Access to our public land (camping, fishing, hunting)

[TheRogue]

Just an FYI, and no reason to bash away on the political side, except in your thoughts....leave it off IFISH.

I thought it was important to bring up, since I haven't seen it posted yet, and there's been so much talk about our access to public lands.

The FY 2008 (begins Oct. 1 2007) budget as submitted by the President severely slashes the funding for the US Forest Service (again). Preliminary figures could be laying off more than 2000 folks, but what is certain is that even more campgrounds will be closed on USFS lands. In addition, you can bet that since there will be ZERO money for enforcement issues, there will be more and more areas closed to public access. In addition, there won't be money for road maintenance either; meaning when a culvert plugged due to a lack of maintenance washes the road out, it won't be fixed.

From the Oregonian yesterday:

Kimbell, the first woman to head the Forest Service, came under fire Tuesday as she defended President Bush's request for the next budget year, which deals her agency a spending cut and eliminates more than 2,100 jobs.

Entire story here:

If this is of concern to you, might want to contact your representatives in Congress and let them know how you feel. If you're after locking it up anyway, you can sit back and smile.

TR

[baltz526]

if they fired the top 2100 usfs people it would be a good thing. but it will be the field workers who will be gone, the office workers, who do nothing for forest management will be left, sitting on their duffs, protecting their jobs by paper shuffling.

[Joe Schwab]

What's the point in having all those employees? There's no harvest anymore and that's what paid the bills. Sorry the campgounds have to go but someone please tell me where the money is going to come from if we don't harvest some timber?

[BrianMaguire]

I have heard from the Ochoco Natl Forest guys I know that they will be closing a good number of campgrounds. I don't usually use a campground but I do get water from them.

More bad fire season will just exasperate the problem. Years ago it was apparent that we needed to help and hunter/woodcutter/visitors do much of the downed tree road maintenance. I always carry my saw for the necessity.

Much of the trees that fall down are commercial, its a shame when they get cut up in sections for firewood.

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by Capt. Hook

What's the point in having all those employees? There's no harvest anymore and that's what paid the bills. Sorry the campgounds have to go but someone please tell me where the money is going to come from if we don't harvest some timber?

The forest service actually lost money on most timber sales, cutting more would only make it worse. The backlog of thininng projects from past logging is astronomical, cutting more is only going to make that worse. Hind sight is 20-20 but the future thinning and road maintence should have been factored into the sales to begin with.

[Bill Monroe]

They won't be closing public access...Roads, perhaps, but not access..

[bp97211]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

The forest service actually lost money on most timber sales, cutting more would only make it worse. The backlog of thininng projects from past logging is astronomical, cutting more is only going to make that worse. Hind sight is 20-20 but the future thinning and road maintence should have been factored into the sales to begin with.

Need an icon for seething...

[TheRogue]

C'mon Bill, I know you're not that naive. You bet access will be cut back, if only in my scenario of road maintenance. Happens all the time....culvert washes out on a 10-mile long spur road, they close the whole thing.

Brian....so, tell me, why would a USFS timber sale loose money, but private don't? Because the timber cutting rules on federal land are so insanely strict; because since they aren't allowed to cut more than only little sale in huge areas, necessitating the need for a big expensive road (built to insane specifications) for one sale.

They loose money because of those reasons, not because the sales are inherently money loosers.

TR

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

The forest service actually lost money on most timber sales, cutting more would only make it worse. The backlog of thininng projects from past logging is astronomical, cutting more is only going to make that worse. Hind sight is 20-20 but the future thinning and road maintence should have been factored into the sales to begin with.

I can't keep up with BM; first he wants huge areas designated as wilderness. Now he wants the backlog of thinning project caught up. I need that icon for dazed, befuddled, bewildered, and confused... Brian, perhaps you could explain what your position is so we might understand a bit better?

[bp97211]

I will stay out of any discussions on a public forum related to federal forest management--I love talking about it with people in person, just not here.--Brian

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by TheRogue

C'mon Bill, I know you're not that naive. You bet access will be cut back, if only in my scenario of road maintenance. Happens all the time....culvert washes out on a 10-mile long spur road, they close the whole thing.

Brian....so, tell me, why would a USFS timber sale loose money, but private don't? Because the timber cutting rules on federal land are so insanely strict; because since they aren't allowed to cut more than only little sale in huge areas, necessitating the need for a big expensive road (built to insane specifications) for one sale.

They loose money because of those reasons, not because the sales are inherently money loosers.

TR

You hit the nail on the head.

[D-tangle]

Cutting wood has always paid for itself and built roads into the wilderness, otherwise it wouldn't have happened, period. It is because the private businesses hasn't had availability of wood to cut that it is not as profitable as before and Gov't has gotten top-heavy. I'm afraid jobs will be lost because it has been made unprofitable to cut trees through piecemeal thinning jobs. 60,000 loggers lost their jobs 10 years ago, remember? Is it because there were no more logs to saw? No. It became politically incorrect and unnaturally changed the landscape of lumbermen doing their business. Today we have more uncut wood standing than ever before in history and it will never see a lumberyard, but will burn with the wildfires. Pure genius, huh? We have shortages of wood products and are forced to bring it in from Brazil and Canada. Smart! Driving the prices up. Genius!

Allow lumbermen to cut the wood and you will see the roads maintained at private expense and the public will have free access to these good roads and wood product prices will drop into an affordable level and more jobs will be created. I guess this is too difficult to explain. :blush:

[Joe Schwab]

"Nationally, the amount of wood fiber harvested from national forests under management by Defendent USFS fell from 12 billion board feet in 1989 to only 3.3 billion board feet in 1998.
"Where it once took only 6 months for Defendant USFS to give a special use permit for temporary access to logging sites, it will now take 2 to 3 years of study and dispute, all caused by interventions and pressure brought about by Defendants SWAN and Forest Guardians.

Here's just one example of why it is costing more to harvest timber on public lands.

This insanity has got to stop!

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by D-tangle

Cutting wood has always paid for itself and built roads into the wilderness, otherwise it wouldn't have happened, period. It is because the private businesses hasn't had availability of wood to cut that it is not as profitable as before and Gov't has gotten top-heavy. I'm afraid jobs will be lost because it has been made unprofitable to cut trees through piecemeal thinning jobs. 60,000 loggers lost their jobs 10 years ago, remember? Is it because there were no more logs to saw? No. It became politically incorrect and unnaturally changed the landscape of lumbermen doing their business. Today we have more uncut wood standing than ever before in history and it will never see a lumberyard, but will burn with the wildfires. Pure genius, huh? We have shortages of wood products and are forced to bring it in from Brazil and Canada. Smart! Driving the prices up. Genius!

Allow lumbermen to cut the wood and you will see the roads maintained at private expense and the public will have free access to these good roads and wood product prices will drop into an affordable level and more jobs will be created. I guess this is too difficult to explain. :blush:

Well said.

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by Hawk

I can't keep up with BM; first he wants huge areas designated as wilderness. Now he wants the backlog of thinning project caught up. I need that icon for dazed, befuddled, bewildered, and confused... Brian, perhaps you could explain what your position is so we might understand a bit better?

I don't see an inconsistency with that position. I want what is best for long term habitat. I don't lump forest policy into one heep, what is done in the Mt. Hood vs. the Ochoco vs. the Steens are very different. They should also be different depending on things like slope and elevation, fire regime, rainfall, etc. Clear cuts make great blacktail habitat for a time, then they suck for 40+ years on the west side, this also differs depending on what face they are on or if they are flat. I would like to see them not suck so bad since we have so many of them that do suck. Thinning these out is a must, but I don't see people tripping over themselves to try to do that work. I also would like to see thinning on much of the east side, to dampen the fire risk, I just don't want to cut the entire forest to save it.

We need varied terrain, but turning an entire forest into a plantation is not varied, and many of us don't want it. We should always have a good percentage of old growth, its great hunting and provides some unique winter habitat, especially in the cascades you can't get with tree farms. An old growth canopy hold quite a bit of snow, and when snow falls off of it it sheds it into piles, leaving much of the ground free from snow. That is important. Clear cuts in the cascades become virtual glaciers for a good part of the year, deer and elk can't feed in them very well. What is great in the warm months is not great in the winter. That is why you need a mix.

I honestly can't understand where you are coming from, its your perspective, which I interpret as we should continue to cut all of the national forest until it is one giant tree farm. I don't agree with that, nor do the majority of Americans. Natl. Forest are for multiple use and should be fairly managed for all uses, as it stands well over half have been cut, and it still is not enough. I wonder what is enough?

[Hawk]

You're right, we are kind of at opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue.

I see no reason to designate large portions of land as wilderness, as that trend has a high probability of excluding many people from using the forest and, ultimately, would likely lead to the eventual exclusion of all of us.

I think the forests can be managed effectively, with selective cutting, and timber companies will, as they have in the past, pay a fair price for that timber, create family wage jobs, create healthier forests, generate tax revenue to fund schools and county services (like were lost this week), reforest cut areas with diverse plantings, decrease lumber prices, decrease home/building costs, decrease wildfires, reduce fire abatement costs, decrease CO2, increase oxygenation, and a host of other benefits.

I think everyone would agree that many forest management practices of the past were not sustainable, and I think forest managers have learned from those "mistakes". The resource can be managed for the benefit of all, but simply designating large blocks of land as wilderness, and/or defunding the NFS isn't the way to do it. The NFW could probably be self funding if it were run efficiently, which would start with firing 2100 bureacrats, and not the front line people who are the ones out in the forests, not sitting behind a desk in D.C., or Denver, or Portland.

[D-tangle]

Hawk for Prez!!! Please run for office on that exact platform. Perhaps we still have a chance.

[dubl_t]

BM & Hawk, you both make very sound points. But in BM's defense, logging on public land is HEAVILY subsidized by public monies and for that reason a money loser. Historically, timber companies have paid pennies on the dollar for public timber, and in some cases, were actully paid to log certain areas. What's the fair market value for 2 cords of wood? The USFS says 10 dollars. Don't get me started on public land grazing. Hawk, you're right. The fat should be cut from the top. Maybe as has been suggested, give the States more control of whats in their borders and do away with USFS all together. But thats another can of worms.

[Waterfish]

Capt Hook touched on one of the main reasons that Forest Service timber sales became money losers. They weren't always that way. Endless appeals and litigation by groups such as Forest Guardians and Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC - who now go by "Oregon Wild") is the main reason Federal timber sales started losing money.

I attended a public meeting a while back where the issue of salvaging fire killed timber and blown down timber came up. A tye-dyed, dreadlocked lady said that we should not even salvage this timber because doing so "creates a market for wood, and an excuse to keep sawmills running."

Sierra Club - Greenpeace - ONRC - Oregon Wild - Earth First! - Animal Liberation Front - PETA ... There is no reasoning with these rabid extremist groups. They've already killed Forestry on public lands. Hunting and fishing will be the next big battlefront. Sometimes I really wish I had been born about 150 years ago.

[TheRogue]

Waterfish...

Right on the money...

TR

[ehunter]

Well once again I am in the minority I agree with Brian I don't think over harvesting is the answer...I am not against logging but I think it needs to make sense and be balenced...

[Rank Amateur]

So how do we pay the bills when it is all logged?

Years ago when the first loggers hit Northwest Oregon, they exclaimed, "we will never be able to log all of this". 40 years later.

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by ehunter

Well once again I am in the minority I agree with Brian I don't think over harvesting is the answer...I am not against logging but I think it needs to make sense and be balenced...

eHunter, you missed the point. Harvesting is not synonomous with "over harvesting". You can have responsible, sustained yield harvesting without "over harvesting"; that is the entire point!

And if the ecoterrorists were reined in, like Waterfish said, profits from timber sales could provide the Northwest's economy a HUGE boost. As long as the ecoterrorist organizations are allowed to hamstring the rest of society with junk science and frivilous litigate, everyone else's rights for forest access and use (of all types) will continue to be infringed upon.

[Tilla]

So why is the USFS thinning the forest with our tax dollars?

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by Tilla

So why is the USFS thinning the forest with our tax dollars?

The answer is in your question: they are thinning scrub trees that have little commercial value, as opposed to selective harvesting of commercially viable timber with thinning and reforestation (via mixed species) a required element of the the sale.

[Salmo trutta]

Gee... I thought this was a hunting forum???

[TheRogue]

Salmo.....at least on the west side, logging and hunting are completely intertwined.

TR

[hillsboro]

Originally Posted by Hawk

I think everyone would agree that many forest management practices of the past were not sustainable, and I think forest managers have learned from those "mistakes".

I am not so sure about this one, just by looking at some of the clearcuts that are left by these practices, some look like baron wastelands when they are done..

[Waterfish]

hillsboro,

I think most people responding to this thread are assuming that we are talking about logging and forestry on public lands (Forest Service, BLM, and state lands).

These public agencies have not made big clearcuts for years. There are some exceptions for smaller clearcuts (fire salvage, bug killed stands, or stands infected with pockets of Phellinus weirii (root rot). Sometimes the only way to stop Phellinus weirii from spreading is to cut the pocket of infected trees (usually 5 acres or less) and replant with a root rot resistant species such as Western redcedar.

Not only is the Forest Service NOT clearcutting anymore; because of appeals and litigation, the Forest Service has a hard time even setting up thinning sales in second growth timber. Same goes for salvaging blow down and fire killed timber.

When you drive to the coast and see big clearcuts, you are looking at private land, not public land.

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by Salmo trutta

Gee... I thought this was a hunting forum???

Since most of us are not wealthy and are "forced" to hunt public lands, TR is right; you can't separate hunting/fishing from "access to our public land".

Hillsboro, please don't confuse poor management practices of the past with modern day forest management practices. I agree with Waterfish, I can't remember the last time I saw a large commercial clear cut on public land. Also, the must be a legitimate reason why, as Waterfish said, a private timber company would clear cut its own timber as a method of managing that resource.

[Straydog]

I'm not familiar with Forest Service practices, in terms of logging on public ground today.

However, the BLM is not clear cutting any longer, that is true. They are now doing "Regenerative Cuts" which is not clear cutting, it is "regenerative cuts."

Same pig, just a different name..........

[STRUTTIN-1]

I am with e-hunter.It does need to be managed.But wildlife needs it more than ever with home ranges being gobbled up.Food source,money,trees grow back helps with fire control ect ect.Just stay away from the rivers and streams.Like along away...

[TheRogue]

Originally Posted by STRUTTIN-1

I am with e-hunter.It does need to be managed.But wildlife needs it more than ever with home ranges being gobbled up.Food source,money,trees grow back helps with fire control ect ect.Just stay away from the rivers and streams.Like along away...

Reality is, you're in Oregon....there is no place that's "along away" from rivers and streams.

[garyk]

This is a timely post as recreational activities on national forests have never received funding proportionate to the public's demands. Even with the so-called Forest Pass.

Originally Posted by Waterfish

When you drive to the coast and see big clearcuts, you are looking at private land, not public land.

When I stand on Mt.Hood, I'm looking at the over-cut Mt.Hood Forest...I am familiar with the boundaries. Those areas hammered in the late 1970's and 1980's will take 100 years to return to some semblance of what was there...and even then the tree diversity will not be what it was.

But beyond this back-and-forth argument, you ought to realize that at least in Central Oregon, even during the over-cutting frenzy in the 1980's the Districts, such as the Sister's Ranger District, were already cutting back on trails and campgrounds. The 'Two Springs' trailhead for example was abandoned. Same with the Abbot Springs/Butte campground.
IF USFS was flush with money then, why the cutbacks? Because the money has always gone somewhere's else. AND the USFS was/is following a policy of managing the public into 'hardened' recreational sites and discouraging dispersed camping.

Just because there's logging doesn't mean there's money for campgrounds and recreational infrastructure. Even if there was a big increase in timber receipts to the US Treasury right now, fat chance it would come back to the forests....it would most likely follow the $8-billion a month we're spending in Iraq.

Consider the simple fact that a huge amount of the recreational infrastructure of trails and campgrounds and lodges were actually built during the CCC years when logging was minimal.

Logging actually reduced the number of recreational trails as they got fragmented by clearcuts, converted to roads and skid trails and abandoned by the USFS and then the public - Stone Creek Trail in the Clackamas watershed is a great example. The Windigo National recreation trail in the Metolius Valley had portions converted into logging roads.

If you think logging is a great use of National Forests, fine, However, history and the facts just don't support the notion that logging is a boon to recreation.

[Hunt'nFish]

Originally Posted by bp97211

I will stay out of any discussions on a public forum related to federal forest management--I love talking about it with people in person, just not here.--Brian

That's funny! I don't blame ya Brian...considering WHO your Boss is....


Personally I think that Government Managed is an oximoron. I say turn NF over to the states and let them manage it as they see fit. Remove that "burden" from the feds.
Hunt'nFish

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by garyk

When I stand on Mt.Hood, I'm looking at the over-cut Mt.Hood Forest...I am familiar with the boundaries. Those areas hammered in the late 1970's and 1980's will take 100 years to return to some semblance of what was there...and even then the tree diversity will not be what it was.

But beyond this back-and-forth argument, you ought to realize that at least in Central Oregon, even during the over-cutting frenzy in the 1980's the Districts, such as the Sister's Ranger District, were already cutting back on trails and campgrounds. The 'Two Springs' trailhead for example was abandoned. Same with the Abbot Springs/Butte campground.

IF USFS was flush with money then, why the cutbacks? Because the money has always gone somewhere's else. AND the USFS was/is following a policy of managing the public into 'hardened' recreational sites and discouraging dispersed camping.

Just because there's logging doesn't mean there's money for campgrounds and recreational infrastructure. Even if there was a big increase in timber receipts to the US Treasury right now, fat chance it would come back to the forests....it would most likely follow the $8-billion a month we're spending in Iraq.

Consider the simple fact that a huge amount of the recreational infrastructure of trails and campgrounds and lodges were actually built during the CCC years when logging was minimal.

Logging actually reduced the number of recreational trails as they got fragmented by clearcuts, converted to roads and skid trails and abandoned by the USFS and then the public - Stone Creek Trail in the Clackamas watershed is a great example. The Windigo National recreation trail in the Metolius Valley had portions converted into logging roads.

If you think logging is a great use of National Forests, fine, However, history and the facts just don't support the notion that logging is a boon to recreation.

In order as offered for discussion:

1. Why do people keep pointing to forest management practices of 25-30 years ago and say, lookie there! Yes, I'm in agreement; that was not the way it should have been done. But, beating that dead horse time and again isn't going to change anything.

2. I was in high school back in the early 70's and I don't remember the protracted debates about school funding. Timber sales did generate money locally that helped sustain the economy back then, and benefited a number of diverse uses. The fact that federal forest-generated dollars were directed to non-forest uses is/was an issue for the congress. As I remember, certain types of owls were deemed more important than people back then.

3. As I understand it, the CCC's was a social employment program to help bring us out of the depression? I think some trails were built back then, but not a "huge amount".

Why do people automatically assume that "the way it was done before is how they're gonna do it now?" I just don't buy that whole train of thought. Time, experience, and technology have progressed. Embrace those advances and put it to work for everyone's benefit.

Just my .

[freespool]

The decline of the timber industry had very little to do with the spotted owls ESA listing. Rather it was the boneheaded industry itself for not adapting to the new smaller log production. Mills that were smart enough to trasnsition to new technology mills, turned a profit, but the lions share of the mills kept the old growth equiptment, and went broke, not being able to compete in the market.
But the biggest season for the decline was the housing market crash of the late 80's and early 90's.
Another factor is the importation of Canadaian soft wood.
Blaming a small bird doesn't take much thought though, plus it's more fun.
http://www.law.nyu.edu/journals/envt...nyuelj450.html
We need more roadless areas to be set aside for our future generations to enjoy, without public land setasides where will our our future generations hunt and fish? Or all these population growth predictions just theory?



salmon hugger

[TheRogue]

If you think logging is a great use of National Forests, fine, However, history and the facts just don't support the notion that logging is a boon to recreation.

hmm...so many of those wonderful recreation areas are accessed because of logging roads built to them, period.

TR

[freespool]

My favorite federal recreation opportunity has no roads, perhaps you've heard of it, the Rogue River Wild and Scenic Area?
I will be forever grateful to those forward thinking lawmakers of the late 60's, without their visionary thinking, this jewel we call the Wild Rogue, would not be.
So I only feel like more forward thinking is in order for our future generations.



salmon hugger

[bajadan2000]

Originally Posted by freespool

The decline of the timber industry had very little to do with the spotted owls ESA listing. Rather it was the boneheaded industry itself for not adapting to the new smaller log production. Mills that were smart enough to trasnsition to new technology mills, turned a profit, but the lions share of the mills kept the old growth equiptment, and went broke, not being able to compete in the market.
But the biggest season for the decline was the housing market crash of the late 80's and early 90's.

Freespool, where did you get this information from??? The OR. Employment Dept has this to say,

"""The decline was due largely to environmental concerns"""

Also, is there a AUP rule for name calling (boneheaded) fellow members?????...I believe you will find former logging industry personnel on this site..

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by bajadan2000

Freespool, where did you get this information from??? The OR. Employment Dept has this to say,

"""The decline was due largely to environmental concerns"""

Also, is there a AUP rule for name calling (boneheaded) fellow members?????...I believe you will find former logging industry personal on this site..

I agree with bajadan, but I give up! There are a few folks that simply want to ignore reality (economic, environmental, and other) in favor of their myopic perspective. They want these pristine expanses of untouched land, and for what? So wildfires can level it, or bugs can infest it? They are never going to get it, so why bother debating it!

One of my frustrations is that they are also the ones that seem to have the time to testify before congress. But, their activism (whether it is based in sound science or not (mostly not) does influence policy, and we are all left to deal with the repercussions of those ill-informed decisions.

Me, I've got a job and have to feed my family. It's unfortunate that I'll have to one day tell my grandkids that, because of a few militants/activists we can only look at that forest, we can't go in it!

[freespool]

I think refering to locked out, with not being able to drive in is rediculous, simply get out of your car and walk in.



salmon hugger

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by Hawk

I One of my frustrations is that they are also the ones that seem to have the time to testify before congress. But, their activism (whether it is based in sound science or not (mostly not) does influence policy, and we are all left to deal with the repercussions of those ill-informed decisions.

Me, I've got a job and have to feed my family. It's unfortunate that I'll have to one day tell my grandkids that, because of a few militants/activists we can only look at that forest, we can't go in it!

I take it you are talking to me, I took vacation time to testify and paid for the ticket on my dime, 100% of it. I also have a job, in fact two, so my wife can stay home and raise the kids right, a family. My kids is exactly why I did this. They deserve the right to see at least a small portion of this great state the way it was for eons. It is there generation that should also have the right to do as they see fit. We will all be dead in 100 years, so what will it matter then that we left something or were selfish and took it all? It won't matter one iota to us then, it will matter to those that will come after us, that is the entire reason Roosevelt started the USFS. Had he not this discussion would be moot, the previous generation would have cut it all then and we would be left with what?

[Reelentless]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

...previous generation would have cut it all then and we would be left with what?

I guess you don't realize that trees grow back. Ever hear the phrase renewable resource?

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

I take it you are talking to me,

Nope, wasn't talking about you or freespool, at all.

Reelentless, you and I are in that group that simply don't understand that a 100 year old tree isn't the same as a 200 year old tree, or that hatchery fish are different than "native" fish. I guess we just don't get it.

[Rank Amateur]

Yeah, but myself and my son will never live that long, especially the eastside forests.

Yes, we can regrow trees, but we don't know how many times we can do it. It is just an experiment right now.

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by Rank Amateur

Yes, we can regrow trees, but we don't know how many times we can do it. It is just an experiment right now.

[wapiteaser]

It is already happening. Companies are getting the Maintenance Leases on Public Campgrounds so as to relieve the USFS of these duties. The USFS thinks this saves money as they are too busy with other things. By doing so, these companies collect fees for camping, parking, boat launch, picnicing, etc.... Look at Timothy Lake, Lost Lake, and others in the Mt. Hood National Forest. These are private companies making a profit off our Public Campgrounds.

[Waterfish]

garyk,

You may think it takes 100 years to return a clear cut to some semblance of what it once was, but some environmentalists don’t agree with that. Have you ever been to the Ladee Flats area, or Bedford Point, on the Clackamas River Ranger District near Estacada? That entire area was rail road logged in the 1920s and 1930s, and after it was clear cut, several large fires burned what was left to a moonscape-like landscape in the 1930s and 1940s. But by the 1990s, this cut over and burned over area had returned to a second growth forest. When the Forest Service set up thinning sales a few years ago, environmentalists protested; some using the argument that the Forest Service was cutting oldgrowth. I know of public field trips where environmentalists spoke of how beautiful this “ancient” forest was, and then they were shown the large old stumps all around them with springboard notches from the original 1930s clear cutting. I am not defending past logging practices of the 1920s or even the 1980s, my point is that many so called environmentalists know very little of forestry, silviculture, or even the difference between a pine tree and a fir.

You also mention the good work accomplished by the CCC. I agree, they did some amazing work. My late father-in-law was in the CCC. They also did some things that we now know was not too good for forest diversity and wildlife. They had crews who’s sole duty was to sweep through the forest and cut down every large snag they could find, and also cut down old growth trees that stood above the surrounding canopy. They considered snags and tall trees that stood higher than the other trees in the forest to be “lightning rods.” Even today, deep in wilderness areas (Salmon Huckleberry, Mt.Jefferson, and many others) you will find giant trees that were cut down with crosscut saws by the CCC.

Freespool,

There are lock-ups of federal land; areas where you can not even set foot. This issue has hit me hard since my long time hunting area was locked up three years ago for no good reason at all. This is the area outside of the Bull Run Watershed, on the south side of the Little Sandy River, between the Little Sandy River and Marmot Road. The Little Sandy River and the area south of there was not part of the Bull Run Watershed, and it does not drain into any of the Bull Run Watershed water supply system. Although there are old roads in this area, they have been gated since the mid 1990s. Hunters, hikers, and mushroom pickers were always allowed to hike into this 3000 acre area. But the Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC), in their attempt to stop all logging, turned to Senator Ron Wyden to pass “The Little Sandy Protection Act” which was signed into law in 2003. Now, it is illegal to even step foot into this area, even though it does not provide any water to the Bull Run Watershed system. I am permanently locked out of my long time hunting area, which is right next to my property in the Marmot area.

You can read about it here:

http://wyden.senate.gov/media/speeches/2002/01092002_littlesandy_statement.html

Even though the Little Sandy River is not part of the Bull Run water supply, Wyden and ONRC (now known as “Oregon Wild”) locked up the Little Sandy River area to protect the water there just in case it is needed someday in the future. Amazingly, the Portland Water Bureau does not even own the water rights to the Little Sandy drainage (PGE owns the water rights for power generation). I can understand, and maybe even agree that it may be a good idea to stop logging in the Little Sandy drainage. But no hunting, no hiking, no trespassing! Why? Wait until ONRC ... umm, “Oregon Wild” (or some other radical group) decides that YOUR hunting area should be locked up because it may be useful for something else someday…

[freespool]

Protecting our drinking water supply would hardly constitute locking up our wilderness areas.
Please tell us how many wilderness areas are off limits to citizens, I can't think of any.
I think we need to stop worring about our needs and start thinking about the needs and desires of our future generations, isn't that why we enjoy the wilderness we have now? Generations before us had the foresight to set aside areas for us to enjoy. With population predictions as they are, future generatuion will need more wilderness areas to hunt and fish and recreate, it's our duty as sportsmen to give them what we so enjoyed.



salmon hugger

[skein]

I think we need to stop worring about our needs and start thinking about the needs and desires of our future generations... (Freespool)

By golly, you're right! That's why we're building Home Depots, WalMarts, and outlet malls just as fast as we can. A big outlet mall up near Mt Jefferson would draw many times the people that visit it now.... but, oops, those are the wrong kind of people. I forgot. :blush:

Skein

[freespool]

So what your saying is our forfathers were wrong in setting aside wilderness we enjoy today? Why would our future generations not what the same as what we enjoy?
Saying wilderness designation is locking up the forest is just a scare tactic, by those that wish to exploit the national forest. Protecting is not locking up the forest.
Not all national forest lands need to be managed by humans, nature has done a fairly good job thus far.
The more roadless area we create will only ensure our future generations have a place to hunt and fish, that is what this websites all about is it not, hunting and fishing?



salmon hugger

[Waterfish]

The title of this thread is "Access to our public land (camping, fishing, hunting)." The Little Sandy area is not Wilderness, it is National Forest land, OUTSIDE, and not a part of the Bull Run Watershed. It is now off limits to any public entry, and for no real reason other than someday it may provide drinking water like the Bull Run does now. Most National Forest land could, or does supply water. So why not lock it all up because "some day" it could be used for public water systems? This may sound like a good idea to you until your hunting area is declared off limits to even foot travel.

[OK Deal Let\'s Fish]

Originally Posted by freespool

Protecting our drinking water supply would hardly constitute locking up our wilderness areas.
Please tell us how many wilderness areas are off limits to citizens, I can't think of any.


salmon hugger

The ones that the big timber companies own!!!!

I applaud you BM for taking the time to fight for what you believe in and my children thank you.

[freespool]

So without setting the Little Sandy aside for a future water sourse, just where would you expect to fulfill our future water needs, the Willamette?
Not sure what your saying here. That private timber companies own wilderness areas? Wilderness Areas are designated areas that are set forth by the federal government.
I also would like to thank BM for taking the time and effort to testify on our behalf in Washington DC, very few people would do what you have done.



salmon hugger

[hillsboro]

Originally Posted by Reelentless

I guess you don't realize that trees grow back. Ever hear the phrase renewable resource?

Sure they do, haven't you seen the westside tree farm..

Entire forest ecosystems are hard to regrow, I have seen very little natural forest. The Redwoods in California, Salmon Huckleberry up by Mt. Hood.

I think some people would like to see some of that type of forest stick around so their children and grandchildren and great grandchildren might get to experience that as well.

Not against logging at all would just like to see some of the woods left alone, not locked up, just natural... Is that too much to ask?

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by Waterfish

The title of this thread is "Access to our public land (camping, fishing, hunting)." The Little Sandy area is not Wilderness, it is National Forest land, OUTSIDE, and not a part of the Bull Run Watershed. It is now off limits to any public entry, and for no real reason other than someday it may provide drinking water like the Bull Run does now. Most National Forest land could, or does supply water. So why not lock it all up because "some day" it could be used for public water systems? This may sound like a good idea to you until your hunting area is declared off limits to even foot travel.

Waterfish, You are exactly right, I have no idea why it was shut off. Personally I will see what I can do to change that, I am not sure it is much, but to me, it seems like the current Wilderness bill is a good chance to change it. Do you know if it was written into law or if it was an administrative action? Two different means to an end but also two different strategies to change the rule.

[Jaws]

Originally Posted by freespool

My favorite federal recreation opportunity has no roads, perhaps you've heard of it, the Rogue River Wild and Scenic Area?
I will be forever grateful to those forward thinking lawmakers of the late 60's, without their visionary thinking, this jewel we call the Wild Rogue, would not be.
So I only feel like more forward thinking is in order for our future generations.



salmon hugger

Ahhh, The Rogue River Wild and Scenic area.
Where Yuppies float
In their rubber boats
sipping fine wine
looking for a bank to dine
and deer that will eat out of the palm of your hands!
Now that's WILD!!

[Straydog]

Originally Posted by Jaws

Ahhh, The Rogue River Wild and Senic area.
Where Yuppies float
In their rubber boats
sipping fine wine
looking for a bank to dine
and deer that will eat out of the palm of your hands!
Now that's WILD!!

You must do the canyon with a lot different folks than me and my river ratting friends and family!! I would suggest you change the company you hang with, get used to your yuppie friends and their way of running our river, or dwell on the more realistic outlook of the issue of running the Rogue. Fact is, there are lots of different people that approach a canyon trip in a lot of different ways. One of the beauties of living in the land of the free......

As a local, I was one of the loudest whiners when they make the Rogue Wild and Scenic but now look back understanding it was the best thing that could have happened to our river.

Thankfully, there is still a piece of paradise close to civilization in which one can experience the river and the area around it, as it has been for many, many years.

And better yet, it will be that way for my kids and grandkids....

YES!!

[TheRogue]

Ah, yes, but only if you're rich enough to afford a guide, or lucky enough to draw a permit!!

Thanks, couldn't have said it better myself.

Remember, bear hunting within 1 mile of the Rogue River is a no-no so these folks can see them in all their splendor, I'm amazed we haven't banned deer hunting as well.

TR