clearcuts cause warm river temps, kill fish

[fishindogs]

It seems to me that all of the people that question the validity of the Tillamook 50/50 proposition have ignored the river temperature problem. Mature forests absorb water, and release it slowly. Clearcuts just let rain flow straight into the river, and then dry up. If the Tillamook was actually managed 50/50, then the summer water temperatures would be cooler. This would be be beneficial to all of the native fish that stay in the river through the summer.

[boater]

wont the 50-50 plan involve clear cutting ?, or is it a thinning kinda cutting ?

[fishindogs]

I'm not an expert about the 50/50 plan. Just wanted to talk about the river temperature problem.

[TGFwriter]

You are right on the money. The 50-50 plan will address water quality.

The DEQ currently has about 800 of the surveyed 1300 streams listed on their 303(d) list. Each river has its own TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Loads) for each affecting factor- some of those factors are Dissolved Oxygen, Bacteria and temperatures for example. All of Tillamooks 7 major salmonid bearing streams are listed on this 303(d) list because they exceed minimum temperatures for salmonids. If temperatures exceed 64 degrees- the temperature is listed as a limiting factor in fish production. It is said that in temperatures between 68 and 70 degrees, fish WILL DIE in a matter of weeks or months- this is the case with all of our Tillamook streams. When temperatures exceed 70 degrees, death will occur in a matter of hours or days. Although this too happens in Tillamook, it is not as common as the 67 to 69 degrees. There are recorded temperatures in this range for over 2 months some years.

How about that, poached before they even go to the ocean?!

The 50/50 plan will likely encompass larger riparian zones (in the 25 to 100 foot zone) allowing for greater riparian function (more cool water release in the summer) and additional shade from radiant heat sources in the summer months.

Vote 50/50 and save lives!

Stop by The Guide's Forecast booth or Clackacraft to sign the petition to get this valuable piece of legislation on the ballot! You can email me with other volunteer opportunities or just log onto www.tillamookrainforest.org

[fishindogs]

I live on the Wilson, and my drinking water comes from a creek feeding the wilson. Last year, the watershed for our creek was clearcut. Now, the creek is full of trees, and the water level is very low in the summer. Reality sucks.

[Green Machine]

Carefull.

I don't want to get started on this, but the statement of your topic is very bold and quite false.

Jerry Dove.....where are you.

Yes, mature forests do absorb alot of water. Key word is absorb. Many , many statistical studies have shown that a watershed will produce a greater volume of water up to seven years after a clear-cut. This is due to the fact the mature trees, which are cut, are not there to absorb it. In a rain event after the clear-cut, yes, less will be absorbed, but it WILL infiltrate the soil and work it's way to the stream through the ground. The water will be the same temperature as before, just potentially more of it. So, actually this DOES NOT KILL FISH. It saves there lives in tough summer months and droughts. If you said clear-cutting, and then paving it over, I would agree with you 100%. The water would be above ground, warm, and contaminated.

I won't say any more.

Clear-cuts in the Tillamook State Forest are fairly rare, mostly all thinning.

Green Machine

[fishindogs]

Green Machine
Dry dead landsacpes cannot compete with old growth forests. clearcuts are disastorous to native fish.

[Green Machine]

I wonder why we have had record runs of Kings and outstanding runs of steelhead in the last four years??????

Maybe the weak ones are dying in the WARM water and the strong ones survive.

Also funny how everyone walked away from the Tillamook after the legendary burn. Sad that the state is being critisized for doing an outstanding job of managing and harvesting a renewable resource that 50 years ago was a dissaster.

Green Machine

[fishindogs]

How are the springers doing? (they need low summer river temperatures?)

[Green Machine]

fishindogs-

Give me proof and I will listen. Seriously.

The Tillamook has virtually no Old Growth, but by thinning, it is being managed to generate Old Growth down the road. Old Growth has been, and will always be basically off limits anyway. There are very few mills who can cut Old Growth, plus we do not want the hassle and hoops to jump through it would take.

I get very tired of hearing peoples uniformed opinions.

I consider myself an "environmentalist". That means I care for the environment. I want healthy returns of fish. I want clean water. I am for effective stream buffers. And I want a forest that is economically viable and healthy. An entire forest of Old Grwoth is not healthy, it is dying. If all of our forests were Old Growth, many animals and plants would be deceased. A clear-cut is a new beginning.

I will not tolerate uninformed environmentalists.


Green Machine

[skein]

fishindogs,

I see you are a pretty new member, and maybe have missed the many, many discussions we have had on this subject in the past. Take a few minutes ( actually a lot longer if you read all that has been said about this subject) and do a search on Tillamook Forest. What you'll find is a huge amount of good information from folks on both sides of the issue.

You will likely find information to support your perception, and as likely find science that will challenge or even change some of your own ideas. I know I did.

It's better than lashing out or starting a flame war.

Try it, it's worth the time and effort.

Skein

[SSPey]

Logging certainly increases peakflows in the rainy season, but the effects on summer flow are less predictable. In many PNW watersheds summer flows increase 2-4 times for several years after logging. In others, summer flows decrease due to less fog interception.

The amount of water present can affect stream temperature, but only slightly, since it takes less energy to heat a smaller volume.

Anyone who has fished in the summer knows that trees along the ridgetops can provide important shading to streams. A few of my favorite Umpqua runs are barely in shade in the summer, and you can see the sun trying to poke through those trees on the ridges.

[The Greek]

Green Machine....I also get tired of peoples "uninformed opinions". So where are these "record runs of kings" in our Tillamook streams? I would bet the steelhead runs were three times better before clearcutting was a factor in our Tillamook state forest. What data do you have that shows we have been having record runs? This statement is very misleading. The masive chinook runs on the Columbia system clearly do not reflect on the north coast rivers.

[ 02-02-2004, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: The Greek ]

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by TGFwriter:
The DEQ currently has about 800 of the surveyed 1300 streams listed on their 303(d) list.....All of Tillamooks 7 major salmonid bearing streams are listed on this 303(d) list because they exceed minimum temperatures for salmonids. If temperatures exceed 64 degrees- the temperature is listed as a limiting factor in fish production. It is said that in temperatures between 68 and 70 degrees, fish WILL DIE in a matter of weeks or months- this is the case with all of our Tillamook streams. When temperatures exceed 70 degrees, death will occur in a matter of hours or days. Although this too happens in Tillamook, it is not as common as the 67 to 69 degrees. There are recorded temperatures in this range for over 2 months some years.

How about that, poached before they even go to the ocean?!

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">TGF - When the DEQ first published the 303(d) list I paid close attention to the streams in the central coast area. The Siuslaw River and one or two of its largest tribs made the list due to elevated water temperatures...but, fortunately, the fish didn't die. You need to be careful about where the data was collected for a particular stream and resist the tempation to assume the whole watershed has similar conditions. While the temperatures of the lower reaches of the Siuslaw immediately above tidewater did spike at around 75 degrees on one or two days during the hottest part of summer...for just a few hours on each of those days...the fish in the warm areas apparently found cool water refugia...by moving to upstream areas, or at the mouths of small tributaries, or at stream bottom springs (groundwater inputs) in deep holes. The Siuslaw system's salmon & steelhead runs persisted and, indeed, some runs are thriving at historical high levels despite the occasional, temporary mainstem water temp problem.

So, making the 303(d) list doesn't automatically translate to an extreme problem requiring an extreme remedy such as your 50/50 plan would impose.

The current Forest Practices Act requirements protect water quality and preserve adequate shade-producing buffers along streams. In the years since the DEQ's study was published any deficient streamside buffers have continued growing, the FPA requirements have been increased and expanded...so I suspect the actual situation, in most places, is better than what the 303 list might lead one to believe.

Originally posted by Green Machine: I will not tolerate uninformed environmentalists.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">GM - So many uninformed environmentalists, so little time.

[Straydog]

So many loggers and agency partners, so few law enforcement officers.......

Who are you going to trust our future to?

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Hold onto your hats.... HERE WE GO!!! :grin:

[fishindogs]

Well, thanks for all of the replys. And I will look back at past threads to "educate" myself more on this issue.
But, I have gone down to the river in on a summer afternoons and measure water temperatures above 70 degrees. This is a serious problem, and should not be ignored.
Maybe clearcutting didn't cause this problem, but seems to go against common sense to argue that bare dry hills feeding the creeks doesn't lead to warmer rivers.

[freespool]

Green Machine,ever walked in a mature forest near the coast on a foggy or low cloud day? It is raining,like getting your rearend wet rain. This event happens countless times in the summer months,if trees are present to collect the moisture that is.


salmon hugger

[Scruffy Bearded Varmint]

I'm not to much up on logging and logging practices so can someone clarify these points for me.

1. If I recall correctly, the Tillamook Forest was not completely clearcut. It burned over a short time with three or four devastating fires. Is that right or wrong?

2. I read that it takes on average 60 years to produce a harvestable second growth tree in the Tillamook Forest. Is that correct?

3. I think most folks believe we need trees to make stuff. My house is wood. Is yours?

4. Do most folks think we should manage our forests for sustained yield so that we can make money and have trees, and so can our children and our children's children can too?

5. I don't understand the 50/50 and the 20% harvest increase rationales at all. If we truly want sustained yield from the Tillamook Forest, and it takes 60 years to get a harvestble tree, wouldn't it make more sense to just say we will cut at a rate of 1.6 to 1.7 percent a year?

I have never had a problem with logging. When I was a young I even cut trees for much of three summers. Heck, I thought it was fun to knock them suckers over! I remember talking to an old logger way back then. He said it was a shame the way "they were ruining the forests now." This was in the early 70's. He was not referring to logging. He was referring to the miles of clearcuts we could see from the ridge top we were standing on.

Clearcuts, as I understand it, were a product of the forties and fifties. As logging companies found more efficient (read cheaper) ways to remove the big trees, they quickly learned it was more economical (read profitable) to destroy the entire forest instead of just taking the harvestable timber. With that, the clearcut mentality was born.

Fast forward. I think we are fighting the wrong battle. Instead of logging v. preservation, we need to get serious about fighting clearcuts as the only means of harvest. The only ones that win with clearcutting are the big timber companies that increase their profits at the expense of our envrionment, our families, and our fish.

There are alternatives to clearcutting. Sure they may cost a little more, but they leave the forest in tact, the streams clear, and the habitat in place. they also produce more jobs.

I don't recall the name of it, but there is a family business down in So. OR, or N. CA that has logged the same piece of land continuously for well on a hundred years. When you walk through their forest it looks like and for all intent and purpose is an Old Growth Forest. It has clear streams, fish to catch, and abundant native species instead of those big swaths of scotchbroom monocultures I see in many old clear cuts. It also continues supporting their family and the families of dozens of employees.

I say it is time to demand a stop to clearcutting. That is what destroys our forests, not logging. Clearcutting is the enemy, not the loggers trying to provide us with the wood we all use, and trying to put food on his table.

I recall one outfit in Tillamook did a lot of research into balloon logging. I also know that helicopeter logging is a viable opportunity. I am sure their are others. For example, old groth trees required huge equipment to handle them. Second growth does not. Downsize the equipement and leave a smaller footprint in the forest.

Without a doubt, I believe it is in the big timber companies best interest to keep our debate focused on the Logging v. Preservation case. As long as people keep fighting the logging no logging battle, the only ones that will win are the ones with enough money to buy the politicians and policy makers. That ain't the environmentalists, the fisherman, or the fish, that's for sure.

We have been so darn busy fighting with each other, most of us never really knew how bad those giant timber companies were screwing us and our children. They took billions and billions of dollars out of our forests and what did they leave us? Rusting mills, families without incomes, and water without fish. I believe history is about to repeat itself in the Tillamook and Clatsop forests.

I would align with anyone that would champion three causes:
1. True sustained yield harvest schedules based on science, not economics.
2. Mandatory alternatives to clearcutting, based on forest preservation, not economics.
3. A complete ban on the export of any raw logs harvested off public lands. Were talking jobs for Oregonians, aren't we?

I sat through a DSL Land Board meeting down in Charleston and listened to Weyhuser (sp?) whine about how they can't make no money from alder if they can't export raw logs from state lands. Well I say to H' with them. Think about how many Oregon jobs they took away from Oregon. I remember those huge cold decks in North Bend, just sitting waiting to be loaded on ships bound for Asia. This state owes the big timber industrialist nothing.

At that same DSL meeting, I listened to a small regional chain of mills explain how their very livelyhood depended on a constant supply of Alder logs from state lands. What it boiled down to as near as I could tell was this. Weyhuser wanted all the logs for export. To allow that to happen the state would need to change the rules and kiss off several hundred mill workers and their families. If I recall, one of those mills is in the Tillamook area. Weyhuser knows that if they get the ban lifted, they have deep enough pockets to outbid any small local outfit. Even with a higher log price, they will make a ton of money onthe exports because they gain economy of scale. Eastern investors get rich. Local companies and economies get screwed.

Smaller operations can be profitable provided they can compete on a level playing field. And they use good forest and business management practices. That family down in Southern Oregon proved it.

I believe that our goal in managing our state and federal forests should be three fold: Family wage jobs for Oregonians; sustained yield to provide for future generations; preservation of intact ecosystems. Are those reasonable goals?

Just some thoughts. I'm interested in feedback.

Oh, one other thing. Someone mentioned the good fish runs in recent years. I listened to a fish biologist and he said that much of the improvement was caused by better spawning habitat. It seems the big floods of '96 and '97 flushed out years of silt built up from years of clearcutting. Once the silt was gone, the spawning, survival, and escapement rates increased. He also said that because we hadn't been clearcutting nearly as much, the forest floor was more stable and less subject to erosion loss. It made sense when he explained it to me.

[Jimmy Carl Black]

It seems to me that we've got a fairly good handle on controlling 'clear-cutting' in the public lands. Private lands, on the other hand, seem to be getting away with alot of questionable practices.

I don't want to shut down what's left of the industry, just get a well-defined and well-respected buffer zone when it comes to riparian areas. The watershed starts with the tiny draws in the highest places.

Cutting down to the bank of a non-fish-bearing stream may be legal but it should be considered unethical. I guess allowing this practice to continue pretty much ensures that it will continue to be non-fish-bearing.

[Boatdog]

Quote from Scruffy Bearded Varmint:

I would align with anyone that would champion three causes:
1. True sustained yield harvest schedules based on science, not economics.
2. Mandatory alternatives to clearcutting, based on forest preservation, not economics.
3. A complete ban on the export of any raw logs harvested off public lands. Were talking jobs for Oregonians, aren't we?

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]
(especially for point number 3)

[Siwash]

SBV,

Excellent post, as usual. Very thorough, thoughtful and well said. I agree completely.

[freespool]

I feel land owners should be compensated for leaving a generous untouched buffer on fish bearing streams. Likewise they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law when they are caught violating these rules.

salmon hugger

[TGFwriter]

GSA writes: The Siuslaw River and one or two of its largest tribs made the list due to elevated water temperatures...but, fortunately, the fish didn't die.

Bob writes: GSA, I am not just talking about the massive (or even minor) fish kills that the Kalamath witnessed a few summers ago. Those are highly visible- I testified in Salem last week about water temperatures and "death is immenent" scenario's which happens to juveniles even more than adults. We don't see the die off that occurs in the juvenile populations- but believe me, they are real! Even though you didn't see dead fish on the Siuslaw, if the water temperatures your talk about on the river lasted for any amount of time, fish died! And even if they didn't die, their ability to sustain themselves was severly limited. Summer should be the easiest time of the year for these fish to thrive. Food is abundant and there is no risk of high water events. If you have ever read a fish scale, it clearly is a time when fish thrive. So if fish have to seek other cooler water temperatures just to transfer oxygen across their gills, valuable habitat is going underutilized, therefore the carrying capacity of that stream is not fully realized.

GSA writes: In the years since the DEQ's study was published any deficient streamside buffers have continued growing, the FPA requirements have been increased and expanded...so I suspect the actual situation, in most places, is better than what the 303 list might lead one to believe.

Bob writes: That is a pretty bold statement since the 303 list is only a few years old. Sure, buffer zones keep growing -all 25 feet of it! In the outer riparian management zone outlined in the Tillamook Forest Management Plan, the "management" of this zone calls for a 50 tree/acre scheme which will disturb sensitive areas when the thinning goes on and take away vegetation that would otherwise contribute to the function of this area- that is as Gary K points out, hold water better during high water events like we are having now and release cooler water in the summer months.

Now, I am not sure that clearcuts are the real issue so much as the proposed harvest rate or lack of riparian protection in the current FMP but on the 50% of forest lands that are to be managed for timber harvest, we are not advocating for a different strategy than the sturcture based management that ODF is currently employing. That strategy (although I am no expert in it) does prescribe clearcuts for some areas.

I do think voters will be looking at a clearcutting ban on the 2004 ballot however but that is not being initiated by the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition!

As for "record" adult returns to Tillamook, well, we saw some good fall counts after October 15th when outmigrants were effected by the flood of '98. That high water event took out early spawned eggs of September/October fish and favored the later returning fish of November and December because that flood took place in November of '98.

As for spring chinook Green Machine, records we ain't setting. Here are the resting pool counts ODF&W does every summer to count spring chinook in the Wilson and Trask Rivers. Note the DOWNWARD TREND!

11.0 for 1983
10.9 for 1984.....
10.2
10.6
11.6
12.5
12.9
12.2
11.8
11.1
10.0
10.2
10.3
9.7
8.6
6.8
5.9
5.3
5.0 for 2001
4.5 for 2002

It isn't a positive trend...

[TGFwriter]

To clarify, these numbers are 10 year averages since 1983 for the combined Trask and Wilson Rivers.

[Green Machine]

OK, I did not reply to try to start an arguement. Just to mention the "other" side.

I can not argue with some of your statements, nor should the timber industry be completely to blame. We make a lot of assumptions about Mother Nature and how we think she should be managed. We are all guilty of this.

The one fact is that the US has an enormous appetite for softwood lumber. Housing starts are at record highs. The wood will come from somewhere, whether it be the US, Canada, or New Zealand. Those who say keep the jobs here, well everything does come at a price. Logging is ugly, no arguements, but so is any type of harvesting raw materials. (Oh, the state and federal governments ban the export of raw logs harvested off our government land) Just remember the forest practice rules in the northwest are the most stringent in the world. Trust me....take a trip down south if you don't believe me. Back on track here, we can import everything, that's fine, just expect to pay more for your house and don't complain.

Same with banning clear-cuts. We would have to thin MORE acres to keep up with current demands. With clear-cuts, less acres. More thinnings, more acres. Equal balance, that is the correct answer.

If I knew the "right" answer, we wouldn't be arguing right now. There is an answer out there, and I believe we are getting closer to our goal. We really do have to work together on this one. I know it is hard, especially when tempers and emotions flair, but that has to be put aside. The ultimate goal is an environmentally and economically sustainable forest that will continue to provide for not just man, but everything that lives and uses it. I am a fellow fisherman too. I want strong runs of fish, but also know we have RENEWABLE resource that that can be effectively managed.

It's hard to always be the scapegoat, but this is the profession I have chosen. Commercial fishermen and us have a lot in common. Easy to pass the blame.

Enough for me on this topic. Let's go fish!!!

Green Machine

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Scruffy Bearded Varmint:
I think we are fighting the wrong battle. Instead of logging v. preservation, we need to get serious about fighting clearcuts as the only means of harvest. The only ones that win with clearcutting are the big timber companies that increase their profits at the expense of our envrionment, our families, and our fish.

There are alternatives to clearcutting. Sure they may cost a little more, but they leave the forest in tact, the streams clear, and the habitat in place. they also produce more jobs.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">SBV - On the navigability issue you obviously have done your homework...but when it comes to forestry, you have a little catching up to do. [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]

To the public, clearcuts, at least for the first few years, aren't pretty.,,but that's the worst thing you can say about them. In the Douglas-fir Region (western Oregon & Wash. north of the Coquille River, west of the Cascades) clearcutting is not only the most economical logging method, it is necessary to obtain good Douglas-fir regeneration, causes the least soil compaction & erosion, and mimics the natural processes & conditions that our native plant and animal species evolved under.

Thinning regimes can appear to work...for a while...but in our area they ultimately lead to un-natural forest compostion, compacted soil and decreased yields both financial and biotic. And thinning doesn't produce more jobs, either, or wilflife habitat. If deer & elk could vote, they'd be all in favor of clearcutting. If fish could vote, they'd skip that ballot item because done correctly, clearcutting is of no consequence to fish (or beneficial in that summer low flows are often enhanced after clearcutting).

When I logged my little tree farm, I clearcut, burned and replanted. Now, ten years later, it looks really good.

[freespool]

If fish could vote,they'd skip that ballot item because done correctly,clearcutting is of no consequence to fish (or benificial in that summer flows are often enhanced after clearcutting)

If you can sell that load of logs,gowa head on her. Your statements seem to fly in the face of common sense,which coensidently seem to be the norm in our modern day forest practices. Time has come for a new way of doing business,more fish sicense and less timber industry minded policies.


salmon hugger

[Scruffy Bearded Varmint]

freespool.

I feel land owners should be compensated for leaving a generous untouched buffer on fish bearing streams.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Why?

Property value does not diminish because their is a buffer zone, does it? The property is worth the same as it was the day the owner bought it when land values are adjusted for inflation. Unless a person is a fool, land bought for a dollar is worth a dollar. If it is held long enough it becomes worth more, just like any other investment.

On the other hand, remove all the trees from any piece of timber property, and the property value will plummet with one exception. Timber land logged prior to subdivision and development.

At least that is my take on the issue of compensating landowners for not doing something. It is kind of like paying farmers not to grow food. The more food you don't grow the more money our government takes out of tax payer's pockets and gives to you. The more trees you don't cut, the more money we will take out of tax payers pockets and give you.

Much of the problem comes from over zealous realtors and buyers that do not do their due diligence homework. If we have rules, and those rules are clear to all, then people will not buy property with the expectation of making a killing by clearcutting everything in sight, will they?

The big timber companies would jump on this government giveaway faster than an eagle on a gill hooked trout! No, I think it is time our government got out of the corporate welfare business completely. You would be surprised to learn how many huge corporate entities would cease to exist if it were not for the handouts they get from taxpayers like you and me.

You know my views freespool, so please explain why you feel landowners should get rewarded for leaving buffer zones.

On a different point:

Someone mentioned the small streams that only flow in the winter and spring. Fisheries biologists now know those streams provide a lot of the spawning habitat native fish need to survive. I believe G*D has a plan. Everything worked fine until he gave man the power to assume -- assume that just because we don't know how everything works, it's okay to tear it all apart to make a quick buck. To my knowlege there has never been a single instance were man's assumptions about nature have proven correct to the point that what we did improved on nature, small intermittent streams included.

[garyk]

Green Machine, your initial post about clearcuts increasing stream flows is true - kind of.

The problem is the increased flows are during the winter. Anybody think the Tillamook rivers need more water right about now?

On intact forests, by volume, not as much will run off all year but MORE will seep in during the summer, providing increased water volume just when it is most crtically needed.

An intact forest will help smooth out the hydrologic cycle, so it's not so sharply up-and-down, or 'flashy' as it's sometimes called. Highs not as high, and lows not as low. A more stable flow regime. This is a huge benefit to fish.

[SSPey]

Originally posted by GutshotApe:
To the public, clearcuts, at least for the first few years, aren't pretty.,,but that's the worst thing you can say about them.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">oh, I've heard much worse.

-----------------------------------------

Still, there remains a viable question of tradeoffs in clearcutting vs. multiple entry uneven-aged management in areas managed for longer rotations. There is something to be said for decomissioning roads for 80 years at a time, though with PCT and CT operations in effect, such decommissioning rarely comes to pass.

and road decommissioning is a non-issue entirely on lands with 30-50 yr rotations. They're effectively open from cut to cut.


Fish care a lot about roads. And shade and CWD that originate far upslope.

[TillamookChinook]

I usually steer clear of initiative petitions because I think they have done more harm than good to Oregon in the last 15 years. But I will be soliciting signatures for the Tillamook 50-50 Plan.

Yes, it takes at least 60 years to produce harvestable timber, and that is how long much of the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests have been growing since they were replanted after the fires. That is why the State Forestry Department created the Forest Plan to plan how these forests should be managed. The Plan was criticized because, while it would uae the best forestry management techniques, it would eventually log nearly all of the forests.

The 50-50 Plan was a response to the plan developed by the State Forestry Department. Then a few weeks ago I read in the news that the State Forestry Department was increasing the yield from the first sales in the Forestry Plan by changing from thinning cuts to clearcuts. This was in response to a directive from the legislature to raise more money right now from timber sales. The Forestry Plan which was supposedly developed with the best forestry science was abandoned before the first trees were cut because of current budget shortfalls.

We need a longer term focus on real forest health. We need the Tillamook 50-50 Plan.

TC

[TGFwriter]

Green Machine, I agree with everything you said. And you said it well. I personally am not opposed to clearcuts- diverse landscapes offer diverse species of plants and animals- Just clearcut away from waters that influence fish production. I think you agree with that too! Clearcuts are huge producers for elk and deer too. I likely won't be voting for the clearcut ban on the November ballot but the 50/50 ballot is asking for the Tillamook to be managed equally for fish, wildlife and clean water ALONG with timber. No need to tell you how I am voting on that one! [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

I also liked your quote: Just remember the forest practice rules in the northwest are the most stringent in the world. Trust me....take a trip down south

I would like to add one thing to put it all in perspective. Although I haven't done the research, I am pretty confident that the fishing industry (and sport) is the most heavily regulated industry in the state of Oregon. Not only are our regulations revised every 2 years but we have new seasonal regulations every year on different waterways. I am not for more regulation for anyone but sportfishers are regulated to DEATH!

Restore fish, reduce regulation, stimulate OREGON. Sign our petition so we can get our initiative to ballot. Stop by The Guide's Forecast booth or Clackacraft and let's make it happen! :smile:

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by freespool:
If fish could vote,they'd skip that ballot item because done correctly,clearcutting is of no consequence to fish (or benificial in that summer flows are often enhanced after clearcutting)

If you can sell that load of logs,gowa head on her. Your statements seem to fly in the face of common sense,which coensidently seem to be the norm in our modern day forest practices. Time has come for a new way of doing business,more fish sicense and less timber industry minded policies.


salmon hugger

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">s.h. - Don't take my word for it...read the scientific literature. The USFS-PNW's Alsea Study and many others show that summer time low flows are often increased as a result of clearcutting. Instead of being transpired and evaporated in large quantities by a stand of trees, in a clearcut rain & snowmelt infiltrates the ground and is stored as soil moisture to be slowly released as subsurface runoff. Every rancher in eastern Oregon knows if he gets rid of the juniper trees his cows will have a lot more grass due to increased water availability & growth...and, the eastside streams will carry more water in summer where junipers have been elimated.

The timber industry IS doing things differently these days...many changes have been implemented over the past few years to benefit water, fish & wildlife. Why do critics act like its still 1946 out in the working woods? :whazzup:

[Scruffy Bearded Varmint]

GutshotApe,

Your right, I am not fully in tune with current forest biology. I believe I as much said so with my initial statement in the post you quoted from.

I do need to clarify one point in that post. I made two comments in the post you referred to that do not agree.

I think we are fighting the wrong battle. Instead of logging v. preservation, we need to get serious about fighting clearcuts as the only means of harvest.

And

I say it is time to demand a stop to clearcutting.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Let me clarify. I believe the first statement and do not necessarily support fully, the second. Let me explain.

I understand that in a few areas clearcutting may be the only logical solution. I also recognize that clearcutting is only one of many harvest methods available. Unfortunately, for our forests and our trees, the logging industry believes that clearcutting is the only alternative in 95% of all cases.

1In the Douglas-fir Region (western Oregon & Wash. north of the Coquille River, west of the Cascades) clearcutting is 2not only the most economical logging method, 3it is necessary to obtain good Douglas-fir regeneration, 4causes the least soil compaction & 5erosion, and 6mimics the natural processes & conditions that our native plant and animal species evolved under.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">1. I do not believe that Douglas Fir is the only climax species in Northwest forests, is it?

2. I believe that as long as we let economics dictate our forest practices, we will forever be trapped in a cycle of massive destroy the forest for a buck clearcuts followed by a period marked by landslides, high run-off and heavy erosion, followed by a period of clear streams and good balance, followed by a period of massive destroy the forest for a fast buck. Not what I would call a sustained yield approach at all.

3. I believe that when we only manage for good recovery of a single speicies, we are not managing a forest were running a farm. Our natural forests were not monocultures. Once again, a man induced monoculture has nothing to do with mimicking nature, does it?

4. Heavy equipment on forest floors causes compaction on the first pass as I understand it. I argue for smaller equipment in second growth as part of the solution to this aspect of the problem. When a piece of equipment weighing 20 tons moves across the forest, it replicates nothing in nature. The closest natural event to this would be when an old growth tree falls to the forest floor.

5. Most of the erosion problem, as I understand it, comes from three sources associated with clearcutting: First the extensive network of logging roads created and maintained to support the clearcut harvest method. Second, the extensive network of tire ruts created in the forest floor as a result of skidding out logs. And third, the long vertical drag marks gouged into the sides of hills when highlines are used on the steepest slopes -- slopes most vulnerable to fast erosion with the first big storms of fall. None of these conditions replicate nature, do they?

6. I believe that clearcutting mimics nothing in nature. Having worked forest fires and seen the incredible mosaic of burn patterns they produce, there ain't nothing about a forest fire that resembles any clearcut I've ever worked in.

When we strip the desirable speicie from vast tracks of forest while destroying the rest, we do not replicate any act of nature. Even pine beatles appeared to be smart enough to only target certain age groups for gosh sake. Forests hardest hit by pine beetle seemed to be those with vast stands of trees of all the same age, same speicie, and same diameter. The largest trees appeared to withstand an attack. The beatles ignored the smaller trees. At least that was my observation when I was cruising pine beatle damage in Montana.

As for wildlife habitat, well again, a clearcut hardly replicates anything in nature. Sure, there is a short term unnatural gain in feed directly associated with a new clearcut. On the other
hand, large herds of big game in the Northwest's forests are not natural. Yes we have larger herds because the population expands to exploit the temporarily abundant food source. As I understand it, large herds of elk and deer are an abnormal derivative of massive clearcuts. The artificial environment we create with clearcuts creates favorable conditions for one or two species at the expense of thousands of others. Again, this does not appear to replicate nature, does it?

I am curious about your close of the sentence in the quote. In what way do clearcuts mimic the environment that Northwest plants and animals evolved under. I understood they evolved over hundreds of thousands of years in forests that went through natural cycles of fire, rebirth, and growth with a few ice ages thrown in for good measure.

Natural Northwest forest fires for the most part burned in a mosaic pattern leaving timber stands of many ages and densities with everything from old growth areas to open grassland meadows. Each area burned went through a series of subclimax species. As one matured and dominated an area, another took root and grew beneath. As the older plants died, the new specie would reach its apex. This pattern continued until only the giants were left. The largest of the large trees shading a natural forest floor pretty much devoid of any other large plants. Not all those giants were Douglas Fir either, were they?

How does clearcutting, and replanting to a Douglas fir monoculture, replicate or mimic nature?

Like I said in my previous post, I'm not to much up on logging and logging practices so can someone clarify these points for me.

You made the following comment:
[quote]Every rancher in eastern Oregon knows if he gets rid of the juniper trees his cows will have a lot more grass due to increased water availability & growth...and, the eastside streams will carry more water in summer where junipers have been elimated.[quote]

I do not believe it works as you suggested. When overgrazing in Eastern Oregon during the late 1800's and early 1900's destroyed the natural grasslands, the rusult was an increase in juniper and sagebrush, neither of which cattle will eat.

Juniper trees slow the melting and evaporation of winter snows within the range of their driplines. A wonderfully natural method of preserving water for future use. This inturn allows for better spring grass production immediately adjacdent to the juniper trees, a phenomenon easily observed in Eastern Oregon. In areas where Juniper have been removed, sagebrush quickly grows in to fill the void. Sagebrush is not the natural climax species in most of Eastern Oregon.

Most Eastern Oregon desert streams rely on ground water fed springs for their summer flow levels. Much of this water remains in the ground for tens if not hundreds of years before it emerges. I suspect it would be very tough to equate surface stream water with the recent removal of juniper trees.

Are there any Eastern Oregon Range Scientists out there that can help us with this one?

[ 02-03-2004, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: Scruffy Bearded Varmint ]

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Scruffy Bearded Varmint:
I am curious about your close of the sentence in the quote. In what way do clearcuts mimic the environment that Northwest plants and animals evolved under. I understood they evolved over hundreds of thousands of years in forests that went through natural cycles of fire, rebirth, and growth with a few ice ages thrown in for good measure.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Wow! You sure covered a lot of territory...I'll just address the question above, for now:

No doubt about it, no type of timber harvesting exactly replicates nature....for one thing, logging removes the logs whereas in natural stand replacing events, the logs usually stay put. Removing logs does not remove significant amounts of the site's nutrient capital...but it does influence prevalence of certain types of wildlife (molluscs, etc.) Of all available, economical, and practicable timber harvest methods, within the Douglas-fir Region (not the entie range of the species but the commonly-accepted definition of the Dfir Region), clearcut/burn/replant with Dfir comes closest to mimicking the natural processes that our westside forests evolved under. Not everywhere in every case, necessarily...but in the vast majority of western OR & WA forests this is reality.

In natural forests in the DF Region, "Dfir monocultures" are normal and commonly develop...as a consequence of fire. Douglas-fir is adapted to naturally regenerate burned areas as a pioneer species and "normal" young Dfir stands are frequently overstocked monocultures. Someone once calculated the average fire frequency for the southern Siuslaw Natl Forest is about 95 years...when you have recurring, stand-replacing events like a forest fire every 100 years or so you don't get the orderly succession thru all the intermediary stages you referred to...and you rarely find true climax forests, either, because the average site burn too frequently.

Yup, nothing emulates a natural forest system as much as a 100% hands-off approach does, i.e. Wilderness Areas. But if we are to satisfy human demand for fiber, fuel, building products, jobs & tax revenue we will have to manage at least some of our forests and harvest trees...and around here, the best way to do that as a sustainable practice is to clearcut, burn and replant. There are issues with clearcut size, adjacency, watershed-level cumulative effects, etc, etc. But the science on the validity and soundness of clearcutting as the best primary harvest method is rock solid... within the Douglas-fir Region.

[ 02-03-2004, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: GutshotApe ]

[boater]

Originally posted by Green Machine:
Commercial fishermen and us have a lot in common.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">you mean commercial fisherman and loggers ?

[Green Machine]

Yes, Boater.

About like you and Sportjets. :grin:

Green Machine

[SSPey]

Originally posted by GutshotApe:
... around here, the best way to do that as a sustainable practice is to clearcut, burn and replant.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">please define sustainable and the notion that we're there. Remember that we've only been at this for 50-70 years. That's a blink compared to the developmental history of this landscape - even compared to the 200-300 yr fire return interval typical of the North Coast around T-mook

The need for timber and jobs needs to be balanced against the limits of the system, and it would be good to do this before we hit an unexpected wall.

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by floatnfish:
please define sustainable and the notion that we're there.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">A sustainable forestry program would be one that could continue perpetually without a gradual decrease or degradation of forest product output (timber, fish, deer, etc.) or of the basic resource, the forest soils.

Here in the Douglas-fir Region there are now many examples of "third-growth" forests...and even some "fourth-growth" and a few "fifth-growth" stands. These areas have grown repeated crops of Douglas-fir (predominately) timber and show no sign of slowing down (which is somewhat remarkable considering the total lack of a Forest Practices Act before 1973 and the abusive logging practices that once were common). Once the access roads and skid roads are built for the initial harvest there is relatively little soil loss during subesquent harvests. Adequate road maintenence between harvests is necessary, of course, along with decommissioning of some poorly-designed "legacy" roads reduce & prevent soil erosion. Even if the site was repeatedly harvested by clearcutting, particularily if cable-yarded, soil compaction is normally does not appear to be a limiting factor even after 5 rotations.

Nobody...well, almost nobody [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img] ...advocates a complete cessation of logging. Many, many areas of northwest forests have been set aside as no-logging areas...so on the remaining areas, especially highly-productive parts of Oregon such as the northern Coast Range, we need to manage our working forests in a sustainable manner...and that translates to clearcut/burn/replant. We know it works and the evidence is all around us.

[freespool]

GSA,this doug fir platation system of log, burn, harvest and plant every 50-60 years has got to adversely effect the soil composition. Some where along the line the soil must be amended. And I don't mean aerial fertilizer. At some point in this cycle the land has got to rest. Or do the laws of farming not apply to timber? The land that you refered to on the North coast to be set aside is for stream buffers and other fish habitat inhancement projects.


salmon hugger

[SSPey]

GSA

I think you are taking liberties with the most productive sites to generalize about too large an area. Typically the most productive stands with ample nutrients in soils are those that have the fastest rotations, and its those same high levels of nutrient stores that enable multiple rotations with only a small apparent decline in productivity. But is there any systematic study of changes in forest productivity after 1-2-3-4-5 rotations in the Oregon Coast Range? No, there isn't, at least nothing that's been published. I've search far and wide for such a study and it does not exist. Your opinion is simply that until the science exists to support it.

Perhaps more telling is that a number of private industrial forestry operations in the north and central Coast Range recognize the risk of nutrient depletion after several harvests, and are researching different fertilizers to ameliorate productivity declines, as well as to sustain productivity into the future. Swiss needle cast - which has reduced the productivity of young Coast Range stands by an average of 30% over the past decade - is considered related (in part) to nutritional imbalances (too little nutrients relative to nitrogen) that are worsened by forest harvest. This doesn't sound sustainable to me. Remember that 30% is the average loss in productivity, and some areas have stopped growing altogether. These losses translate directly to lost dollars, the timber industry knows it, and they are fertilizing in an attempt to fix the problem.

freespool got it right. If we don't learn from agriculture, we are doomed to make the same mistakes. Agriculture is far older and more mature as a science than forestry. Its been through this before like a broken record. Its ironic that agriculture increasingly is moving away from herbicides and fertilizer, yet commercial forestry is moving towards these unsustainable methods more quickly than ever before. Ironic and shortsighted.

Nature bats last. It doesn't take kindly to bean balls, either.

[ 02-04-2004, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: floatnfish ]

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by floatnfish:
I think you are taking liberties with the most productive sites to generalize about too large an area.......

Swiss needle cast - which has reduced the productivity of young Coast Range stands by an average of 30% over the past decade - is considered related (in part) to nutritional imbalances......

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">It is difficult to cover all the bases and allow for all the exceptions in a line or two on an internet chatroom format. But, generally, there are no indications of serious nutrient depletion after several crops of timber have been grown & harvested. The native forests have regenerated at least 20 times since the last ice age (500 yr rotation over 10,000 yrs)...and in Oregon, where ice age glaciers were limited to high elevation areas, most forests have germinated, grown, burned up, and regenerated literally hundreds or thousands of times...so it is difficult to see how there would be a serious problem now that forests are utilized by people. Any gradual nutrient depletion could be resolved by aerial fertilizer application...check back with me in a few hundred years and we'll see it there actually is any depletion.

The biggest problem with Swiss needle cast is in areas of the north coast where Douglas-fir was planted in the coastal spruce/hemlock zone. This coastal zone is a narrow strip except in Tillamook & Clatsop counties where it extends inland 20 to 30 miles in places. You don't see the disease elsewhere where trees were not planted "off-site". Many private timber companies in the affected areas are now replanting with a mix of species...despite the problems with the other species...i.e. spruce tip weevil, hemlock looper, seedling cultural and handling problems, etc., etc.

[ssteelheadsteve]

According to the Wasco County Soil & Water Conservation Board clearcutting right to the streambed has " no effect " on water temps.They also have a scientific study YOU paid for to prove it.And the beat goes on............. :smile:
IMHO They are NUTS

[fishindogs]

sssteve,
Do you know where we can get a copy/link to the results of the study?

[SSPey]

Originally posted by GutshotApe:
The native forests have regenerated at least 20 times since the last ice age (500 yr rotation over 10,000 yrs)...and in Oregon, where ice age glaciers were limited to high elevation areas, most forests have germinated, grown, burned up, and regenerated literally hundreds or thousands of times...so it is difficult to see how there would be a serious problem now that forests are utilized by people.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">c'mon GSA, you know darn well that fires return a lot of nutrients to soils in ash, nutrients that otherwise are removed off site by logging. The main exception being nitrogen, but in areas that are piled and burned, you lose nitrogen, too.

Any gradual nutrient depletion could be resolved by aerial fertilizer application...

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">and its happening already - the industry is already fertilizing to eliminate nutrient imbalances in these forests. Current forest practices are not sustainable by your own definition above:

Originally posted by GutshotApe:


A sustainable forestry program would be one that could continue perpetually without a gradual decrease or degradation of forest product output (timber, fish, deer, etc.) or of the basic resource, the forest soils.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">which is it going to be, the truth, or a conveniently slippery guess?

I'm not saying "no logging" but instead I just wish that the industry (and its advocates like yourself) would stop the PR that essentially amounts to doublespeak. If the industry is HONEST about these things, it will retain credibility (which is sorely needs). It will also foster new and concerted thinking about ways to head off potential problems before they start.

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by floatnfish:
c'mon GSA, you know darn well that fires return a lot of nutrients to soils in ash, nutrients that otherwise are removed off site by logging. The main exception being nitrogen, but in areas that are piled and burned, you lose nitrogen, too.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The vast majority of nutrient capital of a forest site is found in the foliage and limbs of trees...these items are normally left on site. The logs contain relatively low amounts of "nutrients"....

Current forest practices are not sustainable by your own definition....I'm not saying "no logging" but instead I just wish that the industry (and its advocates like yourself) would stop the PR that essentially amounts to doublespeak.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I really don't know what you're objecting to... :whazzup:

When you really look at human economic systems, nothing is truely 100% perpetually sustainable...but with a small degree of human manipulation (a little nitrogen fertilizer added once per century, perhaps), intensive forest management comes closer to being sustainable than nearly anything else people do. Technically, anything that relies on combustion of fossil fuel or conversion of it to plastics, fertilizers, power, or other use is unsustainable...and that covers just about everything humans do.

There is no reason (other than political) not to expect forest management to be going strong after the last barrel of oil is removed from the ground.

Doublespeak?? :whazzup:

[freespool]

Maybe it's me,but I'm very confused here. Most things in life have a sense of order,a right and wrong or yin and yang. But when it comes to modern forest practices all bets are off. Up is down, bad is good, and wrong is right. We've heard logging and road building on steep ground dont cause land slides, sucsessive 50-60 year harvest rotations have no detrimental effect on soil composition and clearcuts adjacent to fish bearing streams have no adverse effects on water quality and spawning habitat. Transparant high graded 20ft buffers have no effect on fish bearing streams, clearcuts are not ugly and removing trees from the forest does not effect the nutrient levels of the soil,as well as "clearcuts mimic nature". So there should be no doubt why a credibility gap exists in modern forestry. It seems the fox is in charge of the hen house. Now something like the TSF 50/50 plan comes along. Is this a better way of doing things? Perhaps we should give it a try and find out before it's to late.


salmom hugger