Tillamook State Forest

SouthCoastStu · 06-12-2003, 09:31 PM

Saw this article in the paper today and thought I'd pass it along.

HB3632

To bad we can't leave natural resource management to the professionals. As I've said before, I think the current FMP is a very good balance between recreation, fish & wildlife and timber production. Seems like there's no happy median.

BrionLutz · 06-12-2003, 10:10 PM

Diamondback,

Quote:

Seems like there's no happy median. [/QB]

Sure there is...since all Oregon State forests represent just 3% of all forestland in Oregon, leave them alone.

If timber companies can't survive on the rest of the 97% of Oregon forestland, then all the claims about "sustainable management" are clearly bogus.

Why let them destroy 100% of it and the salmon?

Brion

crabbait · 06-12-2003, 10:30 PM

I am sure that this discussion will be every bit as riveting as the last one and it is kinda fish related, but not close enough to stay on the ifish community board. You will find it in Life in General.

Jet Drifter · 06-12-2003, 11:03 PM

oh boy [img]graemlins/lurk.gif[/img]

SouthCoastStu · 06-12-2003, 11:14 PM

Quote:

If timber companies can't survive on the rest of the 97% of Oregon forestland, then all the claims about "sustainable management" are clearly bogus.

Brion, that statement is just plain false. If you want the real numbers go to the State site below:

Oregon Blue Book

"Sixty-one percent of Oregon's forests is publicly owned; of this, nearly 57 percent is federal land. Approximately 20 percent of federally managed forestland has been reserved from timber harvest by law, regulation, or forest plans. Large portions of the remainder are managed primarily for fish and wildlife habitat needs, with significantly reduced timber outputs. Relatively little timber is currently being harvested from federal lands. Significant acreages of state and private lands are in riparian areas and other classifications requiring protection that reduces timber outputs on these lands as well..."

You make my point. Extremists on either side of an issue is a bad thing, they tend to be incapable of compromise or balance. Read my post again, I am opposed to HB3632, which would increase the harvest on the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests by 150 Mbf/year through legislation :smile: .

garyk · 06-13-2003, 08:17 AM

In some ways I'm kinda grateful to the reps, for their boneheaded bill.

When the big cutting hasn't even started, and the politicians are already trying to grab for more, this bolsters the argument - and makes plain to the public - that additional steps are needed to protect the Tillamook and all its values.

BrionLutz · 06-13-2003, 09:16 AM

Diamondback,

Quote:

Brion, that statement [State forests represent just 3% of Oregon forestland[ is just plain false.

You seem to be in disagreement with Oregon Department of Forestry at leasts according to "Oregon Forests Report 2003" put out by Oregon Department of Forestry. Of course, your own source confirms that you are in error.

You'd want to look at the graph on Page 16.

Your reference also confirms it noting that 77% of forest land is private and Federal and that 3% is State forest and balance what they call "non-industrial forest land".

As you will also see in ODF's "Oregon Forest Report", State forests represent 657,097.38 acres (Page 32), not all of this is forest acreage.

So...we come back to the question of why the multinational timber corps need the 3% of Oregon forests managed by the State? If their claims of "sustainable forestry" were accurate, they would not.

On the other hand, we know that sport fishing industry, commercial fishing industry, tourist industry, recreation industry all provide better jobs, sustainable jobs and more of them than the one shot timber jobs.

Another major issue is the watershed which affects industrial and residential development in Oregon. The destruction of the state forests severely impacts watershed production, particuarly important as we enter our 5th drought year.

And of course the timber harvest on public land kills off the salmon and the public resources these industries depend upon.

From a fishing perspective, we should be setting aside the Tillamook Forest for salmon.

Brion

Reelentless · 06-13-2003, 04:36 PM

Quote:

So...we come back to the question of why the multinational timber corps need the 3% of Oregon forests managed by the State? If their claims of "sustainable forestry" were accurate, they would not.

They dont need it. In fact, most large multinational corporations export logs from their own forests and are unable to buy any timber from state or federal lands.

Its the small companies who will benefit from this.

Quote:

On the other hand, we know that sport fishing industry, commercial fishing industry, tourist industry, recreation industry all provide better jobs, sustainable jobs and more of them than the one shot timber jobs.

Timber jobs are what built this state. Its unfortunate that all the liberal whackos moved in and changed the political climate. They ruined their own state so they moved out. Now they want to turn this state into a big park.

Quote:

Another major issue is the watershed which affects industrial and residential development in Oregon. The destruction of the state forests severely impacts watershed production, particuarly important as we enter our 5th drought year.

Its the industrial and residential growth that negatively affects our watersheds the most. I see people dumping yard debris, spraying vegetation, etc. within fish bearing streams. Not to mention the sewage spills I seem to hear about every other week. The law requires timber operations to be no closer than 20 feet and up to 100 feet of a fish bearing stream.

To increase water yield in a watershed, you remove the timber. Thats basic hydrology every forester learns in their first year of college. To blame the drought on timber harvest is contradictory.

Quote:

From a fishing perspective, we should be setting aside the Tillamook Forest for salmon.

From a biological and economical perspective, we should be managing the Tillamook Forest for multiple uses, including timber harvest.

BrionLutz · 06-13-2003, 07:47 PM

Northriverman,

Quote:

Its the small companies who will benefit from this.

Versus the entire state benefiting from not destroying the watershed, fishing jobs, recreation jobs, tourism jobs.

Why would it not be economically profitable for larger timber corporations but profitable for smaller ones? Economics aren't there. Ignoring the loss of jobs cutting the forest represents to the large majority of Oregonians, it makes no business sense selling into a depressed market.

Quote:

Timber jobs are what built this state.

Not to mention fishing jobs, Federal dollars for dams and cheap electricity, aluminum industry, etc.

Timber had it's day, destroyed the forests, killed the salmon streams, ruined the watersheds and made their profit. The claims of sustainable forestry are bogus as we see from the need to log the remaining 3% of forests owned by the public.

We learned from that mistake. Time to look to the future.

Quote:

Its unfortunate that all the liberal whackos moved in and changed the political climate. They ruined their own state so they moved out.

Hmm...last I looked Intel and Nike are still the largest employers in Oregon.

Timber industry is 10%.

Quote:

The law requires timber operations to be no closer than 20 feet and up to 100 feet of a fish bearing stream.

Not really plus that ignores the destruction that the roads do.

Quote:

To increase water yield in a watershed, you remove the timber. Thats basic hydrology every forester learns in their first year of college.

You seem to be confusing sediment filled runoff that kills the streams and destroys the watershed with useable water. An example of the bad "science" forest destruction is based upon. One of the many reasons not to confuse commercial timber industry with "forestry".

Quote:

To blame the drought on timber harvest is contradictory.

The timber industry is only partially responsible for the droughts via the destruction of the old growth forests that created a huge, clean watershed.

The point was that we can't destroy what is left of the watershed producing forest. We need it to help counter the drought cycle we are in due to global warming.

Quote:

From a biological and economical perspective, we should be managing the Tillamook Forest for multiple uses, including timber harvest.

Timber harvest would come last since it destroys the other uses of the forest for several hundred years...time it takes for the original forest to regrow.

I think the Tillamook Rainforest plan allows for logging on 50% of the Tillamook but puts preservation of salmon, watershed, recreation and tourism ahead of the short term logging interests.

Those benefit the greatest number of people, produce more jobs and a sustainable economy.

Brion

Navigator · 06-13-2003, 09:38 PM

Bryon, as professional forester I would like to have a discussion of the issues you raise. You make it difficult with the generalizations and rhetoric. I don't say that to alienate or criticize you, it is just a turn-off.

Diamondback is being factual. You lump the federal and industrial private into one group - the 77%. Roughly, 50% of this group is federal and the other 50% of this 77% is industrial private. And the federal lands are basically allocated to resources other than timber.

You will not agree with me - but the industrial forestlands are not a threat to salmon. Neither is the current Tillamook Forest Plan. Either would HB 3632 (and I agree, this is a bonehead bill). There are definite tradeoffs and differences in riparian protection and perhaps differences in some short term risks with respect to road building and harvest - but none that we do not understand, can do something about and certainly not threatening to the existence or salmon nor precluding our ability to increase wild fish stocks.

Most of the current forestry impacts on fish are from legacy roads and legacy logging practices (namely cat logging - where the trees being removed was not the impact, but the myriad of mid-slope skid roads and scars from cat logging in the 40's and 50's (and unfortunately, 60's and 70's) combined with some ill-informed requirements put on loggers by the fisheries folk (basically, to clean streams out like highways) in the 50's and 60's as a counter weight to the destructiveness and sluicing from splash dams and using streams basically as logging flumes prior to then. (Basically, all wood was removed from streams because it felt it obstructed fish passage. As Dave Barry would say - I am not making this up). Another huge impact was poor design in stream crossings - and side hill roads with tremendous amounts of fill. One of the biggest (and unsung) successes of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds was the road inventories for poor fish passage and the commitment of the large industrial owners to do this and take care of the problems.

And all major groups of forestland owners are working on the salmon issue in the context of their objectives - industrial, federal, tribal, non-industrial and state. Yes, there is work to do - but everyone is contributing. The key to understanding the difference in approaches is understanding the differences in each owner group's management objectives (and for non-industrial private forestland owners, this is a variable as the number of owners themselves). If anything, our biggest challenge is with the small parcels in and around the urban areas and foothills - where many landowners end up making poor management decisions because they were taken advantage off, faced economic pressure, didn't know any better, or never made the connection of their 10 acres and fish. And increased regulation won't help us with this group - in fact, waiving the bigger stick will just accelerate these type of impacts.

Now, if you would like to see the Tillamook reserved from timber harvest and dedicated to other uses exclusive of timber - then please just say so. Justify your position based on your feeling that is the way you want to see it managed. Describe why this is important. I can respect that (though I take a different view). But don't alienate yourself by saying the Tillamook is the last stand for salmon. That is not true. And don't say the Tillamook is not economically important for jobs and schools - because it is.

If there is anywhere where we have a grip on the salmon issues - in terms of what needs to be done and doing it - it is on forestland. Regardless of who owns it.

Yes, there are screw-ups on the landscape and will likely be more. Regardless whether the Tillamook is a state park or not. But the reality is, salmon have survived over a 100 years of logging and forestry with out much thought given to them and they will certainly survive the next 100 years of logging and forestry with a lot of thought given to them - if we give them the chance.

Straydog · 06-13-2003, 10:14 PM

Did Brion say the Tillamook was the last stand for Salmon? I guess I missed it if he did. :whazzup:

[ 06-13-2003, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

SouthCoastStu · 06-14-2003, 09:14 AM

So, now you have to resort to inserting words into my post so you can quote me anyway you want?

We are in agreement that State Forests make up 3% of the forest land in Oregon, it is a fact. What we don't agree on is that the remaining 97% is available for timber production.

And I quote again from Brion:

Quote:

If timber companies can't survive on the rest of the 97% of Oregon forestland, then all the claims about "sustainable management" are clearly bogus.

Saying that 97% of forest land is available to timber companies is false.

Here's link to a State site that may help you to understand.

Restrictions Limiting Timber Harvest

"Forest land available for timber production — The amount of land available for timber harvest has been steadily decreasing because there has been a steady increase in the amount of land where timber harvest is prohibited or restricted. In 1960 about 0.5 percent of all forest land in Oregon was reserved, in Oregon’s single national park. By 1990, 9 percent of the total forest land base had restrictions of various kinds (2.4 million acres). Currently, there are approximately 9.94 million acres of timberland, or about 35 percent of the land base, that has some sort of restriction limiting timber harvest."

Northriverman hit the nail on the head:

Quote:

Its the small companies who will benefit from this.

I would add that schools and any other entities that recieve money from the General Fund (personal/corporate income taxes) or direct harvest revenue payments (Federal/State lands)would benefit also.

BrionLutz · 06-15-2003, 10:37 AM

Navigator,

Quote:

You make it difficult with the generalizations and rhetoric. I don't say that to alienate or criticize you, it is just a turn-off.

And you'd be wrong <grin>. I quoted directly, chapter and page, from "Oregon Forests Report - 2003" by the Oregon Department of Forestry.

I prefer the science and economics. Most of of the pro-timber corporation arguments are based on emotion not economics and science or even history.

History: In the early days of Tillamook County the only source of cash was the sale of fish caught in the many bays and rivers. Numerous canneries sprang up from Uppertown in the north to Oretown in the south. Peddlers bought the fish and made the trek to the Willamette valley to sell for cash or trade for produce; return to the county with their profits and repeat the whole process again. The cash received from the fishing industry helped develop other businesses and enabled the settlers to build a stable economy. Lumbering was not thought of as an industry in the early days of Tillamook County.

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

Science: A Salmon Anchor Habitat Strategy for the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests: The specific anchor habitat strategy has been largely developed by Dr. Charley Dewberry during his watershed and salmon restoration project on the Knowles Creek in the Siuslaw watershed from 1991 to present. The Knowles Creek Project is a cooperative restoration effort of the U.S. Forest Service, The Hancock Timber Resources Group, and the Pacific Rivers Council.

Quote:

You lump the federal and industrial private into one group - the 77%.

I pointed out the fact that only 3% of Oregon's forests are State Forests. That is correct per the ODF. By definition, everything else would be "lumped" in the other 97%. As you'll see from the ODF stats, the other 20% is what is called "Non-industrial forestland."

Quote:

You will not agree with me - but the industrial forestlands are not a threat to salmon.

It's more a case of the biologists, scientists etc. noting the destructive nature of logging vis a vis salmon streams. The science is clear and long term.

Quote:

There are definite tradeoffs and differences in riparian protection and perhaps differences in some short term risks with respect to road building and harvest - but none that we do not understand, can do something about and certainly not threatening to the existence or salmon nor precluding our ability to increase wild fish stocks.

Indeed and that is the point. We should not "tradeoff" the State Forest, sustainable jobs in fishing, recreation and tourism for timber corporation profits. That would require not logging in the anchor habitats of the salmon. The logging companies reject the science in favor of their short term profits and desire to log 86% of the forest.

A better choice for public land is to use it to promote better, more sustainable jobs in fishing, recreation, tourism for a greater number of Oregonians.

Quote:

Most of the current forestry impacts on fish are from legacy roads and legacy logging practices...

Most of the logging proposed is clear cut which involves all the problems you admit logging creates. Even the "thinning" is bogus, requires new roads and lots of forest destruction, again all the problems you admit logging creates for other industries.

Specifically, the current Tillamook Forest Plan calls for about 500 miles of new roads which you admit are the source of a lot of the damage.

Quote:

Now, if you would like to see the Tillamook reserved from timber harvest and dedicated to other uses exclusive of timber - then please just say so.

I did already <grin>. Obviously the need to log the Tillamook forest demonstrates that failure of the timber corporations vis a vis sustainable logging. If that were true, they would not need the 3% of Oregon forests that are state forests.

However, to be clear, the Tillamook Coalition plan is to allow logging on 50% of the Tillamook Forest and giving Oregon public interests (jobs, watershed, salmon) a 50% interest.

So if all the generalizations and rhetoric of the timber corporations are correct, we can certainly preserve just 1.5% of the forests in Oregon for the public.

Brion

BrionLutz · 06-15-2003, 10:51 AM

Diamondback,

Quote:

We are in agreement that State Forests make up 3% of the forest land in Oregon, it is a fact.

And here's Navigator claiming to be a "professional forester" saying that is not true.

Quote:

What we don't agree on is that the remaining 97% is available for timber production.

I didn't say all the remaining 97% of forestland is available for exploitation. I did note that we should be able to preserve the tiny 3% of Oregon forests that are State Forests.

If sustainable land management was as successful as the timber corporations claim, they would not need to chop down the Tillamook Forest again . They would be able to log their "well managed" private forests.

They can't because the logging they propose is not "sustainable". An interesting study by a private, pro-logging corporation noted that a private logging company can have a sustainble business but it requires a 150 year plan and that doesn't fit the 6 month, short term profit plan of timber corporations or the timber market economics.

Lets just leave the 3% of Oregon forests alone. Heck, the Tillamook Coalation plan just asks that we leave 1.5% of Oregon forests for the benefit of Oregonians.

Brion

Reelentless · 06-15-2003, 04:12 PM

Brion,

This is what you said since you apparently "forgot"

Quote:

If timber companies can't survive on the rest of the 97% of Oregon forestland, then all the claims about "sustainable management" are clearly bogus.

This implies timber companies have access to all lands but state lands. This is far from being true.

Quote:

Why would it not be economically profitable for larger timber corporations but profitable for smaller ones?

Read my post. I will try and explain it again.

Any company who exports raw logs cannot, by law, purchase timber from state or federal land.

The timber sold on state land is sold primarily to small timber owners and mills who dont have enough land to supply their mills.

Quote:

Hmm...last I looked Intel and Nike are still the largest employers in Oregon.

And the largest UNemployers.

Brion,

Back in the late 80's environmentalists claimed that by stopping all logging on federal lands, there would be more jobs gained in recreation then jobs lost in timber. Well, they managed to shut the federal lands down. Where are all these recreation jobs? All I saw were mills closing, towns with small shops closing, and unemployment rising.

Now the environmentalists (you) are trying to shut down logging on state lands using the same bogus arguments. Once they achieve that, they will go after private lands. They tried with that moronic measure 64. Whats sad is that the Siuslaw National Forest has some of the most productive timber growing soil in the world. Now its a giant park that very few visit or even know exists.

You dont care about recreation jobs or fishing jobs. You care about that paycheck those lunatic organizations pay you to represent them. You are blinded by your green colored glasses and refuse to see what is reality.

Id suggest you stop by your local state forestry office, pick up a copy of the forest practices rules, and familiarize yourself with them. If you read something you dont agree with, lets talk about it.

But, if you continue to make statements like

Quote:

Timber had it's day, destroyed the forests, killed the salmon streams, ruined the watersheds and made their profit. The claims of sustainable forestry are bogus as we see from the need to log the remaining 3% of forests owned by the public.

I wont bother replying, since its clearly a waste of my time. (And you claim you dont bring emotion into your arguments. )

rebell · 06-15-2003, 06:51 PM

My God, I don't believe this. Brion, you are even lying about the history of the area. Incredible!! Once again you have proved yourself arrogant beyond belief.

The fishing industry you are talking about was a inland commercial fishery that nearly wiped out the Tillamook area fishery. It was the main reason the Trask hatcheries were built. They were stopped in the early 50s. My Grandfather has pictures from the 40s of gill net's across the lower Wilson and Trask rivers with gentlemen holding up 50 and 60lb chinook taken out of the set nets they had across the rivers.

Everyone should be insulted by what you are trying to do here. You feel the people of Oregon and ifish are actually stupid enough to believe you.

AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!

Straydog · 06-15-2003, 08:13 PM

Rebell,

Calling people liar is pretty strong, especially when you offer nothing to back your name calling.

You rag on Brion's accounting of history and then give evidence that only reinforces what he said.

If you just want to call names that is your problem but you sure look silly when you give supporting evidence for the one you are calling liar to back it!!

[ 06-15-2003, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Reelentless · 06-15-2003, 08:54 PM

Straydog,

Are you and Brion related? Just curious since you seem so quick to chime in in his defense.

No worries though. Id defend a relative or good friend too, even if he/she is wrong.

crabbait · 06-15-2003, 09:05 PM

You guys go ahead and resolve all forestry problems while achieving sustainable yield and unlimited salmon production but do it without calling each other names or the thread gets closed.

PBR Streetgang · 06-15-2003, 10:00 PM

Welcome to the new National eco-park, Oregon. 90% unemployment but hey, we have lots of trees!!!!

Tim

Mr. Carp · 06-15-2003, 11:06 PM

Brion, everyone has been down this road before.

You criticize Navigator, but I highly doubt you have any idea how forestry really works. Anyone can look up stuff on the internet, but actually knowing what is going on is a different story. The issues always look different when your sitting behind a computer. I have worked in the woods a few times and in a small saw mill before. I gaurentee Brion, you'd actually have a different point of view if it was your family you were trying to feed because you were a logger and you just got fired because someone wants another acre of trees to look at once a year when they go on a picnic.

To say that the logging of the forests caused the demise of the salmon is absolutely ridiculous.

You keep using your tourism and other jobs as an argument. Logging now is a real job effecting real people. This jobs you speak of are hypothetical jobs that probably wouldn't materialize. You use the same argument for the dams and everything else. IN a way I would like to see what you want, Brion, to take place to show that the arguments being made for hypothetical jobs are just that, hypothetical. I would hate tosee that happen though, because a lot of hard working people would loss their jobs.

Just my opinion.

Ryan

Straydog · 06-16-2003, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Northriverman:
Straydog,

Are you and Brion related? Just curious since you seem so quick to chime in in his defense.

No worries though. Id defend a relative or good friend too, even if he/she is wrong.

I have never met Brion in person. My only contact with him has been on this forum and a couple of subsequent emails.

I jump to his defense because I too believe much of what he says. Not 100% perhaps but more often than not. I also appreciate his ability to put forth his opinion without calling names. Yea, he is human and I have noticed some gill flaring at times but heck, when you are a getting hammered by most on the board it is difficult to remain civil at times. He does a much better job of it than most. (myself included...

)

Mr. Carp,

I have seen the ebbs and flows of the tourism industry and its reaction to increasing and decreasing fish numbers. There is absolutely nothing hypothetical about it. I have lived it, it is real. Ask any cold water tackle factory, boat builder or convience store owner in areas where Salmon and Steelhead are players. The last two years have been huge and it has only been because of the increased numbers of Salmon and Steelhead.

Further, I too worked in the timber industry. Worked summers to put my way through school and very much appreciated the opportunity. Also very much appreciated the fact that my dad and supertintendant of the mill I worked for both told me to be greatful for the mill work as an avenue to pay for college but they would both kick my butt if they saw me making a carreer out of the timber industry. They saw in the '70's that it could not continue in the manner and at the level it was. Thirty years later they have been proven very insightful.

BrionLutz · 06-16-2003, 08:55 AM

NorthRiverMan,

Quote:

This implies timber companies have access to all lands but state lands. This is far from being true.

They have had access to all lands including state and Federal lands. They have logged just about all of it already, very little old growth is left.

The problem is that if the timber corporations claims of running a "sustainable" industry were true, they would not need the 3% State Forest lands, land they already logged once and which still has not recovered.

The reason the timber companies are desperate for this small percentage of Oregon forest is that the claims of "sustainable forestry" are bogus.

Quote:

Back in the late 80's environmentalists claimed that by stopping all logging on federal lands, there would be more jobs gained in recreation then jobs lost in timber.

Several problems with your "history".

1. State and Federal forests were logged at least once.

2. Logging on Federal and State land continues today.

3. Spotted Owl/Endangered Species ruling that did curtail, but did not stop logging was 1990, not 1980.

4. No claims were made about "recreation" jobs regarding the reduction in damaging forest practices that were killing of endangered species but we should point out that Oregon had a huge job growth as logging slowed which proved the timber corporation lobbyists claims of economic disaster to be wrong.

Specific to "recreation" we have seen a comback in coastal fisheries, those most affected by the logging so, even though no claims were made, we have seen a big growth in recreation and toursim related jobs.

So the stats such as those by the University of Washington that predict higher and better job growth via fishing, recreation and tourism industry to be correct.

Quote:

You dont care about recreation jobs or fishing jobs. You care about that paycheck those lunatic organizations pay you to represent them.

Yikes! The checks have gone missing! <grin>. Haven't the foggiest what you are talking about above. Perhaps you are being misled on more than just the logging issues?

Quote:

Id suggest you stop by your local state forestry office, pick up a copy of the forest practices rules, and familiarize yourself with them.

I did and I quoted the "Oregon Forests Report 2003" which has the latest facts and figures and specifically backed up the fact that State Forests in Oregon represent just 3% of total forest land and we should be able to preserve that small amount for the public good.

Brion

BrionLutz · 06-16-2003, 09:13 AM

Mr. Carp,

Quote:

You criticize Navigator, but I highly doubt you have any idea how forestry really works.

Best to keep it specific and real.

1. Navigator claimed to be a "forestry professional".

2. Navigator claimed that State Forests did not represent 3% of total Oregon Forestland.

3. Navigator was proven wrong by Oregon Dept. of Foresty "Oregon Forests Report - 2003" which I quoted and referenced the specific page of that report which proved him wrong.

4. Diamondback, a pro-logging advocate, also posted stats showing Navigator was wrong.

I think if you claim forestry expertise, claim a major statistic is incorrect and are quickly proven wrong then your expertise might come in for some "criticism".

I'm not sure that demonstrating that Navigator was wrong on a basic, easily researched fact about Oregon forest is being "critical" so much as it is being factual.

Quote:

To say that the logging of the forests caused the demise of the salmon is absolutely ridiculous.

Logging did indeed kill the salmon streams. This is mainly regarding the coastal salmon though it also affected Columbia River salmon such as the feeder streams from Mt. Hood and Willamette Valley, two examples.

Best Techncial information on logging and salmon streams and how to restore them.

Quote:

You keep using your tourism and other jobs as an argument.

Well I do keep reading the economic studies (see above link) which note that:

1. Fishing industry was huge prior to demise of the salmon, much of it destroyed by logging. Tillamook being a very specific example.

2. Fishing industry, sport and commercial, tourism, recreation and watershed preservation are the industries mentioned.

3. Tillamook studies by University of Washington are backed up by the RAND study regarding similar economic issues concerning the removal of the Snake River dams.

Quote:

Logging now is a real job effecting real people. This jobs you speak of are hypothetical jobs that probably wouldn't materialize.

Actually the logging jobs are hypothetical, possible future growth . No current logging jobs would be lost since logging would continue at current rate in Tillamook.

Brion

SouthCoastStu · 06-16-2003, 10:36 AM

Posted by Brion:

Quote:

2. Navigator claimed that State Forests did not represent 3% of total Oregon Forestland.

I've read Navigators post and can't find anywhere he used the 3% figure, maybe you can use your creative quoting technique to show us....

AuntyM · 06-16-2003, 04:07 PM

Quote:

On the other hand, we know that sport fishing industry, commercial fishing industry, tourist industry, recreation industry all provide better jobs, sustainable jobs and more of them than the one shot timber jobs.

I can't believe you all let that statement slide.

Oh yeah..... I bet some of you just can't wait to lose a mill job for that better, sustainable job at Mickey D's or Motel 6.

Anyone who has been paying attention for any length of time knows Lutz is looking out for commercial fishing interests while doing his darndest to cast logging and dams in the worst possible light. a diversionary tactic that may work on some of you, but hopefully not ALL.

Reelentless · 06-16-2003, 04:22 PM

You are correct Straydog, things in the timber industry have changed. We are using better science and have more restrictive laws. Will forestry ever go away? Well unless someone can figure out a way to supply our needs for raw material for housing, paper products, etc., using a renewable resource like wood, I won't lose sleep over it.

The demand for wood products continues to rise. If we cannot meet these demands using our own well managed forests, the void will be filled by products imported from other countries where harvesting practices are much less regulated.

Thats the sad part. The same people who want to stop logging in Oregon, dont realize we have the most advanced science in forestry available. In addition to good science, are stringent laws which are based on that science. All forestry operations are required, by law, to meet or exceed these laws.

To say companies, particularly large corporations, dont practice sustainable forestry is ludicrous. Some of these companies have been in business over 100 years. They are harvesting second generation forests that were established back in the 40's and 50's. Growing and harvesting trees for wood products for consumers, including you Brion, is their business. Did you know that many large companies are certified by third party auditors? To be certified, the company must demonstrate their ability to practice sustainable forestry and meet or exceed the forest practices act.

Some small companies have decided to "cash out". They are afraid that if they dont harvest their trees today, they may not be able to in the future. Thats the irony of all this. The environmentalists, in their seemingly good intentions, are actually making things worse.

As far as old growth goes, most mills arent tooled to run large diameter logs anymore. In fact, unless they are peeler grade, large logs are less valuable than say a 12" export quality log. In other words, nobody wants old growth.

Email me Brion. Id love to show you what we do to protect streams and water quality. That or take advantage of the tours many companies and the state provide.

[ 06-16-2003, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Northriverman ]

BrionLutz · 06-16-2003, 09:18 PM

Northriverman,

Quote:

The same people who want to stop logging in Oregon, dont realize we have the most advanced science in forestry available.

We just wish the logging companies would use it. Focusing specifically on salmon, they don't.

Quote:

In addition to good science, are stringent laws which are based on that science. All forestry operations are required, by law, to meet or exceed these laws.

Weak laws which the current administration is not enforcing.

Quote:

To say companies, particularly large corporations, dont practice sustainable forestry is ludicrous.

But factual. Which is why they need to chop down the Tillamook Forest, why they are desperate for the last 3%, no matter what the cost to the rest of the state.

Quote:

As far as old growth goes, most mills arent tooled to run large diameter logs anymore.

No kidding, because they've already destroyed the old growth forests and they are on a path of diminishing returns.

Quote:

In other words, nobody wants old growth.

Funny how they are spending millions on lawsuits and contributions to Bush Jr to get their hands on the last remaining old growth logs.

Quote:

Id love to show you what we do to protect streams and water quality. That or take advantage of the tours many companies and the state provide.

I've seen all the clear cuts, you can't miss them. As for what timber industry has done to the salmon streams, that's a matter of public record. Science is real clear that the timber industry was and still is a bad actor.

However, keeping it specific to Tillamook Forest, we know the following facts.

1. Coastal salmon streams need temperate rainforest ecology.

2. Temperate rainforest is gone in most salmon stream areas.

3. We need to restore the salmon streams by restoring the forest in the salmon habitats.

4. 3% of Oregon Forests are state forests and we should be able to keep just 3% of Oregon forests from the being chopped down a 2nd time.

5. Tillamook Coalition Plan allows current level of logging to continue so no lost jobs.

Brion

BrionLutz · 06-16-2003, 09:30 PM

AuntyM,

Quote:

I bet some of you just can't wait to lose a mill job for that better, sustainable job at Mickey D's or Motel 6.

Probably be better to look at the Oregon job stats over the last 20 years. Intel, Nike, Columbia Sportswear, Alumaweld, NorthRiver, Luhr-Jensen, GI Joes, Fisherman's. Lot of mfg jobs in that group.

It's interesting how folks without a business background don't know what goes on even in a service business...there's the computer network, the machine mfg. company with its engineers and technicians, the finance dept, construction, utilities.

That's why the RAND and Univ. of Washington studies both concluded that there were more jobs in salmon, tourism, recreation industries than in timber or marginal dams.

Brion

Navigator · 06-16-2003, 09:53 PM

Brian:

Wow. Time out. First off, enjoyed meeting you at the Cedar Creek clean-up on Saturday (I was Jim). So, let' agree that we can disagree and still collectively do some good together.

Second, I never said you were wrong or not being factual on the 3% of state forestland (thank's Diamondback). You must have been good at Dodge ball growing up, I can see that. Here is my (and Diamondback's) point.

State Forestland - 3%
Federal and Private Industrial Forestland - 77%
Non-Industrial Private Forestland - 20%

Total - 100%

My understanding of your post was that you are saying the timber industry does not need the 3% of state forestlands - because they have access to the other 97%. What Diamondback and I are trying to point out - the federal portion of the 77% (which, without having an Oregon Forests Report in front of me is about 50% of the 77%) is basically being managed for non-timber. And please do not snivel (grin) about the logging currently going on federal lands - it is nothing compared to the 80's.

Now, both Diamondback, I (and I take it you) are all in agreement that HB 3632 is a bonehead bill. So, the disagreement is whether the current ODF management plan adopted by the Oregon Board of Forestry is a better choice than the coalition plan (50-50 reserve split) or vice versa.

So, we might be able to continue the discussion if we at least can agree on what we disagree on.

The scary thing about this is that you actually read the Oregon Forests Report for 2003 [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img] .

In a sign of good faith, I will reveal I work for the Oregon Department of Forestry - but not in State Forestlands. I have been following the discussions about the Tillamook long before my employment began at the Department - mostly out of professional and personal interest. My opinions expressed here are my own, made on my own time, with my own resources and are not meant to get myself, my agency or anyone else in trouble.

Prior to coming to the Department, I had the pleasure of working with Charlie Dewberry both on the Knowles Creek project and on a similar project elsewhere. I am curious (because I really do not know) how much the recently adopted anchor habitat strategy by the Department adopts his work. What the Department has adopted sounds very similar - so I think we should get some credit for that (thanks you, Oregon Trout).

You can now begin by lambasting Oregon Trout (grin).

[ 06-16-2003, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: Navigator ]

Mr. Carp · 06-16-2003, 10:01 PM

Northriverman, you are right on the money.

Brion, I do not believe you will be happy until every dam is removed, every tree is saved (translation: All of the logging industry is killed), and everyone is forced out of work because everything remotely related to fish is gone. I am just confused at your motives. It seems like everyone that disagrees with you is wrong in your opinion.

Because of crazy laws that have been made, I can't hardly go out on my own property and cut down a tree that is a hazard or level a low spot in my pasture that has standing water because it might be a wetland. I would just like to know why people would support stuff like that happening???

I am not saying that I want every tree cut down because I don't. I am just saying that some of these rules are a little wacked in my opinion.

[ 06-16-2003, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Carp ]

Navigator · 06-16-2003, 10:18 PM

Straydog:

I read that interpretation (that the Brian is suggesting the Tillamook is the last stand for salmon in Oregon) in the body language in Brian's posts. Now, are you suggesting he is not saying that?

BrionLutz · 06-16-2003, 10:45 PM

Mr. Carp,

Quote:

I am just confused at your motives. It seems like everyone that disagrees with you is wrong in your opinion.

And they are confused too <grin>.

Motives...hmm...are we leaving our kids a better world? Is the air going to cleaner? The water? Will there be more fish and wildlife? Will they have forests and clean beaches and oceans to take their kids too? Will there be good jobs? Will they enjoy the same freedoms we do?

Quite a laundry list of "motives"

Quote:

I would just like to know why people would support stuff like that happening???

Because the air and water are polluted, the salmon are extinct in half their former range and are a shadow of what they once were. The list goes on and on. We've been lousy stewards. Our mode of living is not sustainble and our kids will have to pay for that with diminished lives. It doesn't have to be that way. I at least want to be able to look the kids in the eye and say that I tried to make it better.

Quote:

I am just saying that some of these rules are a little wacked in my opinion.

I've always found it best to stick to specifics vs. vague generalities such as "these rules".

All Oregon State Forests, represent just 3% of total Oregon forestland, it's totally crazy that we can't protect 3% of the land from the narrow profit interest of a couple corporations.

To boot, when we see study after study showing us that economics and biology are all on the side of preserving the Tillamook Forest, what's "wacked" is not building a better future via the sustainable economics that the forest offers vs. chopping it down for the short term gain by a few people.

Brion

Mr. Carp · 06-16-2003, 11:00 PM

Thank You Brion Lutz [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

You have once again answered my question so inderectly that you make everyone scratch their heads and ask a few questions. But, using my "Critical Thinking Skills" that we talked about ever so often in another post, you have proved my question about your motives.

BrionLutz · 06-16-2003, 11:13 PM

Diamondback,

Quote:

I've read Navigators post and can't find anywhere he used the 3% figure, maybe you can use your creative quoting technique to show us.

Sure...read the thread <grin>. I said that State Forests represented 3% of Oregon Forestland.

Navigator said that he was a "forestry professional" and that I was not being "factual".

He was wrong. The 3% percentage is correct.

Brion

BrionLutz · 06-16-2003, 11:21 PM

Navigator,

Quote:

What Diamondback and I are trying to point out - the federal portion of the 77% is basically being managed for non-timber. And please do not snivel (grin) about the logging currently going on federal lands - it is nothing compared to the 80's.

Logging on Federal land is still huge as it is on private land. Saying that Federal land is being managed for "non-timber" would not seem credible considering current headlines about relaxed Federal rules on logging national forests.

The reason for the reductions imposed on the logging industry is the destruction done by the logging of the forests the first time, and in many cases, 2nd time around. The habitat destruction, species extinction, loss of groundwater, loss of national resource, etc.

We still come back to the specifics of Tillamook Forest. With access to Federal and private forest land, why, if they are practicing sustainable forestry do the timber corporations need the remaining 3% of public land? Actually, as you note below, they are even greedier than that...they can't even let 1.5% of the state's forest land for public interest.

Quote:

So, the disagreement is whether the current ODF management plan adopted by the Oregon Board of Forestry is a better choice than the coalition plan (50-50 reserve split) or vice versa.

If you worked with Dewberry then you know the answer...because they are going to kill off the salmon streams in Tillamook forest and kill off better jobs and better environment an intact forest can help provide.

Quote:

I am curious (because I really do not know) how much the recently adopted anchor habitat strategy by the Department adopts his work.

The stat I heard was 17 out of about 100 anchor habitats, not at all what Dewberry proposed as necessary to restore the salmon. There was even some question as to the "science" the ODF used as far as preserving anchor habitats vs. the science that Dewberry provided to them via Knowles Creek etc. In other words, they are not going to do what Dewberry's successful applied research has shown to be necessary to restore the anchor habitats they are going to "protect".

Brion

Straydog · 06-17-2003, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Navigator:
Straydog:

I read that interpretation (that the Brian is suggesting the Tillamook is the last stand for salmon in Oregon) in the body language in Brian's posts. Now, are you suggesting he is not saying that?

One of the hazards of electronic communication.......there is no body language. Well, ok, maybe a little. <grin>

I try to avoid placing the body language albeit very difficult.

Having said that, I interpret Brion's logic as being the Tillamook Forest is, by the nature of salmon bearing streams it incorporates, an intergral part of the west side coastal forests which are indeed an extremely important part of our state's salmon habitat.

Not the last stand, but a very important part of it.

[ 06-17-2003, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Reelentless · 06-17-2003, 05:51 PM

Actually Brion, I know more about the high tech industry then you think. My parents both worked in Silicon Valley. I came to Oregon to study computer science and business. I too, like you, thought 2x4's came from home depot.

A friend got me a job in forestry working summers. I changed my major, and the rest is history.

If you ever open your mind a little and want to talk about forestry issues intelligently, let me know. I wont hold my breath though.

[ 06-18-2003, 07:30 AM: Message edited by: The Fishing Geek ]

Mr. Carp · 06-17-2003, 09:41 PM

Northriverman:

BrionLutz · 06-17-2003, 11:35 PM

Northriverman,

Quote:

If you ever open your mind a little and want to talk about forestry issues intelligently, let me know. I wont hold my breath though.

Did you notice that your message didn't have anything to do with Tillamook forest?

Brion

Paddlefish · 06-18-2003, 09:32 AM

I thought they were ALREADY doing a pretty fair amount of logging the Tillamoon Forest. :shocked:

I hadn't spent too much time down there in the last decade or so, but I spent three days camping along the Wilson River last week with my oldest son. I was amazed at the log truck traffic! I haven't seen that many log trucks -- anywhere, it seems -- in years.

I some areas it's a definite thinning-type operation, where the alders and such have been removed, leaving evenly spaced firs. In other places (one on the south side of the river, not far upstream from Mills Bridge,) it looks more like everybody's favorite creek blower-outer, the big ol' clear cut.

Are we in the parlor debating child rearing while Spanky is out in the kitchen, boosting the silver out the back door?

GutshotApe · 06-18-2003, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paddlefish:
I thought they were ALREADY doing a pretty fair amount of logging the Tillamoon Forest. :shocked:

I some areas it's a definite thinning-type operation, where the alders and such have been removed, leaving evenly spaced firs. In other places (one on the south side of the river, not far upstream from Mills Bridge,) it looks more like everybody's favorite creek blower-outer, the big ol' clear cut.

According to an article by State Rep. Lane Shetterly in today's Oregonian, state-owned forests are producing only 1/3 of what is sustainable...at a significant cost of foregone timber receipts, jobs, and tax revenue.

As for your "creek blower-outers", thinning, while commonly viewed as a desirable substitute harvest method, usually results in a much higher percentage of soil compaction than in a clearcut...which causes rapid surface runoff and erosion. Go back to the clearcut you noticed next fall/winter to assess the effects of the logging on water quality. Other than esthetics, I'm betting you won't find much actual "damage".

BrionLutz · 06-18-2003, 12:03 PM

Mr. Carp,

Quote:

Do you live in a house made of wood???

Interestingly out of recycled wood. The window frames for example are this really cool oak that came from an old downtown bar.

That it's recycled was only accidental...bad for your argument though <grin>.

I'm for a level playing fields not human sacrafice by responsible folks so irresponsible folks can continue their bad habits.

Folks have to live in the world as it is. I don't ask folks to walk to work or live in brick homes etc. but I do think it's fair to ask folks to push for higher mileage standards, for building codes/tax breaks that emphasize more permanent and recyclable material.

For example, in commerical buildings, studs are typically aluminum, not wood as in homes. The aluminum can be recycled into new studs when the building comes down. That is not as practical with wood studs.

We have to be a lot smarter and lot more proactive in using technology. We can't survive going forward chopping down all the forests, paving over all the farmland, damming all the streams.

This is a fishing bulletin board. Looking at salmon restoration, population in PacNW is going to nearly double over the next 10 years. We need to double the number of salmon, just to stay even.

I'd like to see a long term plan to get Salmon back to 50% of the original run, that would be 8 million native fish in the Columbia vs. 2.4 million hatchery and 600,000 native fish currently.

We have to look at building a long term sustainable economy and salmon offer a good base for doing that. Cutting down the Tillamook Forest prevents that for a very long time, providing a very short term profit for a very small group.

The Tillamook/Clatsop forests represent most of the Oregon State forests. It is only 3% of the total forestland in Oregon.

It does not seem unreasonable that we use that small 3% of public land for best, long term public good which is salmon et al.

Brion

GutshotApe · 06-18-2003, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BrionLutz:
It does not seem unreasonable that we use that small 3% of public land for best, long term public good which is salmon et al.
Brion

The deception inherent in the 3% argument is that we already have millions of acres of forested setasides & land use restrictions in Oregon: wilderness areas, late successional reserves, research natural areas and others...including several million acres tied up in riparian setbacks on private forestland. Up to half the forested area by some estimates. Of the forested land in the remainder of Oregon available for multiple uses (including timber harvest), the state-owned forests constitute considerably more than 3%.

And then there's the issue of site quality. To someone who cites studies of old growth forests around Lake Tahoe when discussing the Tillamook State forest, this may be meaningless...but the soils in NW Oregon are the world's best forestry soils...bar none! The Clatsop & Tillamook State forests growth potential quite possibly exceeds the that of all forested lands in Oregon, east of the Cascades, COMBINED!

So, what sounds like a minor, trivial thing..."its only 3%"...is a deception. This 3% is major.

The Tillamook and Clatsop forests can produce both timber and fish...guaranteed. The Rainforest coalition wants all fish and no timber...Rep Shetterly's bill would increase timber production (and basic production jobs, timber receipts and tax revenue) while still adhering to forest practices act water & wildlife protections & reforestation requirements...

Which is the extremist position? :whazzup:

BrionLutz · 06-18-2003, 05:59 PM

GSA,

Quote:

The deception inherent in the 3% argument is that we already have millions of acres of forested setasides & land use restrictions in Oregon.

Then your comments are equally deceptive since many more millions of acres are "set aside" for logging. Add to that the fact that all this land was already logged once.

So the issue still comes down to preserving a very small percentage of forestland, the 3% that represent the state forests, for the public good which is salmon, recreation, tourism, watershed and the associated jobs and businesses.

Quote:

The Tillamook and Clatsop forests can produce both timber and fish...guaranteed. The Rainforest coalition wants all fish and no timber.

You deliberately mistate the facts. 50/50 split is what the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition proposes. It makes your other claims suspect.

Senator Charlie Ringo (District 17, Beaverton) and Rep. Jackie Dingfelder (District 45, Portland) will soon introduce a bill enacting the Tillamook Rainforest proposal in the state legislature. Senate Bill 430 �Directs State Forester to manage 50% of Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests with goal of protecting nonconsumptive uses. Allows State Forester to increase timber harvest to prevent losses in funding to county governments and schools if reductions in forest revenue occur.�

Quote:

Which is the extremist position?

The one that deliberately misstates facts...that would be yours <grin>.

Brion

Straydog · 06-18-2003, 06:01 PM

[quote]Originally posted by GutshotApe:

Quote:

The Rainforest coalition wants all fish and no timber...

Let's talk about factual postions, then tackle extremes.

Does the Rainforest coalition plan call for no timber? :whazzup:

GutshotApe · 06-18-2003, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BrionLutz:
It does not seem unreasonable that we use that small 3% of public land for best, long term public good which is salmon et al.
Brion

OK...I mis-typed. Sorry. Brion Lutz, not the Rainforest Coalition, wants all the Tillamook State Forest (and the Clatsop, too?) set aside for salmon and wants no logging...at all. The Rainforest interest group wants "only half" of the forest set aside...except that's half of what's left after very generous and effective fish & wildlife buffer strips & withdrawals have already been removed from the equation.

Where was the Rainforest Coalition during the 6 years the Tillamook plan painfully compromised and evolved?

Rep. Lane Shetterly is right...read his piece in today's Oregonian op-ed page. The Tillamook Forest could sustain a lot more timber harvesting...and provide a lot more jobs, timber receipts and tax revenue*...while still producing healthy and abundant salmon runs.

*Edit: And a lot more high quality deer & elk habitat i.e. clearcuts.

[ 06-18-2003, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: GutshotApe ]

Navigator · 06-18-2003, 09:23 PM

Brion - You and I disagree - let's leave it at that. I found Charlie Dewberry very cognizant and willing to work with the landowner's objectives - which really is key judging forest management. As for context - the Tillamook and Clatsop State forests are a big part of Tillamook and Clatsop counties. Enough said.

GutshopApe -- The reason why I do not like Representative Shetterly's bill is because I feel that it is appropriate for state forestlands to have different objectives than industrial forestlands. The Oregon Forest Practices Act provides basic resource protection for the purpose of furthering the growing and harvesting of trees for commodity uses. The Board adopted a different objective for state forestlands - where these lands would provide a mix of environmental (i.e., owls, murrelets and salmon), economic (timber) and social (recreation) values. The active management approach (as opposed to the reserved based system on federal lands) subscribed by the Board in good faith delivers to the county the revenue promise these lands were deeded to the state for.

While I see why Shetterly's bill got traction - our original harvest projections are not being met in implementation plans, the economy is in the tank and so on - I just feel it is too early to give up on the Board's design.

Having said that, Shetterly's bill, the current ODF plan and even the federal forest management (previous or current) - there is really no right or wrong here with respect to sustainability. The discussion is about what we want to sustain and the roles of the various landowner groups in sustaining it. That discussion was going on 100 years ago and will be going on 100 years hence.

GutshotApe · 06-18-2003, 09:31 PM

Navigator - I agree 100%. The Tillamook Forest Plan is a good compromise intended to provide multiple uses and multiple benefits. I don't really support Rep.Shetterly's bill...but he's right that harvests could be increased on state lands. I see the bill more as a response to the voices now calling for even further reductions in timber harvest on state-owned lands...I doubt if it makes it thru both houses intact or past the governor's veto...but, I've been wrong before trying topredict a bill's chances in Salem.

BrionLutz · 06-18-2003, 09:49 PM

GSA,

Quote:

I mis-typed.

Well...you got caught misstating the facts...is that the same as "mis-typing" <grin>.

Quote:

except that's half of what's left after very generous and effective fish & wildlife buffer strips & withdrawals have already been removed from the equation.

Whoops...back into your bad habit of misstating the facts again...redicivism is such a problem today...tsk, tsk.

Creating the buffers for the anchor salmon habitat, watershed, recreation and tourism jobs is the 50%.

Quote:

Rep. Lane Shetterly is right...read his piece in today's Oregonian op-ed page. The Tillamook Forest could sustain a lot more timber harvesting.

But the salmon and the forest would die and we'd have fewer jobs. I think we need to discount the timber politician's "expertise" and stick with the scientists like Prof. Dewberry.

<a href="http://www.inforain.org/mapsatwork/anchorhabitats/anchors_page2.htm" target="_blank">Basic premises:

1) If a stream can only produce a few young salmon each year, than no matter what else happens during the life cycle of the fish, they won't return in economically viable numbers.

2) As the watershed habitat is degraded, salmon populations are pushed toward the headwaters of the stream. Not all parts of the landscape have equal value for salmon. These small headwater streams can't produce many salmon. Habitat is limited, they are more susceptible to landslide and debris, and they are not the most productive part of the watershed. This is particularly true for coho.

3) Salmon populations that can't move upstream become restricted to limited areas of the basin. This is particularly true for chum and chinook. As the distribution shrinks, each area that continues to support salmon becomes increasingly vital to their survival.

4) Given that many salmon species in the Tillamook and Clatsop region are at five percent or less of their historic abundance, protecting the areas that continue to support juvenile salmon is critical to their persistence in the basin. We must protect the dwindling areas where salmon reproduce.

5) Restoring downstream productivity is critical to salmon recovery. Historically, the lower portions of the streams were the most productive. If state salmon recovery objectives of achieving economically viable numbers are to be met, these areas must begin producing salmon again.

6) Recovery of the lowland areas downstream starts upstream. If upstream reaches are in poor condition, the cumulative effects will be felt downstream. So recovery has to start upstream.

</a>

Brion

crabbait · 06-18-2003, 09:58 PM

Brion - Recidivism.

I corrected Brion, I corrected Brion, I corrected Brion!! Nah ne nah ne nah ne!!

Sorry folks, but these opportunities happen so rarely that you have to jump on them when you can. :grin: <grin> :grin:

BrionLutz · 06-18-2003, 09:59 PM

Navigator,

Quote:

Brion - You and I disagree - let's leave it at that.

Uh..no...you disagree with Dr. Dewberry and the scientific results of his work restoring salmon in the coastal rainforests.

Management within anchor habitat areas is aimed at restoring watershed function, old-growth characteristics on the uplands, and recovering more natural sediment and organic matter movement in the watershed. Forest management in an anchor habitat is limited to activities that speed recovery. Upland management is targeted to reduce erosion in the anchor habitat. Roads should be evaluated and those not needed decommissioned. Road crossing and culverts should be upgraded to handle 100-year storm events without failing.

Brion

BrionLutz · 06-18-2003, 10:04 PM

crabbait,

Quote:

I corrected Brion, I corrected Brion, I corrected Brion!! Nah ne nah ne nah ne!!

Hey..don't get cocky...when you guys get a spellchecker you can get uppity.

Brion

GutshotApe · 06-18-2003, 10:05 PM

Rep. Shetterly is a "timber politician"? That's a good one.

As for listening to "Professor" Dewberry...no thanks. He has anti-forestry biases...unless he's changed his politics since I met and heard him speak 8 yrs ago (back before he got the PhD, I guess, when he was just plain ol' Charlie). I base this opinion on a presentation he made to the Siuslaw Basin Plan ODFW/Public Steering Committee (I was a member)...and from side conversations I had with him...about the Knowles Creek study and its implications.

BrionLutz · 06-18-2003, 10:08 PM

GSA,

Quote:

(back before he got the PhD, I guess, when he was just plain ol' Charlie).

Aren't we all.

Brion

garyk · 06-18-2003, 10:54 PM

Well here we go again....

"According to an article by State Rep. Lane Shetterly in today's Oregonian, state-owned forests are producing only 1/3 of what is sustainable..."

That's a bit deceptive, actually it's a big lie.

Shetterly's "sustainable" is merely based on cutting timber according to the volume grown each year.

All other values (like fish, water flows, recreation, bio-diversity) are ignored or greatly subordinated to their detriment - and contrary to state law.

Sure, if you want to put the whole Tillamook forest on a 40 year rotation and say to-hell with everything else, you could cut a lot more. But that's not what we want or need.

BrionLutz · 06-18-2003, 11:29 PM

Paddlefish,

Quote:

I thought they were ALREADY doing a pretty fair amount of logging the Tillamoon Forest.

A huge amount of logging is going on in the Tillamook Forest, 150 million board feet per year . The logging companies have failed to manage their own land and now need to go after the Tillamook Forest and strip public land at an even greater rate.

There's little doubt that it would be in the public interest to set aside 50% of the Tillamook Forest for public interest with the focus on preserving the salmon anchor habitats which produces more jobs via fishing, recreation, tourism and related industries plus watershed/watersupply for homes and businesses.

The IPs predict average annual harvest levels of 175 million board feet from the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests between 2001 and 2010, a 16.1 percent increase over the 151.6 million board feet average annual harvest in 1999 and 2000 (ODF 2002c). The fifty-percent reserve alternative management approach is predicted to result in harvest levels from the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests of 112.6 million board feet per year for the next twenty years � higher than average harvests before 1999, but below projections based on the current FMP.

Brion

Mr. Carp · 06-18-2003, 11:33 PM

Brion, Do you live in a house made of wood???

If you do, wouldn't that be a conflict of interest??? That wouldn't be any good.

They have glass houses, but you throw a lot of stones, so that wouldn't be good either.

Straydog · 06-19-2003, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by garyk:
Well here we go again....

"According to an article by State Rep. Lane Shetterly in today's Oregonian, state-owned forests are producing only 1/3 of what is sustainable..."

That's a bit deceptive, actually it's a big lie.

Gary,

You are not paying attention!! That is a "mis-type", not a lie! :shocked:

It appears our two self proclaimed forestry experts do not agree on the credibilty of good ol Charlie or Dr. Dewberry. (you decide what you want to call him) And they wonder why those of us that have noticed and do care about the past destructive behaviour are skeptical??? :whazzup:

GutshotApe · 06-19-2003, 08:33 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Straydog:

Quote:

behaviour

"Behaviour"??? I knew there was something strange about you, Straydoggie....you're Canadian! And your buddy Lutz is from Jersey!!!

That explains a lot.