please answer the question:

You never answered my question! I took you back all the way to 1955 before you were even born.

"That’s an additional 16-18 years!
So, if they were in great shape (the wild coho that GSA mentioned) from 1955 - 1971 or '73, was that prior to logging?" <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica"> <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">So, I gave you a total of 26-28 years that the wild coho down south were doing great!
Simple question!
Yes or no!
As Adlai Stevenson said to the Russians during the Cuban Missile Crisis; Yes or No?
Do you speak or type English?
No comprende?
I'm prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over!!!

"As I mentioned to DepoeBayDan, after looking at all the facts and figures and who supports it, it's hard to understand why any salmon fisherman would not support what the Coalition is trying to do."<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brion, let me send you a couple cult books and ask you the same question; it's hard to understand why any… would not support what the ... is trying to do.

Sorry you didn't like the facts and figures. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brion, maybe you don’t realize it, but I have proven you and your “facts & figures" wrong time and time again.

You are rambling on with a bunch of gibberish!
I’m getting e-mails saying you are a lost cause, and folks are avoiding this thread because they are tired of debating your non-sence!

You don’t appear to be an “expert” what so ever on any of this matter, so, you are turning folks away!

You and your cohorts are on the loosing side of a battle, but you keep on wasting peoples time and kilobytes!
If you were productive, I would listen and debate you more.
But as I said, it's hopeless.

I wouldn't waste my valuable time with you, except, I don't want folks out there recieving BS from you and possibly being "brain washed" by your inaccurate compilation of twisted facts and "Brion" statements!

Dan

[ 03-11-2003, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

[Born to be Wild]

Dan, you might want to find out when logging starting in the watersheds in question. Oregon is a pretty big state. Just because it started in the state earlier doesn’t mean it started there earlier.

"But, I would like for you to answer that with your personal expertise and training, and experience. Not some propaganda book or website. Anybody can do that from either side of the issue!" <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I have answered Brion on many occasions with facts and questions, but he refuses to answer them, or allude to some other propaganda of his.

I don’t know much about logging and there practices. But, I would be willing to bet that there was logging going on in the areas that I referred to well before and during the strong runs of wild coho: 1955-1971.
If I am wrong, I am wrong!
If I am right, then Brion’s assumptions are wrong!

Something you tend to overlook Straydog, is our Chinook runs are doing great with logging!
Tillamook, that is questionable?
But, the question I asked and was not answered from the beginning of this thread, are you possibly pointing the fingers in the wrong direction?

I now change my stance and think if there are any problems in the Tillamook area, they are hatchery related!
As Diamondback said what he has learned in the last year:

I went to the big ODF&W meeting last winter in Tillamook, to show support for increasing fees to keep the hatcheries open. However, I have changed my opinion on hatcheries since then. I think it's time to wean ourselves off the hatchery *** and see what happens. Putting all those hatchery fry on top of the nate's can't have a good effect on the nate's survival rates. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">How come almost every scientist or fisherman come to the same conclusions; that hatcheries are detrimental to our wild fish? (That includes our fisheries).

Your motives reflect the sport fishing industry, but how come you decide that the evidence to there demise is not hatcheries and try and point a finger elsewhere? It just sounds biased to me. Not willing to give up the hatchery fish that might be causing the Tillamook problem, but willing to give up someone elses timber jobs.

We don’t have hatchery Chinook in my area and the Chinook fishery continues on an incline!
I know some of the “hatchery enthusiast” don’t want to here that, but, that’s the facts!

Coming from a guy who has told us he has no personal knowledge of the timber industry, you are asking a lot from one that has admitted the same. Other than a few phone calls to a couple of biologists, I haven't seen a lot of data put forth by you. At least Brion is offering some sources of data.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I’ve put forth a lot of data! The facts! Brion puts forth a lot of misconstrued data from the other sources.
You read back and I challenge you to find any inaccuracies from the data I provided! I have it right in front of me. It is up to date and accurate! What about this BS that Brion keeps bringing up?
Is it up to date?
And, I might add, it is “propaganda” from some organization that he chooses to promote!
He has absolutely no expertise in anything to do with timber or fish biology!
He is simply reading out of a book!

The fact still remains the same Straydog, he can’t or refuses to answer a simple self incriminating question; how come the coastal wild coho did so well and are rebounding with logging going on!

If he ever attempts to answer the question, he will again side-step or allude to his BS propaganda tactics!

I state the facts regarding the issues, and don’t twist them around like Brion does and insinuate miss beliefs.

I feel you are defending him because of your motives?
What are your motives?
Sell more sporting goods?
A member of NSIA?

And yet you seem to be asking the timber tradesmen to give up there livelihood and family welfare, so you can sell more sporting goods?
Sorry! I don't sell my soul to the mighty buck!
I fight for what I feel is right! Not what sells and puts more bucks in my pocket!

As Mooseturd and Diamondback have basically stated; wean us off the devastating hatcheries; and go from there.

You might find this to be the right answer?

[ 03-11-2003, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

[Straydog]

Originally posted by DepoeBayDan:
[qb] [QUOTE]

Something you tend to overlook Straydog, is our Chinook runs are doing great with logging!

The Rogue River Springer run is over 85% hatchery fish. We will likely go to catch and release of wild fish next season. The Columbia is mostly hatchery fish. What ARE you talking about?

I now change my stance and think if there are any problems in the Tillamook area, they are hatchery related!

Wow, one guy backs your prefered stance and you jump on board. I certainly hope you are a better salesman than you are a buyer.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">"How come almost every scientist or fisherman come to the same conclusions; that hatcheries are detrimental to our wild fish? (That includes our fisheries)."

On this board, in emails and in phone conversations we have agreed that there are circumstances in which hatcheries are essential if we are to have fisheries. You have agreed in the past, beer change your mind?


"I think we should do a poll of how many folks are tired of seeing this thread cluttered up with green letters from your propaganda site." <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">OK, Straydog, you crossed the line! This was inappropriate!"

UUhh, Dan, that was your quote and yes, I too think it crosses the line, as I said.

"And yet you seem to be asking the timber tradesmen to give up there livelihood and family welfare, so you can sell more sporting goods?
Sorry! I don't sell my soul to the mighty buck!
I fight for what is right! Not what sells and puts more bucks in my pocket!"

No, you sell your soul to the mighty beer. You need help Dan.

Your replies are so rambling and jump topic so much it is very difficult to communicate with you.

However, please know that I am indeed fighting for the industry I so love and do indeed depend on for my livilhood. Funny, in all the years I watched and lived it going down the tubes, I didn't see the timber industry, the ag. industry, the developers or the polluters giving a rip about it so was so audacious as to try to do something about it myself. With time I was introduced to this group you want to refer to as a 'cult', NSIA. (I find that more than a little offensive, Dan.)

This 'cult' has done more good for our industry and our recreational opportunities than any one person I have ever met and it is with pride that I will continue, with other leaders of our industry, to work for the betterment of our industry.

Dan, my suggestion is that you take your own advice and stay off of this board until you can get a grip on your personal struggles. You are really, really making it difficult on yourself if you ever truly want to be heard as a viable player in the politics and industry of fish and fishing.

Know too that by touting your friendships and relationships with others in the industry, what you say and how you say it reflects on us all. Please leave my name off your list of names to throw around.

[ 03-11-2003, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Jerry Dove]

Garyk: Did you know that the people of Tillamook County are paying back the state for the loan to reforest the Tillamook. You need to make sure you have your facts straight. Jerry

[garyk]

Jerry Dove: Yes, because the people of Tillamook are citizens of the state of Oregon, they contributed to paying back the general obligation bonds - the same as citizens across the state did.

The fact is, Tillamook citizens back then opposed the reforestation bond measure and it failed in Tillamook County - a historical fact that folks are uncomfortable with today.

[BrionLutz]

DepoeBayDan,

Brion, you are proving yourself “bull headed” or ignorant! I suspect, brain washed. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Because I've quoted the economic and scientific background material from the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition website?

Because I see groups like Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association and Tillamook Guides and The Wild Salmon Center (http://www.wildsalmoncenter.org/) supporting the Coalition?

Because, after reading the facts and figures that the Coalition has assembled, it looks like a good plan?

Because the opponents reply with vehemence and emotion but fail to address the facts and figures?

Brion, let me send you a couple cult books and ask you the same question...<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The timber industry supported Forest Protection Act &lt;grin&gt;?

I’m getting e-mails saying you are a lost cause, and folks are avoiding this thread because they are tired of debating your non-sence!<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Ah yes...the "silent majority" theme where those who don't speak up publicly can be categorized to suit one's purposes. It's what folks are willing to say publicly that counts.

I don't want folks out there recieving BS from you and possibly being "brain washed" by your inaccurate compilation of twisted facts and "Brion" statements! <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">1. The "twisted facts" and "BS" are from the various sources assembled by the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition.

2. It might be more productive if you addressed the specific facts and figures that the Coalition has used to back it's position vs. the hyperventilated verbiage.

The most salmon friendly thing we could do would be to ban all logging from all the public lands. Considering state forest are only 3% of Oregon forests, that would seem modest and prudent.

The Rainforest Coalition has an even more modest plan that seems very reaonable and helps the salmon.

The Tillamook Rainforest Coalition proposal for Oregon’s Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests specifies that 50% of the land should be managed primarily for healthy fish and wildlife, recreation and clean water, while 50% would be managed under the Oregon Department of Forestry’s existing Northwest Oregon State Forests Management Plan (January 2001). This would represent a significant improvement in environmental protection over the Department of Forestry proposal to log over 85% of the rainforest through “structure based management.” (http://www.tillamookrainforest.org/documents/5050rationale.doc)

You and your cohorts are on the loosing side of a battle, but you keep on wasting peoples time and kilobytes! <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Win or lose, fighting for salmon restoration is the right thing to do.

Every pro-salmon fishing group seems to support the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition plan. Are you correct and they are all "brainwashed", "bullheaded" and "ignorant"? Could there be another explanation for their support for the Tillamook Coalition's plan?

Brion

[garyk]

Ouch!

I hate to see folks who are passionate about salmon at each others throats, especially when I figure that when it all settles out there's probably agreement on about 75% or more.

Perhaps a new direction to take here would be to ennunciate what your vision of the Tillamook State Forest in the future is?

If you had your way, what would the future forest and its rivers look like? How is revenue generated? How much logging, if any, is done and where, and how? Are there roadless areas offering a quiet, wilderness-type experience? How are the salmon populations doing? How many people use the forest, doing what?

A promising vision of the Tillamook, one that respects the various needs while also sustaining a very high level of biological functioning, will unite the people.

So, what does your future view look like?

[BrionLutz]

Garyk,

If you had your way, what would the future forest and its rivers look like? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Personally, with just 3% of Oregon forests being State forests, it seems reasonable to use them as reserves for fish, wildlife and watershed.

How is revenue generated? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Salmon industry has been and can be huge in so many ways, commerical and sportfishing. When I was buying my boat, the mfg.s mentioned how when fishing was hot and getting a lot of press it helped their sales tremendously. That's aluminum industry, engine mfg, jet drive mfgs, service shops, sporting goods, electronics, fishing gear, real estate, marinas.

The beauty of the salmon is that they are sustainable without having a negative impact on other industries.

The RAND study on the economic effects of increasing the salmon by 3 million (taking out the Snake River dams) is an eye opener. (http://www.removedams.org/about/RANDreview.cfm)

The net economic impact in Idaho, Washington and Oregon is estimated at adding over $230M to the economies just from recreation, retail, restaurants and real estate.

The wild salmon as a food industry is huge, particularly with increase in demand for "organic" food and the supply world wide goes down.

Recreation shouldn't be overlooked as a huge industry which impacts mfg (tents, RV's, trailers, etc.) as well as the retail aspect (restaurants, hotels, gas stations, cars, trucks).

The energy industry aspect of promoting the salmon was another big item mentioned by RAND. They show it adding 15,000 jobs in the Pacific Northwest. We had that Danish wind energy company about to add 1200 mfg. jobs in Oregon as an example.

When selling Oregon as a location for new industry or expansion of existing, high end employers need to find attractive areas. When Intel recruits, coming to a Oregon is a plus. The sales pitch is unspoiled natural resources, hunting, fishing, camping.

Recently driving down I-5 to CA and then back up via 395-44-89, the clear cut logging is a shock to see. That has a huge negative impact. No one wants to do any recreation in a patchy forest or even a "new growth" forest. The draw is the old growth forests which also help the salmon.

I find the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition plan not aggressive enough in pushing the salmon, recreation and watershed interests but it certainly seems a reasonable compromise with solid economic stats to back its proposals.

Brion

[ 03-11-2003, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]

[Born to be Wild]

Thanks garyk,

I think everybody knows by now what Brion would like to see. As far as some of your other points; "How are the salmon populations doing?"
I pointed that out in my last reply. Take a look at that graph. If it hadn't been in pdf format, I would have copied/pasted it. Maybe I will go back and see if they offer it in html format and post it. Sometimes they offer both.

"A promising vision of the Tillamook, one that respects the various needs while also sustaining a very high level of biological functioning, will unite the people." <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Very well said. I believe that statement means "compromise".

"So, what does your future view look like?"

I will be able to elaborate on that more after the tour.

Brion,
"The beauty of the salmon is that they are sustainable without having a negative impact on other industries." <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brion, seems your ideas of sustainable do have a negative impact on other industries. Namely the timber and timber related industries.

"When I was buying my boat, the mfg.s mentioned how when fishing was hot and getting a lot of press it helped their sales tremendously. That's aluminum industry, engine mfg, jet drive mfgs, service shops, sporting goods, electronics, fishing gear, real estate, marinas." <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Sounds like exploitation to me. I don't feel we need to exploit these already over crowded fisheries myself.

Recreation shouldn't be overlooked as a huge industry which impacts mfg (tents, RV's, trailers, etc.) as well as the retail aspect (restaurants, hotels, gas stations, cars, trucks).

"The energy industry aspect of promoting the salmon was another big item mentioned by RAND. They show it adding 15,000 jobs in the Pacific Northwest. We had that Danish wind energy company about to add 1200 mfg. jobs in Oregon as an example." <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">And how many more fishermen do you propose we "promote" to our already over crowded fisheries? I don't avoid fishing Tillamook for the lack of fish, but because of the abundance of fishermen.

"When selling Oregon as a location for new industry or expansion of existing, high end employers need to find attractive areas. When Intel recruits, coming to a Oregon is a plus. The sales pitch is unspoiled natural resources, hunting, fishing, camping." <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Selling, unspoiled? You ever try to get in Barview county campground during salmon season?

"I find the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition plan not aggressive enough in pushing the salmon, recreation and watershed interests but it certainly seems a reasonable compromise with solid economic stats to back its proposals." <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yea Brion, we need more aggressive pushing...
You might have the rainfoest coalition add a few more rocks to the streamside for fishermen to stand on.

1. The "twisted facts" and "BS" are from the various sources assembled by the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition.

2. It might be more productive if you addressed the specific facts and figures that the Coalition has used to back its position vs. the hyperventilated verbiage. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brion, I was referring to the twisting of facts and assumptions you get from newspaper articles quoting NOAA and other sources regarding fish issues. These weren't assembled by the rainforest coalition. These were assembled by you and used to deceive and promote your agenda. I did address specific facts several times, but when you get cornered, you have a way of side stepping the issue.

Because I've quoted the economic and scientific background material from the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition website? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Nope! Because you used other sources inappropriately and your own .02 cents. Then when you get called on it, you elude to saying; ask the experts" or "leave it to the experts"

Because I see groups like Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association and Tillamook Guides and The Wild Salmon Center supporting the Coalition? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I disagree with them at this time. I believe they would be better off by eliminating a couple hatchery positions instead of possibly needlessly eliminating perhaps hundreds of timber related jobs.

Every pro-salmon fishing group seems to support the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition plan. Are you correct and they are all "brainwashed", "bullheaded" and "ignorant"? Could there be another explanation for their support for the Tillamook Coalition's plan? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yes Brion, it's called exploitation. I suppose that's alright if they are targeting the right problem, but I talk with a lot of people off this site that don't believe so. And some of them are scientist. You have a land line and cell. Perhaps you might look into this issue from the direct sources and not base all your beliefs on the rainforest coalition. Also, I was not calling or referring to these other groups as being bull headed...
I was referring to you. Another way of you twisting things around! If you represent what the rainforest coalition is all about, I want no part of it. I have worn out my mouse on this and other threads attempting to show you where you were wrong, but it is like talking to a brick wall!
I won't waste anymore time refuting you. If you have anything more to say, you might just e-mail me. I will not respond to you on this thread anymore.

Well, I’m finished with this thread. I made my point(s), some good and some bad. I’ll base my decisions on this coalition issue after I see both sides of the issue on the tour.
Hope you all will look at the ODFW chart that I posted the URL for and take into consideration what is happening with the non hatchery rivers and with the hatchery rivers it shows. Coincidence? Maybe. But according to all the science I’ve been reading the past several years, I have my suspicions.

And yes Straydog, I don't make a good salesman. As I stated in an e-mail to you a while back, I had a conflict of interest working at a sporting goods store last year selling the large numbers of sturgeon rods and reels and have asked folks, how do they (sturgeon) stand a chance. Then you get caught between a rock and a hard place, and are obligated to send fishermen to a place to catch fish. So where do you send them? To the already over crowded hole, or to the yet unspoiled spot.
I've been offered the job back, but its too hard on me the guy who used to live to fish, so I turned it down. I've been in this trade too long. I've seen the greed between sport vs. sport, sport vs. commercial, sport vs. charter, sport vs. guides, charter vs charter, sport bashing ODFW & WDFW, and the list could go on.
Oh yea, lets not forget; sport vs logging. It hasn't been pretty. Time for me to bail.

Dan

[garyk]

Thanks DepoeBayDan,

Just for clarification, I was not asking about the current status of the salmon populations - I live there during fall chinook season and am fairly informed.

Rather, I was asking - in YOUR vision of the future Tillamook, how would they be doing? Along with all those other aspects?

[BrionLutz]

DepoeBayDan,

BrionLutz; Every pro-salmon fishing group seems to support the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition plan. Are you correct and they are all "brainwashed", "bullheaded" and "ignorant"? Could there be another explanation for their support for the Tillamook Coalition's plan? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica"> Yes Brion, it's called exploitation. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Sorry I don't get your point.

The Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, Tillamook Guides, et al are "exploiting" the Tillamook forest by preserving 50% of it so everyone can use it but the timber industry, by cutting down 85% of it for personal profit and killing off the other industries are not "exploiting" it?

Brion, seems your ideas of sustainable do have a negative impact on other industries. Namely the timber and timber related industries.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Chopping down the trees kills the forest, the wildlife, the fish and the watershed.

Conversely, the wildlife, fish and watershed don't kill the forest.

This is why the fish, wildlife and watershed are sustainable and the timber industry is not.

Ask yourself why, with just 3% of forests in Oregon state forests, the timber industry even needs the Tillamook Forest?

I don't feel we need to exploit these already over crowded fisheries myself.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">But we should exploit the overcut forest? That's a bit contradictory.

As for the fisheries being overcrowded, that's looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

The fisheries are depleted for historic numbers due to logging, dams, development, agriculture, etc.

The fisheries and forests can be restored.

I disagree with them at this time. I believe they would be better off by eliminating a couple hatchery positions instead of possibly needlessly eliminating perhaps hundreds of timber related jobs. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The Tillamook forest is essential to rehabilitating the salmon habitat. You could eliminate all the hatcheries but if you don't restore and protect the salmon habitat the salmon are gone.

BrionLutz: As one of the confessed ultra greens (not to be confused with Ugly Green's &lt;grin&gt;), my idea of restoration is 18 million native salmon up the Columbia system each year.

DepoeBayDan: I'm not going back and search the archives where he has said restoring salmonids to historical records, but I think he is living in a fantasy world. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Up to 15 million wild salmon and steelhead once entered the Columbia River. Now, only several hundred thousand wild fish return annually. All Snake River salmon and steelhead and several Columbia River stocks are either on the Endangered Species list or proposed for listing. (http://www.wildsalmon.org/about/questions.htm)

Sue me for the missing 3 million...they were a fantasy &lt;grin&gt;.

Brion

[ 03-11-2003, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]

[Jerry Dove]

I hope you guys do not drive people away from the tour with all your going back and forth. Why don't we just all go on the tour and then go from there. OK. thanks Jerry

[Jerry Dove]

I hope you guys do not drive people away from the tour with all your going back and forth. Why don't we just all go on the tour and then go from there. OK. thanks Jerry

[norms gone fishing too]

Originally posted by jerry dove:
I hope you guys do not drive people away from the tour with all your going back and forth. Why don't we just all go on the tour and then go from there. OK. thanks Jerry <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">well said i thought this was to be a fun and informative day was thinking of bringing my grilfreind from tex who my be up here that weekend

[BrionLutz]

Jerry,

I hope you guys do not drive people away from the tour with all your going back and forth. Why don't we just all go on the tour and then go from there. OK. thanks Jerry <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Are you kidding?!

After all this PR, it should look like a scene from Braveheart.

Brion

[Born to be Wild]

The Rogue River Springer run is over 85% hatchery fish. We will likely go to catch and release of wild fish next season. The Columbia is mostly hatchery fish. What ARE you talking about?
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">We are talking about Tillamook Rivers. I was comparing them with close-by coastal rivers that don't share the same problems (lack of fish).
The Rogue has dams. The Columbia has dams and gill netters. You can't compare them with the Tillamook Rivers. That's like comparing apples and oranges. Your right, the Columbia has mostly hatchery fish. The Columbia also has "endangered" fish including the newly listed endangered lower Columbia wild coho. We don't have any "endangered" fish here on the coast that I am aware of. And we do have logging.

Wow, one guy backs your prefered stance and you jump on board. I certainly hope you are a better salesman than you are a buyer. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well actually if you go back in the archives of this thread, you will see I made a point of that asking if maybe hatcheries are the blame and maybe not the logging.

Posted 2/16/2003 on the "questions for NSIA members" thread (where this originally started).

Maybe your focus isn't on the largest factor of the decline of these wild fish? And yet you said you will be fighting for a well documented problem for wild fish, "Hatcheries"!

Maybe I'm off base here, but we have real healthy Chinook runs in my neighborhood and the wild Coho are rebounding beyond expectations and we probably have just as much if not more logging going on, but the thing we don't share in common with the Tillamook area, we don't have massive hatchery supplementation.

I don't have expertise on modern logging practices, but feel if it is done right, it is nowhere as destructive on wild fish as hatcherie's are? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I believe I brought that question up several times but no one chose to address it. So, you see, it amounted to more than just one guy. I brought up Mooseturd's name because of what he said on this issue on the "Would you support a limited wild steelhead harvest?" thread.

I also found an interesting graph while searching the ODFW site last night. You might want to take a look at it!
http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/ODFW/spawn/pdf%20files/reports/01-02%20final%20draft.pdf

Go to page 25. Look at the trends of the Siuslaw, Alsea, and Siletz. Pretty impressive. Then notice the graph and what it says about the Tillamook-Nestucca. Not impressive. This is a 15 year trend (1986-2001).
It just so happens that the Tillamook-Nestucca that have been on this downward trend for 15 years are the only two out of the five that have hatchery chinook.
All five rivers have logging going on. I would suspect that Tillamook area has better logging practices than the Alsea, Siuslaw and Siletz, yet they are inclining and Tillamook is declining.

So what's the real culprit of the 3 H's on the two rivers 40 and 60 miles north of me? Habitat? Hatcheries? Or Harvest?

With all this science, it looks to me you can rule out logging as being the demise of the wild chinook populations in the Tillamook-Nestucca basins.

I myself would take a hard look at the hatchery issue before I make a push to put forestry/timber people out of work.

On this board, in emails and in phone conversations we have agreed that there are circumstances in which hatcheries are essential if we are to have fisheries. You have agreed in the past, beer change your mind? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I agree that there are circumstances in which hatcheries are essential. Take the north fork of the Lewis for example. It has a series of dams on it and very little spawning habitat available for wild coho. They have my vote to keep stocking very large numbers of hatchery coho to provide a good fishery for the ocean, buoy 10, the Columbia, and the Lewis itself.
But, I never once supported hatcheries on the Tillamook Rivers.

No, beer didn't change my mind.
Take a look at that interesting graph I pointed out and weigh in the facts.

UUhh, Dan, that was your quote and yes, I too think it crosses the line, as I said.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Sorry Straydog, I misinterpeted your intensions there. My fault! You have my apology.

You need help Dan.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You’re right about that and I am trying. I won't deny that one. Not as easy as one thinks, especially when you are faced with all the serious problems I am faced with.
But no, I haven't sold my soul to beer. Sometimes I use poor judgment and say the wrong things because of it. Something I need to fix.
But, in this matter I am basing my statements on several years of talking to biologist from both Oregon and Washington, volunteering to go on stream surveys, reading info on the web both from the government and private sector, talking with many fishermen, and what I observe is happening around me.

However, please know that I am indeed fighting for the industry I so love and do indeed depend on for my livilhood. Funny, in all the years I watched and lived it going down the tubes, I didn't see the timber industry, the ag. industry, the developers or the polluters giving a rip about it so was so audacious as to try to do something about it myself. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I think you should fight for the industry you so love, but you stated "in all the years you watched and lived". From what I have heard, attitudes and logging practices have changed for the better. I don't think you or anyone else should attempt to put someone out of work because of what there ancestors did. I think there is room for improvements in the timber practices, but from what I am seeing in wild fish improvements and hearing on and off this site (again, on the coastal rivers), is that logging and wild fish can co-exist. I thought Diamondback's post was very encouraging. Again, you say you are fighting for the industry. I just think you are taking the fight to the wrong place and supporting probably a larger problem, the Tillamook hatcheries. The fishermen down here are satisfied without chinook hatcheries. And our great chinook runs are on the incline .

With time I was introduced to this group you want to refer to as a 'cult', NSIA. (I find that more than a little offensive, Dan.) <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I already edited last nights reply, but don't recall saying or insinuating that NSIA was a cult. If I did, I retract that statement. I have a lot of respect for some of its members and feel they have fought for some great improvements. One example is NSIA fighting to get the funding for fin clipping hatchery coho some years back. If they had not been fin clipped, I don't think we could have had an ocean coho season the last 5 years or so. But they also have their own interest and agenda and some I don't agree with, including this one.
Maybe I will change my mind on this one after the tour takes place.

As for Brion, I used to appreciate and respect his input on other threads even though he made statements like this:

As one of the confessed ultra greens (not to be confused with Ugly Green's &lt;grin&gt;), my idea of restoration is 18 million native salmon up the Columbia system each year.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I'm not going back and search the archives where he has said restoring salmonids to historical records, but I think he is living in a fantasy world. That would be impossible unless you evacuated the entire North West and made it a preserve. That I can just simply shake my head at. But when he repeatedly twist info around, and eludes answering questions, but continues to throw some of his "bible" quotes at you, it reminds me of some of the cults that I have dealt with. So, I guess I was probably wrong in referring to the rainforest coalition as a cult. I was basing that terminology on Brion's actions. I also consider some of these folks that worship a winter steelhead as being "cultish" that say no harvest on them, even when the particular run can support the harvest. Just my opinion. I guess the wild chinook they eat, are not as "glorified"?

Regards,
Dan

[ 03-11-2003, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

[Straydog]

Dan,

A few of points that seemingly need clarification in this unfortunate tangent that has occured.

1. No one has said the timber industry should go away along with the jobs it provides. Not I, not Brion, not NSIA and not the Tillamook Guides. As Brion has pointed out several times, the alternative plan does not do away with logging by any means. This is a thread about the Tillamook forest and its future concerning multiple use, therefore it stands to reason that the timber industry would be a primary focus of the conversation.

2. You seem to focus on the river fishery while NSIA and those we support are looking at the broader picture of the industry. (re. your comments about exploitation of Tillamook fishery, greedy guides and people bringing their own rocks to fish from.) One of the beauties of the Sportfishing Industry is that it provides recreation and jobs most everywhere the Salmon go. The Ocean and the rivers. As a coastal dweller, I think you know the importance of the economic benefits of Salmon as they make their migration up or down the coastline. Further, even the biologist that you often quote has told you that sportfishing has a minimal impact in the overall picture of fish survival.

Please know that I am not anti logging or anti timber industry. I was raised from the benefits of the timber industry in the hieght of it's exploitation of our forests (even they admit that they overcut in a big way). However, only since the formation of NSIA and it's growth in effectively being a mouthpiece for our industry has there been an effective effort to bring the relevance of our jobs to public light.

Most of the politicians had the attitude that if the fish go away, people will merely find other recreatinal activities to persue. The public's attitude has been that fishing is merely a way for people to play. I am very thankful for the voice NSIA has given us and that people are finally beginning to learn that behind each of those fish are jobs. Very real jobs that are just as important as the loggers, the developers, the mill workers and on and on.

You call it exploitation, I call it survival. I think it worthy of note that the bright spot in our state's ugly economic picture the last couple of years has been Sportfishing and the myriad of related businesses it effects in a positive manner. From the boat builder to the potatoe chip retailer, many, many people benefit from having healthy fisheries.

One more thing, we are about to see the longest ocean Salmon season we have had since 1955. Might it be that this is in part due to more reasonable logging regulations and the reduced exploitation of our watersheds since that time?

[ 03-12-2003, 06:57 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Straydog:
.......we are about to see the longest ocean Salmon season we have had since 1955. Might it be that this is in part due to more reasonable logging regulations and the reduced exploitation of our watersheds since that time? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">SDog - It MIGHT be......but most fisheries scientists will tell you it PROBABLY is MOSTLY due to much improved ocean conditions couple with better fisheries harvest mgmt.

I appreciate that your job and other similar jobs are real...and even though they're based on exploiting the fisheries wherever fish are found....those are real jobs. But the land is capable of supporting more forest-related jobs than fish-related jobs, I think.....although it isn't a choice we need to make....we can have both.

I'm pretty sure most of us really don't want to see maximum "sales" of Oregon to the tourists...or live here if/when that happens. Bumper-boat fisheries already exist on the better rivers....its so bad on the lower Rogue that I've quit going there. But that's what the anti-forestry, pro-commercialized sportfishing advocates are promoting for all our rivers. Gee, won't it be fun......NOT!

One final point: Someone else claims that the state-owned forests make up only 3% of the forests in Oregon and says we should lock that 3% up, stop all logging, to obtain maximum fisheries output. This is a good example of figures lying and liars figuring. Yup, on rough measure, the 3% figure might be right. But half of the state's forests are federal...USFS and BLM....and most of this public land (85%-90%) is already off limits to logging. Of the remaining 1/2 of Oregon's forests, much is relatively low value, low productivity ponderosa pine/juniper or rocky, serpentine soils in your area. The very best tree growing soils in the world are in the Oregon coast range, especially in the northern section....so the Tillamook State Forest, while it might be only 3% of the total forested land in Oregon, it probably constitutes 30% or more of Oregon's best forest soils. That's like saying "Let's close Bouy 10 to salmon fishing....after all, it only makes up 3% of the river area".

[Straydog]

JJeeezzzzzz, GSA,

I made the point of putting "in part" in bold and you still choose to basicaly ignore it.

Also, the same biologists that will tell you that harvest management is part of the reason for our increased runs will tell you that what they are really saying is that 'commercial' harvest restrictions are what is making the significant impact.

Comparing commercial and sport take is like comparing clearcutting to the commercial thinning that took place next to my property. End result, there is no comparison. :wink:

[BrionLutz]

GSA,

But the land is capable of supporting more forest-related jobs than fish-related jobs, I think.....although it isn't a choice we need to make....we can have both. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">1. The Tillamook Rainforest Coalition plan includes a very high level of logging. The difference between it and the logging industry "Forest Protection Plan" is that it gives the salmon and related industries equal status as timber industry.

2. I'm not sure your statement on jobs is correct.

1994-1995. Coasts of Oregon and Washington declared federal Disaster Areas eligible for economic assistance due to the collapse of the salmon fishery. 60,000 jobs lost since 1975. (http://www.pacrivers.org/BROKEN%20PROMISES.doc)

We know from previously posted stats that all wood products jobs in Oregon in 1976 totaled 83,000.

According to Oregon Employment Department Covered Employment and Payroll data, 10.4 percent of the state’s 831,216 employees covered by unemployment insurance worked in wood productsindustries in 1976. Twenty-four years later, forest products industry operations employed only 3.5 percent of Oregon’s 1,607,911 workers. The decline in income and jobs in forest products industries occurred primarily in the wake of the deep recession of the early 1980s, even before the spotted owl controversies that drastically reduced the flow of timber from federal forest lands. The planned increases in timber harvests on state lands would not reverse that decline in the forest products industries. (http://www.tillamookrainforest.org/display.cgi?page=economics)

Salmon and related industries certainly have equal or better claim to job creation than does the timber industry.

The salmon have the advantage in that it is a totally sustainable resource while timber industry is not. While salmon have a positive impact on recreational and other industries, logging has a negative effect on salmon, recreation etc.

Every recent economic study from the Rand Study (http://www.removedams.org/about/RANDreview.cfm) on the Snake River to the US Geologic Survey (http://www.earthjustice.org/news/display.html?ID=466) of the Klamath Basin demonstrates that salmon industry has much higher positive economic impact.

But that's what the anti-forestry, pro-commercialized sportfishing advocates are promoting for all our rivers. Gee, won't it be fun......NOT!<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Oh horsefeathers!.

What the pro-salmon, pro-forest, pro-watershed, pro-fisheries folks advocate is restoring the salmon.

The reason you have crowded conditions is because there are so few salmon in so few places due in no small part to logging industry destroying the salmon habitat.

Someone else claims that the state-owned forests make up only 3% of the forests in Oregon and says we should lock that 3% up, stop all logging, to obtain maximum fisheries output....Yup, on rough measure, the 3% figure might be right. But half of the state's forests are federal...USFS and BLM....and most of this public land (85%-90%) is already off limits to logging. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">.

There is a huge amount of logging going on in State and Federal forests. However, you point up the timber industry's essential weakness. It is dependent upon public resources to make a profit. To make that profit it must destroy the resource. Logging by it's very nature destroys the public resource which is a 1,000 year old ecosystem.

The timber industry abandoned the Tillamook Forest. The public paid to rehabilitate the forest.

The public has a right and other industries have a right to determine how those resources are used or not used.

Which brings us back to the point of this discussion, the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition plan allows for considerable logging but does correctly require that there be a balance and that fisheries and the public good be given equal weight when deciding what is done with public resources .

Brion

[ 03-12-2003, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]

[Born to be Wild]

Thanks Straydog and Gutshot for your replies.
I'll e-mail you on a few items.

Jerry,
Don't know how flexable the folks committed to the tour are, nor the Forestry department.
But Bait O' Eggs has set up this April 12th Barview jetty get together and jetty fishing.
You know about it because I remember you promoting fin clipping that morning. Would you think there would be a possibility of moving the tour forward and enough time to do the fin clip thing in the morning, the tour, and then the jetty fishing? I believe someone said there was a low slack around 4:00pm and a high around 10:00pm.

Long ways for some folks to travel and gas @ $2.00/gal. Two sepparate trips (time & money) required to participate in both events.
Anyway, just a thought.

Maybe the jetty event could be moved back? But sounds like there is a lot more folk committed to that and some as far away as Idaho.

I'll bump the tour list up and add "Gone Fishin'" to the maybe's because I don't remember him being on the list.

Dan

[Born to be Wild]

Updated Tillamook Forest Tour list 3/7/2003

Committed:
jerry dove
rebell
GutshotApe
The Greek
DepoeBayDan - (possibly 2 - 6 others)
Barviewrocks
Pilar's Mate - (with possibly 2 or 3 others)
Thumper


Maybe's:
norms gone fishing too
Bill Monroe (uh, oh yea, Oregonian)
brshooter
Henry Miller (Statesman Journal)
norms gone fishing too (possibly 1 more)

Inquiries:
THE KIWANDA KID
Wild Chrome
Jennie@ifish
skookummark

[BrionLutz]

Diamondback,

I never said anything about increasing the number of roads (please pay attention. I said the number of roads is being reduced. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">.

Here's a current example of why your statement does not seem to be correct. 750 miles of new roads.

" On Wednesday March 5th the Oregon Board of Forestry gave the go-ahead to acting State Forester Roy Woo to build over 750 miles of new roads into the Tillamook Rainforest. This is in addition to the over 3000 miles of sediment dumping roads already fragmenting this coastal temperate rainforest.

The 10 year Implementation Plans (IP) signed by State Forester Woo calls for thousands of acres of clearcutting for the next 10 years. Almost 5000 acres will be clearcut in fiscal year 2003 alone."

Brion

[ 03-13-2003, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]

[TGFwriter]

I am glad to see the “heat” is letting up a bit towards the end of this thread. This debate is going to give cancer to some of these people. The groups certainly covered a lot of ground here. Some things I might be qualified to answer and clarify:

On support for the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition, the Tillamook Guides Association (TGA) is currently holding a no-stance position until our next meeting on 4/17. Two meetings ago, 13 of the 14 members present at the meeting voted in favor of supporting the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition (TRC) but this represented only about half of our membership. I told the TRC that we would have to send this vote out to all of our membership to get a final position and that has not happened yet. There is strong support for and strong support against the TRC but only time will tell whether the TGA will fully endorse the TRC’s plan. I personally do and that’s no secret. So, now we can move on to the juicy stuff:

Why ask why? I sure hope at this point no one would ask why I, a full time fishing guide would support the TRC’s initiative. In case you do ask this question, let me answer it for you. This will also answer some of DDD’s questions:

DDD writes, “We are talking about Tillamook Rivers. I was comparing them with close-by coastal rivers that don't share the same problems (lack of fish).

Are you kidding? If Tillamook doesn’t have a lack of fish, then why, in the last 10 years have we lost the right to retain 5 of the 6 strains of fish residing in Tillamook County streams? They are:

- Wild coho
- Wild steelhead
- Wild spring chinook
- Wild cutthroat trout
- Wild chum salmon

These are facts and we can all view these facts when we open a copy of Oregon’s Fishing Regulations at a local sporting goods store near you! We only have wild fall chinook left! Yes, my job is hanging on by a thread! Now it may sound like I am a greedy guide and fisherman but in reality, my vision (nice segue Straydog) of the Tillamook State Forest is one that provides jobs for a variety of industries but obviously, I have a vested interest here. My vision is that decisions in the Tillamook State Forest are weighed equally among the people that depend on them to make their living. My vision is that we manage the Tillamook State Forest first for healthy runs of fish, then, harvest of those healthy runs of fish by timber and fishing interests. My feeling is that Tillamook County is not conducive to the interests of the Sportfishing industry. But actually, this isn’t just a feeling. I have documented actions by our county officials that support this.

Everyone is trying to solve the salmon crisis here on IFISH. If only it were that simple. As long as I have been involved and with my own personal education in fishery related issues, it is my opinion that the decline of fish runs is EVERYONE’S fault!

Over harvest by sport and commercial fishermen
Poor logging practices
Predation
High seas interception
Loss of habitat
Hatcheries

And the number one factor effecting salmon populations……. OCEAN CONDITIONS! This is no secret! It’s a nice scapegoat! Too bad it’s unjustified! We can’t do anything about OCEAN CONDITIONS so leave it alone! WE CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT ALL THE OTHER FACTORS regarding the demise of the wild salmon. It is our responsibility! If we spend half the energy working together as we do working against each other, we might not be in such crisis! If there is one thing I have witnessed as fact in my years in the industry is I have never seen more conflict between a mutual user group. How pathetic is that?

Time for more fact?

DDD writes: “But, I would be willing to bet that there was logging going on in the areas that I referred to well before and during the strong runs of wild coho: 1955-1971. If I am wrong, I am wrong! If I am right, then Brion’s assumptions are wrong! I’ve put forth a lot of data! The facts! Brion puts forth a lot of misconstrued data from the other sources.

DDD, you are RIGHT , there was some limited logging going on during those times but since the Tillamook State Forest was in a time of recovery from the Tillamook Burn at that time, it wasn’t much. Yes, all that wild fish stand for (quality habitat) was ruined in the fire. No shade, no vegetation, no complex large woody material. Some how, they survived.

DDD, you are WRONG , why would you assume all the coho during those years (1955 – 1971) were wild? We did not have a fin-clipping program at that time. We had no way of distinguishing between wild and hatchery stocks! I have to venture since hatchery coho do not fall victim to the same environmental conditions that wild stocks do, that most of those fish were of the hatchery variety. I don’t think you did it intentionally but it’s hard to wade through all the mudslingin’.

Now, let’s look at the great things ODF has done for fish (that may not even show up on the tour). And I am sure I am not getting all that they do.

1) They have funded a habitat biologist to evaluate and DO work on their lands. This includes culvert replacement and the famed “stump dump” on the Trask River to place LWM for salmonids in the stream. (By the way, from my own project on Tillamook Bay, stumps don’t work nearly as well as logs and man-made materials for retention in the waterway).
2) They are currently doing a detailed watershed assessment on the Trask River to determine the needs of the specific fish and wildlife they may have an effect on.
3) They are decommissioning and upgrading roads that may have detrimental effects on our streams.

Our local forester does care about fish, he’s a sportfisher too! But the 2 questions I have to ask is:

With today’s science, does it really make sense to have 25 foot buffer zones along state owned streams in state owned forests saying it is adequate protection for fish?

Doesn’t it make sense to manage these riparian zones for the possible recruitment of LWM into the streams that make homes for juvenile salmonids by creating a place for fish to hide? A structure that accumulates gravel to create a pool (absolutely required for coho habitat) for juveniles to expend less energy to survive and grow bugs on for them to feed themselves?

Now I am not well versed on the current Forest Practices Act so if someone wants to cite literature that tells me otherwise, please do! But, I am pretty sure this sort of protection doesn’t exist.

So, I will be one to praise the Oregon Department of Forestry for all that you do for salmon, you have made a difference! Now, can we do more?

I am still unsure if I can make the forest tour but thanks in advance to putting it on Jerry! I know you will see how wonderful our Tillamook State Forest is. I only hope that if I am not there, that someone will ask some vital questions. They might be:

1) Wouldn’t salmon benefit more from increased buffer zones? For example, if a Douglas Fir were to grow outside of the 25 foot buffer zone currently enforced, would it ever stand a chance to become valuable LWM for salmonids? (By the way, from my own project on Tillamook Bay, stumps don’t work nearly as well as logs and man-made materials for retention in the waterway).


2) Would a tree anywhere near the riparian zone have a chance to grow to be one of size that would stand a chance to be retained in the watershed? It doesn’t seem like the younger ones stay around very long in the torrent currents that the coastal drainages experience. And I believe a very small percentage of the forest is going to be managed for old growth.

3) The tour I am sure will be great, but will it be representative to what the Tillamook State Forest will look like in 20 years? I mean, with the 90’s harvests of around 90 mbf and the proposed increase to over 200 mbf, won’t it be much different than what we see on 4/26?



What might be a great idea and a fair “flip-side” of the argument is have a Tillamook Bay Tour after the Forest Tour. Let us have a look at how our Tillamook fishery is doing. I’ll even set a date during a favorable tide series in May to give us a better chance at catching a springer. Let’s see how many wild springers we catch (and have to release) in a day’s effort! I will be happy to also help facilitate the bay and lower riverine conditions of Tillamook Bay as a professional myself. I think my involvement with the Tillamook Bay Watershed Council, Tillamook Estuaries Partnership, Tillamook County’s (now commissioner decommissioned) Riparian Advisory Committee and experience as a fisheries technician for ODF&W, contractor and researcher for a Tillamook Bay restoration project for the National Estuary Program, contractor for the smolt protection program on Tillamook Bay and sub-contractor for the fish use study of Tillamook Bay all make me a bit of an expert on local area subjects. But in case anyone wants to dispute this, I will ask an ODF&W biologist to come along as well. Certainly, they are experts!

Jeannie, won’t you join us in my boat?

I am liking this more all the time!

One final note:
DDD writes, “I myself would take a hard look at the hatchery issue before I make a push to put forestry/timber people out of work.

Man, I hate when people do this. I asked this before and no one came through but does anyone believe the job of a timber worker is more important than the job of a fishing guide? I don’t think my job is more important than a timber job but we’re not running out of timber! (note to self)See regulation booklet to note that we are running out of wild fish!

Anyone else tired of hearing me talk?

Well, one more final note:
Rusty Rebel writes: “Brion, you may have fooled the Tillamook Guides Assoc. But that's not saying much.”

Granted, we are fishing guides but we are educated and we do make our own decisions so that was not called for.

[Jerry Dove]

Bob, you make some fine points. I hope you will make a point of going on the tour. Mark will be the guide. He is taking suggestions of what folks want to see. I have told him about ifish and he is reading the comments. I plan for this tour to show all and try to answer as many questions as possible. The bay tour sounds great. Maybe we can catch some whiskey Creek Sp. Ch. I know they are hatchery fish, but they sure do fight and taste great. Just kidding. Jerry

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by TGFwriter:
Now I am not well versed on the current Forest Practices Act so if someone wants to cite literature that tells me otherwise, please do! But, I am pretty sure this sort of protection doesn’t exist. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">TGF - I think the minimum width for a riparian mgmt. area (buffer strip) for a fishbearing stream is 50' on EACH SIDE. I hope you go on the tour. Either way, you could stop by the local ODF office and ask for a free copy of "Oregon's Forest Protection Laws". This is a very-well done illustrated guide that will answer most questions about the Forest Practices Act....and, if you have an open mind, should lay some of your concerns to rest.

[ 03-14-2003, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: GutshotApe ]

[F F Jack]

Kudos to Bob Reese, excellent post!

I was wondering if this subject was turning into a "soap opera" or a "cat fight"!

Eliminate the "snake oil", get the real facts about fish recovery at Tillamook, contact:
Chris Knudson, ODF&W, Tillamook, 503-842-2741,
Bruce Apple DEQ, Tillamook, 503-842-3038, Tillamook Bay National Esturary Project, Garibaldi, 503-322-2222.

[BrionLutz]

Bob,

One thing that seems to get lost in the debate is that the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition plan calls for extensive logging at high harvest levels. It's a modest proposal that asks for equal consideration for salmon and those businesses which depend upon salmon.

On the point about stumps etc vs. logs. There's a great piece on stream restoration by Pacific Rivers Council biologist Charles Dewberry on Knowles Creek.

Knowles Creek Restoration Project (http://www.pacrivers.org/restoration/index.cfm?topicID=101)

With today’s science, does it really make sense to have 25 foot buffer zones along state owned streams in state owned forests saying it is adequate protection for fish? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Apparently 100-200 feet is minimal and Oregon has the least setback requirement of the Western states.
Forest Practices Guideline (http://pacrivers.continet.com/verityStorage/forestpractices.pdf)

Overall regarding public land like Tillamook Forest vs. private land management, I think the Pacific Rivers Council puts it correctly as follows.

Public lands (state and federal), where they are present and currently support or historically supported salmonids, will bear a greater conservation responsibility than private lands, i.e. management restrictions equivalent to those embodied in the Aquatic Conservation Strategy for the Northwest Forest Plan will apply. For example, Huntington and Frissell, 1997 find a critical role for state forest lands in recovering salmon on Oregon’s North Coast and outline a proposal which sets aside at least 50% of these state lands for aquatic conservation purposes. (http://pacrivers.continet.com/verityStorage/forestpractices.pdf)

Some interesting sustainable logging groups and info.

The Collins Companies forests in Pennsylvania, Almanor, and Lakeview have been independently certified by Scientific Certification Systems. (http://www.collinswood.com/)

Forest Stewardship Council is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organization supporting environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial and economically viable management of the world's forests. (http://www.fscus.org/)

The Scientific Certification Systems Forest Conservation Program has certified more than 4.8 million acres of forestland in the United 10.7 million acres of forests throughout the world. (http://www.scs1.com/)

The SmartWood Program reduces the negative impacts of commercial forestry by awarding its seal of approval to responsible forest managers (http://www.smartwood.org/)

I’ll even set a date during a favorable tide series in May to give us a better chance at catching a springer. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Ooo...a semi-guided fishing trip...now that's a tour &lt;grin&gt;. I'll trailer down and provide a boat and seats for that.

Getting everybody doing the one thing we all agree on, fishing, lowers the decibel level a bit.

Brion

[BrionLutz]

GSA,

I think the minimum width for a riparian mgmt. area (buffer strip) for a fishbearing stream is 50' on EACH SIDE. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">According to your source, it's a bit more complicated than that &lt;grin&gt;.

There are only 17 streams identified as "anchor streams" and these get limited protection from 100' buffer to 25' and the "buffers" can be logged areas.

That leaves the rest of the salmon watershed with 25' logged "buffers" plus the new roads, 750 miles of them. So Tillamook will have road density around 5 miles/square mile while Fed Forestry folks consider 1 mile/square mile the gold standard.

It sure makes the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition's plan of 50% salmon/watershed-50% logging to be more inline with the best forest management practices not to mention being salmon friendly.

That is the key here...salmon restoration.

How are we going to get back to historical salmon populations with the ODF plan?

And remember this is the Oregon Dept. of Forestry document. With ODF funding tied to the amount of logging, we probably won't get an unbiased, scientific management out of ODF until they are an independent agency not a timber industry partner.

<a href="http://www.odf.state.or.us/DIVISIONS/management/state_forests/sfplan/ip03_finals/13_SAH.pdf" target="_blank">Strategy 2 – Apply management standards for aquatic and riparian areas, with the following additions:

For all harvest operations that border Type F and Large and Medium Type N streams – the inner zone (100 feet) will be a no-harvest area.

For partial cut harvest operations retaining at least a 25% Stand Density Index (SDI) that border Small Type N, perennial streams – no ground based equipment operation is allowed within 50 feet of the aquatic zone.

For clearcuts and any other harvest operation which reduces stand density below 25% SDI that border Small Type N, perennial streams – no harvest allowed within 50 feet of the aquatic zone and a minimum of 15-25 conifer trees and snags per acre will be retained in the area between 50 and 100 feet from the aquatic zone.

For partial cut harvest operations retaining at least a 25% SDI that border Small Type N, seasonal streams – no ground based equipment operation is allowed within 50 feet of the aquatic zone.

For clearcuts and any other harvest operation which reduces stand density below 25% SDI that border Small Type N, seasonal streams – no ground based equipment is allowed within 50 feet of the aquatic zone and 15-25 conifer trees and snags per acre will be retained within 50 feet of the aquatic zone.</a>

Brion

[rebell]

Bob,

I stand by my statement!!

Some of your membership is unhappy with the stand you have taken in the name of the TGA. I am one of them. If you remember, I was one of the people that formed TGA.

The TGA was not formed to take on issue's as this. It was formed to add some more profesionalism to the industry. I am no longer a member, but I believe in what TGA used to stand for. You are not helping their PR in the Tillamook county area (something that need's to be worked on). I am sure you have seen the new petition that is being circulated in the area. You personaly can take the blame for it.

[ 03-14-2003, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: rebell ]

[Born to be Wild]

TGF writer,
It appears you are a guide and I don't have a problem with that because there are good guides and bad ones along with other fishermen, and other tradesmen.
My biggest problem in this whole scenario is that maybe the largest problem culprit is the hatcheries? We don't know and nobody does know for sure.
So, lets take an honest look at the situation and no propaganda intertwined.
Everybody wants more fish and/or fewer fishermen. It is my understanding that most cases, plenty chinook get through the maze of fishermen to spawn because they don't bite real well after entering fresh or brackish water. And they are managed accordingly out in the ocean and inside. Then another factor comes into play, the illegitimate factor of the non-biters being forced to bite (Flosser’s). But we don't want to address that issue here!

TGF, you might have miss understood me?

DDD writes, “We are talking about Tillamook Rivers. I was comparing them with close-by coastal rivers that don't share the same problems (lack of fish).

Are you kidding? If Tillamook doesn’t have a lack of fish, then why, in the last 10 years have we lost the right to retain 5 of the 6 strains of fish residing in Tillamook County streams? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I said the close-by coastal rivers don't have a lack of fish. I don't hear anyone complaining down here about a lack of fish. The complaints here are about the amount and quality of fishermen.
Good question! Why? It is obvious to me now, that you do have a serious problem there in Tillamook. Look at the graph I pointed out a few reply's back. It goes nowhere other than downhill.
I don't think it would make that big of difference no matter what you do with the habitat. Maybe it is a matter of the baby bloomers out weighing the capacity of the wild fish? But I seriously think the problem lies with the hatcheries. Just my opinion.
They are experiencing the same type of problems up in BC also where they have the big hatchery rivers.
Look at the wild trout scenario; do you think they could keep pace with all the people and technology we have today? Why do they put harvest limits on them? Because all the wild trout streams have lost productive habitat and/or too much pressure on them?
I don't have all the answers Bob and don't think anybody does.
I do know however we have strong chinook runs down here accompanied by worse logging practices so I have to question if logging up there is the culprit in the declining chinook runs.
All the biologist up and down the coast that I have spoke with seem to think the problem with fisheries is not the lack of habitat for the most part. They seem to think wild fish and logging can co-exist if done properly. I think we have proof of this in many areas of the coast where we have healthy populations of wild fish. Some of them (both wild chinook and wild steelhead) have harvest fisheries on them (and coho will be next). And they don't have rainforest coalitions to help them out (that I am aware of).
I will go on the tour and see what I can learn about the habitat issues and the TRC. And I will base my decisions on that.
Right now I don't support the TRC because I don't believe they are addressing the real problem. My opinion along with many others.

When I mentioned exploitation, I didn't intend to pick on anybody. It is a matter of fact and I don't see any solution to it. Growing pains!

As far as quoting me, I'm DBD, not DDD or simply Dan. It doesn't bother me at the least, but thought I might straighten that out.

DDD writes: “But, I would be willing to bet that there was logging going on in the areas that I referred to well before and during the strong runs of wild coho: 1955-1971. If I am wrong, I am wrong! If I am right, then Brion’s assumptions are wrong! I’ve put forth a lot of data! The facts! Brion puts forth a lot of misconstrued data from the other sources.

DDD, you are RIGHT , there was some limited logging going on during those times but since the Tillamook State Forest was in a time of recovery from the Tillamook Burn at that time, it wasn’t much. Yes, all that wild fish stand for (quality habitat) was ruined in the fire. No shade, no vegetation, no complex large woody material. Some how, they survived.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Bob, you miss understood my intentions. I was addressing the issue that GSA brought up. Our coastal lakes down south where there could be a limited fishery on wild coho this year. They had strong runs from 1955 until the early to mid 70's.
I looked into this yesterday and found out they indeed had intensive logging going on when the runs were healthy. Also found out that they have had foreign fish illegally planted in the lakes from 1930 to as late as 1987 when Black Crappie were illegally introduced. The other species include Brown Bullhead, Yellow Perch, Largemouth Bass and Bluegill. Largemouth Bass were stocked legally by the Game commission in 1971 in Tenmile Lake. Kind of a "smoking gun" when you see that the wild coho took a nose dive in Tenmile Lake in the mid 70's. Tenmile Lake used to be a fish friendly place for juvenile coho to rear. Not anymore. They have been holding there own for more than 10 years now even with the severe El 'Nino years of the 90's and the major flood of 1996. They will never reach the historical numbers of the 50's again because of the over abundance of predators and competitors in the lake now. The whole point of this was that wild fish and logging can co-exist.


DDD, you are WRONG , why would you assume all the coho during those years (1955 – 1971) were wild? We did not have a fin-clipping program at that time. We had no way of distinguishing between wild and hatchery stocks! I have to venture since hatchery coho do not fall victim to the same environmental conditions that wild stocks do, that most of those fish were of the hatchery variety. I don’t think you did it intentionally but it’s hard to wade through all the mudslingin’.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well Bob, wild coho returned there and I would venture to guess very little hatchery fish stray there. There isn’t a hatchery there. I'm sure you realize there is a difference in wild coho and hatchery coho. The wild coho return and spawn at different times than the hatchery coho, as do wild & hatchery steelhead for the most part. There is no question that these wild coho are indeed native. They return later than there domesticated hatchery cousins. If these were wild hatchery progeny, they would return earlier and spawn in November instead of January/February like these wild coho do. Big obvious difference. Besides the fact that science has shown that hatchery “brats” reproduce very poorly in the wild. These coho are doing exceptionally well considering all the hostility and competition from all the warm water fish they encounter in the lake these days.
There again, you have different interest from different user groups. A coho fanatic might suggest you get rid of all the foreign species of fish there. And the tournament bass fisherman would say the heck with the coho.
“Fall victim to the same environmental conditions”. Hatchery fish in the wild would “fall victim” to harsh conditions even more so. These fish are wild fish and you can look at the spawning surveys to see that they are indeed spawning in the wild. Natives? I don’t think that is arguable.

If only it were that simple. As long as I have been involved and with my own personal education in fishery related issues, it is my opinion that the decline of fish runs is EVERYONE’S fault!

Over harvest by sport and commercial fishermen
Poor logging practices
Predation
High seas interception
Loss of habitat
Hatcheries <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I agree with you there Bob!

Over harvest by sport and commercial fishermen:
The commercial fishermen up in BC have really cut back on there harvest of our coastal Chinook stocks and we are seeing plenty of them return to the Siletz/Drift Creek, Yaquina, Alsea, and Siuslaw Rivers. Sports fishermen on the other hand, have dramatically increased in numbers.

Poor logging practices:
I really can’t answer that from experience as I am not a scientist. But since I have been involved in this thread, I have learned that the logging practices down the coast from you are not as fish friendly as up there in Tillamook. And again, our Chinook stocks are doing great and in fact on the incline where as the Tillamook/Nestucca Chinook stocks are and have been on a steady decline for many years.

Predation:
On severe El ‘Nino years, we have a lot of warm water predators like Mackerel that I’m sure don’t help matters out. Harbor seals, California sealions, and cormorants I’m sure take there toll, but there again we have them down here also and our wild Chinook stocks are doing great. One thing I would like to point out is that it is a well documented fact that sometimes chumming the predators (I mentioned above) with large numbers of hatchery smolts induces a feeding frenzy. Unfortunately, the wild smolts get caught up in the middle of this man made induced frenzy.

High seas interception:
I believe this was and possibly still could be a factor with chums and steelhead. But, not with coastal Chinook stocks that migrate north up into BC and Alaska. As far as I know, they don’t migrate out into the “high seas”.

Loss of habitat: I think you basically listed this one twice concerning the Tillamook area that is free from dams, etc.?

Hatcheries:
Ah, you listed a factor on wild Chinook we don’t share in common with the Nestucca & Tillamook Rivers. All of our Chinook are 100% wild Chinook with the exception of the small amount of hatchery Chinook planted in Yaquina Bay utilizing the old Oraqua facilities. But they do use Chinook broodstock fish for this which are more “wily” from the get go, and only small numbers of them are introduced in the bay.

You didn’t mention the uncontrollable ocean conditions or flooding in this particular list, but they no doubt contribute to stronger and weaker runs of salmonids. But there again, even though the ‘90’s severe El ‘Nino’s and ’96 flood took there toll on wild salmonids (coho more so than Chinook), our local rivers have been on the incline unlike the Nestucca and Tillamook Rivers.

A lot of folks want to support the hatcheries, but in my opinion after looking over all the facts and comparisons, that might be the downfall of the Tillamook area wild Chinook.
Just my opinion based on facts and theories.

I have learned a lot Bob from some of the replies and debates on this site. I think it is valuable to explore the many complex issues of salmonids.

Dan

[BrionLutz]

DepoeBayDan,

My biggest problem in this whole scenario is that maybe the largest problem culprit is the hatcheries <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">This thread is about managing the Tillamook Forest to preserve and enhance the salmon habitat and the salmon.

I hope that solves your "problem" &lt;grin&gt;.

It's not about hatcheries. Though, if successful in restoring the native salmon, the Tillamook Rainforest plan could eliminate the need for hatcheries.

I would think you would be for eliminating the need for hatcheries?

Brion

[BrionLutz]

Rebell,

Some of your membership is unhappy with the stand you have taken in the name of the TGA. I am one of them...I am no longer a member, but I believe in what TGA used to stand for. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Just to be clear so you are or not a member of the Tillamook Guides Association?

You are not helping their PR in the Tillamook county area (something that need's to be worked on).<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">As a fairly typical guide customer, I certainly don't object to the TGA (or any guide or guide association) working to protect and increase the salmon in the Tillamook watershed. I don't know of any pro-salmon group that does not take a stand on the issues for salmon. As far as PR, looks pretty good to see a fishing guide association working to preserve and enhance the fishery.

Seems a bit unfair that guides can't work to protect their livelihoods.

I am sure you have seen the new petition that is being circulated in the area. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Ah...intrigue! I shall enjoy it!

So tell us about the petition?

Regarding the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition plan, you do realize that it is very balanced and provides for very high levels of logging, just in a way that doesn't hurt the salmon and the watershed and those who's jobs depend upon it.

The difference between county government revenue in fiscal year 2001 and projected revenue under a fifty -percent reserve plan is small when compared to the volatile changes in timber revenues to which the counties have adjusted during the past decade. In particular, the adjustment between fiscal years 1996 and 1998 stands out. Revenues nearly doubled in real terms between fiscal years 1996 and 1997 and then fell by county government spending were not nearly as pronounced. Phasing in a reserve plan on the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests over several years would be expected to cause little disruption in county services given the small magnitude of the changes in revenue as a proportion of historical timber revenues and as a share of total revenues. (http://www.tillamookrainforest.org/display.cgi?page=economics)

Brion

[pole bender]

I just wanted to let everyone know that April 26 is also SOLV day in the Tillamook forest. I am putting this in here to let you know why there will be extra traffic around. It is something that my family and I work at each year. We also do volenteer work for ODF and attend monthly meetings on the happenings in the forest and the agenda of what is to go on in the future and some as to why. I hope that after the tour is over that someone will report back on what was seen and told. It is always great to hear and see more of what people see. The tour sounds like a great info. time and is needed to let people know what is happening and why. The forest means a lot to our family and we use it for many activities. If anyone wants to help with the SOLV clean-up after the tour feel free to stop at the sand shed at the summit of HWY 6.

[rebell]

Gentlemen,

This thread has gone on long enough.

In the Tillamook watershed logging and habitat are not the reason for the salmon and steelhead decline. Hatcheries? Maybe, but like it or not, we need some hatchery fish to help restore what is lost (I find that sad).

Bob states that he (we) have lost the right to keep several species of wild fish. Can't argue with that, but I support the closures that have taken place over the year's (but then, I don't make my living fishing for them anymore).

Resricting logging and road building will do little to help the fish that we are all trying to protect if we continue to harvest more than what the watershed can sustain. If the TGA and the rainforest coalition really want to help the native populations of fish in the Tillamook area they will support a more limited harvest.

I am all for helping preserve our forest. A better forest means more habitat that can sustain more fish. But for what purpose? So that the greed that exist in the sportfishing community can continue to harvest more.

Before sportfishers can call for the elimenation of any current plans, they need to take a long hard look at themselves. Yes sportfishers have given up a lot allready. But maybe it is time to take the lead in a different way.

Let's lead by example!! Let's call for less harvest. Then and only then can we call for changes in the way our fisheries are managed. Like it or not, the biggest problem in the Tillamook watershed is us, the so called sportsmen.

[rebell]

brion,

They have te right to protect their livelihood. I don't recall saying that they did not have the right. But again you didnt read my post clearly. I said I was one of the people that formed TGA. I am no longer a member because I am no longer guiding.

As for the rest of your questions I will no longer reply. I find you very repulsive.

[BrionLutz]

Rebell,

In the Tillamook watershed logging and habitat are not the reason for the salmon and steelhead decline. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Actually it is...you can't destroy the salmon habitat and expect the species to survive.

The science is very clear on this. Habitat restoration is key.

Logging is and has been a key factor in the destruction of salmon habitat.

As far as the debate, it will go on until the salmon are restored.


I am all for helping preserve our forest. A better forest means more habitat that can sustain more fish. But for what purpose? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">At least we agree on a better forest meaning a better salmon habitat.

The purpose, to restore the salmon.

So that the greed that exist in the sportfishing community can continue to harvest more. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Two problems with that comment:

1. Biologists don't list sportfishing as a having much impact on the native salmon restoration. In fact, I believe they say it has the least impact.

2. Sportfishermen abide by very strict guidelines laid out by the fisheries management folks.

Let's lead by example!! Let's call for less harvest. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Let's let the science and the biologists rule on that. It has happened in other fisheries. I've participated in one fishery that was shut down for sport and commercial fishing for 5 years. It was very successful but it has to be based on science.

I don't see any science that says that if sportfishing ended tomorrow, the salmon would rebound.

Can you point to some scientific source that says this?

On the other hand there is solid science stating that changes in forest management would greatly enhance the salmon's survivability.

Brion

[ 03-15-2003, 07:17 AM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]

[rebell]

Of course they don't list sportfishing as a problem. Sportfishing sells tags. Tags support their livelihood.

It's called tag biology brion. You support what sells the most tags. Good biology doesnt always sell the most tags. Find a different way to support the ODF&W and you would see a different ODF&W. They are trying to balance sport and comercial harvest in a way that makes most people happy. Telling everyone that they cant harvest as many fish doesnt sell as many tags.

[BrionLutz]

Rebell,

As for the rest of your questions I will no longer reply. I find you very repulsive. [/QB]<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">And the questions hard to answer too boot &lt;grin&gt;.

In all your messages, you've provided no facts, figure or sources to backup your opinions.

Harsh language is no substitute for facts and figures though it is often seen when one lacks facts and figures.

I think this quote and it's source go to the heart of the debate on Tillamook Rainforest.

In Saving Nature’s Legacy (Island Press, 1994) Noss and Allen Cooperrider of the University of Oregon suggest that 50% of a region’s land area, properly managed and interconnected, can credibly represent all major vegetation types, maintain viable populations of large predators, and retain some landscapes in which natural disturbance regimes can operate unimpeded. In their case study of Oregon’s Coast Range, the authors observe that 96% of Oregon’s coastal rainforest has been logged, and many endemic species are threatened or already extinct. Based on criteria including known population of threatened species (spotted owls, marbled murrelets, salmon), old growth forest, roadless areas, watersheds, and landform connectivity, they conclude that managing around 50% of the Coast Range for conservation, in addition to Multiple-Use Buffer Zones, would enable the long-term sustaining and restoration of native species. (pp. 120-128) (http://www.tillamookrainforest.org/display.cgi?page=documents)

Brion

[SouthCoastStu]

Been away for awhile. As far as the road info goes, you can confirm the following info off of ODF's Web site (http://www.odf.state.or.us/DIVISIONS/management/state_forests/)

For Tillamook and Forest Grove Districts (the districts that make up Tillamook State Forest)
For the period 2001-2010 New road construction = 130-195 miles (all use levels)
Road Closure & Vacating = 115-185 miles,
Net change -55 to 80 miles. Were did 750 miles come from? Did someone confuse road improvement with road construction?

As far as clear-cut acres consider this (again from ODF's Tillamook, Forest Grove IP's:
Total acres = 367,853, Clear-cut acres for 2003=4,112 ac. If you do the math you will see this is about 1.1%/year, this is roughly equivalent to a 91-year rotation. For the period 2002-2011 the clear-cut harvest acres varies between 3838-5606 acres/year (100yr-65.5yr rotations). The clear-cut harvest is higher during the first decade on the Tillamook district to combat Swiss Needle cast disease.

Earlier I posted that the ODF FMP goal was for 75% OFS (Older Forest Structure), actually the plan calls for 25% OFS, 25% LYR (Layered Canopies), and 25% UDS (Under Story Development). I accidentally added them up in my mind and came up with 75%. Just didn't want to put anything out that was misleading.

ODF & ODF&W, on the Tillamook, have been placing whole trees (~2' Dbh X 50'long) with roots attached for stream enhancement projects for at least 4 years that I know of. I'm sure Mark will take you folks for a look at several of the sites on the tour. I think he is very proud of all the good things the people who work for him have done to enhance and improve the aquatic habitat that lies within the Tillamook.

Just want to present an alternative view, it has never been my intention to start a big pi**ing match. I think it's safe to say that I'm not the only one that find's Brion's style irritating as hell.

And Brion, please don't quote me on that....

[ 03-14-2003, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: DiamondBack ]

[Born to be Wild]

rebell,

You made an excellent post a couple replies back.
graemlins/applause.gif :wink:

You feel that of the 3 H's, harvest is the biggest culprit.

I feel hatcheries is the biggest culprit, but like most people, it's only speculation.

I'm not sure which one of the 3 H's GSA feels is responsible for the decline in the Tillamook chinook runs. I think I can speculate he feels logging isn't the biggest problem.

Some of the other folks think habitat is the problem. I and all the scientist that I have talked with disagree.

Brion, I think it is clear to all of us what you think, and I think you need to listen, evaluate the info presented, not let it go straight out the other ear (which is obvious), and ease off the "green letters".
I could probably go back to all 3 or 4 threads, copy/paste all the green stuff, and print out 3 or 4 editions of the TRC book.
I am done debating you also, because it is like debating a book that doesn't answer questions asked. You need to answer questions asked of you instead of evading them. Hell didn't freeze over yet, but I found answers to the question that GSA and myself asked you, and answered them this afternoon since you couldn't answer them or refused to incriminate yourself.

I disagree with you on the one aspect rebell. I don't think this thread is worn out and I have learned a lot from it about Tillamook and other places regarding salmonid issues. I suspect this thread or newer ones will continue on through and beyond the now famous tour!

I'm pretty tired and wore out my mouse on one of the ifisher's, but might try and figure out how to start a poll for this subject on which one of the three H's that ifisher's feel is the most detrimental to Tillamook chinook stocks.
Then, it would be real interesting for a new poll to be started after the April 26th tour.

Dan (alias DDD or Dopey Dan)

[BrionLutz]

Rebell,

Of course they don't list sportfishing as a problem. Sportfishing sells tags. Tags support their livelihood.

It's called tag biology brion. You support what sells the most tags. Good biology doesnt always sell the most tags. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">.

Conspiracy theory is no substitute for science. Lacking any scientific evidence, why do you hold the views that you do?

The university, private, Federal, State, commercial, etc. biologists would be very outspoken if they felt that sportfishing was a big problem.

The biologists of every single pro-salmon group, not to mention those of every university all point to salmon habitat destruction from dams, logging, development, pollution, ocean degradation and climate change as major factors, not the sportfishing.

Many of these groups have gone toe to toe with the ODFW regarding salmon management.

Brion

[Born to be Wild]

Vent! Ah, it feels good. :grin:
A guide friend of mine stopped by this afternoon and I told him about this thread (he is not on the net). He brought up an interesting point to me (that might not be valid), but thought that maybe the numerous mudslides from hwy 6 over the years might hamper the Wilson River wild fish.
I don't know, neither know how often this takes place. But I have seen hwy 6 closed for long periods of time over the years. So, if that is an issue effecting Wilson River fish, do we close hwy 6 and turn the time clock back many decades to protect the Wilson River wild fish?
Afterall, that would make the Tillamook Forest more natural!
Where does it all stop?

[Born to be Wild]

Brion,

Dams! Name a few dams in the Tillamook area!

Chew on a few more organic carrots and think about it bud! And ship me a sample of plastic TP so I can see if I like it.

Never mind, I'll just use a Spotted Owl instead. :grin:

[SouthCoastStu]

Close Hwy 6 :shocked: :shocked: :shocked: to save the salmon
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I love the irony of it !!!!

PS Dan, I put up a poll based on your idea, hope that's alright.

[ 03-14-2003, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: DiamondBack ]

[BrionLutz]

DepoeBayDan,

Brion, I think it is clear to all of us what you think, and I think you need to listen, evaluate the info presented, not let it go straight out the other ear (which is obvious), and ease off the "green letters". <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">.

Speak for yourself &lt;grin&gt;.

You see all the references I've posted. They in turn quote and reference a lot of the basic science on the issue of forest management and salmon habitat.

That evidence seems overwhelming.

You and Rebell have provided no scientific references in rebuttal or to support your opinons.

Your strong views on hatcheries are fairly clear but not necessarily appropriate on every issue of salmon restoration.

What is fascinating is that you don't realize that the same groups which are for reforming forest management practices share your views on hatcheries.

The irony is that you dis the very sources that support some of your most strongly held views because you never read the sources. The salmon debate in microcosm with many fishermen attacking the very groups that are doing the most for salmon restoration.

Finally, for decades hatcheries have been the dominant mechanism for maintaining fish populations in the face of declining habitat and other problems. Yet, the science is clear that the traditional way hatcheries have been operated has itself contributed to the widespread decline of native fish. Hatcheries have certainly not successfully restored native fish. Chapter Eight, Artificial Propagation, by Dr. Willa Nehlsen, recommends a different approach to the use of hatcheries and other forms of artificial propagation to prevent further harm to native fish. (http://pacrivers.continet.com/verityStorage/Healing%20Watershed%20Text%20Only.doc)

Brion

[ 03-14-2003, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]

[BrionLutz]

Diamondback,

Earlier I posted that the ODF FMP goal was for 75% OFS (Older Forest Structure), actually the plan calls for 25% OFS, 25% LYR (Layered Canopies), and 25% UDS (Under Story Development). I accidentally added them up in my mind and came up with 75%. Just didn't want to put anything out that was misleading. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">But you did put up something misleading. A pretty big difference between your original statement saying 75% "Old Forest Structure" and the actual 25%.

Keeping in mind that "Old Forest Structure" is not old growth forest so I think you orginal point was misleading anyway.

However, we all make mistakes. Best thing to do is actually quote the source and provide the link to it vs. making statements.

Brion

[ 03-15-2003, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]

[Born to be Wild]

Diamondback,

No, I don't have a problem with that at all, and am thankfull you saved me the time!

Hope you set it up correctly, giving the three choices of the three "H"'s in the Tillamook area only , to vote on and maybe it should be open for voting all the way up to the tour.

As I stated earlier, it will be interesting to see if the percentages change after the tour.
Maybe it can be set up then in one or two polls for the ones that actually attended the tour and another poll for the ones that read our reports?
Maybe it could even be set up for guides only on one poll (after the tour) and the rest of the sports fishing community on another poll?

I'm easy and open minded! Did anyone say thanks to Jerry for coming up with this brilliant Idea (the tour)?

Just got off the phone with another ifisher that I have met through this site. Probably spent an hour talking with him (long distance unfortunately), but enjoy hearing and discussing the different opinions of our salmonids. I will email you his phone# later and you two will enjoy sharing.

Got to get off of here and vote before the forecast kills my power:

"Tonight
Se wind 25 kt...becoming S 40 kt with gusts up to 65 kt after midnight. Combined seas 16 ft building to 26 ft with a dominant period of 11 seconds. Rain."

Its starting to whip prettygood!

Thanks Diamondback for starting the post!
Can you guess where I will place my vote? :wink:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Born to be Wild]

Brion,
:hoboy:

[SouthCoastStu]

I have never mentioned the word "old growth" in any of my posts.

" On Wednesday March 5th the Oregon Board of Forestry gave the go-ahead to acting State Forester Roy Woo to build over 750 miles of new roads into the Tillamook Rainforest. This is in addition to the over 3000 miles of sediment dumping roads already fragmenting this coastal temperate rainforest.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Where did this come from? Maybe you should follow your own advice........

[BrionLutz]

Diamondback,

I have never mentioned the word "old growth" in any of my posts. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Ah...a confession &lt;grin&gt;.

I was pointing out that "old forest structure" is not "old growth" forest...probably by up to 750 years.

The Oregon Department of Forestry use of the term is deceptive.

Just wanted to clear that up in addition to your catching your mistake of overstating "old forest structure". Actual number was 25% and you had stated 75%.

" On Wednesday March 5th the Oregon Board of Forestry gave the go-ahead to acting State Forester Roy Woo to build over 750 miles of new roads into the Tillamook Rainforest. This is in addition to the over 3000 miles of sediment dumping roads already fragmenting this coastal temperate rainforest.

Diamondback: Where did this come from? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Emailed from Salem. In the Board of Forestry minutes somewhere I'm guessing.

Maybe you should follow your own advice...<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I'll hit the source up for an online source by since it was an very recent IP, I'm guessing it will be on the ODF website when they get current.

Bottom line is roads will and are increasing in Tillamook State Forest not decreasing.

They have to in order to accomodate the big increase in logging.

Brion

[ 03-15-2003, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]

[rebell]

Brion,

I have never tried to recite science. I base my veiws on the 40 plus years I have spent living in Tillamook , fishing, logging, hunting, and spending more hours in the mountains around the area than you could make up for in 100 years. Sometimes local knowledge is a good thing to take in to consideration.

Besides, there are different scientific opinions to many things. Sometimes it comes down to whose science you choose to believe in. You choose the radical enviromental veiws, I choose a veiw that will benifit all, fish and industry.

Good luck with trying to turn Oregon in to a park brion. I know you wont quit untill the last chainsaw is gone (that is your real objective). I am well aware of enviromental manipulation. You are an expert, and you now have an adience. It's sad that good people listen.

[ 03-15-2003, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: rebell ]

[rebell]

Brion,

:hoboy:

[BrionLutz]

Rebell,

I have never tried to recite science. I base my veiws on the 40 plus years I have spent living in Tillamook , fishing, logging, hunting, and spending more hours in the mountains around the area than you could make up for in 100 years. Sometimes local knowledge is a good thing to take in to consideration.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Sometimes what we think is true and what the science tells us is true are two different things. I still can't get around how sail boats and airplanes actually work with the wings and sails actually being pulled up vs. pushed.

You have to go with the science.

Besides, there are different scientific opinions to many things. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Not really. Science is based on repeatable results.

I just spent all day listening to biologists, hydrologists, engineers tell us that salmon restoration is habitat, habitat, habitat.

Sure, sometimes you can find scientists who will lie or shade the results, look at the tobacco industry, but the only people who believe them are folks with a vested interest or who want to believe them because it is what they always believed.


Good luck with trying to turn Oregon in to a park brion. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You took your eye off the ball.

My thing is salmon restoration.

As far as turning Oregon into a park and the Tillamook forest.

1. Tillamook Rainforest Plan calls for extensive logging.

2. Oregon salmon habitat is overdeveloped. That is why the salmon are nearly extinct.

3. TRC plan is a good balance between logging and salmon.

Brion

[TGFwriter]

The TGA was not formed to take on issue's as this. It was formed to add some more profesionalism to the industry. I am no longer a member, but I believe in what TGA used to stand for. You are not helping their PR in the Tillamook county area (something that need's to be worked on). I am sure you have seen the new petition that is being circulated in the area. You personaly can take the blame for it. Writes Rebell

It clearly has been a while since you paid attention in class. Where were you when the bylaws were being written for TGA? To quote TGA bylaws under Purpose ,

"The Association shall be incorporated and operated as a non-profit, non sectarian organization, to promote, enhance and protect guiding activites and other fishery related issues, not limited to Tillamook County, and for such other purposes as are allowed by Oregon law..........."

Did you recycle your by-laws? (I doubt it).

As for PR work in Tillamook County, a great deal of people that I look up to believe I am doing good PR work for guides through my involvement in my own restoration effort on Tillamook Bay, Tillamook Bay fish use studies and water quality work, smolt protection program contracts, Tillamook Bay Clean-up, volunteer work on various committees and past chair of the Tillamook Bay Watershed Council to name a few.

Now the people that believe I am having a negative impact on Tillamook County (and have signed this "petition to attempt to charge guides $1000/year to operate in Tillamook County" if I understand this petition correctly, just so happen to supply lumber to real estate developers in the county, along with relators and developers themselves. Maybe some of your own relatives down here signed it as well? If my actions are making that kind of stir around here, I won't take the blame for it, I'll take the credit! No, I don't support such an unconstitutional tax and neither should anyone else but I know it was started to create tension within our organization. It was effective in doing this! The sad fact is, I have supported some of these businesses myself in the past........ and I do mean past........

It's way too late to address DBD concerns at this time and I will have to read them again to try and understand them but here is one major concern I had for the Tillamook State Forest Tour for Jerry. And although I did thank him before for setting up the tour, I will thank him again and a special thanks goes out for the tasty supply of Whiskey Creek Fish the Tillamook Anglers puts out for harvest! My concern is:

Who will be the ODF&W biologist that will be accompanying us on the tour? I have a feeling it will be Dave Plawman. That would be a great choice but since he is employed by the Oregon Department of Forestry, and ODF&W is a sister agency to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, I would certainly be more amenable to making the tour if we had a biologist on board that didn't have his checks signed by ODF. Can we recruit an outside biologist for such an important event? Maybe with all his research on different matters, does Brion have a suggestion on who might give a unbiased opinion on Forest Practices?

[Born to be Wild]

Can we recruit an outside biologist for such an important event? Maybe with all his research on different matters, does Brion have a suggestion on who might give a unbiased opinion on Forest Practices? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Can't believe you used the two words "Brion and unbiased" in the same sentence Bob!
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

That dude is a sierra clubber. I'm sure he can find a whole list of unbiased biologist.
:laugh: :laugh:

After they get the chainsaws removed from the woods, then they can get the guides and other sportsman removed from the rivers (polluting the rivers) then they can get them kicked out of the bays, and we can have one big natural park!

[rebell]

Bob,

Your posts only prove how out of touch you really are with the people of Tillamook. They recognise the importance of the sportfishing industry there. That is why the petition was formed. If you read the petition you would notice that the dollars raised from the fee would go to sustain Tillamook county hatcheries. And the petition was drawn up by a retired buisness leader, with absolutley no ties to the timber industry or realstate.

And yes my relatives signed it, and so have I. Was it drawn up to form tension in the ranks of TGA? I don't know? I do know that the people of Tillamook need the sportfishing dollars and the timber revenue. Many are upset for the stance TGA has taken with the Rainforest Coalition.

Good luck Bob. You are going to need it. I will see you all on the tour.

[SouthCoastStu]

I have a feeling it will be Dave Plawman. That would be a great choice but since he is employed by the Oregon Department of Forestry, and ODF&W is a sister agency to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, I would certainly be more amenable to making the tour if we had a biologist on board that didn't have his checks signed by ODF. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Huh? Dave is an employee of ODF&W, not ODF. It is true that his position is funded by ODF, and that most of the habitat restoration work he does is on ODF managed lands. I can't think of anyone that knows more about habitat issues or has done more restoration projects on the Tillamook sytems than Dave. Are you saying you don't want him on the tour? If you can get someone in addition to Dave great, but it wouldn't be much of a tour without Dave, IMHO.

[Born to be Wild]

Diamondback,

You're exactly right about Dave with ODFW, not ODF.
I talked to Keith Braun (Tillamook District Biologist) twice over a week ago about the Tillamook situation and the tour. He seems like a real nice guy but reccomended Dave for the tour because he is there habitat guy. Neither he or Dave hadn't heard anything from Jerry Dove yet regarding the tour. Keith thought Dave would be available for the tour and even though his position is funded by ODF, there wouldn't be any political problems there. Keith is supposed to look up Jerry and find out about the tour. I also emailed Keith the URL for this thread and explained about it's history going back 3 or 4 threads. Dave sounds like a good choice to help out on the tour but that doesn't mean one of Brions granola cruncher's couldn't come along also! I'll bring along a roll of plastic TP to make sure we don't offend anyone. Just make sure the sack lunches are in plastic bags!

Dan

[ 03-16-2003, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

[BrionLutz]

TGFWriter,

Maybe with all his research on different matters, does Brion have a suggestion on who might give a unbiased opinion on Forest Practices? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The only ones I've heard in person were yesterday. The list is on StrayDog's "SportFishing thread. They were mostly concentrating on the Columbia River Basin issues.

They may have some expertise on timber/salmon issues or they could probably suggest someone.

I'd like to hear Charles Dewberry. He did the Knowles Creek restoration which involved timber practices. I think he did some work on the Forest Practices plan. Also, like Tillmaook, Knowles Creek is a Coast Range system.

Pacific Rivers Council - Knowles Creek Restoration (http://www.pacrivers.org/restoration/index.cfm?topicID=101)

Brion

[TGFwriter]

Surprised this has come to a screeching halt. How does everyone feel about having Charlie Dewberry invited to the forest tour. He apparently worked on the Forest Plan and is likely one of the most knowledgeable biologists for some of the concern going on here. Comments? Does anyone see the value?

Bob

[TGFwriter]

Dave Plawman on the tour would be a must! I agree that no one knows more than he about fish restoration projects in the Tillamook. I know about some myself so I don't need a refresher. As I stated, ODF has done a lot for fish but I think they could do more with buffers along streams. It is only 25 feet and there is a lot of science out there showing more buffer is needed to take salmon restoration seriously. I would benefit greatly from a fishery biologist that has worked with ODF on the Forest Plan- Charles Dewberry's name has come up more than once and seems like a good candidate. I have a commitment on the 26th but I am willing to break it if we can get Charlie Dewberry on the tour to talk about riparian function. I WILL COMMIT TO COMING IF WE CAN GET ANOTHER RIPARIAN FUNCTION BIOLOGIST TO COME! Otherwise, this tour has nothing to offer me.

I worked for ODF&W for 7 years. I know how sensitive the subject can be for an agency whose budget is hanging in the wait in Salem. I don't know Dave's opinion on riparian buffers and I don't expect him to cut his throat while the head of the Tillamook State Forest is conducting the tour. He is paid by ODF&W but that position is funded by ODF. Does anyone see a conflict of interest here besides me? These biologists can't express their own opinions in public. They have direction from the Portland office not to do this specifically!

Your posts only prove how out of touch you really are with the people of Tillamook. They recognise the importance of the sportfishing industry there. That is why the petition was formed. If you read the petition you would notice that the dollars raised from the fee would go to sustain Tillamook county hatcheries. And the petition was drawn up by a retired buisness leader, with absolutley no ties to the timber industry or realstate. Writes Rebell

I am thinking you might be the one out of touch. After all, I live here, you don't. Your first misdirection assumes that if this "fee" did go through, the money would be spent on hatcheries. Well, I think you know this but hatchery fish have an insignificant benefit for most of my business here in Tillamook County. I rarely fish for hatchery steelhead in Tillamook, I take an occasional hatchery coho in Tillamook Bay and an occasional hatchery chinook in the fall. I also take a small handful of hatchery springers (but they are the best springers that swim the state!) Myself and ALL the guides I know probably make 80 to 90% of their living off of the WILD fall chinook entering Tillamook Bay and yet most of us do NOTHING in order to enhance it. If there was going to be this illegal tax on Tillamook guides, it wouldn't go to hatcheries, it would have to go to wild fish enhancement unless we are living in a dictatorship and no longer taxing with representation?

As valuable as the hatcheries are here in Tillamook, the wild fish and the habitat are MUCH MORE VALUABLE to the guides and local businesses in Tillamook. It is a better investment for us to put money towards wild fish enhancement. AND I REPEAT, we do NOTHING for wild fish enhancement here! Thankfully, OWEB provides some funding for wild fish enhancement here in Tillamook but that is lottery money.

Specifically, here is how our Tillamook Government is hurting wild fish:

The Tillamook County Board of Commissioners voted 2 to 1 to NOT SUPPORT a streamside habitat improvement project on the lower Tillamook River

The Tillamook County Board of Commissioners voted 2 to 1 against a unanimous decision by the commissioner appointed Riparian Advisory Committee (RAC) to implement a strategy for formulating a new, improved riparian ordinance for fish in Rural Residential areas (about 3% of county lands). They instead took the advice of the Tillamook County Landowners Association to just "tweak" the current ordinance. Well, this was given back to Tillamook County as inadequate and inconsistent with state statute and now Tillamook County is in jeopardy of losing some important tax revenues that we get from the state not to mention we are being labeled as "uncooperative" when it comes to doing our part!

Just to put the nails in the coffin, the Tillamook County Board of Commissioners "decommissioned" the RAC after 2 and a half years of work saying they didn't need us any more. Now they are forming a new committee (ironically made up of members from the Landowners Association) to approve the procedure for inventoriying our streams for a new ordinance? Glad to see they are taking the interests of the fishing community into account.

This my friend, Rebell, is how Tillamook County values the Sportfishing industry.

But maybe I am out of touch, can you please tell me how Tillamook County values the sportfishing community specifically, I must be missing something?

[F F Jack]

Bob sounds like a good idea to me

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by TGFwriter:
Surprised this has come to a screeching halt. How does everyone feel about having Charlie Dewberry invited to the forest tour. He apparently worked on the Forest Plan and is likely one of the most knowledgeable biologists for some of the concern going on here. Comments? Does anyone see the value?

Bob <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I guess it depends on what you want the tour to be. If you want a polarized debate with much heat but little light....a point, counterpoint scenario...then Mr.Dewberry would be fine to present the "enviro" or left-wing side of the argument. I have heard Mr. Dewberry speak and have quizzed him about his opinions re: fish habitat protection and forest mgmt. In my opinion, he is extremely biased...and anything he says should be considered accordingly.

[BrionLutz]

Diamondback

" On Wednesday March 5th the Oregon Board of Forestry gave the go-ahead to acting State Forester Roy Woo to build over 750 miles of new roads into the Tillamook Rainforest. This is in addition to the over 3000 miles of sediment dumping roads already fragmenting this coastal temperate rainforest.

Diamondback: Where did this come from? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Got that information for you. It should now be in the published IP's but it's not online yet. As you see a huge increase in roads which is going to really hurt the salmon streams.

If you've got a current copy of the forest plan, look over the pages and tables and let me know if I'm misreading them.

Page 24 (Overview) of the 10 Year IP's, 774 miles of new roads will be built in the Tillamook and Clatsop state forests. table 1-7

In the Tillamook District: current roads (in miles) 1224, in ten years 4807, that's a 48% increase in road mileage.

The Tillamook District only plans to close 5-10 miles of roads in the next 10 years per page 24 Table 1-7.

Here's a quote from Mark Labhart, Tillamook District Forester concerning how roads affect salmon streams.

“Roads are the number-one cause of erosion and sedimentation problems. So if you can limit the amount of roads you’re building, the better off you are.” <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brion

[BrionLutz]

GSA,

If you want a polarized debate with much heat but little light....a point, counterpoint scenario...then Mr.Dewberry would be fine to present the "enviro" or left-wing side of the argument. I have heard Mr. Dewberry speak and have quizzed him about his opinions re: fish habitat protection and forest mgmt. In my opinion, he is extremely biased...and anything he says should be considered accordingly. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Perhaps folks should listen to Professor Dewberry's presentation (the link below) and read his biography (the other link below) to see his actual views and background and make up their own minds.

Not all debates on the issues have to involve emotional outbursts, name calling etc. A good example was the talk by the opposing sides on the hatchery/wild-fish debate at the Salmon 101 seminar.

They gave good facts and made of point of stressing the large areas of agreement on the biology and application issues.

The also stuck to the science of the issues vs. the rhetorical positions.

As for Mr. Dewberry, his work with salmon habitat restoration on both the Knowles Creek Salmon Restoration Project (http://www.pacrivers.org/restoration/index.cfm?topicID=101) and the Chinook River Restoration Project (http://www.searesources.org/booklet/Page_29.htm) make him the pre-eminent expert on the subject.

Why someone interested in restoring salmon in the Tillamook Forest (and in the Pacific Northwest) would not want to hear Mr. Dewberry's expert, scientific information is hard to explain.

He certainly seems to be one of the leading scientific experts on salmon restoration particuarly since he has headed up the science team for two of the most successful restoration projects.

Even more interesting is how the Chinook River project had to deal with all the same issues of the Tillamook Forest in how to balance current land use, salmon restoration, economic realities, local concerns etc. It's a great example of all sides working together for a win-win solution.

Brion

[BrionLutz]

Diamondback,

In the Tillamook District: current roads (in miles) 1224, in ten years 4807, that's a 48% increase in road mileage.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">.

Whoops...my H-P12C tells me a math error above. The planned increase in roads in Tillamook Forest from 1224 miles to 4807 miles is a 292.7% increase in the roads.

Brion

[Born to be Wild]

If you want a polarized debate with much heat but little light....a point, counterpoint scenario...then Mr.Dewberry would be fine to present the "enviro" or left-wing side of the argument. I have heard Mr. Dewberry speak and have quizzed him about his opinions re: fish habitat protection and forest mgmt. In my opinion, he is extremely biased...and anything he says should be considered accordingly. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Biased?

I listened and watched the “movie” by Lucy Vinis about Knowles Creek:

Perhaps folks should listen to Professor Dewberry's presentation (the link below) and read his biography (the other link below) to see his actual views and background and make up their own minds. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I didn’t get 10 seconds before I noticed the first “biased” mistake. Regarding our coastal wild coho, it starts misleading folks by stating both in print and audio, “today they face extinction”. Now, I would have to assume this propaganda by Mr. Dewberry or Lucy Vinis is not up to date on the facts. The facts are; Our OCN’s reached numbers that no one has seen in over 40 years! Facing extinction? 304,000 estimated wild coho for 2002, doesn’t look like on the brink of extinction to me! How about you? They are rebounding at an incredible rate. Up from 149,847 wild coho the year before (2001). I made up my own mind regarding biased from the get go, but continued watching and listening.

It goes on to say: “Coho are threatened with extinction in vast portions of there range”. I beg to differ again! This is referring to coastal coho I might remind you. I don’t know of any coastal coho that are listed as “endangered”, because there are none.

It goes on to say; “It only took a century to push Oregon coastal coho to the brink of extinction”. I did not find anything in Mr. Dewberry’s presentation addressing the massive harvest of wild coho salmon by the commercial and sports fleet not very long ago, not to mention the sports and commercial harvest of the wild coho in the rivers. This includes gill netting (legal and illegally) in the rivers themselves. (I did not just jump to the Columbia River; they allowed gill netting in some of our coastal rivers and bays).

I looked further into Charley Dewberry’s work (Google) and found this interview:

Interview with Charley Dewberry:

Recently, we've been lucky to see 3-4 thousand fish. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">He was referring to the Siusalw River system. Funny, my stats show an estimated return of 11,024 wild coho in 2001 and 57,125 in 2002. So again, I would think this info is not up to date. Big difference between 3-4 thousand and 57,125. Keep in mind, this (amazing rebound) is happening all up and down the coast, not just the Siuslaw. Oh, he did say; “And they canned an average of 70,000 salmon a year, around the turn of the century.” That figure was from the Florence canneries, and does not include the commercial salmon that was sold fresh, neither the sport caught salmon landed there. But I suppose that wasn’t a factor.

“Oh - one piece on the Siuslaw River I should say with regard to the salmon decline -- a lot of the factors that most people think in salmon decline don't really occur in the Siuslaw system. For example there's no dams, there's no major industries, the largest town in the watershed is Florence, with 5000 people. So in this large river system, a lot of the things we think about that really negatively impact salmon are just not here. Neither are there large hatcheries. There's no coho hatchery in the basin. So, none of those factors were really responsible for the decline of coho in the Siuslaw.” <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Again, where is the “factor” of the sport and commercial harvest of coho throughout the century? Or should I say slaughter instead of harvest?

I found both the “presentation” and interview with Mr. Dewberry to be extremely biased and a form of propaganda.

I have a presentation to make to the comission on Friday. I really shouldn't be wasting my time on this, but felt others should know. I could pick apart other parts of the interview and presentation (including the '96 flood he mentioned), but will not waste anymore of my time.
Now if I could only get the “chirping” birds off my computer. They are driving my cat nuts!

Dan &lt;Grin&gt;

[ 03-18-2003, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

[rebell]

Gee Bob, I grew up in Tillamook, spent the first 35 years of my life there. That enough for you?

Didn't say I agree with Tillamook county politics either. You made a couple of good points. But the people I have talked to want a balance, not an enviromental group running the forest, or making policies on how fish should be managed.

The wild fish in the Tillamook basin have better habitat than they have had in 50 years. It continues to get better in the upper drainage. No brion, I am not going to start stating any science, just experience in the area. And yes, things could be better. I have stated many times what I feel would help the wild fish in the area.

As far as Im concerned, you could close every hatchery in Tillamook tomorrow, it wouldnt hurt my feelings at all. I release 90% of the fish I catch anymore. But, there are a lot of people who feel that hatchery fish are important to there livelihood, many are members of TGA. You might want to think about that for a minute Bob. The way I see it, you either support hatchery production or you limit your harvest. I have choosen to limit my harvest. There are a lot of people that just cant seem to accept CnR. To bad, it works!

[BrionLutz]

DepoeBayDan,

Regarding our coastal wild coho, it starts misleading folks by stating both in print and audio, “today they face extinction” <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The scientists have put the Oregon Coho on the endangered species list so his statement is, of course, entirely accurate.

You once claimed no scientific expertise. Now you feel up to duking it out with the leading salmon habitat restoration biologist in the US.

I think Professor Dewberry's credentials are safe from your "review" &lt;grin&gt;.

<a href="http://ecos.fws.gov/servlet/SpeciesProfile?spcode=E08A" target="_blank">On July 25, 1995, we proposed to designate the coho salmon as Proposed Threatened in the U.S.A. (OR), natural populations in Oregon coastal drainages between Cape Blanco and the Columbia River. Within the area covered by this listing, this species is known to occur in: Oregon. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is the lead region for this entity.

(6) The term "endangered species" means any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range

(19) The term "threatened species" means any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

</a>

Brion

[BrionLutz]

Rebell,

No brion, I am not going to start stating any science, just experience in the area. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I think you realize the scientific data argues against your views.

The two links I provided on salmon habitat restoration provide a good background on the science.

The Knowles Creek restoration is probably the most specific since it, like Tillamook, is a coastal range salmon stream.

Always keep in mind that Tillamook Rainforest Coalation plan calls for extensive logging and, as you see from the economic analysis, no loss of logging jobs.

This and salmon restoration can be acheived with a 50/50 split use of the forest for salmon and timber vs. the 85% for timber approach of the Oregon Dept. of Forestry.

The science and the economics and what's best for the people of Oregon should be the guide in the use of public resources not anecdotes or personal "experiences".

Brion

[BrionLutz]

DepoeBayDan,

DepoeBayDan: I looked further into Charley Dewberry’s work (Google) and found this interview:

DepoeBayDan's quote of Dewberry : Recently, we've been lucky to see 3-4 thousand fish.

DepoeBayDan: He was referring to the Siusalw River system. Funny, my stats show an estimated return of 11,024 wild coho in 2001 and 57,125 in 2002. So again, I would think this info is not up to date. Big difference between 3-4 thousand and 57,125. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Hard to know what place he was referring or the date of the comment since it's not mentioned in your quote and there is no link.

Perhaps you misunderstood a reference to Knowles Creek. As Prof. Dewberry noted the Knowles Creek run was once in the 100,000 range and now is about 1,799 but that was referencing smolts not returning salmon.

Historical sources suggest that 75,000 to 100,000 coho salmon smolts migrated to the ocean from Knowles Creek spawning gravels each year. A hundred years later, fewer than 1700 smolts were making that journey. What had been done to make the creek so hostile to salmon survival? And could that change be reversed? (http://www.ecotrust.org/community/knowles_creek.html)

Here's some of Dewberry's technical research reports on why even just a 50% pro-salmon management of Tillamook could be a real plus for the salmon.

Within watersheds, salmonid species used different portions of watersheds for spawning and rearing (Li et al. 1987). This is true both historically at the century level and today reflecting not only the historic patterns but also the effects of human development within the watersheds. (http://www.inforain.org/mapsatwork/priorities/)

Regarding extinction of salmon. Here's a great map showing the streams where salmon no longer exist.

Extinctions are concentrated in the southern and eastern portions of the fishes' ranges, where human impacts have been most pervasive and the climate leaves salmon especially vulnerable to human-caused disruptions such as irrigation projects, logging, dam-building, and livestock grazing. (http://www.ecotrust.org/publications/salmon_nation_maps.html)

Brion

[Born to be Wild]

The scientists have put the Oregon Coho on the endangered species list so his statement is, of course, entirely accurate.

You once claimed no scientific expertise. Now you feel up to duking it out with the leading salmon habitat restoration biologist in the US.

I think Professor Dewberry's credentials are safe from your "review" &lt;grin&gt;. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brion, lets try this one more time. Show me where the scientists have put the Oregon Coho on the endangered species list and listed them as “endangered”. Which Oregon coho are on the endangered species list? Notice I asked which? Are you talking Lower Columbia River wild coho? Or maybe you are talking Oregon hatchery coho? Are you talking “threatened” or “endangered”? If one species of a fish is endangered in the state of Oregon, does that mean all other species of fish in Oregon are endangered also? Mr. Dewberry was talking about Oregon coastal wild coho. DepoeBayDan (me) was talking about Oregon coastal wild coho. Now show me where ODFW or PFMC or NOAA says Oregon coastal wild coho are “endangered” or on the brink of extinction as you and Mr. Dewberry have insinuated. If you want the facts, OCN’s are listed as “threatened”, not “endangered”, not on the brink of extinction. If you haven’t forgot (in your confusion), there is a proposal to fish on some of these Oregon coastal wild coho this year. Remember? Do you think biologist would propose fishing on a wild coho listed as “endangered”, or on the brink of extinction? Good Lord Brion, get your facts straight! Entirely accurate his statements and presentation are not. It says; “today they face extinction”. Quote, unquote. Kind of curious as to where he got his figure from stating; “a thriving population of wild coastal salmon has been spawning in Oregon’s coastal system for 10,000 years”. Didn’t realize that ODFW kept records going back that far?

“Now you feel up to duking it out with the leading salmon habitat restoration biologist in the US.” <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">“The leading salmon habitat restoration biologist in the US.” I didn’t realize he was the leading salmon habitat restoration biologist in the US. Maybe you should contact Mr. Dewberry and ask him if the statement “brink of extinction” or, “coho are threatened with extinction in vast portions of there range” is entirely accurate. And if he says yes, I’ll duke it out with him.

Oh, I just went back to your post and noticed you posted this:

(6) The term "endangered species" means any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range

(19) The term "threatened species" means any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">As I discussed, they are not listed under (6) "endangered species".
They do come under (19) "threatened species" (means any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range). I didn't realize that was the defination of "threatened" to be honest with you, and it doesn't realy matter because our OCN's have been doing nothing but going uphill, not downhill to become an endangered species. Well I guess they proved that theory wrong. From parent year in 1999 of only 34,646 Oregon coastal wild coho to 304,000 in 2002 (one generation), that is only what, about 1000% increase in one generation? (don't have my calculator handy). Wow, just think if the parent year of 2002 made that same 1000% increase in 2005 (one generation - 3 years). Lets see, that would be about what 3 million wild coho? Kind of doubt that will happen, but definately not likely to become an endangered species. As been said by a few different individuals on this site and many newspapers, the best in over 40 years. Fathom that Brion. 40+ years!

You catching on yet Brion?

[Straydog]

In what year did Mr. Dewberry make the comments you are quoting, Dan?

The Knowles Cr. project dates back a few years and I think you may be using old quotes for a new argument, for one thing.

[BrionLutz]

DepoeBayDan,

Now show me where ODFW or PFMC or NOAA says Oregon coastal wild coho are “endangered” or on the brink of extinction as you and Mr. Dewberry have insinuated. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">.

Listed as a threatened species on August 10, 1998. The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of coho salmon in Oregon coastal streams south of the Columbia River and north of Cape Blanco. (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/cohoorc.htm)

Scientific Findings: This species has been in decline in numerous streams in Oregon, Washington, and California, and there is a general geographic trend in the health of West Coast stocks, with the southernmost and easternmost stocks in the worst condition. During this century, naturally-reproducing populations of coho salmon are believed to have been extirpated in nearly all Columbia River tributaries. NMFS reviewed new information and public comments on the proposed ESUs, and concluded that all three warrant listing under the ESA. Available information supports the agency's finding that the Oregon Coast, Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts, and Central California Coast ESUs meet the definition of a threatened species, i.e., they are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/pubs/99cohofs.htm)

Brion

[ 03-19-2003, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]

[BrionLutz]

DepoeBayDan,

Here's a good map and detailed explanation of the plan to maintain and restore the salmon in the Tillamook and Clatsop forests. Good stuff on the the science and the economics.

Some great maps that help show the areas involved.

<a href="http://www.inforain.org/mapsatwork/anchorhabitats/" target="_blank">A New Salmon Anchor Habitat Strategy
Ecotrust, Oregon Trout, and Wild Salmon Center propose an ecologically and economically viable strategy that would restore salmon runs while allowing for predictable and stable timber harvest and forest management. This approach would 1) establish anchor habitat areas for salmon, 2) protect high-risk slopes from landslides, and 3) establish streamside protections to ensure riparian habitat protection for salmon. The approach would allow for some careful timber management within these three areas, and scheduled commercial timber harvest on the rest of the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests consistent with other management objectives and legal restraints. </a>

Also some Coho specific science for you.

As the watershed habitat is degraded, salmon populations are pushed toward the headwaters of the stream. Not all parts of the landscape have equal value for salmon. These small headwater streams can't produce many salmon. Habitat is limited, they are more susceptible to landslide and debris, and they are not the most productive part of the watershed. This is particularly true for coho. (http://www.inforain.org/mapsatwork/anchorhabitats/anchors_page2.htm)

Here's the NOAA Fisheries listing of all the salmon. You can click on each species to see it's current status. (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/factsht.htm)

Brion

[ 03-19-2003, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]

[garyk]

Memories are certainly short around here.

Less we forget, Gov. Kitzhaber's 'Oregon Salmon Plan' with its creation of citizen-based watershed councils in every major drainage and other far-reaching goals, was a direct response to a potential ESA listing of wild coastal coho by NMFS - (yes, I know the agency name has been changed since then).

Additionally, in my personal library I have a paper by Jim Martin, written in (~) 1983 warning of collapsing stocks of wild coho.

(When the coho season was cancelled (1994 I think)making headlines in the Oregonian Newspaper, I sent a copy to Bill Monroe, asking how the warnings could have been totally ignored?)

Coho may be on an upswing, and that's very good news indeed, but we can't ignore the depressed runs of the last 20 years, and if we're now at approximately 10% of historical abundance - that's still a 90% decline, indicating there's plenty of work to be done.

[TGFwriter]

garyk for president!

[Born to be Wild]

DepoeBayDan,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DepoeBayDan: I looked further into Charley Dewberry’s work (Google) and found this interview:

DepoeBayDan's quote of Dewberry : Recently, we've been lucky to see 3-4 thousand fish.

DepoeBayDan: He was referring to the Siusalw River system. Funny, my stats show an estimated return of 11,024 wild coho in 2001 and 57,125 in 2002. So again, I would think this info is not up to date. Big difference between 3-4 thousand and 57,125.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hard to know what place he was referring or the date of the comment since it's not mentioned in your quote and there is no link.

Perhaps you misunderstood a reference to Knowles Creek. As Prof. Dewberry noted the Knowles Creek run was once in the 100,000 range and now is about 1,799 but that was referencing smolts not returning salmon.

Here you want a quote and link, here you go:

Interview with Charley Dewberry:

ES: Please tell me a little about yourself.

CD: My name is Charley Dewberry. I am a restoration ecologist and I work for Ecotrust.

ES: I understand that you lead a project to restore coho salmon in Knowles Creek, a tributary of the Siuslaw River in Oregon. Could you tell me about the project?

CD: Well, first, I'm one of the leaders. There's really three people involved at the beginning: Craig Burns, John Rollins, and myself. We started the project in 1992. And the objective was - we just didn't think that the then current restoration practices were really benefitting fish to the extant they could. So we decided to take off on a whole new tack. And so what we were trying to do was look at how the landscape works, and how the fish keyed into what was happening on the landscape. And then we wanted to try to help restore the natural function of the landscape. We'll probably have to talk a little bit about that. And then, monitor very carefully how the fish responded. And that's really what the Knowles Creek project was about.

ES: Could you describe for me the physical location of Knowles Creek?

CD: Well, the Siuslaw River system is about 800 sq. miles, or about 90-100 miles long. And at the turn of the century, the town I live in , Florence, had three salmon canories. And they canned an average of 70,000 salmon a year, around the turn of the century. And so the run's been estimated as high as 1/2 million fish in a good year. Recently, we've been lucky to see 3-4 thousand fish. So the number of salmon fish currently in the Siuslaw River are 1 or less than what they were at the turn of the century. So given that huge decline, as I said, our objective was to go out and try to figure out what coho salmon were keying in on in the Siuslaw River, and so that took us to Knowles Creek, which is a tidewater tributary of the Siuslaw. And it's about 20 square miles. The stream is about 12 miles long. And so that was a smaller piece of landscape that we could tackle and learn where the coho spawn, were they spent a year and a half in freshwater before they went into the ocean, and then where they came back to.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Now, what does that say Brion? Smolts or fish? Want me to translate it into espanole for you? It says; " And so the run's been estimated as high as 1/2 million fish in a good year. Recently, we've been lucky to see 3-4 thousand fish."

Your's and his figures don't seem to jive! Do you know the difference between a smolt and an adult? Or a fry and a jack? Maybe they didn't have those on the East Coast? It does look like a poorly written article probably written by a "greenie", but that is the point Brion! If you are going to use propaganda to debate, use something that is up to date and accurate!

Send him on down to the tour. I told you I would duke it out with him as you suggested, as long as he doesn't spit "grape nuts" out at me. :grin: Can you tell that I am just a little frustrated with you? graemlins/1zhelp.gif You can't seem to answer questions, just pass along a bunch of propaganda!
Why can't you answer anything for yourself? I don't have a problem with Mr. Dewberry's studies, and in fact have respect for him searching for the answers, but I do have a problem with you or him or anyone else that is passing on inaccurate or outdated info to further there cause.

Heres your URL for your for site:

http://www.earthsky.com/2002/esmi021018.html

[BrionLutz]

DepoeBayDan,

Glad you were able to confirm that Dr. Dewberry's reference was accurate. The 4,000 return was 1995 and is, of course, correct.

A recent study of Northwest coastal rivers by Ecotrust evaluated three parameters believed to be critical to restoration of aquatic ecosystems: (1) the historic carrying capacity of the system, (2) the potential for restoration based on the degree of human influences, and (3) the current aquatic production. Based on these criteria, the Siuslaw Basin received the highest ranking among all of Oregon’s coastal watersheds. This study particularly reflects the high historic numbers of salmon, and that in spite of 130 years of intensive land use, the system remains free of large dams or urban areas, and is still mostly forested. (http://www.inforain.org/siuslaw/)

Dr. Dewberry's work in Suislaw basin on Knowles Creek provides the solid scientific basis for the Tillamook Rainforest Plan which would allow logging on 50% of the forest while focusing on preservation of the anchor habitats for salmon in the other 50%.

Is that what you were trying to say &lt;grin&gt;.

Brion

[ 03-19-2003, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]

[BrionLutz]

DepoeBayDan,

I told you I would duke it out with him as you suggested, as long as he doesn't spit "grape nuts" out at me. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">.

Well...here's Dr. Dewberry's partial resume. You can post yours so we'll know who has credibility in area of scientific work on salmon habitat restoration in Oregon. I already posted the links to his work on Knowles Creek restoration and the Chinook River restoration where he is the lead scientist.

It would appear that the US Forest service, timber companies and environmentalists all trust his expertise.

T.C. "Charley" Dewberry holds degrees from Michigan State University and a Ph.D. from the University of Oregon. Since 1991, he has led the restoration effort on Knowles Creek in Oregon's Siuslaw basin, a cooperative project between the U.S. Forest Service, John Hancock Timber Management Group, and the Pacific Rivers Council. He is a founding member of Gutenberg College in Eugene, Oregon, where he also teaches. Charley lives with his wife, Susie, and son, Dylan, in Florence, Oregon. (http://www.searesources.org/booklet/Page_29.htm)

You can't seem to answer questions, just pass along a bunch of propaganda! <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">.

Well they seem to be references to various experts, scientific studies, economic studies etc. Is it "propaganda" because all the hard data seems to contradict your views?

Why can't you answer anything for yourself? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">.

I'm no expert so I quote the experts and the science sources that I rely upon to form my opinions.

For example, I answered your question about Coho when you didn't seem to realize that Oregon coastal Coho are, in fact, listed under the Endangered Species Act by quoting the NOAA Fisheries listing and providing the link.

Brion

[Born to be Wild]

Garyk’

I appreciate your response. I do however have questions and comments for you.

Additionally, in my personal library I have a paper by Jim Martin, written in (~) 1983 warning of collapsing stocks of wild coho.

(When the coho season was cancelled (1994 I think)making headlines in the Oregonian Newspaper, I sent a copy to Bill Monroe, asking how the warnings could have been totally ignored?)

Coho may be on an upswing, and that's very good news indeed, but we can't ignore the depressed runs of the last 20 years, and if we're now at approximately 10% of historical abundance - that's still a 90% decline, indicating there's plenty of work to be done. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">First of all regarding Jim Martin. That was 1983, this is 2003. Glad he pointed that out back then. I was not aware of what was going on until the early 90’s to mid 90’s. Folks like him have no doubt helped turn things around. Like I said, turned things around. Things are quite different now than in the 80’s or even the 90’s.

Secondly, I’m not sure I understand your second question regarding the question addressed to Bill Monroe. If it implied hindsight regarding why did they wait so long to shut down the over harvest on wild coho, that could get pretty complicated. Keep in mind they didn’t have fin clipped coho back in those days. The commercials, sports fleet which includes private, charter boats and guides literally slaughtered the hatchery and wild coho stocks. By the way, I really consider the charters and guides as commercials because they are out there to harvest fish for a buck, not for pleasure.(just my .02 cents) The difference is, they carry paying sports fishermen, instead of just simply selling their fish. But, you come up with the same results; exploiting a fish for a buck.
So, these guys put a lot of pressure on the fishery managers and it gets real political; everybody fighting for there share and I am sure you realize how many parties get involved.
Unfortunately it seems the managers didn’t cut them off soon enough considering all the exploiters and strength of the runs. So what you end up with is a lot of “bashing”. Everybody is pointing fingers everywhere. And it has happened all over the world, not just here. The fishermen always want to exploit more, and the biologist armed with the best available but not infaluable science have to deal with it. And often times take unnecessary crap.

That’s where we need to work together, not against each other.
I am absolutely neutral on logging at this point because as I pointed out on several occasions, our fish runs are doing great with logging.

So, nobody ever answered the question why are our runs (mid coast) are doing so great when we perhaps have less fish friendly logging going on here than in Tillamook? Not a single person! Would somebody care to answer that question?

I personally believe some of you ought to remove the camel from your own eyes.

The only differences between our strong runs and Tillamook weak runs is; hatcheries and harvest in freshwater. Not saltwater commercial harvest, because our Chinook migrate right with the Tillamook stocks. So, will anybody answer my question?

Anybody that believes that we can turn progress back a hundred years ago or so, and rebuild our runs back to historical records is a “hypocrite” and might as well go to Iraq and fight them with bows & arrows”. It’s called “growing pains”, something they even realize up in Alaska now days.

[Born to be Wild]

Well...here's Dr. Dewberry's partial resume. You can post yours so we'll know who has credibility in area of scientific work on salmon habitat restoration in Oregon. I already posted the links to his work on Knowles Creek restoration and the Chinook River restoration where he is the lead scientist.

It would appear that the US Forest service, timber companies and environmentalists all trust his expertise. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brion, you actually think I base my beliefs on somebodys resume? Do you think I base my beliefs on anyone single person?

Dude, you're a good canadate for a cult.


Oh, now he is just the lead scientist?

[ 03-20-2003, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

[TGFwriter]

DBD So, nobody ever answered the question why are our runs (mid coast) are doing so great when we perhaps have less fish friendly logging going on here than in Tillamook? Not a single person! Would somebody care to answer that question?

Well first Dan-
I have to put in my disclaimer that I don't know much about your area as I do not live there. The only reference I have on your area is a very reliable one- the 2003 sportfishing regulations. If you flip to page 28 and look to the Siuslaw River, you may find that it IS NOT OPEN TO THE RETENTION OF WILD COHO OR WILD STEELHEAD Now granted this is the only reference I have but if ODF&W doesn't believe we can have a consumptive fishery for wild fish, that is a pretty clear indication that there are not enough wild fish to sustain their own population. I fully support closures on wild fish to sustain their population even though it DIRECTLY EFFECTS MY INCOME! I think what we should be shooting for is first, a large enough sustainable population to keep the runs going, and then open the fishery up to a sustainable sport and commercial fishery to provide the greatest economic benefit for the local economy. In my book, when we have enough fish to sustain themselves as a race, then we have enough fish! That appears NOT to be the case in your neck of the woods. When we have more than enough fish to sustain themselves as a race, then open the fishery up to a limited consumptive fishery!

Please tell me if I am wrong in quoting the Sportfishing regulations!

[Born to be Wild]

DepoeBayDan,

Glad you were able to confirm that Dr. Dewberry's reference was accurate. The 4,000 return was 1995 and is, of course, correct.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Wrong again! Brion, where do you get your info from? Never mind, I don't even want to know. :laugh:

You are wrong again, and again, and...

The correct number for the 1995 estimated OCN's for the Siuslaw River was 6,089 not 4,000 you just quoted. Where do you get your info from? I don't even recall bringing up a '95 issue, but if I did, you are wrong again.

[ 03-20-2003, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

[Born to be Wild]

DBD So, nobody ever answered the question why are our runs (mid coast) are doing so great when we perhaps have less fish friendly logging going on here than in Tillamook? Not a single person! Would somebody care to answer that question?

Well first Dan-
I have to put in my disclaimer that I don't know much about your area as I do not live there. The only reference I have on your area is a very reliable one- the 2003 sportfishing regulations. If you flip to page 28 and look to the Siuslaw River, you may find that it IS NOT OPEN TO THE RETENTION OF WILD COHO OR WILD STEELHEAD Now granted this is the only reference I have but if ODF&W doesn't believe we can have a consumptive fishery for wild fish, that is a pretty clear indication that there are not enough wild fish to sustain their own population. I fully support closures on wild fish to sustain their population even though it DIRECTLY EFFECTS MY INCOME! I think what we should be shooting for is first, a large enough sustainable population to keep the runs going, and then open the fishery up to a sustainable sport and commercial fishery to provide the greatest economic benefit for the local economy. In my book, when we have enough fish to sustain themselves as a race, then we have enough fish! That appears NOT to be the case in your neck of the woods. When we have more than enough fish to sustain themselves as a race, then open the fishery up to a limited consumptive fishery!

Please tell me if I am wrong in quoting the Sportfishing regulations! <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well Bob, I don’t have all the answers.
I was mainly addressing the main Tillamook problem, the lack of Chinook. We have plenty obviously. You don’t! As far as wild coho, no it isn’t open for harvest yet, but is headed that direction. There could possibly be a harvest on certain streams this year! The Siusalaw, no. But, it is increasing by leaps and bounds also. Now that we decreased coho smolt stocking of hatchery coho on the coast, the wild coho have excelled like the biologist said they would. So credit the ocean conditions if you would like, but I think what the biologist and science promised me is a determining factor. As far as other species, I don’t know the answers. One thing I do know about steelhead in my area (keep in mind I’m just a few miles from you), is the rivers that have natives only are doing just fine, and I would doubt that the ones that have hatcheries on them, aren’t doing as well.
Challenge me on that one would you.

I’m not going to hold back anymore Bob. You (guide)are one of the largest problems in salmonid stocks. You exploit them to death! You and your counterparts exploit them to death! So, should you take away logging jobs that might not make much of a difference to the overall runs just because you want more fish for your customers? It’s personal greed no matter which way you look at it. The charters do the same in my area, over fish one species and go target another and deplete that one. What about the Kenai Bob? Same thing there. Too many people trying to kill too many fish! You have to look at the overall picture, sure improve the habitat, but unless you are willing to decrease the harvest, you are part of the problem. It’s called EXPLOITATION!
Simple fact!

[ 03-20-2003, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

[Thumper]

Cool thread. Learning a bunch ... :grin:

[Straydog]

I think it is an embarassing thread and am really confused why such disrepctful dialogue is unacceptable on Life in General but OK on the main board that more people read?

I understand that this is Jenny's fort and she can make the rules. But I sure don't understand the double standard of them.

I guess it is wrong to be disrepectful concerning politics and our President but it is ok for one person to show absolutely no respect for another due to his views of fish recovery.
:shrug:

[ 03-20-2003, 06:32 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[garyk]

Thanks for saying that Straydog.

For my part, I'll only say that when it becomes a personal attack - I skip the rest of the message.

I've been skipping a lot of this thread lately.

[Jerry Dove]

Yes the tour is stil on!! It will be a tour to look at what the ODF is doing with the Tillamook Forest and how they are working to enhance fish, wildlife and all other aspects of the forest. Jerry

[BrionLutz]

DepoeBayDan,

I don't even recall bringing up a '95 issue, but if I did, you are wrong again. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You asked what year the Sisulaw system had 4,000 salmon return. I may be off on '95 by a year one way or the other. I was reading across the tables.

Bottomline is that Dr. Dewberry was correct in the time period he was referencing, as you see below.

You kept bringing up the 2003 return for some reason.

Two different years.

<a href="http://www.inforain.org/siuslaw/" target="_blank">Early cannery records indicate that the Siuslaw was second only to the Columbia River in numbers of coho. The average coho numbers from 1889-1896 were 209,000 fish (Booker). This compares to an average of just over 3000 in the years 1990-1995. Why have the numbers declined to such an extent?
</a>

As for current number of returning coho being up:


1. As Dr. Dewberry's study of the Siuslaw noted it was one of the healthiest wastersheds due to no other damage but logging in the spawning streams.

2. This was the area that Dr. Dewberry worked for the Forest Service, the lumber corporation and the environmental groups in salmon habitat restoration.

3. The NOAA Fisheries report notes that all the record salmon returns are due mostly to good ocean conditions vs. big improvements in habitat.
Yes..we know you don't agree with the NOAA Fisheries conclusions but that is their view.

The other bottomline is that Dr. Dewberry is arguably the formost expert on salmon habitat restoration in the US.

Brion

[BrionLutz]

DepoeBayDan,

You (guide)are one of the largest problems in salmonid stocks. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The envelope please! And where is the statistic on that? The NOAA Fisheries folks don't consider all the sportfishing as significant so the tiny proportion of sportfishermen who go out with guides is less than insignifcant.

You also keep forgetting that the guides customers are licensed fishermen and have as much right out on the water as you do.

So, should you take away logging jobs that might not make much of a difference to the overall runs just because you want more fish for your customers? It’s personal greed no matter which way you look at it. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">First thing you keep forgetting is that the economics show that there is no loss in logging jobs. While if the logging goes on, there will be more damage to the salmon, recreation, tourism etc.

One could apply your same logic to the logging corporations killing off the salmon, tourism and recreation jobs plus taking away my chance at a big salmon as being..ahem..exploitive.

As for "greedy", the logging corporations want 86% of the forest vs. the proposed 50-50 split...that seems to define greedy.

All the sportfishermen, commerical fishermen, recreation/tourist industry, boat builders, lure builders, rod builders, retailers etc. are asking is that the public forest be shared and operated to benefit everyone.

On top of that future generations have a right to expect us to be good stewards and to preserve some of our natural heritage like having a living portion of the forest there in it's original form and having lots of salmon.

State forests are only 3% of Oregon forests, doesn't seem like a lot to preserve.

Brion

[Born to be Wild]

Well, I edited a lot of my posting last night. This is my last post on ifish.net.
I’ll let you guys debate or battle amongst yourselves. I’ve fought this war for 15 years now. I do have an attitude towards fishermen in general. I moved down to the coast nine years ago to get away from it. Wrong. I was just in a discussion yesterday morning with a couple charter guys. They still refuse to listen to anyone and accept the fact that there is indeed a difference between a wild fish and a hatchery fish. I didn’t fish Chinook once in the state of Oregon last year because of the multiple problems I and others have talked about on this thread. I don’t hunt elk here anymore for the same reasons. I went to the Salmon River meeting a month or two ago because the Salmon River fishery is out of control also. I am moving to Washington and this is part of the reason for the move. One of my best friends moved to Prince of Wales Island last year because he has lived here all his life and could not tolerate the craziness of our sport fisheries any longer.

I’m supposed to make a presentation at the commission meeting tomorrow promoting a much needed fishery. I’m not doing it for myself because I won’t be living here. I already know there is politically motivated opposition to the new fishery. At this point I don’t know if I will even go for sure even though I am scheduled. I worked hard on preparing myself for this presentation, but it’s really not my fight anymore. And I guess I am burned out on the politics of fishing.

I have an article coming out tomorrow in the local paper to help change the attitudes of the coastal fishermen and non fishermen regarding wild fish issues and fish management issues and a follow up article. That will be my last battle before leaving this state.

Sorry I lost it last night and offended some. As I have said, I have seen too much greed in Oregon fisheries and the related businesses over the years and it has spoiled fishing for me. To be honest with you, I rarely even fish anymore except in the fall in Washington.
Combine that with my own personal problems, and it is not a healthy situation.
I still plan on attending the tour if it still takes place to gain much needed knowledge on logging practices past and present and habitat.

Regards

[Born to be Wild]

Brion:
You kept bringing up the 2003 return for some reason. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brion, maybe you didn’t notice the fact I said I wasn’t going to post on Ifish again? But, I got home and checked the ifish site and noticed you miss quoted me again and supplied inaccurate info again and felt compelled to reply to you again even though you are a lost cause and a waste of my time. Here is what I posted:


First of all regarding Jim Martin. That was 1983, this is 2003. Glad he pointed that out back then. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I simply pointed out to Garyk that this is the year 2003. ’83 is out of date regarding salmon issues. Things have changed since then and might I add, for the better!

It just goes to show you again as I have pointed out many times, you don’t know anything about fish. Anybody that knows anything about fish would not make a stupid mistake by saying; “2003 return for some reason”. All our wild and hatchery coho haven’t returned yet in 2003. If you knew anything about them you would realize that they don’t return until the fall or winter of this year (2003). I don’t make stupid mistakes like that because I know a little bit about fish. I realized your error again as soon as I looked at your post.

By the way Brion and the rest of you, I went to the commission meeting tonight and had the opportunity to meet and talk to several biologist about different issues but especially a lot of biologist from the private and government sector about the habitat issues here and in Tillamook. They all (everyone of them) said the habitat is in excellent shape. Even Rick Klump (Tillamook) who is the boss of both Bob Buckman and Keith Braun (Tillamook) told me the spawning areas are in great shape!
Not a single one of them could understand the reasoning behind the Rain Forest coalition. They were all bothered by the issue. Maybe I will detail some of the specifics of what all the habitat and fish bio's unanimously said regarding the good shape our habitat at a later date. Talked with a state forester also. It was a great learning experience and eye opener.

One individual (private sector fish biologist) named Jeff couldn’t believe what I told him about ifish.net Tillamook thread regarding the TRC. This biologist was honest and sincere. That was quite obvious. He was in no way biased.

I also talked with an awesome state forester that told me regarding this issue, that his boss has told him when he asked; "If you think you can make a positive improvement, don’t worry about the bureaucracy, just do it". He also told me of a creek up in the Toledo area where he went out of his way to get a grant to make improvements in culverts where state highways cross streams. The improvements have been made.

A lot of cool and caring people I met, and they all (100%) disagreed with you and the rest of the folks on ifish that are promoting the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition.

Imagine that?

Its 4:15 in the morning and I wasted a lot of my time again because of your erroneous post. The meeting starts less than four hours from now. I do resent the fact I am loosing valuable sleep on your behalf, but you should have not addressed me after I stated I would not post anymore on this site. You did give me an excuse to reply again because of your false info again and I did receive some emails encouraging me not to quit replying to this site. Your tactics are not widely accepted. I would ask that you don’t bring me up anymore, because you don’t reply with accurate info and have proven yourself so.

Thanks,
Dan

[Straydog]

Get real Dan. :hoboy:

You have told me personally and us publicly more than once that you were going to stop posting on here and yet you don't stop. Now you have the audacity to blame Brion for your lack of discipline and self control.

"Just say no" Dan. Do not respond.

In the event that you do not have the fortitude to resist, fine, embarass yourself more but for crying out loud, don't blame it on anyone but yourself. :shrug:

[ 03-21-2003, 06:50 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[BrionLutz]

DepoeBayDan,
DepoeBayDan,


But, I got home and checked the ifish site and noticed you miss quoted me again and supplied inaccurate info again and felt compelled to reply to you again even though you are a lost cause and a waste...<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Actually you got home and forgot what you had posted just a few messages ago &lt;grin&gt;.

Here's your reference to recent year Coho runs, and how you compared that to Dr. Dewberry's reference to different years.

DepoeBayDan: He was referring to the Siusalw River system. Funny, my stats show an estimated return of 11,024 wild coho in 2001 and 57,125 in 2002. So again, I would think this info is not up to date. Big difference between 3-4 thousand and 57,125. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">As you see, you were quoted correctly.

As you saw, the reference and interview Dr. Dewberry made as 1990-1995. Dr. Dewberry was entirely correct in his statement.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Brion

[Born to be Wild]

Brion,



I asked you not to quote me or bring up my name again. But you chose to do so anyway and proved yourself wrong again. You miss quoted me as saying on your 3/20 /03, 11:45pm thread:



You kept bringing up the 2003 return for some reason. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Sorry, wrong answer. The 2003 wild coho’s are still out in the ocean and won’t return or spawn for another 7-9 months. As I said, I don’t make mistakes like that. Then after I showed you were wrong again and asked that you don’t bring me up, you made another mistake:



quote:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DepoeBayDan: He was referring to the Siusalw River system. Funny, my stats show an estimated return of 11,024 wild coho in 2001 and 57,125 in 2002. So again, I would think this info is not up to date. Big difference between 3-4 thousand and 57,125.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you see, you were quoted correctly. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">As you see Brion, you did indeed miss quote me. You said that I said; “You kept bringing up the 2003 return for some reason”.



Obviously I never said that and used the most current data available. Look at what I said that you quoted (2001 & 2002 OCN’s) and then look at where you miss quoted me claiming I said “2003 return”.

No, it should be obvious to anyone that you didn’t quote me correctly. You might try copy/paste next time.



I will not debate you anymore because you are not rational. Please do not bring my name up again.

By the way, thanks for clarifying that Mr. Dewberry's info was indeed out of date ('90 to '95 you stated). Big difference between the mid 90's when we had severe El 'Nino's and when the Oregon salmon plan just started, and 2003 when we are seeing the positive results.

Dan

[Born to be Wild]

Sorry Straydog.

As long as Brion keeps miss quoting me, I have the right to rebuttal. I am not going to allow a guy like that to miss quote me and make me look "foolish" like I said something about the 2003 wild coho returns that obviously hasn't taken place yet.

Dan

[BrionLutz]

DepoeBayDan,

As you see Brion, you did indeed miss quote me. You said that I said; “You kept bringing up the 2003 return for some reason”. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Nope.

1. You were quoted accurately.
2. You were proven incorrect.

Quotes look like the above. See the word " quote ". Best you can do is claim I misstated the date of your error &lt;grin&gt;.

You were quoted accurately claiming that Dr. Dewberry was in error on the 2001-2002 Coho salmon run on the Siuslaw.

You were proven wrong when I quoted Dr. Dewberry's interview in which it is clear he is referencing 1990-95 period when he was doing the Knowles Creek Restoration project.

See the quotes below.

The science Dr. Dewberry offered on Oregon coastal salmon habitat is the most thorough and detailed science we have on salmon habitat restoration. Yes, we know that you claim expertise and that you disagree but on the other hand we have the fact that US Forest Service, timber corporations and environmentalists all recognize Dr. Dewberry as the leading expert scientist on habitat restoration.

Notice the quote marks.

DepoeBayDan: He was referring to the Siusalw River system. Funny, my stats show an estimated return of 11,024 wild coho in 2001 and 57,125 in 2002. So again, I would think this info is not up to date. Big difference between 3-4 thousand and 57,125. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica"> Dr. Dewberry: Early cannery records indicate that the Siuslaw was second only to the Columbia River in numbers of coho. The average coho numbers from 1889-1896 were 209,000 fish (Booker). This compares to an average of just over 3000 in the years 1990-1995. Why have the numbers declined to such an extent? (http://www.inforain.org/siuslaw/) <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brion

[crabbait]

Ok....hey, this is turning into a great little two way cat fight. He said I said we said......enough.

Take it to e-mail, gentlemen.