The theory of managing our forest and wildlife back to a natural eco-system is doomed

[bajadan2000]

The theory of managing our forest and wildlife back to a natural eco-system is doomed...

I realize many of you are of the belief that letting our eco-system revert back to it's original natural state is the correct answer. This very noble, feel good thinking is flawed and will not work. I have listened to what many have said here, studied the research, along with this areas history, and everything tells me this total natural eco-system is wrong and will not work....

We have a very sick eco-system, it does not matter how we got here or whom is to blame, the fact is, it is very sick and needs our help.. We need to look ahead and figure out the best way to save our eco-system.

If you had sick children or pets whose lives would be extended or even saved by giving them medicine or an operation, would you do it, or would you leave nature takes its course??? I would save the children/pets and that is why, as a hunter/conservationist, I believe we must save our eco-system and not let it slowly naturally shrink away to dangerous painful levels.

We can go back in history and see what the naturalist are trying to get back to, there is written records for many forms of wildlife with numbers and locations...Due to development of much of the land, it is not remotely possible to get back to those conditions, we have far less land available to use for wildlife..

Also, history tells us when we had natural conditions with both hunters (Indians) and predators such as the wolf, game animal populations were much lower compared to the populations today, even though more land was available to the wildlife. It will not be possible to have a natural eco-system, predators and hunters together in today's world. Does this mean all of the animals will die when we go back to a natural eco-system??? Of course not, however, the populations of many wild animals will be reduced to the point where hunting will no longer be an option...Think about that for a moment...no more hunting, hunters lose if we go back to a natural eco-system... Many naturalist will tell you that hunting will be better in a natural eco-system (which will take 500 years to get there), history and research tells us otherwise. I do not believe what the naturalists are saying and I feel they are only trying to buy time until it is too late and our hunting is gone... Our future hunting prospects for the next 500 years will be far less (if any at all) under a natural eco-system, not better as many naturalist claim.

Also, there is a lot of research available to the public we can study ourselves. What we are being told about the eco-system by the naturalists, is not what the research reflects. Take the time to study the charts and research. What I see and read does not suggests letting nature take its course is the best option for all for our public lands. The reason we are being mislead by the naturalists is up for debate. My thoughts are their plan is to severely reduce and eventually completely eliminate hunting.

Now before you get your undies in a knot about what I just posted, think about this. With the millions of acres of public land no longer being logged, why does all of it have to go back to a natural eco-system?????

I see nothing wrong with a plan where some of the land goes back to a natural eco-system. Yes some, not all, some is needed for a small percentage of species... Why can not some of these millions of acres be planted to give better habitat to the majority of the animals???? If the forests are left as is, it will be 60 years before all of this land is in any kind of shape to provide habitat for the majority of the animals (which will not be as good as the habitat we have today) and that will only last for a few decades. Then the land becomes almost barren again for the next 400 years. It will be 500 years before we will have a habitat that is almost as good as the habitat we have today if left to the natural way. See charts below.






In the mean time, game animal populations will decline due to poor habitat, predator populations will increase causing additional game animal population declines, and hunting opportunities will decrease or be eliminated. A diverse, multi-use forest, with effective predator control, will provide for all species, now and forever... And yes, give future generations the chance to hunt.

Yes, I am a greedy hunter/conservationist and want my forest and hunting too. It can be done, it has been done in other states with less public land and many more animals per sq. mile than we have here in the NW, so do not tell a managed forest eco-system does not work.. Why can it not work here??? Why are we on the path to eliminating all hunting in the NW????

Why am I writing this?? Maybe to wake up a few people that have been mislead.. Maybe to get a few more hunters involved that in the past just do not care enough to worry about our future generations hunting prospects. I would be happy to listen to any intelligent responses, after all, we are here to learn from each other. Please do not start by saying "so what you are saying is"" I said what I said and I stand behind my words. "The all natural eco-system plan will reduce animal populations, and our future hunting prospects are doomed!!!!!!" If little people in your head are telling you something different, than there is professional help for you as well.. This taking the natural course will not working for a lot of things that are sick...

Here is some research for you to study: If you have any interest in the future of hunting, I challenge you to study it...

http://outreach.cof.orst.edu/ForestryDeerElk/ppt/Cook2.pdf

[Reelentless]

I agree with what you said. There is no reason why we cant have both native forests and managed forests. Having both benefits everyone.

The problem is that there are extremists on both sides. Some people are willing to cut every tree standing and some cry about cutting a single tree. Right now its the latter group that is "winning" because they have the fate of our forests tied up in court.

This needs to change or we will all end up losing.

[woolybuggerboy]

I agree with you completely. In areas where there is much human disturbance, allowing predators and preventing loggin is not possible. If were going to preserve an ecosystem, we have to let it all go. Example, yellowstone park. No logging, no hunting. Elk population was 10k over carrying capacity. now with wolves it's at carrying capacity, and all other species in the park are flourishing. In a park like yellowsotne it works because people don't depend on the land to make their living. In places where people do, this doesn't work. It's like animals brought into captivity cant be released back into the wild. It's the same principle. We already brought our lands into captivity, and letting them go now would mean that they would die.

[scottishsetter]

"...where hunting will no longer be a option." ....................
Wolves
Capital livestock ranching for wildlife Hunting profit.
Buerau-cratic capital mis-management for peers.
Public ignorance of forestry fire control.
Market driven clearcuts VS sustained yeild.
PETA alternative MOTIVES.

[mtn300]

Designated wilderness areas and close more roads. Log burns in and out of wilderness.Logging in wilderness by heilcopter only. Odfw and forest service work together for the benefit of all wildlife, hunters included

[bajadan2000]

Yes, the future of our hunting is being attacked on many sides. The purpose of this post is to expose the smoke and mirrors technique used by one group. We have been lied to, the idea that a natural eco-system will work within the next 500 years is a big farce.

Just go back and read the hunting reports from the past year to see what the natural eco-system has in store for us. Some hunters working areas with good forage are still reporting good results, seeing plenty of animals with few predators. However, the number of reports coming in about how quickly very good hunting areas have turned into dead zones in just a couple of years is increasing. We keep hearing the same reports. "We hunted this area for many years with good results. In the last couple of years the numbers of game animals has dropped dramatically while predator sightings has increased dramatically."

The age at which forests produce the best digestible forage for game is between the ages 5-15 years. After the age of 15 years, over the next 4 years, a forage bottleneck develops and a stand will go from the most productive to the least productive. This drives down game animal populations and increases predator populations in search of weaken prey. See chart below.



The real big problem is, many of our forest our now leaving the most productive years stage and entering the least productive years stage, all within a few years of each other, with very few new stands in development. In the past, the game animals moved to stands with better forage. With a natural eco-system, this migration will not work since there will be very few public forests available with digestible forage. This will drive more and more game animals out of public lands and onto private lands that are doing a better job of providing digestible forage..

If logging on public lands is not increased to maintain a habitat that will support both game animals and predators, then the forests need to be replanted with forage that is digestible to game animals and not planted with timber type forests that do not provide adequate ongoing forage. This would involve many government agencies working together. We need a plan that provides steady digestable forage...

[Hawk]

In the previous thread, Cohodependent said there are 20.5 million acres controlled by the USFS, and another 780,000 acres controlled by the State of Oregon. That is 21.28 million acres total.

I would advocate that we "manage" all of that for maximum habitat and harvest since, as Dan so eloquently points out they are not mutually exclusive, but let's say we only "manage" half of it. That's 10 million acres. No clear cuts, just thoughtful selective cutting and reforestation.

Let's say it takes 80 years to re-grow a cut. If you divide 10 million acres by 80 years you find that you could harvest 125,000 acres per year...forever!

Wouldn't that type of plan produce both better habitat and a substantial revenue stream for the state couffers? It seems like a win-win solution to me!

[LanceinOregon]

Originally Posted by mtn300

Designated wilderness areas and close more roads.

Yes, let's make all of the good hunting areas less and less accessible. After all, most folks don't have that much free time anymore, so let's make it take them an even far greater amount of time to hunt.

Originally Posted by mtn300

Log burns in and out of wilderness.Logging in wilderness by heilcopter only..

You totally contradict yourself here. The Wilderness Act allows no logging of any kind at all. PERIOD. If you are in favor of having some logging, then you are not in favor of having more and more land each year put into Wildnerness protection every year.

People just don't seem to get it that the Wilderness Act is sort of the Atomic Bomb of land protection. It is way overkill, and was originally meant to protect only the most unique and sensitive areas. It was also created way back in 1964, long before the environmental movement took off, and we got so many more laws and regulations, such as the EPA.

And logging by Helicoper?? That would never fly, both literally and figuratively. That is a pipe dream from a financial standpoint.

Oh, and when all of the various anti-hunting groups that want a total end to hunting band together to start banning hunting from areas, where do you think they will start first?

Lance in Springfield

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by LanceinOregon

And logging by Helicoper?? That would never fly, both literally and figuratively. That is a pipe dream from a financial standpoint.

I'm not a logger, but I think I have to disagree with you on this one Lance. When the cost of wood was down years ago, helicopter logging didn't make financial sense. But as the value of the timber increased and the cost of roads skyrocketed, I think helicopter logging became more cost effective. They even fly Christmas trees our of Christmas tree farms! I was down by Silverton this past November and watched them; pretty cool to watch.

[Drakeblake]

I'm not sure where the graphs came from or what they were modeled after, but here are a few comments I have.
Herbicides used on clear cuts which are used more and more these days have a large impact on forage. Do the graphs do not account for this?

Stand densities from replanting are much higher than they would be naturally which may explain why forage availability decreases as the stand matures, the canopy becomes to thick for sunlight to penetrate.

Fire, or more importantly fire exclusion is also another important aspect which needs to be looked at. We need to understand fires role and how in the past 100+ years un-natural fuel levels have been allowed to accumulate and change the intensity of the fires when they occur.

=blake

[Rank Amateur]

Drakeblake, go to the website and look towards the end of the synposium, there is a preliminary study on herbicides and preferred forage in industrial forest lands. Not quite what many of us think. It actually suggest a neutral or favorable advantage for preferred deer/elk forage communities. This study was not done by the forest companies.

Ok guys, if you are going to take bits and pieces out of the website that I provided to you then let me present the other side of the coin. Eastern Oregon is a whole different picture, with forests maturing a whole lot slower. So if we just stick to the westside for sake of argument and we exclude the high elevation true fir zone (which most lumbermen want nothing to do with) we have approximately 12.7 million acres of public forested lands. This is approximate, taken off of graphs in an earlier section presented by State Forestry. What is an eye opener is a graph that shows the % of acres in different size class for western Oregon, again excluding the high elevation stuff, the Hemlock/spruce component (very small), the shrub/regenertion areas and the decidous forests, this leaves us with the meat and potatoes of logging, the higher dollar douglas fir forest. For western Oregon, this includes private lands, we have 2.3 million acres in 0-5 inches in diameter, 3.1 million 5-10 inches, 2.3 million acres of 10-15 inches, 1.8 million acres of 15-20 inches, 1.1 million acres of 20-30 inches and just 500,000 acres of 30+ inches in diameter timber. Hey go look for yourself, I would not have believed it either. We have done logged it.

How do we provide forage for deer/elk while also providing timber production. If we stick to the industrial standard, we can't, there will be dead zones while waiting for at least 40 years before harvest. If we were to mandate that a certain percent of the ground on public ground be left to naturally regenerate to conifer forests we could expand the available forage and still get out a cut, but it would take much longer. Probably the best we could do is to mandate a staggered cut over the landscape, this way we get timber production and have an even amount of deer/elk habitat at the same time. This would level out the boom/bust cycle we are currently in.

Private lands are currently logging at around 100,000 acres/year average, federal was up to 90,000 acres before the owl era and now is around 5,000. No doubt the federal forest will have a lot of viable forest land in the near future, the offset to this is, the private forest land has exceeded sustainable levels and is going to have a decline, unless they just start harvesting at a earlier age class, which some of them are already doing.

[bp97211]

Uh...heads up guys. BLM is going through a MAJOR plan revision for its westside districts (and the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District BLM). If you want to weigh in on BLM's forest management for the next decade or so, NOW is the time to do it. A draft will be coming out in early summer--and that's when the public will have an opportunity to comment.

[bajadan2000]

Here is a time line chart, going back to 1976, showing a comparison of the number or acres logged state wide on public and private lands. I believe the numbers on the left represents 100,000 acres (4 = 400,000 acres). If anyone is aware this is incorrect, please let us know.

What is significant about this chart is: for the first time we have entered a time period where the publicly logged forest are starting to develop a forage bottleneck without newly logged acreage to cover the habitat depletion. From this chart, I would "estimate" over the next 15 years, there will be approximately 1/4 million acres per year added to OR state's dead zones. Then we will have a period of 40 years of almost total state wide public forest land dead zones. This will be followed be a period of several decades of improved habitat, mostly ferns then followed by E & D type shrubs. For the next 400 years, only E type shrubs will be available as a food source..

Would anyone like to explain what the benefits are to the game animal's digestibly of ferns, E, & D, type shrubs???? Please,,

If anyone that hunts on public land does not think habitat is an issue, they will soon find it much harder to be successful on public lands.

[Rank Amateur]

I think the numbers might reference million board feet, from looking at the other data, the most acreage the private timberlands have logged a year was around 120,000 acres. That's the trouble with the graphs with no legends. Evergreen and decidous shrubs, they do have there value for deer and elk, but you are correct, the public lands are going to continue down hill until some sort of harvest starts up again. I have serious doubt though that it will ever reach the levels of the past.

[scoutdog5]

I have enjoyed this discussion, and learned some interesting thing. However, I don't think statewide statistics have any value. Eastside Ponderosa forests are completely different than westside forests, and it is hard to see how logging in those forests, if done correctly, has much impact on habitat.

Road building, on the other hand, is a disaster for elk, particularly on heavily roaded forests such as the Ochoco, Malhuer River, etc. You could certainly make the case that nothing displaces elk from the national forest to private land as much as new roads that are left open.

Finally, based on 40 years of observation in Ponderosa Pine forests, most of it the Ochoco, low-impact fires seems to provide the quickest, most effective improvement in forage for elk. That is probably also true for mule deer, but there are so few left, it is hard to know.

Scoutdog5

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by scoutdog5

Eastside Ponderosa forests are completely different than westside forests, and it is hard to see how logging in those forests, if done correctly, has much impact on habitat.

Road building, on the other hand, is a disaster for elk, particularly on heavily roaded forests such as the Ochoco, Malhuer River, etc. You could certainly make the case that nothing displaces elk from the national forest to private land as much as new roads that are left open.

Finally, based on 40 years of observation in Ponderosa Pine forests, most of it the Ochoco, low-impact fires seems to provide the quickest, most effective improvement in forage for elk. That is probably also true for mule deer, but there are so few left, it is hard to know.

Scout,

I'm glad to see you chime into the conversation, but you're at a little of a disadvantage because we've had several long threads over the past couple of years about these subjects. So your kind of jumping in mid-stream so to speak. But, jump on in because all opinions are of equal value.

First, I agree with you on the east side forests.

Second, there have been numerous threads here on the Fish about the impact of roads on big game, especially elk. But, road building on national forests has historically been associated with logging and, since there isn't any logging on NF land any more, I don't see where there's been any signficant of road building anywhere on NF land. On the contrary, it seems that roads are being vacated more and more.

Third, the concept of "low impact fires" is something of an oxymoron; with all the fuel in the forests I don't think there is such a thing as a "low impact fire" from the main cause of forest fire, which is lightning strikes. With all the fuel out there, lightning strikes are causing massive wildfires, and controlled burns are so few and far between that they shouldn't even be considered as a currently utilized forest management practice, and they certainly aren't done on a scale large enough to significantly impact big game habitat on any significant scale.

[toas243]

Since I`am young and have learned a little about the forest`s we have and most of the wilderness is not even close to waht it was as far as plants,trees and all the other goodies we need for a native forest ,the people behind our lands and the changes have no common scence (SP?) ,even the indians knew to burn the forest to get some free ranging for the deer and Elk city folks have no clue about the forest

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by toas243

Since I`am young and have learned a little about the forest`s we have and most of the wilderness is not even close to waht it was as far as plants,trees and all the other goodies we need for a native forest ,the people behind our lands and the changes have no common scence (SP?) ,even the indians knew to burn the forest to get some free ranging for the deer and Elk city folks have no clue about the forest

The problem is that controlled burns are woefully underutilized to the point that no significant amount of acreage is being managed using controlled burn. Thus, the forest degenerate to a mass of unburned fuel so a small spark from a lightening strike or camp fire turns into an inferno that consumes thousands of acres and kills everything in its path.

Yet, I have no idea how we can enlighten managers of NF, as well as the ecologists who think that the forests are fine the way they are. I have a quarter if we all want to pitch in together and try to buy them a clue!

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by Hawk

The problem is that controlled burns are woefully underutilized to the point that no significant amount of acreage is being managed using controlled burn. Thus, the forest degenerate to a mass of unburned fuel so a small spark from a lightening strike or camp fire turns into an inferno that consumes thousands of acres and kills everything in its path.

Yet, I have no idea how we can enlighten managers of NF, as well as the ecologists who think that the forests are fine the way they are. I have a quarter if we all want to pitch in together and try to buy them a clue!

The USFS is enlighted, so are the green groups, so are the ecologists. Its the public that is frightened by the prospect of loosing homes from man made fires that were suppose to make things better. The debacle in New Mexico did quite a bit of damage to public trust. Now the USFS has to spend years planning. I have been fighting for CE's (categorical Exclusions) for controlled burns. When the time is right let er rip. When you plan out a burn nature has a way of making it iether too dangerous or not worthwhile. Its rare to get the perfect conditions to fall within the plan. If you had a way to do it when the conditions were right and forget about the timing then it could work.

Incidentally, as a hunter this is a mixed blessing. the best time for controled burns is late Sept - Oct. It would kind of suck finding out you hunting spot is closed for a week during a week long season.

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by bajadan2000

Many naturalist will tell you that hunting will be better in a natural eco-system (which will take 500 years to get there), history and research tells us otherwise. I do not believe what the naturalists are saying and I feel they are only trying to buy time until it is too late and our hunting is gone... Our future hunting prospects for the next 500 years will be far less (if any at all) under a natural eco-system, not better as many naturalist claim.

Now before you get your undies in a knot about what I just posted, think about this. With the millions of acres of public land no longer being logged, why does all of it have to go back to a natural eco-system?????

I see nothing wrong with a plan where some of the land goes back to a natural eco-system. Yes some, not all, some is needed for a small percentage of species... Why can not some of these millions of acres be planted to give better habitat to the majority of the animals???? If the forests are left as is, it will be 60 years before all of this land is in any kind of shape to provide habitat for the majority of the animals (which will not be as good as the habitat we have today) and that will only last for a few decades. Then the land becomes almost barren again for the next 400 years. It will be 500 years before we will have a habitat that is almost as good as the habitat we have today if left to the natural way. See charts below.

http://outreach.cof.orst.edu/Forestr.../ppt/Cook2.pdf

All over the page here, first I am not sure anyone here was advocating for any of the land going back to 500 year old stands. Specifically what I am advocating for is to leave those last 500 year old stands alone. They are good to hunt in and will be in 1 year, 10 years, 15 years, 40 years, and so on. These are the only areas that we can be confident about being productive hunting and the graphs prove it. The graphs show that from 40-600 years the forests provide decent habitat. The graphs are also skewed if every year showed equally the burst at the beginning would be far smaller in scale. half the graph cover 40 years and the other half covers 600 years.


My point is based on the fact that there are so few of these stands left and its imperative to preserve them. I hunt the Mt. Hood National, and have for 30 years, there aint much left. I have a few pockets of my hunting grounds left and I am fighting tooth and nail to keep them that way, the rest are gone. Blaming the owl, if people did not actually believe themselves, is downright hilarious. There are approx 500,000 acres of 30" or better stand left in Western Oregon, I bet 99% of them are on public land, before the owl came along we were cutting 90,000 acres a year on public land. At that rate it would take 6 years to have cut the rest. I don't know if it would have taken 6 years or 16 years, either way the writing was on the wall. The owl was a convenient scape goat, and who really have been blamed are the ones screaming the loudest about the owl.

As for letting the rest regen to 500 year old stands? I have no idea where that was brought up. It does not matter much, none of us will see 80 year regen much less 500.

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

As for letting the rest regen to 500 year old stands? I have no idea where that was brought up. It does not matter much, none of us will see 80 year regen much less 500.

I thought one of the justifications used by those that were advocating more wilderness was that we have to leave something for our kids. If that is the justification, why stop at your kids? What about your grandchildren, or great grandchildren, or great-great grandchildren?

Start managing all of it now, without more wilderness designations, and set a successful precedent that can be followed for a LONG time.

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by Hawk

I thought one of the justifications used by those that were advocating more wilderness was that we have to leave something for our kids. If that is the justification, why stop at your kids? What about your grandchildren, or great grandchildren, or great-great grandchildren?

Start managing all of it now, without more wilderness designations, and set a successful precedent that can be followed for a LONG time.

This is for stuff already cut, the regen plantations, its not going to be any different for us, our kids, or our grandkids. Wilderness is exactly that, the stuff we have not taken yet. That small percentage of the total orignal areas left is what we should leave to the future.

[bajadan2000]

Sure a lot of different issues that come up when you consider the topic "letting our ecosystem go back to natural". The predator side of the natural equation is getting a lot of attention, as it should be. However, the habitat side is not as popular of a topic, possibly because results from corrections can take many years to see. There is one area where the results can be immediate, however, still gets little attention. That is thinning the forest.. What is wrong with thinning our forest???

I will admit I am not an expert on how to manage our forest, however, I consider my hunting partner of many years to be an expert. He owns an orchard as well as several large tracts of land he keeps in timber that he rotates for logging... Every trip we make together into our National Forest makes him sick. He says the same thing every trip. "We will be seeing less game animals again this year because there is less food for the animals to eat. These forest need to be thinned to let sunlight in so other plants have a chance to grow. It will also make for a better timber harvest allowing the trees to grow larger bases rather than thin pole trees reaching up to get sunlight"..

He is now replanting a logged area and has given me the cycle of a well manage forest.

It starts with the planting. The state has a minimum number of trees per acre that must be replanted along with many other restrictions to protect water sheds. To meet state requirements he plants about 350 trees per acre with about a 10' spacing.

Even with a 10' spacing, after about ten years the trees need to be thinned. The way you can tell if a forest needs to be thinned is not by looking at the tree bases, look up into the crown. If you can not see sky and all you see is trees, thinning is needed. My partner's first thinning will now leave his trees spaced about 20' apart at the base.

A second thinning is often needed before harvesting timber. The timing depends on many conditions, however the test is the same. Look up through the crown. No sky, you must thin.

Not very hard to inspect a forest and know if it needs to be thinned or not. Not only does the thinning open up areas for sunlight to penetrate, it also provides immediate forage for deer and elk... Check out newly thinned areas on private land. You will find lots of deer and elk sign, thinned areas are game magnets..

So I ask, why are we not thinning our forest??????? Thinned forest provide healthier trees and as well as forage for the game animals...

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by bajadan2000

So I ask, why are we not thinning our forest??????? Thinned forest provide healthier trees and as well as forage for the game animals...

I agree Dan. The reason we aren't thinning is the environmentalists block any and all types of harvest, and we have a Govenor that supports the environmentalists, even when the science tells him he's wrong. In this case, environmental dogma wins over common sense and science.

[Drakeblake]

The Siuslaw National forest only does thinnings these days with low impact skyline yarding, no clear cuts. I asked an old timber guy what would happen when all the stands which need thinning are thinned and he said. "I don't care I'll be retired and dead by then, thats your job to figure out."

=blake

[Rank Amateur]

even with a 40 year rotation, most career foresters are looking at one crop during their career. This may have an effect that is not desireable.

[baltz526]

east side in the sagebrush/bitterbrush high country it would be very simple to start restoration, remove cows, reintroduce beavers, plow roads, stop all cross country motor vehical use. buy winter range private lands and replant. the only ones against it will be cow hearders

[bp97211]

For facts on the BLM management situation, please visit:

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/files/AMS.pdf

This is a very large file, and I would recommend only those with highspeed connections try to open. If you'd like a hard copy, contact BLM's Oregon State Office in Portland. This document gives the BLM picture--and does not include USFS or the State of Oregon.

A few highlights:

There are "approximately" 8 million acres of old growth forest remaining in Western Oregon. Old growth is defined as 200+ years; an acre is classified as "old growth" based on the predominate stand conditions existing on that acre--yes there may be trees over/under 200 years of age, but you look to the dominate seral stage for classifying.

Of this 8 million acres of "old growth"--BLM manages 357,000 acres in 6 westside districts. This figure is not the total acreage BLM manages--just those acres of "old growth." BLM manages a total of 2.5 million acres, 26 percent of the federal land in western oregon.

Historically, BLM contributed to 15-25 percent of the timber harvested in Western Oregon; today it is less than 3 percent.

83% of the "old growth" acres that BLM manages are "reserved" from timber harvest; this means that no programmed timber harvest may occur. Thinnings and salvage of timber in these reserved areas are heavily opposed and litigated by environmental groups--even though their websites claim support of more thinning by BLM. [Note: if BLM gave up regen harvest today, lawsuits of thinnings would increase. It's a simple matter of economics (food on the table) for the environmental groups' lawyers whose lifeblood depends on the conflict industry they've created].

In 1994, in an effort to resolve the ongoing spotted owl debates, President Clinton convened scientists, managers, interested parties etc. to develop a new management plan for western oregon/washington forests for the conservation of the northern spotted owl--what was born was the Northwest Forest Plan. The plan is actually not one single document--but consists of the various Resource Management Plans for the respective BLM districts. Those plans envisioned a certain level of sustained timber harvest on the BLM lands open to programmed timber harvest--known as the "matrix". The dominant silvicultural practice in the matrix is to be regeneration harvest; only the volume harvested from the matrix counts towards BLM's statutory obligation to provide a sustainable supply of timber from its lands (see below). Due to litigation, BLM was mostly only able to accomplish thinning sales. The volume offered (and harvested) has been far, far below that which was projected by the Plan. Environmental Groups touted the plan at the time of adoption as a great compromise because the volume offered was more than cut in half; when the environmental groups continued to litigate sales offered as a part of the "half" they compromised on--one of their attorneys stated "we won the battle, now we're just going around the battlefield bayonetting the wounded."

BLM's document recognizes the opportunity for thinning on its lands. BLM's statutory direction is much different than the Forest Service. BLM's timber management authority is derived from the O&C Act--which requires BLM to manage its lands on a sustained yield basis; based on this management, O&C counties receive a percentage of BLM's timber receipts. USFS is managed under the National Forest Management Act--which does not include the sustained yield principle. BLM has thinning it can do--but BLM would not be able to meet its statutory mandate of sustained yield management (and providing money to the counties) based on thinning alone. Currently, many stands in need of thinning are in reserves--where programmed timber harvest cannot occur, and any volume off of those lands would not count toward BLM's annual timber obligation or provide money to the counties. Even where thinning could occur, there is not enough thinning to be sustainable, which includes economic considerations, not just ecological considerations. While BLM recognizes opportunity for thinning, recognize that this is one part of the management picture facing the agency; the agency can't simply drop everything else on its "to do" list to focus on only one piece of the puzzle. It's for the agency to figure out how to best balance the need to thin stands in need of thinning--and put them on a tragjectory of developing late successional/habitat components--while meeting its obligation to regen harvest sufficient acres to meet its statutory obligation of providing a sustainable supply of timber and money to the counties.

BLM's analysis of the management situation recognizes the need to improve the quantity and quality of forage for deer and elk, and recognizes that forage quality has perhaps caused a shift of some deer and elk from public to private land. This will undoubtedly be one area BLM's land managers look at as they continue working on their plan revisions, including considering input and comments from the public.

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by Hawk

I agree Dan. The reason we aren't thinning is the environmentalists block any and all types of harvest, and we have a Govenor that supports the environmentalists, even when the science tells him he's wrong. In this case, environmental dogma wins over common sense and science.

Huh? The Siuslaw is a classic example of what the enviros are advocating for and the reason it is getting thinned. They want the plantations thinned and so do we. Plantations without thining are no good for anyone, bunny huggers, tree huggers, gun huggers, loggers, mill owners you name it. Plantation thinning is probably the only thing that everyone agrees on, the problem is that it does not pay as well as 500 year old old growth so the timber companies would rather fight to cut the big stuff. In reality there is so much work to be done it would take two generations to get it done. Plenty'O jobs.

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by bp97211

For facts
There are "approximately" 8 million acres of old growth forest remaining in Western Oregon. Old growth is defined as 200+ years; an acre is classified as "old growth" based on the predominate stand conditions existing on that acre--yes there may be trees over/under 200 years of age, but you look to the dominate seral stage for classifying.

Of this 8 million acres of "old growth"--BLM manages 357,000 acres in 6 westside districts. This figure is not the total acreage BLM manages--just those acres of "old growth." BLM manages a total of 2.5 million acres, 26 percent of the federal land in western oregon.

Historically, BLM contributed to 15-25 percent of the timber harvested in Western Oregon; today it is less than 3 percent.
.

That 8 Million acres in western Oregon includes all the high elevation timber which is the majority of that figure. The BLM has 2.5 Million acres and only 375,000 acres of Old growth. That 375,000 acres is probably 90% of the low elevation old growth in Oregon. That means they have logged 85% of the Old growth that the BLM manages. Cutting that last 15% is what this plan is about. 85% is not enough, I wonder what is a fair percentage? 100%? This is the lower elevation old growth, a very very rare item, of which the BLM has the vast majority. there are more than 61 Million acres in Oregon, that 375,000 acres of remaining old growth is .6% of the land mass of Oregon. To get a picture of what we are talking about it would be an area ~24 miles by 24 miles.

[bp97211]

I can think of at least two reasons the Siusalaw is thinning: (1) the Forest has voluntarily chosen to ignore its own Land Use Plan despite the orders of superiors in the State office and in Washington, and (2) they have very little (read: probably no) stands left to regen (larger diameter). The "old growth" they have left is locked up in reserves and thus not an option for harvest. The environmental groups can tout this as the "feel good story" for forest management--but it paints a false picture of the management situation on other federal lands--especially those managed by BLM under a different statutory mandate (the O&C Act).

Timber companies would probably prefer 80-200 year old growth; I think there may be one--maybe two mills left in SW Oregon with the capacity to handle any logs bigger (i.e. older) than this. [As an aside--if a federal land managing agency's land use plan allows harvest of a 500 year old tree, a timber company wants that tree, and no other law, i.e. the Endangered Species Act, prohibits harvest of that tree--we are a nation of laws, and no aesthetic, spiritual, religious, moral, or even ecological reason should keep the agency from authorizing harvest of that 500 year old tree. If there is an ecological, or other basis for sparing that tree--Congress should embody those values in law--until then, the law calls for (at leat the BLM) to target that timber in the matrix for regeneration].

As far as timber company's DBH of choise, it's a matter of economics; a timber company is going to need to treat (and thereby impact) a greater number of acres to get the same volume from thinning, as it would by treating few acres and harvesting fewer trees, but getting the same number of board feet. It's a trade off, weighed heavily in favor of the most economical (lower mobilization costs, etc.) sale plan and from BLM's perspective, contributing toward the agency's annual sale quantity (as measured by regen harvest out of the matrix). As to getting the thinning work done in plantations--if an entry isn't economical, then the only way for BLM to get the work done is to put together a stewardship project (i.e., pay tax dollars for a contractor to go in and do the work, and take as partial payment, the value of merchantable material, if any, that comes out of the project area). Last time I checked, appropriations aren't keeping pace with agency needs, and budgets are under serious stress, so these type of projects are not a high priority. When BLM is so far behind in offering the sustainable supply of timber that it is obligated to provide--and finds itself in a litigation war that the public largely thinks has ended--it's no wonder the agency has very little to offer, then, toward addressing some of the other pieces of the puzzle.

Yes, there is much work to be done.

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

Huh? The Siuslaw is a classic example of what the enviros are advocating for and the reason it is getting thinned. They want the plantations thinned and so do we. Plantations without thining are no good for anyone, bunny huggers, tree huggers, gun huggers, loggers, mill owners you name it. Plantation thinning is probably the only thing that everyone agrees on, the problem is that it does not pay as well as 500 year old old growth so the timber companies would rather fight to cut the big stuff. In reality there is so much work to be done it would take two generations to get it done. Plenty'O jobs.

But, what about the earlier comment that all the mills re-tooled to accommodate second growth trees, so there are few, if any, mills that could handle old growth logs. So, which is it?

And plantations? What plantations? Thinning anywhere occurs at such a low frequency/intensity that it is statistically insignificant in the bigger scheme of things. As Drakeblade said, if they actually thinned the forests the way they should, loggers would have plenty of work, counties would have plenty of money, the forests would be healthier, we would have better habitat to hunt, there would be more animals to hunt, and everybody would win. But, the enviros ain't gonna let that happen anytime soon and for what, so their lawyers have a pay check? The enviro's are throwing Siuslaw a token bone, and a small one at that. But, they are sticking it to the rest of the forests and the rest of us.

NOTE: Sorry, some of my comments are the same as BP's; our posts seem to have passed in the night, but we're on the same page it sounds like.

[bp97211]

"That 8 Million acres in western Oregon includes all the high elevation timber which is the majority of that figure. "

Response: The report did not identify the spatial location of this 8 million acres. Without anything to verify your assertion, I can't agree or disagree.

"The BLM has 2.5 Million acres and only 375,000 acres of Old growth. That 375,000 acres is probably 90% of the low elevation old growth in Oregon."

Response: Again, the report did not identify the spatial location of this 375,000 acres. Without anything to verify your assertion, I can't agree or disagree.

"That means they have logged 85% of the Old growth that the BLM manages."

Response: Wrong. This statement is based on at least two false premises: (1) that all of the land BLM manages was at one time entirely timbered, and (2) that all of that timbered land was in an old growth condition. These are precisely the false premises advocated by the environmental groups. Think of all of the acres BLM manages that aren't--and never were--in a timbered condition.

Cutting that last 15% is what this plan is about. 85% is not enough, I wonder what is a fair percentage? 100%?

Response: Brian, I respectfully disagree. Before you pass judgment on what the "plan is about," I invite you to read the report on the management situation. I would say the plan revision is about several things, including, but not limited to, (1) complying with a Federal Statute that directs the BLM to offer a sustainable supply of timber, and (2) managing the BLM lands consistent with this directive, and other statutes, including the ESA. Does BLM need to have 85% of its lands "reserved" from timber harvest to accomplish these goals. Many scientists would answer "no." Even if your statistics and assumptions were accurate, if your goal is a majority of stands in a late successional condition, it shouldn't matter if 100% of BLM lands end up in a harvested condition, and were on a 200-300+ year rotation.

"This is the lower elevation old growth, a very very rare item, of which the BLM has the vast majority."

Response: Without some additional context by what you mean by "rare" and "vast majority," I can't really comment.

"There are more than 61 Million acres in Oregon, that 375,000 acres of remaining old growth is .6% of the land mass of Oregon. To get a picture of what we are talking about it would be an area ~24 miles by 24 miles."

Response: The 375,000 acre figure is based upon a definition of old growth as "200+ years old." 80 year-old stands are considered late seral, i.e. "old growth," especially by the U.S. FWS when it comes to managing for spotted owl recovery. So, while BLM chose to be conservative by using older stands as its definition of "old growth," its choice of definition by no means paints the complete picture. Again, even using the definition of 200+ year old stands as "old growth," and your 24x24 mi2 representation--if your goal is a majority of stands in a late successional, or even "old growth" condition, it shouldn't matter if 100% of BLM lands end up in a harvested condition, and were on a 200-300+ year rotation? If a goal is to stop all commercial timber harvest, and lock up land from human management--then perhaps it would matter.

Brian--you're obviously knowledgeable on this subject more than most. If you're interested in learning more from BLM's perspective, I can get you more information. Just send me a PM--Brian.

[Drakeblake]

The Siuslaw has tons of timber that is large second growth (36"+) both in and out of wilderness areas but I believe they consider anything over 24" old growth and untouchable.

I have hear stories about how there are very few mills left in which can handle large trees as bp97211 stated and that it would not be economical to harvest these trees because of this fact. They would either have to truck them too far or build new mills. Whether this is true or not idono...anybody else have any info on this.

Another though I had is many people are lobbying for more wilderness areas to protect their prized hunting spots while at the same time calling for more harvest and saying how old growth trees create dead zones....hmmm...

=blake
=blake

[baltz526]

there is a lot of thinning going on on usfs land, blm and state lands. in the urban forest interface areas, to help control devastating wildfires. not much fight against them (the lawyers might have houses in this type of forest areas, you think)

[bajadan2000]

High % of remaining old growth is protected.





Shows a continuing pattern of protest, appeal and litigation.


Other quotes from BLM Analysis:

"Thinning can speed development of old growth forest structure."


Thanks for the link bp, I will study further...

[bp97211]

The definition of "old growth" depends on who you talk to, and which side of the bed they got up that morning. There's a lady in the Roseburg area who says a 5" diameter tree is "old growth," others say 20" (with that number shrinking daily), other 24", others based on the seral condition of the stand, etc. etc. etc.

You got it right on the economics of logging--hauling costs (with fuel, driver, equipment, etc.) make it uneconomical to ship the big logs south or north for processing; also, you can't export federal timber (i.e. to canada or elsewhere for processing). Finally, the barriers to entry (capital costs) to build a new mill for large diameter timber are enormous--with very little prospect of success given the very unpredictable supply of such logs from the federal forests. The timber companies with their own mills and log supply aren't producing trees this size--they already harvested them and are now managing their forests for a shorter rotation. That said--no timber company in their right mind would even thinking about building a mill with large log capacity.

[bp97211]

Originally Posted by baltz526

there is a lot of thinning going on on usfs land, blm and state lands. in the urban forest interface areas, to help control devastating wildfires. not much fight against them (the lawyers might have houses in this type of forest areas, you think)

As a matter of fact, I know a few that have second "houses" and cabins (read: mansions) near these areas.

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by bp97211

harvest of a 500 year old tree, a timber company wants that tree, and no other law, i.e. the Endangered Species Act, prohibits harvest of that tree--we are a nation of laws, and no aesthetic, spiritual, religious, moral, or even ecological reason should keep the agency from authorizing harvest of that 500 year old tree. If there is an ecological, or other basis for sparing that tree--Congress should embody those values in law--until then, the law calls for (at leat the BLM) to target that timber in the matrix for regeneration].
.

The problem is no such tree exists in Western Oregon but everyone wants to change the rules to make some magically appear. There are so many old growth dependent species that are on the brink that every small stand that is left harbors more than a few. Perhaps if diligence and stewardship had been alive for the past 70 years the fragments could have seeded the regen, but when you cut over a billion board feet a year and 85% of the public land mass, a 100% of the private, in 40 years you get left with the consequences. The land can only support so much and when one generation takes four generations worth of rations we are left with the inevitable outcome. The truley sick and demented thing is that the generation that took four generations worth of rations is the one still trying to take the rest.

[bp97211]

Bajadan2000--yes, thinning can put stands on a trajectory toward late seral conditions (i.e. old growth), especially after multiple entries to create a multi-layered canopy with at least three distinct canopies. Environmental groups will argue strenuously that human management can never "create" old growth--but it's not the point to "create" old growth. The point is to come as close as possible, so that (1) you produce a sustainable supply of timber, and (2) provide habitat, and meet other objectives as detailed in the report. The reason why environmental groups argue this point so much is that they want a "hands off" approach (i.e. defacto wilderness on lands that do not meet the statutory definition of Wilderness); if they ever conceded the point that thinning and other forest management techniques (gasp: commercial timber harvest) could foster late seral conditions, many of those groups, especially the splinter/fringe ones, would dissappear en masse over night--their reason for existence would dissapear.

[bajadan2000]

BLM forest age class distribution by district

[BrianMaguire]

I see everyone is online and posting, its getting disjointed.

Rhetoric aside, we all know what we are talking about with regards to old growth, dancing around the definition with sematics is pointless. We are talking about those 5Ft plus tree stands. The ones I hunted as a kid. the ones that are rare.

Cut the Klamath BLm out of the equation, different ecosystem.

BTW - A really large section of the Siuslaw was torched by native americans in the 19th century, those trees are approaching 200 years but for the most part are single age stands never thinned. I hunted the Siuslaw heavy for a number of years. Real old growth areas are hens teeth, you are right there is not much of it not protected, mostly for stream protection for coastal Coho.

[bp97211]

[quote=BrianMaguire;1451670]The problem is no such tree exists in Western Oregon

Oh--these trees do exist, trust me. There are not entire stands of them, but the remnant few are there mixed in the second growth stands.


but everyone wants to change the rules to make some magically appear.

Huh?

There are so many old growth dependent species that are on the brink that every small stand that is left harbors more than a few.

If you are referring to the ESA listed species like the northern spotted owl, marbeled murrelet--no, these species are not "on the brink." The latest science shows the rate of decline of these species is at or below what was expected a decade ago and factors, other than timber harvest, are the cause of continued decline. Even the enviros accept this science--ask them. If you are referring to non-ESA listed species that are associated with late successional forests--not one of them is "on the brink" (I'm assuming you mean "brink of extinction"). That's why BLM has opted out of the Survey & Manage mitigation measure that was adopted as a part of the origional NW Forest Plan--none of these species need additional management other than what is provided for by the land allocations of the plans (i.e. 83% of the BLM landscape in "reserves"). If these non-listed species associated with "old growth" were on the "brink" (of extinction) as you suggest, they would be candidate species under the ESA. The only one I can think of is Pacific Fisher, which the U.S. FWS concluded was warranted for listing, but precluded because of administrative priorities.

Perhaps if diligence and stewardship had been alive for the past 70 years the fragments could have seeded the regen,

No one's denying the mistakes of the past.

but when you cut over a billion board feet a year and 85% of the public land mass

Still not sure where you're getting this 85% figure.

, a 100% of the private, in 40 years you get left with the consequences.

So, hands off until it recovers? Congress says "not". Want a change? Tell Congress--they're listening, right?

The land can only support so much and when one generation takes four generations worth of rations we are left with the inevitable outcome. The truley sick and demented thing is that the generation that took four generations worth of rations is the one still trying to take the rest.

I'm not a part of that generation--I'm under 35 dude. I'm not "sick and demented." I'm not trying to "take the rest." I'm just willing to allow human management of our public lands, including timber harvest to put the lands on a trajectory for meeting all goals including providing commercial, regeneration timber harvest, while managing stands for late successional conditions.

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by bp97211

The point is to come as close as possible, so that (1) you produce a sustainable supply of timber, and (2) provide habitat, and meet other objectives as detailed in the report. The reason why environmental groups argue this point so much is that they want a "hands off" approach (i.e. defacto wilderness on lands that do not meet the statutory definition of Wilderness); if they ever conceded the point that thinning and other forest management techniques (gasp: commercial timber harvest) could foster late seral conditions, many of those groups, especially the splinter/fringe ones, would dissappear en masse over night--their reason for existence would dissapear.

What is the backlog of species listings? how many years? how many species? this is a rhetorical question, the point being something I think you are quite aware of, its big and long.
I was not saying you with the sick and demented comment, unless you own a timber company, run a mill, or are a senior timber con with an agency, in which case I did mean you. Little guys just tow the line until its time for the boat owner to step on them. I am empathetic to the line towers who feel the pull more than anyone.

I would respectfully disagree with your characterization, its the standard characterization that paints one side into a corner that they don't occupy. I will say you do it well. The assumption that green groups won't concede that commercial thinning can produce desired results, and even advocate for them, is simply not true. In fact its the complete opposite. If the timber companies would concede that there was 100 years worth of work to be done cleaning up the mess it caused everyone would be happy. The plantations are so large it is hardly comprehensible.

Does this BLM plan call for major emphasis to be targeted towards reprod maitenence and cleanup? Seriously, if the BLM wants to do its job, and do right by hunters, its needs to clean up the mess it left with over stocked plantations before starting new messes in areas we actually can hunt, e.g. don't cut the old growth. My parents made me clean up my mess before starting a new mess when I was 5.

Honestly this is all a smoke screen, for Old growth logging and protection of Old growth. That is what we are talking about. I want old growth because I hunt it, very plain and simple. If we could also get some semblance of rational resource management I honestly think everyone could be satisfied, not happy but satisfied. Satisfaction however seems to be out of fashion.

Honestly, if you really want productive human management please work to clean up the millions of acres of under 40 plantations and don't try to make any more until the job is done. They are killing our elk and deer and a bunch of us are not happy about it.

"There are currently approximately 800,000 acres of young, managed stands (approximately 1/3 of the entire planning area) that fit this description

(see Fig. 20, Timber section). The BLM has been thinning slightly more than 1% of these stands per year."

Side note - Some of us use to be supporters of timber harvesting, even worked in it, helped it, etc. When you can turn us off, somebody really messed up.

[bajadan2000]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

"There are currently approximately 800,000 acres of young, managed stands (approximately 1/3 of the entire planning area) that fit this description

(see Fig. 20, Timber section). The BLM has been thinning slightly more than 1% of these stands per year."

.

Brian, Not picking on you, however, Fig. 20 shows lumber consumption. Is this the chart you meant???


More interesting info to follow soon. I have found the financial links that ties the organizations behind the timber litigation to the same organization financially backing the Marine Protection Areas problems. This same organization has taken complete control of the CA. MPA program with the goal to stop fishing... Now it looks like they are involved, in a back handed way, to take control of our forest as well...I will post the info as soon as I can get it down to an easy to follow format..

[freespool]

This debate over old growth logging on public land may just be moot.
Judges ruling may be last word on this issue.

Judge blocks timber sale in Mount Hood forest

The ruling could mean the end of old-growth logging in the forest
Thursday, March 08, 2007 MICHAEL MILSTEIN

Logging of centuries-old trees in the Mount Hood National Forest, the crux of fierce protests for years, may have finally come to an end.
A federal judge in Portland this week blocked the forest's last timber sale planned to send old-growth stands to the auction block. It's a clear symbolic victory for activists and a turning point for the forest that once delivered many millions of board feet of old growth to Oregon sawmills every year.
Judge Michael Mosman, ruling on a lawsuit by the environmental group Bark, said the U.S. Forest Service had not considered the best available science when approving the Slinky timber sale in the Clackamas River drainage in 2003.




The 184 acres cannot be auctioned and clear-cut until foresters rewrite the environmental documentation supporting it, the judge said.
That may be unlikely anytime soon. Forest managers have turned their attention to less contentious thinning projects that do not produce as much wood, but that environmental groups are less likely to fight at every turn.
Forest Service spokesman Rick Acosta refused to comment on the court case.
Forest activists said the decision presents managers an opportunity to move away from logging and instead repair the impacts of heavy cutting in past decades. Today, Mount Hood is a popular recreational playground, visited by millions every year.
"In our mind, this is a watershed moment for the Mount Hood National Forest," said Alex Brown, executive director of Bark, the most tenacious opponent of logging in the forest. "The question now is what is the future?"
A bill in Congress would establish nearly 130,000 acres of new wilderness in the forest that would be off-limits to logging. There is some old-growth timber in the Mount Hood forest that has been sold but not logged.
The fate of the Slinky sale illustrates why national forests have not turned out the timber that they were supposed to under the Northwest Forest Plan, a Clinton administration
The sale is in an area of the Mount Hood forest designated for commercial logging. Its acreage lies in several small chunks fragmented by past logging and not as valuable to wildlife as larger, intact expanses, said Jim Roden, who helped plan the sale for the Forest Service.
The plan was to clear-cut the trees, leaving 10 to 12 large trees per acre, providing commercial timber and replacing older, slow-growing forest with younger, more productive stands, the Forest Service said.
Many of the trees are close to two centuries old, but may not strike many people as old-growth in the classic calendar-photo sense of massive wooden giants, he said. The largest trees that contain by far the most wood would not be cut, and the trees to be logged probably average about a foot in diameter, he said.
//Be Sure to change Click & Image Link in Both Placesvar FlashClickthru="http://ravingbrands.com/tour_days_detail.aspx?ID=21";var SWFFilename="300x250.swf";var ImageName="300x250.gif";var CodeVersion="Flash_1.1";var TFSMFlash_VERSION=5;var TFSMFlash_WMODE="opaque";var TFSMFlash_OASCLICK="http://ads.advance.net/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/www.oregonlive.com/xml/story/lc/lcfp/1181206129/StoryAd/OREGONLIVE/BlueSky_OR_News_Story/Raving_Bus_Story.html/34373232366339393435663034316530";var TFSMFlash_SWFCLICKVARIABLE="?clickTAG=http://ads.advance.net/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/www.oregonlive.com/xml/story/lc/lcfp/1181206129/StoryAd/OREGONLIVE/BlueSky_OR_News_Story/Raving_Bus_Story.html/34373232366339393435663034316530?" + escape(FlashClickthru);var TFSMFlash_SWFFILE="http://ads.advance.net/RealMedia/ads/Creatives/OREGONLIVE/BlueSky_OR_News_Story/"+SWFFilename+TFSMFlash_SWFCLICKVARIABLE;var TFSMFlash_IMAGEALTERNATE="http://ads.advance.net/RealMedia/ads/Creatives/OREGONLIVE/BlueSky_OR_News_Story/"+ImageName;var TFSMFlash_OASALTTEXT="Click here!";var TFSMFlash_OASTARGET="_blank";var TFSMFlash_OASPROTOCOL="http://";var TFSMFlash_OASDIM="WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250";var TFSMFlash_OASADID="ad_banner";document.write('');


on error resume next MM_FlashCanPlay = ( IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFla sh." & MM_contentVersion)))

"I still feel this is a good project, but it probably will never happen," Roden said.
Planning for such timber sales includes years of wildlife surveys and other assessment, he said.
"We've spent a ton of money planning this," he said. "We had to look for slugs, we had to look for snails, we had to look for tree voles, and that really adds up."
But environmental activists repeatedly took issue with the sale, first filing appeals and then a lawsuit. They argued the Forest Service had ignored the ecological value of large trees, putting their commercial value above all else. They argued in the lawsuit that the Forest Service had not met a requirement to use the best available science in its decision.
The judge agreed. But he noted that a new planning rule enacted by the Bush administration since the timber sale sets a different requirement. So the timber sale might not run into the same legal catch if it were proposed today.
Thinning projects produce roughly one-fifth as much timber as an old- growth sale, he said. But forest managers see thinning of uniform stands as an approach that is more widely accepted and is less likely to run into legal roadblocks such as the appeals and lawsuits that bedeviled Slinky.
Michael Milstein: 503-294-7689; michaelmilstein@news.oregonian.com



salmon hugger

[Rank Amateur]

Just a side note in this discussion. We have been known to ship logs to Eugene from Vernonia in the past, also I know for a fact the old growth logs are being rafted from Vancouver Island and trucked inland (I believe Eugene), so trees are and can be moved quite a distance while maintaining a profit. I have no doubt that if the reserves were open to logging the trees would move down the road, heck were Americans you know!

Evidently the State has another definition of old growth.. Well, hears an old shovel operators perspective, if I could not pick it up and put it on the truck, it was old growth. When I had to one end them or strap them, they were old growth and a big pain in the butt too.

[freespool]

Sorry for the messed up post, my computer crashed last week, and it no longer respondes in a humane friendly way, new computer is on order.



salmon hugger

[BrianMaguire]

I pulled the quote out of the document, I did not even look at the chart, I was using the wording and simply did not want to leave anything out of the quote. Now that you mention it I think the BLM made a mistake fig 20 has no bearing on that statement. My point being that the BLM states at current rates it will take 100 years to thin the reprod they have.

[bajadan2000]

Start with this quote from the BLM analysis:



Here is a link to the Pacific Coast Fed. of Fishermen's Ass. web site:

http://www.pcffa.org/

Here is a quote from their website:

"PCFFA's habitat protection program is now expanding and being carried on by its sister organization, the Institute for Fisheries Resources. Please jump to IFR's Home Page for more information on our efforts on behalf of the men and women of the commercial fishing fleet to protect fish habitat throughout the country. You can go directly to the Institute's Home Page by clicking here:"



Here is a link to the Institute for Fisheries Resources web sites:

http://www.ifrfish.org/





Here is a quote for the Packard Foundations web site listing grants funded:

Institute for Fisheries Resources

www.ifrfish.org
San Francisco, California
Program Area: Conservation and Science
Grant Amount: $100,000
Award Year: 2006 Award Term: 12 months


Institute for Fisheries Resources

www.ifrfish.org
San Francisco, California
Program Area: Conservation and Science
Grant Amount: $150,000
Award Year: 2005 Award Term: 12 months



Here is a link to the data base for the last two years of grant funding for the Packard Foundation if you would like to snoop around and see how they spend $200,000,000 every year. The Packard Foundation does do some good with the money. In the past they did do a lot of useful research on Marine fisheries, however, all of their efforts (over $10,000,000 per year) are now funded to stop fishing under the catch word "protection" by forming MPAs...

http://www.packard.org/searchGrants....CategoryID=226




Here is more information to give you an idea of the size and power of the Packard Foundation backing the timber lawsuits.

Grants Database

SEARCH SUMMARY

Total Awards: 2006
703 Total Awards Amount:
$221,792,203



Grants Database

SEARCH SUMMARY

Total Awards: 2005
630 Total Awards Amount:
$170,219,083

The Packard Foundation is based out of Los Altos, Ca.


I have never liked the idea of Californians coming up here and taking over our land and water...However, with that much money, they have been buying influence with many people and organizations, then taking control. They now have complete and total control over the CA. MPAs. They have more control over the MPAs then Gov't. agencies.

[ehunter]

Not sure how much this was mentioned but what about fire and controll isn't what we need to have a more natural forest in some species of trees they really need it also cleans up forest litter and keeps the bug population down. It allows new growth for browse??

[garyk]

Originally Posted by bp97211

I can think of at least two reasons the Siusalaw is thinning: (1) the Forest has voluntarily chosen to ignore its own Land Use Plan despite the orders of superiors in the State office and in Washington, and (2) they have very little (read: probably no) stands left to regen (larger diameter). The "old growth" they have left is locked up in reserves and thus not an option for harvest.

The truth of the matter is it was a deliberate decision by the Forest Supervisor to get-the-cut-out and achieve his MMBF goals by focusing on non-controversial projects like thinning.

Siusalaw Forest has old growth in the matrix, but rather then inflaming the public by planning controversial sales, they've deliberately decided to produce the MMBF volumes with well-planned projects.

Rather than sticking-it in the public's eye, they've worked with the public and various interests, and largely succeeded.

We've had much the same situation on the Mt. Hood Clackamas/Ripplebrook District when John Berry was running the show. His crew focused on thinnings. Appeals were minimized, trust was built and logs were produced in a sustainable manner that possibly enhanced and did not damage the forest.

[garyk]

Originally Posted by bajadan2000

So I ask, why are we not thinning our forest??????? Thinned forest provide healthier trees and as well as forage for the game animals...

Q - What's always been the timber scientists defense of clearcuts?

A - "They mimic natural disturbances, like fires"

There may not be as much clearcutting, but those 'natural disturbances are still happening. In Oregon 2006, according to the USFS, ~641,000 acres were impacted by fire (I couldn't break it out finer, like westside only, or Region 6 only).

My point is, it's important to look at the entire situation. Just last year, according to USFS about 1000 square miles Of Oregon experienced fire, and that translates to future forage.

Additionally, ODF says 22,000 acres under their fire protection burned.

[bp97211]

Garyk and BrianM:

If you have ideas to share with BLM, that are organized and cut out rhetoric, I know people who want to listen--but they see page after page of rhetoric (i.e. "stop cutting old growth" without rationale)--they need something substantive and reasoned. You can send it to them in the form of public comments on the plan revisions. Thanks.