Tillamook State Forest Tour and Pic's [Archive]

Born to be Wild

04-28-2003, 02:51 PM

How was it?

How may participated? What took place? Were eyes opened? Did the tour take place?

After all the discussion before hand I am curious of the results.
Yes the tour took place. It was a great tour and missed opportunity for many.

Probably around 30 folks participated and out of that only 4 ifisher's. One of the four might not have been an ifisher. Kenny Bell is Rusty's (rebell) Dad and I’m not clear if he is a participating member of ifish but was there. A few Tillamook locals were there that found out about the event through Jerry Dove and also the local newspaper and radio. One Willamina resident that was a former Tillamook resident still subscribes to the Tillamook paper and found out about it that way.

Rusty (rebell) had to work 16 hours on Friday and worked Saturday (physical inventory) and could not make it against his will. GSA could not make it because his 81 year old mom was arriving at his house Saturday and I believe I heard the Pilar's were sick. :depressed: I do not know what happened to the rest of the ifisher's. Jerry Dove, Jeff (Barviewrocks) and I were there representing ifish. David Moskowitz was there representing the “Wild Salmon Center” and the “Rainforest Coalition”.

"What took place?" First of all we sat and watched a 19 minute video; "Sea Of Green" - The Story of the Tillamook State Forest at 9:00AM, (Which I obtained a copy of and am open to share with ifisher's). An excellent video of the history of the Tillamook forest.

Then we loaded up in the vans provided by the Oregon Dept. of Forestry (ODF) and headed for the hills.

The first stop was Stuart Creek a trib of the Miami River for introductions of the group and to show an old log stringer bridge crossing that was vacated and a bridge removed and some rather large logs that were placed in the stream. The logs came from the old bridge.

The next stop was on the Miami where in the past the anchor system was used (using cable to hold rocks and logs in place), and the newer practice where logs were anchored against living trees to create off channel support during high water and allow for logs to move a little with the current.

Next stop was where a recycled bridge was used to replace a culvert and talks about fish habitat and a little biology. The old culvert that was there would not pass fish. ODF chose to put in a bridge rather than replacing the culvert with another culvert. More expensive but does a better job of passing fish. Note: Most of the habitat restoration was aimed at supporting the listed coho but is helpful to other salmonids also. The newer habitat restoration practices mimic the natural phenomena the best way possible. ODF emphasized that from 1992 to today, they have spent $1.2 million dollars on 421 stream habitat projects in the Tillamook District including placing 1,681 pieces of large wood in the streams and placing 450 boulders. ODF also mentioned they had opened up 12.8 miles of new spawning and rearing habitat with these projects. graemlins/applause.gif :bowdown:

Then it was off to the Wilson River watershed to show modern FMP (Forest Management Plan) in which we saw examples of the SAH’s (Salmon Anchor Habitats). Any management within these areas should be designed to minimize the risk to habitats and populations. We were shown some clear cutting to reduce the effects of a severe forest health issue affecting the Tillamook called Swiss Needle Cast disease. It’s a fungus that affects the needles and the needles fall off and the trees stop growing. We also saw a thinning near the south fork of the Wilson where the east slope was left intact because of it’s steepness and possible risk to habitat because of landslides. graemlins/applause.gif :bowdown:

17 SAH basins were selected from a pool of possible candidates provided by ODFW.

I will add pic’s that I took later today along with other info. Jeff took some pic's also.

Were eyes opened? I would have to answer yes to that question. Especially to the environmentalist. I talked to Dave Moskowitz after we got back to the ODF office as he was waiting a ride. I asked him what he thought. He told me; “it looks like they are doing some good things”. He also stated that; “he thought they should leave some of the forest unmanaged”. I questioned him on that and he said; “he thought they should leave some of it wild”. It was my opinion that they were doing just that in the SAH areas where they are leaving significant portions of the areas out of the harvest equation in addition to leaving larger riparian areas.

I would have to say my eyes were opened also. I saw a lot being done for wild fish that I hadn’t expected. I saw forestry practices that were impressive to me. The future looks bright in the Tillamook State Forest and it is producing large amounts of wild fry including a few pink’s we were informed!

Everything I saw, read (we were given many handouts, some included before & after pic’s) and heard reconfirmed everything I have heard from biologist over the last several months since this tour was started. Logging and wild fish can co-exist. There is a lot of work to do however for habitat reconstruction, but I didn’t see anything detrimental or disturbing in the current Forest Management Plan by ODF. It was in my opinion that these foresters do care and are concerned in the future health of the Tillamook State Forest.

Some of the ODF and ODFW personnel involved and present were:

Mark Labhart
Tillamook District Forester, Tillamook

Mike Schnee
Forest Plan Coordinator, Salem

Wayne Auble
Assistant District Forester, Tillamook

Tony Klosterman
ODF Road Engineer

Dave Plawman
ODFW Habitat Biologist, Tillamook

John Germond
ODFW Forest Plan Coordinator, Portland

Thanks to Mark Labhart, I found him most helpful and a great “Devils advocate” :wink: (you’d had to been there to understand) and I don’t think anyone could not appreciate the “nice guy” personality and sincerity of Mike Schnee! :smile:

Dan

Born to be Wild

04-28-2003, 03:46 PM

First Pic is of the group at our first stop at Stuart Creek introducing ourselves.

http://www.ifish.net/uploads/483015117.jpg

This pic is when we made our short hike down to the Stream. Pictured from L to R is Tony Klosterman, Dave Moskowitz, Sandy Bell, and Jeff (Barviewrocks).

http://www.ifish.net/uploads/123315117.jpg

The two folks in the upper left are Tony Klosterman and Dave Plawman.

http://www.ifish.net/uploads/043615117.jpg

Stuart Creek, vacated (closed) road, removed culvert and added logs.

http://www.ifish.net/uploads/333915117.jpg

Big Logs!

http://www.ifish.net/uploads/024215117.jpg

[ 04-29-2003, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

Born to be Wild

04-28-2003, 04:17 PM

This picture shows three things of interest. Directly below down the hillside is a clearcut. Probably not what you are used to seeing in a clearcut. Resembles eastern or southern Oregon. It was clearcut because of the Swiss Needle Cast disease.

Also accross the canyon or valley you can see a thinning near the south fork of the Wilson where the east slope was left intact because of it’s steepness and possible risk to habitat because of landslides.

Thirdly, you can see the branches of a tree infected with Swiss Needle cast on the left (foreground/close-up). It was pointed out the tree should have more resembled a Christmas tree, not the sickly tree it was.

http://www.ifish.net/uploads/230416117.jpg

A couple more pic's later including the ifisher's.
Got work to do.

dan

[ 04-28-2003, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

Born to be Wild

04-28-2003, 04:22 PM

Salmon Anchor Habitats (SAH’s)
Questions & Answers
(Updated April 23, 2003)

1. Where did ODF get the direction to develop and implement SAH’s?
• Governor’s Direction:
The Governor wrote a letter to the Board of Forestry on January 3, 2001. He specifically said on page 2:
“Protection of Anchor Habitat Areas: Another issue that I raised at the April Board meeting concerns the protection of key habitat areas for sensitive species, especially salmon. The Forest management Plan (FMP) has, in fact, been modified to describe a strategy of “anchor habitat areas” for key species of concern. This is a welcome addition. Any management within these areas should be designed to minimize the risks to habitats and populations”.

• Specific Forest Management Plan Direction
Pages 4-82 through 4-83 of FMP.
“The anchor habitats will be subject to alternative management standards for the initial implementation period, while more comprehensive watershed assessments are completed”.
“Management standards will be focused on accelerated restoration and enhancement actions to address identified limiting factors, and management guidelines to lower the risk of adverse effects from forest management activities through the application of alternative management strategies designed to further lower the risk of adverse impacts from forest management activities during the initial 10-year implementation period."

• Board of Forestry Intent Statement on adoption of the FMP
Board Intent statement No. 12 dated January 12, 2001: ODF will use existing FMP strategies and any alternate management strategies, anchor habitats, as the basis for management activities.

• Independent Scientific Team Recommendations 1999
Several members ( page 29 of summary ) of the FMP Independent Scientific Review team noted concerns that while the active management scenario will more quickly restore diverse forest conditions and properly functioning aquatic habitats, it can be assumed that ODF is taking a level of risk and uncertainty with this strategy. They suggested some sub-set of the forest take a “lower risk” approach until the hypothesis can be tested further.

• Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team
In their technical report 1999-1, the Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (different group than our ISR group) made the following recommendation regarding our forest management plan...modify our plan to include "the immediate protection of all existing core habitat while implementation occurs."

2. What are Salmon Anchor Habitats (SAH)?
SAH’s are basins (usually 6th field watersheds) designed to protect areas of high or core salmonid populations.

3. What is a 6th field watershed?
6th field watersheds are generally 5000 to 15000 acres in size.

4. How did you pick the SAH’s?
17 basins were selected in northwest Oregon. They were selected from a pool of possible candidates provided by ODF&W.

5. What methodology did ODF&W use to identify the pool of possible SAH’s?
• Watershed containing a high amount of coho, chinook or chum salmon. Spawning count data used.
• Watershed contained historic centers of salmonid spawning abundance.
• Watershed had higher quality habitat
• Professional judgement from ODF&W

6. What is your strategy in SAH’s and what makes it different from what you are doing in other basins?
• Larger no touch buffers
• Avoid clearcut harvests on high hazard and high risk land slide areas
• Reduce some of the harvest planned in SAH’s and shift those reduced acres to other less sensitive areas.
• Management of Roads - Emphasizes a well planned road system which minimizes the amount of new road construction and requires high quality maintenance and restoration of existing roads.
• Complete comprehensive watershed assessments first in these basins.

7. What’s it going to do to the harvest figures by implementing this strategy?
The harvest acres and projected volumes do not change for the district. Some of the acres and its accompanying volume shifts from SAH basins to other basins.

8. How long are you going to implement this strategy?
The Implementation Plan says ten years from July 1, 2003 – June 30, 2013. A comprehensive review of these strategies is scheduled for 2011.
In addition, ODF is conducting a forest re-inventory and modeling exercise to be completed by 2005. This data may result in a review of the current strategies and this may affect harvest levels either up or down.

Born to be Wild

04-28-2003, 04:37 PM

Little North Fork Wilson River
12.3 miles long
Fish Outmigration Surveys

Years - 1998 - 1999 - 2000 - 2001 - 2002 Total
Chinook Fry "1,223,944" "451,236" "226,121" "431,523" "1,048,385" "3,381,209"
Chum Fry "145,002" "59,346" "27,813" "7,052" "138,476" "377,689"
Coho Fry "9,437" 418 "21,676" "6,923" "6,175" "44,629"
Coho Smolts "3,345" 246 259 "14,442" "6,055" "24,347"
Steelhead "19,025" "6,150" "11,467" "33,917" "9,223" "79,782"
Total "1,400,753" "517,396" "287,336" "493,857" "1,208,314" "3,907,656"

Total Coho per mile "1,039" 54 "1,783" "1,737" 994
Total Chinook per mile "99,508" "36,686" "18,384" "35,083" "85,235"
Total Steelhead per mile "1,547" 500 932 "2,757" 750
Total fish per mile "113,882" "42,065" "23,361" "40,151" "98,237"

Average fish per mile last five yrs. "63,539"

"In the last five years, the Little North fork of the Wilson river has produced 3.9 million fish in a basin that is 94% "
in stands 60 years of age or less.

<20 years of age 256 ac. 2%
"20 - 39 years of age 1,772 ac. 17%"
"40 - 59 years of age 7,768 ac. 75%"
60+ years of age 515 ac. 6%

garyk

04-28-2003, 05:22 PM

DDD, just wondering why you offered the data from the Little N.Fk. Wilson?

Is comparative data available from others, or was that provided to you by ODF? Thanks.

Born to Fish

04-28-2003, 05:58 PM

Dan - thanks for the information. Good reporting and pictures. Who knows, there may be a new niche for you as a Cub Reporter on the Longview Gazette. :wink:

You indicated that this is a 10-year initiative, and as such I wonder if they're going to put on these show-me trips on an annual basis. If so it might have been good to tie it in with the same weekend as the volunteer fin clipping project. Seems to be a connection between the two kinds of activities. Also, considering how successful the fin clipping event was in luring in 100's of volunteers and interested folks of all ages from all around, who knows, the combination may be self fulfilling in terms of attracting more interest and participation. Good way to show case local efforts. Great way to spend a weekend with the family and kids in a wonderful location - and encouraging understanding and respect for the resources.

Just a thought....maybe not an original one, but that's what we're offering from Boise for the moment. :grin:

Born to be Wild

04-28-2003, 06:46 PM

Garyk,

I believe that is the only data available on Fish Outmigration Surveys in the Tillamook system. It was pointed out that it is very expensive to man smolt & fry screw traps. $50,000 a year if I remember right.

Also after searching Google a minute ago, I see there is certain criteria that needs to be met for the screw traps to function properly and small tribs might be the limiting factor there. Listed the criteria below.

Trapping Site Selection Criteria

1. Good geographic spread of sites coast-wide. Currently, ODFW has partial funding for field crews to be based in Tillamook, Newport, and Charleston. Without additional funding, it will be difficult for ODFW to operate traps that are long distances from these three areas (e.g. South Coast streams).
2. One person can run two traps. Paired sites should not be more than a 30-minute drive apart so that trap watcher can cycle between traps during high streamflows. This is particularly important during smolt trapping. Trapping sites do not necessarily need to be within 30 minutes of the field crews office if travel trailers, or some other means of housing can be arranged.

3. Candidate streams should have spawning populations of coho, steelhead, and cutthroat, and where possible, chinook.

4. To maximize the number of fish sampled, streams should be as large as trapping technology allows. In practice, this generally means fourth to fifth order streams that are no wider than approximately 30 meters active channel width.

5. Existing fish ladders should be used where possible as adult trap sites. This will reduce construction costs and enable more adult traps to be operated, improving the geographic range of the monitoring effort.

6. Sites must be of sufficient depth (> 2.5 feet) and of sufficient velocity at low spring stream flows to allow operation of a rotating screw smolt trap (or the site must be amenable to modification to meet these criteria). The site should also be neither too constrained or high gradient so that the smolt trap will be damaged due to excessive water turbulence, or be too unconstrained so that the stream becomes too wide and slow for efficient screw trap operation during high stream flows.

7. Land owner willingness to allow access to site for long term (> 10 years) monitoring.

8. Candidate streams without existing fish ladders need to have sites with the following characteristics to enable the construction of an adult weir:

a) Uniform (preferably bedrock) bottom and stable streambanks.
b) 1-2 percent gradient

c) Road access (close enough for delivery of materials needed to construct weir).

Born to be Wild

04-28-2003, 07:10 PM

A picture of Stuart Creek taken before habitat restoration by ODF that you can compare with the picture above of Stuart Creek with the big logs. Certainly a big improvement there.

http://www.ifish.net/uploads/485818117.jpg

Jerry Dove

04-28-2003, 08:10 PM

DAN. MY; HAT IS OFF TO YOU!! Wow what a great report, and I never even saw you take notes. It was a great tour, I hope we can do it again with more folks. Just let me know when all want to go and I will put it together. Thanks. Jerry

garyk

04-28-2003, 10:47 PM

Dan, some background on the Little N.Fk. Wilson.

In 1991 (reissued 1993) Guy Orcutt of the ANWS circulated a proposal – “The Little North Fork of the Wilson River – Proposal for a Demonstration Forest and Wild Fish Study Area”

This set the groundwork for an effort to preserve the ~227 acres of old growth forest located along about one mile of the Lt.N.Fk.Wilson in the middle reach. This parcel was scheduled for clearcutting by Hampton Lumber. Even in 1991 this old growth boardered river was a rare example of how the Tillamook region used to be. Fortunately efforts to preserve this stand succeeded, culminating in 1996 with the transfer of this acreage from Simpson Timber to BLM.

The effects of this stand, even though it’s roughly only a mile of river - cannot be overstated. A visit to it is like stepping back at least 75 years. The river is complex with log jams, lots of in-stream woody debris; the water shaded by centuries old fir, spruce and cedar. It’s completely unlike the rest of Tillamook’s other rivers. It illustrates what has been lost elsewhere.

That this small tributary produces a lot of salmon is no surprise, it comes closest to the demonstrating the natural state of Tillamook’s rivers when they were at their highest historical productivity.

The Little N.Fk. Wilson is vitally important to the area’s stocks of steelhead, coho, Chinook and cutthroat. It also provides a great example of how productive the Tillamook Forest can be if managed for fish production, including pro-active actions such as streamside conifer restoration.

While "94% of the basin is in stands 60 years of age or less" we can see how important the 6% in old growth condition is to stream health and productivity.

Straydog

04-28-2003, 10:58 PM

Interesting. Thanks for the thorough report Dan!

Sore Back

04-29-2003, 07:11 AM

Thanks Dan. Appreciate all the time you took building this report. You get an A+ :bowdown:

GutshotApe

04-29-2003, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by garyk:
......the water shaded by centuries old fir, spruce and cedar. It’s completely unlike the rest of Tillamook’s other rivers. garyk - yes, large woody debris in the creek is an important component of fish habitat...so is shade on the creek. But shade from old growth trees is no better than shade from young alders or salmonberry. Using a spherical densiometer, I conducted measurements of % shading on 10 salmon creeks in the Siuslaw drainage in 1994...one of the poorest (lowest percentage of the creek actually shaded) was on Saleratus Creek where it flowed thru a 1/2 mile long stretch of BLM oldgrowth. Due to gaps in the canopy the creek had only about 45% shade compared to 95+% for creeks with young alder canopies (I know, young alder makes poor LWD...but we're talking about shade here).

Its too bad some fry & smolt counts aren't readily available for a stream with 0% oldgrowth...contrasted with one that is 100% oldgrowth/unroaded/undeveloped.

DepoeBayDan - I wish I could have mede the trip but your report w/pics makes it seem like I was there anyway. :wink:

Straydog

04-29-2003, 08:22 AM

Is there further work planned for the closed Stuart Creek road?

garyk

04-29-2003, 11:42 AM

Regarding 'shade'. I mention it to paint a picture of what the reach looks like.

For fish, the most important benefit of that old growth, in this particular situation, is the recruitment of large woody debris.

The LWD in turn creates complexity and the pool/riffle ratio that is in decline in the other surrounding rivers, as the old legacy logs/log jams, finally wash out.

Unfortunately, for these other rivers their riverbanks are mostly alder dominated (yes, there are some exceptions - there always are). Without active streamside conifer restoration (a challenging task in itself), these rivers will be very deficient in LWD for centuries, thus keeping their productive capacity at a greatly reduced level - and fish runs at a fraction of what they would be otherwise.

GutshotApe

04-29-2003, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by garyk:
Without active streamside conifer restoration (a challenging task in itself), these rivers will be very deficient in LWD for centuries, thus keeping their productive capacity at a greatly reduced level - and fish runs at a fraction of what they would be otherwise. The thinking of some OSU and other forestry professors is that without a catastrophic fire (followed by an aggressive, timely conifer reforestation effort with brush control), many coast range riparian alder forests will eventually die of old age and the creeksides will become permanently dominated by salmonberry thickets. Salmonberries provide good shade on tiny streams but not much LWD.

Born to be Wild

04-29-2003, 01:07 PM

Is there further work planned for the closed Stuart Creek road? Yes. I believe for one they are planning on planting the stream banks where the road ends at the stream for protection against erosion. I'm not sure of the work planned for the road itself. Maybe Jerry does. The road had trenches dug accross it to prevent tresspassing by vechicles.

The next two pic's show a replcement culvert and the rocks being placed inside to make it more natural for the salmon. The second pic shows a couple coho entering the culvert.

http://www.ifish.net/uploads/375410118.jpg

http://www.ifish.net/uploads/345510118.jpg

The participating ifisher's: L to R, Jeff - Barviewrocks, Kenny Bell - ?, Jerry Dove - Jerry Dove (real original) , Dan - DepoeBayDan

http://www.ifish.net/uploads/465710118.jpg

A landing above the Wilson. Wayne Auble (assistant District Forester) to the left wearing the light blue pants) and Mark Labhart (Tillamook District Forester) to the right wearing red jacket and drinking a soda.

http://www.ifish.net/uploads/425810118.jpg

Yes it rained!

http://www.ifish.net/uploads/370011118.jpg

Over looking the Wilson again and one of our many disscussions.

http://www.ifish.net/uploads/090411118.jpg

I did talk to Mark Labhart at the ODF office after the tour was over about the possibility of doing it again sometime pointing out that some ifisher's were sick and some had the Willamette springer flu and he said he would be more than happy to do it again and it would only take a dozen or so folks to make it happen. Maybe durring the summer months when the weather is somewhat more predictable?

Thanks for your comments. I did work hard on this and put in some time. Thanks to Jerry Dove and Mark Labhart for putting this event together. graemlins/applause.gif Thanks again to Mark for emailing me the electronic copies of the SAH's, pictures, fish outmigration surveys, and all the other info that we were given as handouts as I requested.

You're right Jerry, I didn't take notes (except mental notes), but spent some time with Mark on the phone on Monday and also extracted some info from the handouts and emails I recieved.

Guess I should post a pic of the vans that were borrowed from Salem for this event.

http://www.ifish.net/uploads/084511118.jpg

garyk

04-29-2003, 01:49 PM

GSA said - "...coast range riparian alder forests will eventually die of old age and the creeksides will become permanently dominated by salmonberry thickets."

Yes, I became aware of their theory of the 'Salmonberry/Devils Club Climax Stage' during our work on the L.N.Fk.Wilson.

It's certainly possible, and may indeed happen in some locations.

Without question, what we do observe today is a lack of conifer recruitment in the the alder dominated riverbanks. Because of this, alder conversion and conifer restoration has become one of the points I focus on and advocate for when discussing management of the Tillamook.

To Dan: GSA and I have mentioned a couple interesting biological topics - longterm natural LWD recruitment, salmonberry climax stage, and conifer restoration. By chance, did these items get discussed during the tour?

Barviewrocks

04-29-2003, 03:26 PM

When they have another tour, I encourage everyone to attend. It was very educational to me as I know less about forestry than catching fish consistantly (that's not much folks!). I do however know how to fish ;-)

Here are my takaways - sorry for the long wind but I learned a lot:

Tillamook Forest Tour Learnings
4-26-03

How did the Tillamook forest get to where we are today:

· Sometime after the Tillamook burns in the early 1950’s there were many defaults on property and the State of Oregon was chartered to manage the forest on behalf of the county.
· If you consider the start of the present Tillamook Forest as the reforestation efforts, consider this effort followed the multiple Tillamook forest burns in the 1930 to 1950’s. The starting point after the fires was gross devastation. There was very little old growth left after the burn (estimated to be about 1%). And there was virtually no native seed stock to repopulate and replant the forest.
· At this time, there was very little pacific coast forest restoration scientific knowledge as to how to reforest the land. The forest needed to be restored quickly from the vast devastation. There was much damage to the rivers, estuaries, and bay from the silt run off as well as other animal habitat.
· Douglas Fur was the primary rebuilding stock chosen and both saplings and seed stock from the western cascades was used as it was one of the most immediately available options.
· This choice of planting fur has resulted in a 72% “closed single canopy” forest structure. The most recent forest scientific theories suggest a diversity of structure types and plants as ideal for healthy forests, animal habitat, and resilience. One suggestion is the steep and wet slopes of the Tillamook drainage is perhaps not the ideal environment for a dense tree population of primarily Douglas fur. Rather, a mixture of spruce, hemlock and diverse ground coverings may be closer to the native fauna and would be more in keeping with natural coastal fauna. Unfortunately, this diversity of fauna is a very small portion of the forest.
· Many Douglas furs within the Tillamook forest have a problem with Swiss Needle Drop which is a fungus that infects the pores of the tree’s needles causing them to shed the needles which affects the growth and vitality of the trees. Although the cause is not known, it is suspected that the Douglas fur stock used to repopulate the forest is of a genetic makeup that is not suited for the wet coastal Tillamook area.

Activities on stream habitat restoration and improvement

· I was impressed with the habitat restoration work we witnessed. In many areas, we were trying to figure out how the logs were placed in the streams as we did not see any damage from vehicles. I later found out that log placement by helicopter, although expensive is very efficient in placing logs and minimizes damage to surrounding habitat. Selective concrete bridges as opposed to culverts are much more expensive but more effective in creating habitat for fish passage. There are many cost verses benefit and stretching of the budget decisions that are made of this type in stretching of the restoration budget. I liked what I saw and gained a better understanding of the reasoning behind the choices.
· The budget for habitat restoration is approximately 35% of actual funds directed to the work. The remaining funds come from various grants – private, federal, State, etc. This can be further stretched through volunteers such as planting trees, willows, brush to hold stream banks. This could be an opportunity for those of us that want intercity kids or other programs to have a hand in creating the future. I recall planting trees in the Tillamook Forest while in the scouts long ago and both enjoy and appreciate more deeply what we have today as a result. There is an opportunity for savy grant writers to work with the forestry department to apply and gain grants for habitat restoration.
· I heard that for Coho survival, winter habitat is very important to long term survival in addition to summer cover and shade. At winter high water run off, merely placing logs in the river to develop pockets may not be as effective as creating off channel cover as the pockets are often too swift for smolt to remain and find food.
· Logs placed in the river for cover must be of specific dimensions with respect to length and diameter verses the dimensions of the high water levels in the stream. Careful placement without cables may allow for more dynamic movement and ultimate settlement rather than using cables in which the stream is controlled. This natural movement will allow the stream to naturally form habitat in a dynamic way while not being washed downstream in flood conditions when done correctly.
· Closing a road requires much red tape and citizen input. These are being done constantly in keeping with a steady road to forest ratio balance while allowing for fire protection coverage.
· The little north fork of the Wilson is a very productive Chinook breeding ground. In some recent years producing as many as estimated 1M Chinook fry (2002).

Going forward into the future

· There is a variety of forest practices and the manner in which they are implemented. This seems obvious but it was very evident that I cannot judge all forest management as the same as there are private, federal, state, etc which all manage and interpret the laws differently. In the future, if I see areas which are poorly managed I have to be careful to identify the managing party so as not to transfer these practices to other agencies.
· I came away with a good feeling that the State of Oregon has a very reasonable approach to managing the Tillamook forest into the future. The 10 year plan which will be reevaluated and monitored reasonably addresses the diverse interests of those concerned. Given that the forest is not ideally structured and populated with out of area gene stock furs, many areas are infested with fungus, and the need to restructure the forest structure over time while preserving animal habitat: these are very challenging tasks to balance against the extreme positions of extreme loggers, need for county revenue from logging, recreational users, and the extreme environmentalists. I believe the present forest plan is a very reasonable starting place from which to build a future that does not give into extreme positions. They also realize the diversity of interests and are very open to working with all parties which will no doubt ever be satisfied completely.
· The “clear cut” areas I saw were not the same devastation I have seen in other forests. Some differences are leaving “seed trees” standing of moderate density, no caterpillar tracks, consulting with geologists and intentionally leaving specific areas intact due to possible instability regarding land slides, selection and removal of infected furs only while leaving conifers, and use of overhead lines for removal of trees. This is very different from the massive clear cuts in other areas.
· There are some great developments for recreational users as well which balance motorized forest users verses no motorized users. For the most part, hwy 6 divides these user groups (south is for motors) although this is not a hard and fast policy.

Born to be Wild

04-29-2003, 06:24 PM

Here are my takeaways - sorry for the long wind but I learned a lot: ooh nice one Jeff! You can get windy anytime. Next time go for the hurricane instead of the gale! I didn't see you taking notes either. What did ya have a pocket recorder with you? You covered a couple points I was going to address but did it better. And some points I missed or was ignorant about.

By the way, Jeff invited whoever to come to his nice beach pad in Barview afterwards for discussion, food, drink, and to stay the night if they chose. He was a most gracious host, good cook and we had fun fishing the jetty the next day. Thanks!

Garyk,

To Dan: GSA and I have mentioned a couple interesting biological topics – long term natural LWD recruitment, salmonberry climax stage, and conifer restoration. By chance, did these items get discussed during the tour?
Yes, some of these if not all of these issues were discussed during the tour. I was going to answer you to the best of my knowledge, but do to my inexperience (I'm just learning the difference between a conifers and Christmas trees), I copy/pasted your post and emailed it to Mark Labhart and will post his reply here. Along with his reply came an attachment regarding this issue. I believe it requires PowerPoint to open it (it says Microsoft excel when it opens on my PC). I will email it to you because I don't know of a way to copy/paste. Possibly you or Jeff or the Geek could figure something out later.

Email from mark:
Thanks Dan
I think Garyk hit it right on the head. You need large wood over time in the stream to provide habitat and to provide shade. That's why we want to eventually get away from putting large wood into streams artificially and let mother nature do her thing. Alder dominates a lot of riparian areas and that is why we are trying to convert them to a conifer/alder mix over time. I have included our new riparian stds. we are applying on state forest land to try and do just that. This does not happen overnight as it takes a long time to grow these alder dominated riparian areas back to mainly conifer. That's why we are not waiting and working with ODF&W to place some large wood directly back into the systems most in need of it as well as managing the riparian areas to get the conifer growing again.

Hopes this helps,
Mark

rebell

04-29-2003, 07:16 PM

Depoe Bay Dan,

Wow!! Great post by you and Barviewrocks. As you guys witnessed, its a beutifull area. Yes there are problems, but for the most part our Tillamook forest is doing well.

Sorry I could not make it, but my biggest regret is that there were not more people from the rainforest coalition there. I dont understand why? It seems to me that they would want to understand the current state of the forest and understand whats planned for its future.

If ODF wants to have another tour I will be there. If anyone would like to go on a private tour of the area, I am willing to help. I know the area very well. I could take people in to areas that ODF did not. There are areas that might be of intrest to some (coalition and logger). There would be a little hiking involved, but nothing difficult.

And Dan, the unidentified person in your second picture is Sandy Bell, my uncle.

Born to be Wild

04-29-2003, 09:09 PM

OK Rusty, I edited my post and now Sandy has his claim to fame!

Yes I also wished more environmentalists or at least Liz Hamilton from NSIA (whom I respect and like) would have participated in this tour. My discussion with Liz one night on the phone didn't remotely resemble what we saw on the tour. Times have changed! And you probably cannot compare the Tillamook State Forest or ODF with other management practices. Where was NSIA? The Rain Forest Coalition had a represenitive there.

My conclusions were that there was a healthy forest intact considering the "6 year jinx" (devastating forest fires) and the type of replanting of the forest back then. Habitat restoration is being pursued wholeheartedly and things will continue to improve over the years bar no '96 floods and 90's El 'Nino's.

If there seems to be a lack of fish (especially chinooks) to some (arguable), then you might want to take a look at the other 2 H's (Harvest & Hatcheries).

The Tillamook chinooks are harvested in the ocean from Tillamook north to Alaska by commercial fishermen. When they return they are harvested by local commercial fishermen and then the sports fishermen outside the bar and in the bay and tidewater by sports fishermen.

Even though biologist claim that most chinook in the bays don't aggressively feed or bite and most escape the onslaught of fishermen, you still have the numerical disadvantage of the ones that do bite. For example, if you have 100 fish that choose to bite and have 1,000 fishermen fishing for them, few are going to get lucky. But if you only have 100 fishermen fishing for them, the percentage is going to be much larger. Then there are the ones that choose not to bite and are forced to (flossing). There you go, less spawners.

The documents I have seen however are the more hatchery fish you have, the less wild fish production you have.

So where does the actual problem exist?

According to the Tillamook ODFW office there seems to be plenty of spawners and smolts (chinook). According to their website, this is not the case unless I interpreted it wrong, the returns have continued to decline? We have suffered the results of the ’96 flood and poor ocean productivity, but in my area which includes the Siletz, Yaquina, Alsea, and Siuslaw Rivers, the Chinook stocks are doing fine/great and on the incline.

If this is the case, there are better logging practices up north, but they have hatchery Chinook that we don’t, and they definitely have more pressure (sports fishermen) on them than we do. We both endure the same commercial fishermen as our stocks migrate north also.

I have to conclude the problem if any is in hatcheries and/or harvest in the Tillamook basin.

Dan

BrionLutz

04-29-2003, 10:48 PM

GSA,

The thinking of some OSU and other forestry professors is that without a catastrophic fire (followed by an aggressive, timely conifer reforestation effort with brush control), many coast range riparian alder forests will eventually die of old age and the creeksides will become permanently dominated by salmonberry thickets. Salmonberries provide good shade on tiny streams but not much LWD. Or the non-thinking...the unnamed OSU "professors" apparently didn't consider that their scenario did not occur for the couple million years in which the Pacific Northwest rainforest and the salmon evolved together...oops <grin>.

Brion

Born to be Wild

04-30-2003, 12:39 AM

oops <grin>.

[ 04-30-2003, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

Straydog

04-30-2003, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by Barviewrocks:
Douglas Fur was the primary rebuilding stock chosen and both saplings and seed stock from the western cascades was used as it was one of the most immediately available options.
· This choice of planting fur has resulted in a 72% “closed single canopy” forest structure. The most recent forest scientific theories suggest a diversity of structure types and plants as ideal for healthy forests, animal habitat, and resilience. One suggestion is the steep and wet slopes of the Tillamook drainage is perhaps not the ideal environment for a dense tree population of primarily Douglas fur. Rather, a mixture of spruce, hemlock and diverse ground coverings may be closer to the native fauna and would be more in keeping with natural coastal fauna. Unfortunately, this diversity of fauna is a very small portion of the forest.
This is exactly what I have tried to tell our retired forester friend here about the plantations in most reforested clear cuts of the west side.

It sounds and looks like this was a very informative tour. It appears you got to see a lot of habitat rehabilitation work. Did you see any areas where there are still negative impacts apparent from past work?

Thanks again Dan and Barview and all for sharing this info.

Dan,

I cannot speak for Liz and am not speaking for NSIA. However, I do know that this is only one of many, many issues NSIA is involved with to help ensure we are able to continue fishing in the future. I also figure this is not a huge priority since NSIA is a 'sign on' to the coalition, in other words, not the lead organization on this matter. Please consider that we have hatcheries under attack, license fees to be settled, river access rights on the table, the Columbia Compact discussions going on, hydro spill rates to fight for, continued marking of hatchery fish, rock fish issues, springer fishing going full bore, families and a life to consider. Somewhere in there you might find the answer to your question of "where was Liz?"

[ 04-30-2003, 06:38 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

GutshotApe

04-30-2003, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by Straydog:
[QB] [QUOTE]This is exactly what I have tried to tell our retired forester friend here about the plantations in most reforested clear cuts of the west side. QB]What's that straydog? You think most westside timber plantations were planted with off-site stock? Not my experience at all. In the early days of reforestation (pre-1970s) off-site stock was sometimes used (i.e. Tillamook, Weatherly Cr, and others) but by the time I finished forestry school it was abundantly clear that successful reforestation required use of local seed sources...and that's how I did it on the 55,000 acres I was responsible for regenerating.

And, dense, closed-canopy Douglas-fir 2nd growth forests are NORMAL in the Douglas-fir region (you're not in it, SD). Forests go through predictable, natural successional stages...it is completely normal to have "monocultures" composed primarily of Douglas-fir in regenerating stands throughout most of the D.fir region.

Born to be Wild

04-30-2003, 11:46 AM

Oh I know Straydog. There was a lot of reasons people didn’t or weren’t able to attend the tour. But it would have been nice for Liz to attend especially since she is the president of NSIA and they backed the Rainforest Coalition. But it can take place again and maybe she can attend the next go around.

When I talked to Liz one night on the phone regarding the Rainforest Coalition and the Tillamook Tour she told me how bad the devestation was and how the timber companys left larger buffers along side the road than they did the streams to hide the devastation. That might be the case in some forest, but not in the Tillamook State Forest.

I agree with you that NSIA is involved in issues to help ensure we are able to continue fishing in the future. I don’t agree with NSIA “signing on” to the Rainforest Coalition.

When I asked a few fish biologist a couple months ago about the Coalition (including a Tillamook fish biologist), they answered my question with a question. How many more fish would it produce?

I went on the tour and saw, read, and listened to all involved. I liked or was impressed with all I saw, read and heard. It was my opinion and probably shared by all involved that ODF was making great improvements in habitat restoration and future management practices in the Tillamook state forest. I have no complaints.

The Tillamook Rivers can benefit from more extensive habitat improvements starting with tidewater all the way up into the State forest. Maybe there is room for volunteer work as was done after the devastating fires.

Did you see any areas where there are still negative impacts apparent from past work? Very few Straydog. Although the Tillamook State forest is a vast area and we only saw a very small part of it. The only negative impact I saw if you want to call it that was the Stuart Creek project. The culvert was removed, woody debris (LWD) added and the road closed off to improve habitat. The stream banks where the road ends on both sides of the stream need to be planted to stabilize the stream banks during high water. Maybe room for some volunteer work there. The closed road itself might need some improvements yet. It was pointed out and shown where the added LWD has already created fish friendly pools.

In reality the only negative impacts I saw or heard of was the great fires themselves and the planting (reforestation) of non native trees and shrubs.

It was pointed out by Mark Labhart (Tillamook District Forester) that the Tillamook Rivers were producing millions of smolt and fry. They have no control of them after they enter the ocean.

Born to be Wild

04-30-2003, 02:28 PM

Not to take this too far, but one only has to look at some of the 3000 miles of roads, and untold numbers of former roads to see the impacts.

There is no way ODF can maintain that magnitude of road network. Do the simple math and figure how many acres are taken out of production due to the land is replaced with roads. What kind of production are you referring too? Trees? Fish? A lot of these roads are not near salmon habitat or streams.

These are a major source of the sediment that continues to move through the system. Just begin hiking up the L.N.Fk.Wilson and you'll quickly see where the road has blown out and then down-cut in the last 7 years. This is repeated across the landscape. That would be an interesting road to see. Maybe you ought to organize a future tour and we can check that one out. It appears to me however that the L.N.Fk.Wilson is producing a lot of fry and smolts. What was cut down in the last 7 years? The road? Trees? I’m not too clear on that one. So what are your suggestions or implications regarding roads in the Tillamook State Forest? Close them all down and keep all the deer & elk hunters out of there and the rest of the recreational users? Hwy 6 has caused some major landslides silting the Wilson River over the years. What should we do about that one?

I don’t know Gary but it seams to me the Tillamook Rivers are capable of producing plenty of wild fish and there is a lot of ongoing habitat restoration which should improve things tremendously. I’m sure you have seen the sports harvest of Tillamook Chinook caught in the rivers, bay, and ocean and it is quite large. Not to mention all the Tillamook Chinook that are commercially caught all the way from Tillamook up to Alaska. Of course some of the Chinook harvested by Tillamook sports fishermen in the ocean are Nehalem and other stocks.

While the fires were damaging, authorities have written that the salvage logging itself actually caused more resource damage as cat roads were punched into every ravine with no consideration for erosion control. Either then or later. I don’t think anyone is going to argue the fact that the salvage logging 50 years ago was not damaging. Things are different now and a lot of the past mistakes are being corrected and avoided. If we only knew then what we know now.

rebell

04-30-2003, 07:34 PM

Garyk, Brion, straydog, so how far are you willing to go to save fish?

Let's think about this in a different light for a minute. Your home and property that you live on destroy's habitat for fish and wildlife, the roads you use to go fishing destroy habitat, the city of portland sits on once was vital salmon habitat. So what do we do?

Maybe we can start by tearing down the city of Portland, then move on to all of it's suburbs and continue from there. Then we might even consider buying out every dairy farm in Tillamook. Then we can tear down all of the dikes that have been built up along the tidal parts of the rivers in Tillamook and let the valley flood like it did before man had the nerve to build there. Of course 1/2 of the town of Tillamook would have to be relocated also, but in the name of fish, thats O.K. Then we could also consider buying out the entire Tillamook valley and turn it in to a huge fish hatchery. Just think, we could have millions of salmon to fish for. But no roads to get there, but in the name of fish, thats O.K.

Straydog

04-30-2003, 07:50 PM

Rebell,

You make a valid suggestion as to what we might do as we go forward. I respect your right to express your opinion.

However, I would respectfully suggest a much different approach.

I would suggest we learn from our mistakes and realize what differences all of the things you mention make. With those in mind, I would suggest we move forward cautiously and perhaps with more prudence than the attitudes that created Portland and the other habitat destroying development you mentioned.

How far do we go? I don't know. I guess that depends on ones value and vision of what he would like to leave behind. :wink:

Dan,

Thanks for your straight forward answers to my questions! :cheers:

rebell

04-30-2003, 08:02 PM

Straydog,

I agree, and I feel ODF has learned from it's earlier mistakes. The mistakes mankind has made is not limited to the upper river basins. Many more mistakes have been made in our estuaries. Just my opinion, but our biggest habitat problem in The Tillamook area is in the estuary itself. There is no deep water habitat in the bay. This is a problem that is not easily fixed. As DBD reported, lots of smolts are heading out of the rivers. The problem lies in there survival once thay leave the river. I feel the best thing we can address is how to better manage there survival in the estuaries. It does no good to spawn thousands of adults if there offspring have no chance to make it to the ocean.

Straydog

04-30-2003, 09:03 PM

Rebell,

Thanks for the insight.

I don't profess to be knowledgable about the Tillamook area but am always anxious to learn.

BrionLutz

04-30-2003, 10:19 PM

Rebell,

..so how far are you willing to go to save fish? Let's see...how far would I go to restore the salmon, restore the decimated forest and salmon habitat, create a huge sustainable economic engine based on fish, recreation, tourism? Preserve the watershed that future growth requires? Preserve a heritage for future generations?

Well...I'd go so far as to say that multinational timber companies cannot do anything to jeopardize our future.

Consider that the 1,000+ year old forest and salmon habitat that the timber industry destroyed in about 100 years has never recovered. They got to cut it all down and take their profit while destroying other people's livelihoods and heritage. They had their turn. They made their money. Their turn is over.

It's always interesting that the timber industry goes on and on about what good stewards they are yet they have mismanaged their land and need the public land again. If they were the "good forest managers" that their PR claims, they would not need to destroy the public forests again.

So I would go so far as to make all the public land, State and Federal forests, off limits. That leaves a huge amount of private timber land.

We require that private land owners do not damage their neighbors land or the public land. Can't damage the streams, etc.

Seems simple, fair and based on good science and economics.

Just to keep this in perspective, the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition Plan is much more liberal that I would be, they call for 112 million board feet per year harvest, they call for the multinational timber corps to get 50% of the forest with all other economic and public interests the other 50%.

Since it is clearly in Oregon's best interest to not have any logging on the 3% of the state timberland that is in the state forests, the timber corporations would be wise to take the compromise offered.

The governor has already moved half way to the Coalition position making the original timber corporation plan moot.

Brion

garyk

04-30-2003, 11:14 PM

Hi DepoeBayDan, your questions cover a lot of ground, glad you're thinking about this; I'll do my best to answer:

1."What kind of production are you referring too? Trees?" Yes, calculate how many acres are devoted to roads - it's impressive. 3000 miles of road are a significant impact just from the forestland they occupy.

2. "What was cut down in the last 7 years? The road?" Sorry for the unclarity, after the road blew-out the water 'down-cut', dumping tons of sediment into the stream. This happened in several places. It's not fatal to the stream, but still an impacat; the sediment flows through the system, ending up in Tillamook Bay. There's hundreds if not thousands of these blow-outs across the forest.

I mention this road, since it's easy to see - no organized trip needed. Just head upstream from the yellow gate, just east of Mills Bridge.

3. "I don’t think anyone is going to argue the fact that the salvage logging 50 years ago was not damaging." Actually, ODF's spin, as you've reported earlier is that that _fires_ were the damaging event. Yes, these huge fires were damaging. However, the subsequent impacts caused by sloppy logging of the era are swept under the rug in what's truly "revisionist history".

4. "So what are your suggestions or implications regarding roads in the Tillamook State Forest?"

3000 miles of roads or a density of about 5 miles of road per square mile of forest (think about that a moment) is in itself a huge problem. Particularly in such an erosion prone area as the Coast Range. If you climb around on those crumbling mountains a while you come to asking yourself - "Man, what's holding this thing up?".

The answer is fewer roads, better constructed and maintained. Even roads a long ways up the ridges blow-out and impact the streams below. I'm sure you're familiar with this?

garyk

05-01-2003, 12:08 AM

Rebell, C'mon, there's a huge range between between managing the Tillamook better and what you're rhetorically suggesting.

We can learn from past mistakes and not repeat them again (and again, and again, and again).

Yes, there's problems in the bay, and in the tidelands, and the flats, and on up into the forest. This 'chain' of habitats are all important. Some of the 'links' are more important to some species than others.

But the bottom line is, the healthier the chain is the better off all are - people and fish.

garyk

05-01-2003, 12:11 AM

[Straydog asked about seeing impacts from past activities]:

Not to take this too far, but one only has to look at some of the 3000 miles of roads, and untold numbers of former roads to see the impacts.

There is no way ODF can maintain that magnitude of road network. Do the simple math and figure how many acres are taken out of production due to the land is replaced with roads.

These are a major source of the sediment that continues to move through the system. Just begin hiking up the L.N.Fk.Wilson and you'll quickly see where the road has blown out and then down-cut in the last 7 years. This is repeated across the landscape.

While the fires were damaging, authorities have written that the salvage logging itself actually caused more resource damage as cat roads were punched into every ravine with no consideration for erosion control. Either then or later.

[ 05-01-2003, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: garyk ]

Born to be Wild

05-01-2003, 12:33 AM

Let's see...how far would I go to restore the salmon, restore the decimated forest and salmon habitat, create a huge sustainable economic engine based on fish, recreation, tourism? Preserve the watershed that future growth requires? Preserve a heritage for future generations? Well Brion, I disagree with you (nothing new there). The Tillamook Bay fishery is already too crowded and has been for many years. I quit fishing it 13-15 years ago for that reason and know a lot of other fishermen that did the same. I don't know if you have ever fished it but we referred to it as a circus many years ago before you even moved to this state.

I haven't seen a lack of fish there (chinooks) but too many fishermen. As far as preserving a heritage for future generations, I believe we are doing this. These fish are not going extinct but are doing quite well depending on whom you talk to. Now if you really want to see a lot more chinook return to Tillamook Bay, then go talk to your neighbors (BC & Alaska) and get them to ban commercial fishing in the ocean. You would have a lot more fish, but you would still have the growing pains of an over crowded fishery.

Consider that the 1,000+ year old forest and salmon habitat that the timber industry destroyed in about 100 years has never recovered. They got to cut it all down and take their profit while destroying other people's livelihoods and heritage. They had their turn. They made their money. Their turn is over.
First of all Brion, I don't consider the forest and habitat destroyed. Seems we have some strong wild runs of fish in some places. Also, do you live in a house made from wood? How about your parents and ancestors? Do you buy toilet paper, newspapers, and other wood products? Seems you're some kind of hypocrite? You want to shut down logging but you want wood products.

What people’s livelihoods and heritage were destroyed? Seems there are more guides in Tillamook than there used to be. Too many as far as most everybody I talk to is concerned. Kimmels is still there. Now there is the huge Tillamook Sporting Goods store that opened 3 or 4 years ago. Fred Meyers has opened a store in Tillamook and sells sporting goods. Who? Maybe the charters? The ones combined with the rest of the sport fleet and commercial fishermen who about fished coho to extinction. The lack of coho fishing is what hurt the charter industry. I'll point my finger at the fishermen before I point it at the loggers.

Ya know Brion, we had to drop the limits on rockfish a few times over the years because of growing pains and the amount of folks wanting to exploit them also. They were not to long ago considered garbage fish by many. But ya see Brion, you can't blame the timber industry on the decline of the rockfish. I know you would love to, but they don't spawn in the forest.

Then there is the sturgeon. Same thing there. Over fished, over exploited. Can't blame the timber industry on that one either.

So I would go so far as to make all the public land, State and Federal forests, off limits. Oh so all of it off limits. You're finally confessing up. We already knew what environmentalist wanted anyway.

Since it is clearly in Oregon's best interest to not have any logging on the 3% of the state timberland that is in the state forests, the timber corporations would be wise to take the compromise offered.
Clearly? This is your opinion Brion and not shared by most.

Straydog

05-01-2003, 07:20 AM

Brion,

You left out the part about how we, the public, are paying for so much of the restoration work that is going on to repair the mistakes of the past in our public forests. Not mistakes we the public made, mind you.

I sit on a committee that appropriates Title II funds for forest and habitat rehabilitation. So much of is related to past mistakes in the woods by an industry that, like it or not folks, has a history of ****** and running.

Dan,

In all fairness, Brian has been calling for the public land to be off limits to logging since you guys first started sparring. Further, homes built from wood harvested on private ground work just as well as homes built from wood harvested on public ground........ might be time reevaluate that worn out cliche' of an argument.

I am not advocating for totally making public ground off limits to harvest as Brion is. However, I believe if we take an honest, open minded look at our past it is fair to say we should error on the side of caution if we are to error at all. And I am one of those odd balls that have lived here my whole life so your comment about "before you even moved here" impresses me even less than the cliche' about wood homes, etc. (I realize it wasn't directed at me but still, the "who got here first" argument is kind of warn out too.)

Another thing that gives me pause to think...... you are consistantly lamenting the "over exploitation" of Salmon, especially the coastal Salmon and the Tillamook area. At the same time, you post pictures and commentary touting the Ling fishing in your area. As you know, Ling fishing regs have been adjusted down over the years to protect the resource. Why would you lament the "over exploitation" of one species while promoting it on another species? I don't want to believe it might be because you sell plastics for bottom fishing but as one that has been on the recieving end of your accusations concerning my motives, I have to use the same logic in trying to figure out your approach to the Ling fishery. :whazzup:

Rebell,

Just a thought and I don't know but am wondering........ might some of the estuary problems in the Tillamook be related to siltation from what sounds like a whole bunch of roads in the Tillamook Forests?

The road issue is exactly why I asked Dan earlier if one road in his photos will be rehabed further. There is a small slide visible just up the road from the confluence with the stream. Further, my experience tells me that those members of the off road enthusiast crowd that are less ethical than others will likely, eventually, find a way to access that road and tear the dickens out of things in the process. Looks like a prime candidate for road obliteration project (at public expense, just like the culverts replacement, LWD placement, mulching, etc, etc.)to me.

[ 05-01-2003, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

garyk

05-01-2003, 09:55 AM

Hi Dan, I don't want to take this thread off of fish, however, regarding the comment -

"As far as preserving a heritage for future generations, I believe we are doing this."

This concept of a natural heritage means different things to different people. Here, we've all focused on fish which dispite our differing viewpoints is clearly where our passion lies. Keep in mind though that fisherman are a minority and the State forests are the property of all Oregonians.

As such, there are many 'values' other than fish that people are concerned about, for example - scarce species, various forms of recreation, wilderness or solitude, biological functioning and evolutionary processes, restoration of an old growth coastal rainforest, and some folks just want to see big trees that will never be cut.

Today we celebrate the areas that our ancestors had the wisdom to preserve from Oswald State Park, to the Mt.Jefferson Wilderness. Beach and river access to high mountains. We need to ask ourselves - what will our legacy to the future be?

There's an old saying to the effect that the future will judge us by what we leave for them.

I suggest that there's no shortage of industrial logging lands in the Coast Range, the sort of mature and old growth forests that used to exist though are in extremely short supply. Portions of the Tillamook devoted to these values are what an increasing number of people want to create as a legacy for the future.

Then, future Oregonians can decide whether to keep or cut those acres - but at least they will have that choice and decision to make.

OK, back to fish. :smile:

rebell

05-01-2003, 08:18 PM

Gentlmen,

PLEASE, All our views are in the name of saving fish and our own personal heritage. Yes roads and logging in the past have caused landslides and added siltation in to Tillamook bay. Logging in the 50s and 60s caused some major fish issues in the Tillamook area and others. But over the last 20 years things have improved dramaticly.

I raced and road dirt bikes all over the north coast area, also in Washington, Idaho and California. In the Wilson and Trask drainages, I road dirt bikes to go hunting and fishing in the upper reaches that a pickup could not access. At the time it was legal to fish in those areas. Now day's most of these roads are blocked to any kind of motorized access. The roads most are wanting to close are allready inaccessible to motorized vehicles.

As far as logging goes, they have only in the last few years started harvesting some of the timber that was planted after the burn. Brion makes it sound if they have never stopped since the early 50s. This is not true at all. One difference might be the logging that was done on the Little North Fork of the Wilson that GaryK mentions. This was done on private land, not state land. Laws have changed since that time and for the better. The logging that was done on the Little North Fork was in the mid 80s. I know, I set chokers for the outfit that logged it.

One thing everyone must take in to consideration when reading my posts on these issues. I once made my living in the woods. After that, I made my living taking people fishing for the next ten years. Once at a Tillamook Guides Assoc meeting we had represenitives from the ODF. I expressed that some of the things I saw while working in the woods made me sick, I stated what I saw that I felt was wrong. ODF honestly listened to what I had to say. Since that time things have definetly changed, not because they listened to me, but because the state has learned what not to do. Some have stated that the Timber companies are making millions off OUR state forest. Please wake up, the state and our locall goverments made much more in tax revenue from the timber sales, and income taxes that were collected from the people who worked on these sales. Stopping all logging in the Tillamook state forest is not going to help fish, it will only cripple our economy that much more.

Brion has stated in this post and a earlier one that his main goal is to halt logging on all public land. Fish, like the spotted owl are not the true objective here. Ending access to our forest is the true reason. We have read that the rainforest coalition plan calls for 112 million board feet of timber to be harvested per year. If you actually new anything about timber, you would know that this is a very small amount. I am sure others would argue.

In closing, I want everyone to know that I have no intrest in timber revenue. I fish for fun, and release 90% of the salmon and steelhead I catch. There are people that are on this board (and not) who will recognize my passion for salmon and steelhead, and also would recognize my abilities af harvesting them if I so choosed. So when you read my posts from here on out, please understand that my passion is for the people of Oregon and the fish that we all cherish. And please understand that I am willing to fight to the very end when it comes to taking away my right to ride my dirt bike, hunt and fish on public land. If I felt for one second that the rainforest coalition plan was to truely help preserve our salmonoids, I would support them. But I am able to read between the lines, and I have also learned from the past when it comes down to enviromental groups making management desicions concerning our publicly owned lands.

Tight lines to all,

Rusty Bell

Born to be Wild

05-01-2003, 09:34 PM

Cool post and some good points Rusty. I am way too busy with the tackle business right now but will check to see what is going on here when I get to Longview tomorrow afternoon.

I will bring some razor's up to Brads if you and your wife want to jump accross the river and cook some up or take home with you. Might even find time to wet a line. Email me if you are interested.

Wished my mocycle hadn't gotten stolen. Honda XL 500. Maybe I'd still hunt?

BrionLutz

05-01-2003, 10:27 PM

DepoeBayDan,

This is your opinion Brion and not shared by most. Of course it's my opinion. Rebell asked for my opinion. Seems a bit odd for third party to complain about one person providing what someone else requested.

As for who shares my views, I only claim to speak for myself. I'll leave it to others to declare what "most" people are thinking, that's a bit too grandiose for me.

As for facts vs. opinion, on page 24 (Overview) of the 10 Year IP's, 774 miles of new roads will be built in the Tillamook and Clatsop state forestsm table 1-7. 700 miles of new roads with funding for less than 100 miles "deconstructing" old roads. That doesn't even get into the issue of the inadequacy of timber corporation and forest service road deconstruction.

As you know from the tour, roads are one of the most damaging aspects of timber corporation logging.

If the multinational timber corporations were as good with forest management as their PR claims, they would not need the small 3% of the forest land that is owned by the state.

That they are desperate for public forest land demonstrates what poor stewards they are of their own resources, much less public resources.

They had their opportunity. They cut down the forests. They made their profit. They destroyed other peoples livelihoods, jobs and industry. They failed to manage their own resources well and now want to profit again by their shortsighted policies for which we pay a huge price.

By dedicating a small, 3%, portion of Oregon's forests to salmon and watershed resources, we create a huge number of jobs in salmon fishing, commercial and sport, in mfg of boats, jet drives, tackle, clothing and gear and in the recreation and tourist industries.

The forest, salmon and recreation represent a huge sustainable economic engine.

Back to the future.

Brion

Born to be Wild

05-02-2003, 03:52 AM

Of course it's my opinion. Rebell asked for my opinion. Seems a bit odd for third party to complain about one person providing what someone else requested.

As for who shares my views, I only claim to speak for myself. I'll leave it to others to declare what "most" people are thinking, that's a bit too grandiose for me.
Mr.Lutz, I was not complaining about your opinion, I was just pointing out it is in the minority. Most folks don't see things the way you do. It's just your opinion and I have mine.

I wouldn't think it would seem odd for a third opinion because this is a public thread and read and expressed by many.

As for facts vs. opinion, on page 24 (Overview) of the 10 Year IP's, 774 miles of new roads will be built in the Tillamook and Clatsop state forestsm table 1-7. 700 miles of new roads with funding for less than 100 miles "deconstructing" old roads. That doesn't even get into the issue of the inadequacy of timber corporation and forest service road deconstruction.
Well wait a moment, you lost me, are we talking Tillamook or Tillamook and Clatsop State Forest now?

As you know from the tour, roads are one of the most damaging aspects of timber corporation logging. Is that so? I didn't see anything damaging and I know the Tillamook streams are producing a lot of fish! I saw a lot of improvements for fish habitat and I was very satisified.

I have read that roads can have damaging impacts to habitat due to landslides, siltation and culverts. But I did not see any of this on the tour.

That they are desperate for public forest land demonstrates what poor stewards they are of their own resources, much less public resources. That doesn't demonstrate poor stewards, only that trees grow slow.

They had their opportunity. They cut down the forests. They made their profit. They destroyed other peoples livelihoods, jobs and industry. They failed to manage their own resources well and now want to profit again by their shortsighted policies for which we pay a huge price. " They destroyed other peoples livelihoods, jobs and industry."

I pointed this out on a few post or two back. Should I try again? Do you want me to mention some other sporting good stores that opened in recent years to compete for business and make it difficult for other businesses to make a profit? How about Garibaldi Bait & Tackle? (One I overlooked). At least when Burger King & Taco Bell realize the demographics are not there, they don't open a store!

By dedicating a small, 3%, portion of Oregon's forests to salmon and watershed resources, we create a huge number of jobs in salmon fishing, commercial and sport, in mfg of boats, jet drives, tackle, clothing and gear and in the recreation and tourist industries. Brion, go back to the East Coast. I'm sure most of us don't want to see any more huge number of jobs in salmon fishing, commercial and sport, in mfg of boats, jet drives, tackle, clothing and gear and in the recreation and tourist industries.

Get a clue, salmon fishing is all ready too crowded here on the Oregon Coast! Lack of fish is not as big a problem as too many anglers.

You sure won't win any new converts amongst the native Oregonians!

It doesn't matter how many fish we can produce, there are growing pains and you are one of them.

It is quite obvious you don't have a clue what's going on.

Dan

[ 05-02-2003, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

Born to be Wild

05-03-2003, 12:28 AM

Brion,

Well...since I don't share you omniscence in speaking for others, I can only offer my opinion that GI Joes, Fishermans, Columbia Sports Wear, REI, Nike, Luhr-Jensen, Alumaweld, NorthRiver, BayLiner, Kodiak, Fred Meyers, American Turbine, etc. probably all want more business. And chainsaw salesman want more business also. Of course they do Brion. But ask them to show you their zipperlip spots where they fish! Zipperlip Brion. Zipperlip means too many folks fishing.

More fish is fine. I catch plenty fish anyway. More folks salmon fishing on the rivers is not something I will exploit. Have you ever heard of the Kenai in Alaska Brion? Well its been spoiled by folks wanting more business also.

If I'm not mistaken, the trade organization representing many of these businesses, the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, feels that it is an economic benefit to give salmon, watershed and other public interests equal footing with the multinational timber corporation's interests. Yea, so? NSIA is a political organization. They also support hatchery fish which are proven detrimental to wild fish. They have done some good for the trade but I don't support all there decisions. I know of a couple sporting goods stores that were pretty upset with there support for the Rainforest coalition.

Your logic seems to be if we reduce the number of salmon there will be less fishermen so there will be more room for you to go and chase non-existent fish. That is not my logic and is pretty twisted. I never suggested reducing the number of salmon and don't have a problem with more salmon. I don't chase non-existent and I catch more than enough fish. Mine and many others problem is the number of people, guides, drift boats, sleds, etc, on the rivers and Tillamook bay these days.

You on the other hand keep preaching more fishermen, more... More fishermen means more lobbying you stated a few months ago.

Start a stupid poll Brion and ask how many folks would like to see more fishermen on the rivers and how many would like to see considerbly less fishermen. Sure you might get a few buisness folks to vote for more, but it would be totally lopsided when the fishermen voted for less.

I'm done with this thread. I was going to try and learn something from garyk and others but have lost my patience or tolerance with you. You are an environmentalist and extremist, obviously new to the area, don't have a clue, and a total waste of my valuable time.

Also if you post those URL's for me you are wasting your time. I would venture to guess most if not all are environmentalist propaganda sites. I do not read environmentalist or cult material.

BrionLutz

05-03-2003, 12:56 AM

DepoeBayDan,

I'm sure most of us don't want to see any more huge number of jobs in salmon fishing, commercial and sport, in mfg of boats, jet drives, tackle, clothing and gear and in the recreation and tourist industries.
Well...since I don't share you omniscence in speaking for others, I can only offer my opinion that GI Joes, Fishermans, Columbia Sports Wear, REI, Nike, Luhr-Jensen, Alumaweld, NorthRiver, BayLiner, Kodiak, Fred Meyers, American Turbine, etc. probably all want more business.

If I'm not mistaken, the trade organization representing many of these businesses, the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, feels that it is an economic benefit to give salmon, watershed and other public interests equal footing with the multinational timber corporation's interests.

Your logic seems to be if we reduce the number of salmon there will be less fishermen so there will be more room for you to go and chase non-existent fish.

In my opinion, we need to keep increasing the salmon/people ratio and the only way to do that in this world (vs your world where everyone including the native Americans leave Oregon and "go home")is to greatly increase the number of salmon.

We do know from economic studies, RAND and NGS, that salmon restoration which requires significant environmental restoration has a huge positive impact. The NGS study noted that salmon restoration provided 30 times the economic benefit of the alternative of agriculture in the Klamath Basin.

RAND Study (http://www.removedams.org/about/RANDreview.cfm)
NGS Study (http://www.earthjustice.org/news/display.html?ID=466)

We also know that watershed resource issues are looming larger and larger. One of the huge lessons of the drought years combined with population demographics which show the Pacific Northwest gaining close to 30 million new residents over the next 20 years.

Tillamook Forest Economic Study (http://www.tillamookrainforest.org/display.cgi?page=economics)

The forest is much more economically productive to Oregon, the Pacific Northwest and the US if it is restored rather than cut down.

These facts are the reason that Governor Kulongoski has bagged the ODF plan and instructed ODF to modify it per the economic and scientific realities presented by the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition.

Brion