Clearcuts

[GutshotApe]

This thread doesn't address whether or not we should log. For discussion purposes, take it as a given that on private forestlands, at least, continued production of crops of timber will be the dominant land use now and in the future. The question is "Why clearcut"? And, if clearcutting happens, how much streamside protection is needed. I contend clearcutting is necessary to maintain a semblance of natural conditions while allowing economic commodity production on commercial forest lands...and that the state Forest Practices Act provides adequate fish habitat protection.

Here is a photo I made today showing a 5-yr-old clearcut...maybe 50 acres in size...along Wolf Creek, a major upper Siuslaw River trib. Wolf Creek runs along the entire lower edge of the clearcut from one side of the picture to the other...but is invisible because of the ample buffer strip of trees & brush left for water quality protection. Why would a 200' or 1320' no-touch buffer make sense? What would be gained for fish habitat? A 1320' buffer (1/4 mile, as suggested) wouldn't leave much if anything to log in this case because of the creek's meandering.



Clearcutting the area produced the maximum amount of harvested wood...provided good paying jobs, raw material for lumber & paper, and generated a lot of tax revenue to support govt. The slash was burned...mimicking natural processes. The land was replanted with native tree species...Douglas-fir...which would have been the species to reoccupy the site if natural reseeding had been relied on (would take much longer, however). This new forest began growing within a year of harvest and will grow rapidly for 50 to 60 more years before the cycle is repeated.

The area opposite the clearcut, across the creek, was logged and replanted about 20 years ago...by my crews :smile: ...and looks like we did a good job!

Not only did the timber company leave a nice buffer strip but they used their heavy equipment to place large woody debris directly into Wolf Creek improving fish habitat immediately. Here's a photo showing two boulder weirs with some LWD put there by the timber company. Wolf Creek flows thru a checkerboard of BLM and timber company land and over the past 10 years they have cooperated to place boulders, logs, rootwads and other LWD in many, many places up & down Wolf Creek...and other streams, too. I'm not surprised the wild coho are rebounding.



[ 07-27-2003, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: GutshotApe ]

[TheRogue]

Beautiful clearcut!!!

That's why we've had such great hunting on the coast over the years, and why the animals are disappearing now.....along with the clearcuts.

good post.

TR

[GutshotApe]

This picture (DBD - You've created a monster!) shows the mountain above the town of Noti 20 miles west of Eugene. Back in 1977 the outfit I worked for clearcut 160 acres of old growth...you can see there is still a patch of BLM oldgrowth at the top of the hill...but below that is the 160 acres that were cut. The logging yielded about 50,000 bd.ft per acre. We replanted with Doug-fir and in 1979, to control competing brush, I supervised one of the last forest herbicide application made in Oregon using 2,4,5-T (a component of Agent Orange) on this unit. I can remember it clearly...stumps, slash (no burn...too close to town) and brush...ugly. For the following 10-12 years the hillside was a great deer hunting spot. Then the new forest canopy closed...and now it provides less deer habitat and more spotted owl (foraging) and other forest bird habitat. When the new forest matures in about 2030 it will be clearcut again and the expected yield will be about 50,000 bd.ft/acre...the same as the old growth yielded...and the same or maybe a little more volume per acre than remains in the BLM old growth still standing (due to stand deterioration).

You couldn't come close to 50,000 bdft/acre in that time by practicing selective cutting...even if you could do it on those steep slopes.



[ 07-27-2003, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: GutshotApe ]

[2LEYS]

Unless we want to stop fighting forest fires then clearcutting is absolutetly nessesary.

Forest fires are natures way of clearing out the garbage from the forest floor. Clearcutting has replaced forest fires. They now create the meadows and clearings that forest fires used to create.

In the last twenty years forest fires have increased while clear cutting has dropped along with the deer and elk populations. The forest is too thick for these animals to roam and IMHO makes them easy prey for cougars and other predators that rely on ambush.

Although the timber industry was probably mismanaging the forests 50 years ago that is no longer the case. The forests are now being managed properly (except for the areas that can't be logged) and will continue to be managed until the hippies send all the timber companies to Canada. Then we will have raging infernos all over the west every year. Then the government will pay Canada to send us some loggers to thin out the forests rather than making money of timber revenue.

I think clearcuts are ugly, and don't like to see them from the road. I would like to see them up in the mountains a ways. But as long as they are cleaned up and replanted they are a very useful forest management tool.

[Straydog]

Here's a real beauty for you too!

Where's the reprod????


Or this breath stealing shot!

Another purty one....

And one more for good measure..


Third one's a real charmer.........

But heck, outta sight, outta mind, huh?

[ 07-27-2003, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[GutshotApe]

SDog -

And your point is.....? :whazzup:

1. The reprod either hasn't been planted yet...that looks like a very fresh rehab/salvage-type logging job...or the trees have just recently been planted. It takes a couple three years before you can see seedlings from that distance.

2. The creek is a seasonal creek without fish...note small falls, lack of riparian vegetation...wintertime photo... In the coast range and western cascades, no tree retention is required along small non-fishbearing streams...under Oregon's FPA. Most of these streams still flowing during summer are well shaded by brush so there is no need for a tree buffer.

3. Where & when was that photo shot? Looks like Washington.

4. Do you have another of the same location 5 or 10 years later? You probably wouldn't recognize the place.

Don't worry Straydog...Weyco or whoever didn't go to the trouble of logging and scarifying that ground not to then plant it. Reforestation is a good investment. It was planted...count on it.

Edit: The above applies to your first pic. Then you added 2 & 3.

2. That is a road-related slide...not pretty but what's the damage?

3. Yup...an "in-unit" slide...possibly caused by the logging...but also possibly 100% natural and would have happened anyway. An Oregon Dept of Forestry study showed a high frequency of natural slides in unlogged areas. Next time you drive thru Mapleton check out the slide directly across the river behind the old USFS ranger station building. Old growth timber...never logged...but there's a good sized mudslide starting near the top and running all the way to the river.

Again, though, what is the actual damage in picture 3? The creek immediately below the landing most likely is non-fishbearing...and the mud & silt will tend to settle out as it moves down...only fine silt will reach the fish-bearing stream below. And, while not desirable, a certain amount of silt is normal in coastal streams and wild fish eggs in redds are adapted to surviving moderate, even heavy-appearing amounts of siltation.

[ 07-27-2003, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: GutshotApe ]

[2LEYS]

Stray Dog, that looks like a shot out of the pamphlet to outlaw logging. The ones from back east. Where the "experts" on NW forest management live. Where are the pictures of the dead spotted owls?

Look at the small vegatation growing. Lots of deer and elk browse.

Do you have a better idea of how to manage the forests? How about starting some fires. That is a more sensible alternative. Let nature take its course.

Sure they are ugly but they are also nessasary. What about dams? they are big and ugly. They are nessasarry though. Without them we wouldn't have electricity. Oh we could go to windpower. But windmills are ugly too. And no trees can grow around a windmill. We could go to fossil fuel power but the plants are big and ugly and they polute. Nuclear? The plants are big and ugly and could polute.

Man is here to stay and due to centuries of mismanaging we are now stuck with managing our enviornment.

[ 07-27-2003, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: 2LEYS ]

[freespool]

GSA. Your just kidding us right? You are the master spin doctor. So just a couple years and presto all better? Clear cuts don't cause land slides? So sense we don't have a degree in foresty what we think we see isn't what we really see. Sir if there was one thing I learned at OSU, it's this. If it quacks like a duck,walks like a duck,smells like a duck,it's a duck.

[ 07-28-2003, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[BrionLutz]

2LEYS:

Unless we want to stop fighting forest fires then clearcutting is absolutetly nessesary.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Not even the pro-timber industry forest service puts out that kind of howler.

Clear cutting imitates....clear cutting. Nothing natural about it, nothing good comes of it for anyone but the timber company's financial investors.

As Weyerhauser noted, clear cutting is the only economically viable way to log. That's it's only purpose.

Clearcutting has replaced forest fires.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Nope but the results of clear cutting have created the unnatural environment that has lead to the problem fires.

Interesting results in the recent Lassan forest fires. They used thinning (not clear cutting) to get rid of the younger trees and then burned over the forest.

That technique worked in stopping the recent fires.

No clear cutting and the technique is not really useful for the timber companies since it only cuts down the smaller trees but it is useful for restoring the forests that have been logged.

Brion

[2LEYS]

I don't think he said there wasn't a slide. And I don't think he said that clearcuts don't cause slides. All he said was that it could be natural and could of happened anyways.

And yes, wait a couple of years and presto all better. It is called "growing back". It really isn't much more complicated than that. TREES GROW BACK!!! How fo you think they got there in the first place.

I want all the anti loggers/clearcutters to give a better way of managing the forests.

[ 07-27-2003, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: 2LEYS ]

[Mr. Carp]

freespool, I disagree.
Everything GSA has posted has been relevant to this situation so far IMHO. He responded to Straydog's post and gave an honest and truthful response. I don't know what your agenda is, but you might eludicate.

[ 07-28-2003, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[2LEYS]

Brion, have you ever been in a forest? I am not talking a park in Portland, I am talking up in the forests were there are no starbucks or birkenstocks.

THe forests are so thick that you cannot walk through most of it. The only places to walk are places that have been logged in the last 20 years. It is dry and nasty and waiting to burn. Please go to the forest some time before you pipe up. But be careful there are cougars up there &lt;grin&gt;

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by BrionLutz:
Interesting results in the recent Lassan forest fires. They used thinning (not clear cutting) to get rid of the younger trees and then burned over the forest.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">There you go again, Brion.

You can't make valid comparisons between what may work in the eastside-type pine forests of the Mt.Lassen area of California...and with the Douglas-fir Region of western Oregon/SW Washington. Apples & Oranges.

[Straydog]

Secondary streams are an important part of fish habitat and do need protection. A large downfall of FPA.

Silt does happen naturally, does that mean we should create more?
:whazzup:
Slides do happen naturally, does that mean we should create more?

So does fire, so by your spin, what's the big deal? Let's make more, it is ok, according to GSA.

Those photos are all from the Cascades and Coast range. For every "pretty" one you choose to show I bet I can find at least one ugly one. I am not saying there has never been a clearcut of value, I am saying that for every "good" one I bet there ist at least one ugly (and ecologicaly harmful) one.

As I have told GSA repeatidly, I have lived my whole life observing these travisties and much of the last five years helping to find funding to fix them, it is a huge problem and we are spending millions of tax payer dollars to fix them.

Oh, by the way, Carp, I was living in the forest before you were born, sorry to blow your "you must live in the city" theory. Something tells me Freespool and Brion have a bit of woods experience as well.

[ 07-28-2003, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[Straydog]

Originally posted by 2LEYS:
What about dams? they are big and ugly. They are nessasarry though.

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

Like clearcuts, some are, most are not. They, like clearcuts, are only there for economic reasons, not neccesity.

Ever heard of Elk Cr., Marmot, Gold Ray, Savage Rapids, Bear Cr., Jackson Cr. or Elwha? The list goes on and on and on of unneccsary dams, many of which, at taxpayer expense, will eventually be gone.......

[Straydog]

Originally posted by 2LEYS:

THe forests are so thick that you cannot walk through most of it. The only places to walk are places that have been logged in the last 20 years. It is dry and nasty and waiting to burn.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yup, past logging and the supression of fire to protect the timber indsutry has created one heck of a mess and it is costing us millions to deal with it and will cost us billions before it is over.

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Straydog:
Secondary streams are an important part of fish habitat and do need protection. A large downfall of FPA.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Trouble is, Straydog, your "protection" translates to "no-touch leave it alone". Small, seasonal non-fishbearing streams don't need protection in the form of no-touch timber buffers...which, in the coast range, would mean the end of virtually all timber harvesting.

Silt does happen naturally, does that mean we should create more?

Slides do happen naturally, does that mean we should create more?

So does fire, so by your spin, what's the big deal? Let's make more, it is ok, according to GSA.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">There are tradeoffs in any human endeavor...logging or sport fishing, for instance. Forest mgmt has huge societal benefits and, done right, little real cost to the environment. On the other hand, while most anglers are law abiding, many are not. Some cheat & poach...so should we condemn all sport anglers because of the 10% who are sociopaths? Ban fishing? And remember, poacher or not, anglers are out to directly kill fish...while that little in-unit slide in your pic #3 ain't pretty, just how many fish did it kill? How many fewer fish did the commercial & sport fishers get because of that one slide vs. the economic benefits to society from the timber harvest?

Those photos are all from the Cascades and Coast range. For every "pretty" one you choose to show I bet I can find at least one ugly one.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I'll bet you can't...When were your 3 pictures made? Where, exactly? Just how representative of the norm do you claim they are? And, other than not looking really great (temporarily), what's the actual damage to natural resources?

....I have lived my whole life observing these travisties and much of the last five years helping to find funding to fix them, it is a huge problem and we are spending millions of tax payer dollars to fix them.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Travesties? I disagree. How much of the last 5 yrs? Doing what? How many taxpayer dollars did you find? And what, pray tell, does "fix them" mean. :whazzup:

Oh, by the way, Carp, I was living in the forest before you were born, sorry to blow your "you must live in the city" theory.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You may have lived "in the forest", whatever that means (you weren't in downtown Grass Pants?), but you don't seem to know much about forestry, forest management, or forest ecology...its obvious you have had no formal training nor have you read any serious books about the subject...

Your position seems to be one that demands absolute purity from the "other guy"...you are opposed to logging because of perceived environmental damage that may or may not translate to fewer fish...even though the majority of forestry operations are benign. I don't see or hear of any comparable effort to clean up your own industry.

[ 07-28-2003, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[Tilla]

This is just turning our forests into one homogeneous cornfield. There is more to life than Doug Fir. And they think they are doing us a favor by suppressing other native species. I for one do not think a reprod forest looks anything close to natural. It cuts short the natural growing processes including animal forage, the deer and elk have a little time before the fir crowds out the food.
I feel that people are entitled to make money. Cut what you want to cut. But they are flat out lying to us about the benefits. No wonder the people have figured out what a crummy job they have done as "stewards of the forest".

[Jennie@ifish]

Target the topic, not the person.
You will be edited if you don't follow these rules.

Also, having a personal e mail discussion with someone, we brought up this issue:

When discussing a heated topic, try to avoid the word "you". If YOU are repeatedly using that word to explain your viewpoint, YOU are targeting the person.

:smile:
Jen

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Tilla:
This is just turning our forests into one homogeneous cornfield....I for one do not think a reprod forest looks anything close to natural. It cuts short the natural growing processes including animal forage, the deer and elk have a little time before the fir crowds out the food.
I feel that people are entitled to make money. Cut what you want to cut. But they are flat out lying to us about the benefits.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Nobody ever claimed (at least I haven't) that forest management for timber production imitates natural forest successional processes, exactly. I have said that clearcut/burn forestry COMES CLOSEST to mimicking the natural processes our west-side forests evolved under.

It takes several hundred years for forests to fully mature...for all the subordinate tree and shrub and forbes and fungi etc, etc, etc, to fully develop. Old forests provide ecological values of a type not found in forests of commercial 55 or 60 year rotations... Fortunately, we have millions of acres in Oregon forever setaside as unmanaged forest.

But timber plantations do mimic natural processes to a large degree. Mono-cultures of young Douglas-fir ARE natural. Intensively managed second-growth forests essentially follow normal forest development for 55-60 years but then are cut & replanted to do it again and again and again...as a crop. By adhering to the revised logging rules we can have forest management AND healthy fish runs.

Yup...there are tradeoffs...but on balance, the benefits of forest management (economic) far outweigh any negatives (environmental).

But, the topic of this thread isn't about whether to manage forests or not...some forests will be managed and some won't be. Instead, its about whether in managed forests clearcutting is a reasonable practice and whether the FPA provides adequate fish habitat protection.

The pictures I posted are of clearcuts that have been properly reforested, have adequate buffer strips, and where the loggers went beyond the call of duty and improved instream fish habitat. Those photos were shot yesterday in the local area...they weren't the only "good" examples I could find and I didn't dig them from Weyco's PR firm, either. They're just areas that I passed while out for a cruise in the woods...areas that I'm familiar with.

If anyone wants to post photos "proving" clearcut logging is bad, please provide the date & location of the picture (in order to evaluate the relevance of the event depicted vs. the forest laws & rules in effect at the time & place). In other words, don't post an old shot of a landslide or skinny/nonexistant buffer from 1956...or from some other state or country that still have lax or no regulations.

[Straydog]

GSA,

The bad clearcuts shown were an attempt to illustrate that just as there are good, beneficial clearcuts there are also bad, environmentally destructive clear cuts.As with most issues, nothing, in most people's world, is black and white.... They were not an attempt to "prove" all clearcuts are bad.



[ 07-28-2003, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Gus Orviston]

Regardless, I should be notified of all clearcuts, so I can inspect them and determine the best way to defend them against deer. Deer are bad for things that grow in clear cuts and should they should be stopped from continueing thier destructive behavior against said defenseless clear cuts. :grin:

gus

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Straydog:
GSA,

The bad clearcuts shown were an attempt to illustrate that just as there are good, beneficial clearcuts there are also bad, environmentally destructive clear cuts.As with most issues, nothing, in most people's world, is black and white.... They were not an attempt to "prove" all clearcuts are bad.

I am sorry not all logging and clearcuts are or were good. I understand that goes against your grain but it is just as true, regardless.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Boy, its tough to respond when you edit out then insert whole new paragraphs, SDog.

You still haven't posted the date & place of your photos. And you haven't done anything to make a case against clearcutting other than some of 'em aren't gonna win any beauty prizes...for the first few years, at least.

I started this thread and ask that you stick to the topic and PLEASE provide supporting information when posting pictures that purport to make some point.

As for what goes "against my grain", you don't really know.

[Tilla]

GSA-
I don't think it takes a hundreds of years for forests to mature. Whatever a mature forest is. That sounds like preservationist/enviromentalist talk. Don't give them the feul, they think it all should last forever and our trees should be as old as the earth! Sorry, no such thing, it is a cycle. Either clearcut or fire. Depending on the forest 50-125 yrs before it's ready to be recycled (and no, I am not going to the library to dig up those facts)
There is some argument about clearcutting providing all the benefits of fire. There are chemical/fertilizing factors that are lacking in clearcutting. We do not have the generations of data to prove anything.
But, I am interested in seeing a naturally occuring Doug Fir monoculture of any significance. I would be interested in that.

[C-lice]

Re: clearcutting--I believe that there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. The wrong way, I believe, CAN BE bad for the environment. The right way, which I believe is more frequently done today, is USUALLY not bad for the environment.

When I was in college, I worked summers for the Forest Circus out of the North Umpqua Ranger District office as a Fuels Inventory Surveyor (FIS). My job was to survey logged units (most of which were clearcuts) to see how best to prepare them for planting. This idea sounds wonderful and responsible, but I believe it caused problems.

Here's a typical FIS cycle:
1.) Log the unit
2.) A year or more later, do initial FIS which will determine whether to broadcast burn the unit or hand-pile the slash and burn the piles. This decision is based on the slope, the amount of various kinds/sizes of fuels, accessibility, etc.
3.) Next burning season (often the following winter or later) broadcast burn the unit or burn the slash piles made the previous year.
4.) The following summer (at the earliest) do a new FIS on the burned unit. Often, given the rate of growth of the vine maple, Rhodies, etc, the unit will have to be burned again the following burn season. Repeat as necessary.
5.) Once the FIS shows that the unit is prepared for re-planting, various studies are conducted to determine which species, density, etc should be re-planted.
6.) Re-plant the unit.

The problem here is that it sometimes took 7 years to go from clearcut to re-planted unit.

I hunt on a lot of Weyerhaeuser ground. When they clearcut they go from clearcut to re-planted as soon as they can, it seems--time is money. The faster the trees are in the ground and growing, the better. This works from a profit perspective, but I believe it is also better for the area which was cut. The company may be re-planting mucho pronto in order to realize more profits, but the environmmmental impact winds up being lessened.

I am by no means a forester, it seems to me that getting trees in the ground faster is better. Things like FIS seem only to make it more likely that there will be slides, burns that jump the lines, traffic from workers going to/from the unit, etc. This just seems like common sense. Maybe a law which requires trees to be in the ground within a certain time frame after harvest would be a good idea. Maybe there already is one--I don't know.

[Tilla]

This would infer that nature is too old to take care of itself after thousands of years. Again we are turning hillsides into cornfields.
I think that every region has a progression of vegetation/animal recovery after a fire/clearcut. Wait until someone starts screaming about some endangered species! (fire is a germination mechanism for some species)
My point is that some consideration should be made to provide balanced diversity.

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by C-lice:
I am by no means a forester, it seems to me that getting trees in the ground faster is better.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well, you qualify for honorary forester status in my book. I was a forester and you have it right...the faster you can get the trees planted after harvest the better...usually. When the logged units could be planted without burning, we got the trees planted in a year or less...sometimes within weeks. Problems with brush invariably developed, requiring extra herbicide use, and limiting planting spots when you held a unit over in coastal areas for very long.


Posted by Tilla

My point is that some consideration should be made to provide balanced diversity.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">We have millions of acres of forests set aside in various designations that will be unmanaged...with the full scope of natural diversity.

But on the managed areas...commercial timberland...it makes sense to use the species & silvicultural methods that mimic a naturally seeded burn...or a windthrow area...and in western Oregon this means Douglas-fir. The USFS growth & yield tables considers "normal" natural young Douglas-fir stands to be virtually pure DFir stands. On the coastal strip regeneration with hemlock, cedar and spruce is appropriate... But the objective of private timberlands and public lands managed for timber is efficient,as-natural-as-possible timber production, most lands outside riparian zones should be managed under clearcut/burn/plant scenarios. There can be a fair amount of diversity created within those regimes by varying rotation age, planting densities, etc, etc.

[freespool]

Mr.Carp, My agenda is as follows: I will question any and all who would not put fish and fish habitat first. In my world fish come first and formost. I feel the fish have taken a backseat for far to long and now it's time to pay them back. These are a hardy and resiliant species,but why do we stress them so much? Money,jobs,a way of life? Fish don't have lobbyists that can influence law makers like special interests.I'm also a realist and know logging and yes clear cuts to some degree are nessary for obvious reasons.They can be done with harm to the environment kept to a minimum.However I feel the stream buffer is way to small. We're talking about clear cutting a section above a stream, on steep terrain,leaving a 20 ft. buffer with most big trees removed and calling it good. Bear in mind alot of the coast range recives 90in. of rain or more a year. Only the streams deemed fish bearing have any buffer protection at all. Now here comes the 90in. of percipitation from the clear cut. Does anyone really beleive that 20ft of basically alder,vine maple and sallal is going to stop much of anything? All the stumps,logs and manmade things in the world will simply wash away like it did in the '96 flood event. It takes large mature trees in the buffer area to fall naturally and stay anchored in place. So why not larger perminant buffers with no high grade? Natural large woody debris,what a concept,and over time they would become quite an impressive site. Loggers logging and fish spawning,what could be better?

[STGRule]

As requested I edited a few of the early posts. The later ones have been respectful for the most part and are appreciated.

[Fish Hawg]

[ 07-28-2003, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: Quick Fisher ]

[Mr. Carp]

Originally posted by Straydog:

Oh, by the way, Carp, I was living in the forest before you were born, sorry to blow your "you must live in the city" theory. Something tells me Freespool and Brion have a bit of woods experience as well.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Straydog, I did a horrible job of using punctuation in that paragraph and was not directing it toward you. It was all meant to be directed at freespool. We have talked before and I know a little of your background so I know not to say something like that. You have said you have some background.

freespool, I agree with what you are saying, but sometimes people come across like they want to close the forest permanently. That is not the answer and I probably misinterpereted your stance somewhat.

[Straydog]

Carp,

I get it............. no problem.

Thanks. :smile:

[Reelentless]

Those photos are all from the Cascades and Coast range. For every "pretty" one you choose to show I bet I can find at least one ugly one. I am not saying there has never been a clearcut of value, I am saying that for every "good" one I bet there ist at least one ugly (and ecologicaly harmful) one.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I bet not. According to ODF, audits indicate that compliance with the Forest Practices Act is 86%. Most non-compliance is with small land owners, i.e. "farmer patches".

Clear cutting imitates....clear cutting. Nothing natural about it...

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Sure there is. A clear cut is an area where most of the trees are removed. Using that definition, an intense wildfire, wind storm, bug infestation, volcanic eruption, the list goes on and on, can be called a "clear cut" but usually occurs on a much larger scale.

Thats why its so important to keep it on a small scale where its controlled and does no harm to the environment...unlike a large wildfire for example.

This is just turning our forests into one homogeneous cornfield. There is more to life than Doug Fir.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">We've learned from history that it's important to plant native species back. Most timber companies replant the same percentage of species type that was removed in the harvest. In fact, if companies are SFI certified, http://goodforests.com/ they are required to.

The problem here is that it sometimes took 7 years to go from clearcut to re-planted unit.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">It takes the USFS 7 years to decide whats for lunch. Thats a current problem that President Bush hopes to improve.

ODF requires a unit to be replanted within 2 years. Most units at Weyerhaeuser are replanted within 1 year. It makes a lot of sense both biologically and economically.

I will question any and all who would not put fish and fish habitat first.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">As would most people who make a living working in the woods. We are in it for the long run. Some timber companies have been around 100 years. We are well aware of our responsibility to ensure all of our natural resources are protected. If we plan to be around another 100 years, which we do, its very prudent to do so.

[crabbait]

Northriverman - That makes sense. The problem I have had with clearcuts in the past have to do with the enormous size of the clearcut (private timber land), the devastation regardless of grade and resulting slides and siltation.

I know that new practices address most of these issues. I also know that wildlife need the feed that clearcuts or partial cuts produce.

There have got to be compromises that allow for the harvest of timber with minimal negative impacts. I especially like the thought that replantings are of diverse species that more naturally reflect a true forest rather than a "tree farm".

Is anything being done about "thinnings" and the impassable mess they create? I have been in places that you cannot reach the ground for the fallen "thinned" trees. Nothing is leaving a track in that stuff!

[BrionLutz]

2LEYS,

I am talking up in the forests were there are no starbucks or birkenstocks.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You need to start talking about Oregon in particular and Pacific Northwest forests in general.

You had made the claim that clear cutting imitiated nature and this is utter bunk that not even the pro-timber US Forest Service puts out.

Brion

[ 07-29-2003, 12:47 AM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]

[BrionLutz]

Northriverman,

A clear cut is an area where most of the trees are removed.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Close...clear cutting is an entirely artifical, mechanical manmade process of stripping a forest of trees and destroying it.

Nothing natural about it.

Brion

[2LEYS]

And anyone who drives their vehicle up a mountain road or even the freeway is condoning the same thing. Why is it ok to do whatever we want anywhere except the mountains?

[Straydog]

Originally posted by 2LEYS:
And anyone who drives their vehicle up a mountain road or even the freeway is condoning the same thing. Why is it ok to do whatever we want anywhere except the mountains?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">It is not ok, but realizing which areas and what activities we can limit without too much harm to people or places is not only "ok", it just makes sense. It does not have to be all or nothing, either/or....

Can or should we remove I-5 and return it to it's natural state? Of course not. Can or should we decommission and obliterate all mountain roads? No.
But that does not mean we can and should not concentrate on those areas and activities that we can sensibly control or protect and enhance without bringing about undue harm.

[tag-a-long]

Sorry, I can't hear you, my saw is running...

Who really knows what a "natural forrest" looks like? Anyone Time travel? You can get nowhere that others haven't been. Don't log it out. Let it burn and the loggers will be in there clearing salvage lots like the pics Straydog put up.
Or keep bringing in logs from Canada. Yeah, thats where our money should go when we want to build a home. Or maybe we should just build out of concrete...

Aw the heck with it..

[Straydog]

Originally posted by tag-a-long:

Or keep bringing in logs from Canada. Yeah, thats where our money should go when we want to build a home. Or maybe we should just build out of concrete...

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Or, maybe do reasonable logging in a sustainable manner rather than take every tree standing and on overly steep slopes or critical habitat. Then, we can attempt to compete with Canada and other countries but if they do it cheaper, for whatever reason, we will buy it from them.

There was a bunch in Seattle that tried to stop World Trade a few years ago..... they were pepper sprayed and beaten back by our law enforcement folks. The Federal Gov. has decided a world economy is where we need to be, not environmentalists or sustainable logging advocates.

We can also put limits on the sizes of homes people build without paying additional taxes. If the retirees up the road from me, two people, really think they need that 10,000 Sq. Ft. home with the indoor pool, let them pay a super premium tax for the waste they are creating. Same with all the other folks that are building starter castles in our suburbs, if they want to have a couple thousand square ft. per person, let them pay an addtional tax for the privelidge.

Why should I (we) be expected to sacrafice clean air and water for the sake of the whimsey of people that need bigger and bigger houses for their own desires?

[2LEYS]

We can also put limits on the sizes of homes people build without paying additional taxes.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">It is already done. The bigger the house the more it is worth and the more your property tax is.

[Thumper]

Urkkk ... saying nothing .... arrgghh .... must keep quiet .... must not label .... mmmmppphh ... very hard ..... mmphhhh .... :blush:

[ 07-29-2003, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

[Straydog]

Originally posted by 2LEYS:
It is already done. The bigger the house the more it is worth and the more your property tax is.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">No, I am talking about an additional tax. Standard property tax up to a certain size per person, then they can pay more if they feel the need for an extreme home.

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Thumper:
Urkkk ... saying nothing .... arrgghh .... must keep quiet about flaming liberals .... mmmmppphh ... very hard ..... mmphhhh ....

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">So, you feel it is unreasonable to want clean air and water? Is it hard to not defend people wasting wood products?

[ 07-29-2003, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Straydog: "people wasting wood products?"

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Novel concept. Here I thought wood products were a commodity. A crop. To be planted, grown and harvested. To build stuff. Always interested in learning ....

[ORrinker]

So where does it end??? We tax all people that have a bigger house than yourself? Who decides what is a reasonable size? Who approves what materials we use. Maybe if we just build all our houses out of hemp? That sure would make the liberals happy wouldn't it? They could then smoke the by-products to that everything is used.

The idea that we tax people more for being successful and owning things that make them more comfortable is ridiculous. People with higher incomes are continually taxed more than those with lower incomes though they do not receive any more services. Being a motivated and successful person seems anymore to make you a bad person. People seem to forget that if it was not for the motivated individuals we would all probably still be living in caves! This "make the people with more money pay more taxes" mentality borders on communism. Hey, I know let's just throw all our money into a big pot and split it evenly? That should make those motivated individuals work harder huh? Let's quit this steal from the rich to give to the poor philosophy and work on continuing the free enterprise system that has made this country great.

[ 07-29-2003, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: ORrinker ]

[Straydog]

Crops should be grown on private land without harming the common good.

Who was the crop tender before WE started utilizing wood products? Who planted all of the forests and proclaimed them nothing more than crops to be harvested? Who decided wood was to be a crop rather than an avenue to clean the air, ration the water to the watershed and provide habitat for millions of organisms that all play a part in the big picture of our world?
:whazzup:
I guess I missed the part in history where someone decided the health of our world took second (or third, or fourth) position behind building houses for the convenience of people.

I kind of like the idea of providing both but I guess that is one of those "flaming liberal" ideas, huh?

[2LEYS]

No Thumper you have it wrong. Havn't you learned anything over the past 20 years? Trees do not grow back once they are cut they are gone forever leaving nothing but barren ground. It is truely sad.

[Straydog]

Orinker,

Where did I suggest the rich should give me or any other person anything? Where did I say they should be denied the right to build what they want "to feel comfortable"? I did not. Please focus on what was said, not what you wanted to hear.

However, if it means I have to sacrifice salmon habitat or clean air or clean water for them to fulfill their 'needs', why is that acceptable? Is that then not giving them priviledge? If they want huge homes and have the money to pay for it they should go for it. However, if that wood is to come from public ground and society is going to pay in the form of less fish or less clean water, why should they not be expected to pay for what they are taking from society, regardless of their income level?

[lost_sailor]

Originally posted by tag-a-long:


Who really knows what a "natural forrest" looks like? Anyone Time travel?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Opal Creek, French Pete Creek --- it's not that no one has "been there" - but they didn't cut down all the trees.

FORREST


FOREST

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Straydog:
Orinker,

Where did I suggest the rich should give me or any other person anything?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I believe that would be the result of applying an extraordinary tax on nicer houses, wouldn't it? You know ... Take from the rich, give to the poor? Something like that .... There is a label for that too, but I won't use it.

[Straydog]

No, it's called taking an extra tax from those who can and want to afford it and applying it to the general fund or a natural resource fund for the benefit of everyone. You know, all of us that own the public lands........ not just the poor, not just the rich, all that own the commodity that is being used.

There is a word for that and I don't have to be afraid to use it. That word is fair. What is your objection to that?

[ORrinker]

Straydog,
You effectively said that by suggesting that those with larger houses should be taxed (fined?).
What effect do you really think adding a "big house" tax will have on our forests and salmon habitat?
Let us say for argument as I do not have exact numbers that 95% of the lumber used in residential construction is used on what someone may term modest single family homes while maybe the other 5% is used on large oversize homes. Do you think charging those with the big homes will have a large effect when the overall usage of lumber is mostly taken up with the more modest homes.
Taxing successful people for having a larger home will not alter the effect of logging so what is the point?
In most cases the companies logging our forests were already doing a good job of managing the forestland. It was a few companies like Weyerhauser that ruined it for everyone. If you want to go after someone go after them. I grew up hunting and playing in the forests of southern Oregon and when you came upon a Weyerhauser cut you always knew it. They would cut clearcuts for as far as the eye could see with very little regard for wildlife habitat. If you came into Champion or Roseburg Forest Products land you would see a very well done cuts. Yes they would do clearcuts but they were generally small and were surrounded by forest on at least three sides. Wildlife only had to move a few hundred yards to be back into the trees. I have not seen how things have been done as of late but I suspect that thy have only became more careful with all the regulations and such.
People want to live in houses but they do not want any trees cut down to build them. You have to strike a balance with protecting the environment, the profitability of the lumber companies and the needs of the consumer.
Do not go after the little guy who just wants a bigger house but go after companies like Weyerhauser who have showed very little regard for the environment.

Randy

[ 07-29-2003, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: ORrinker ]

[Thumper]

Thank goodness that the management of publically-owned natural resources is performed through a consensus of the people. Fortunately there are fewer and fewer extremists in the population. Is it OK to say "extremists"? :grin:

ORinker --- You ask a good question:

"Do you think charging those with the big homes will have a large effect when the overall usage of lumber is mostly taken up with the more modest homes."

Remember that the intent of those who would tax the sin of "overuse" is just that --- punishment for a perceived abuse. This has nothing to do with economics. It is social engineering at its worst.

[ 07-29-2003, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

[Cool Texan]

A big house tax? That is laughable. I used to work with a guy who now has 12 kids (not a typo). So obviously, he has a large house. He should be taxed for having a large family and thus a large house?? Is this how China got started?!?

[Thumper]

Exactly on target CT.

[lost_sailor]

I have no problem with private forests being harvested however the owner sees fit :depressed: as long as there is no damage to water quality. As long as no one dies in the mudslides.

Keep those greedy chainsaws off PUBLIC ancient forests, that's all. If it's a "renewable" resource, cut the "renewed" trees.

[ 07-29-2003, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: lost_sailor ]

[STGRule]

CT and Thumper. He said a tax on a dwelling based on per person size, not total size. For argument sake lets say 2000 square feet per person. If you and your wife with 12 children have a 28,000 square foot house you pay the same basic tax as the neighbor that has one child and a 6,000 square foot house. It's what is above the basic that would be taxed more. So the other neighbor and his wife that have a 28,000 square foot house would pay extra for the 27,996 square feet beyond the basic tax.

And I guess I would lump it in with "user fees". Just like ramp fees, trailhead fees, daily use fees, cigarette tax, beer, wine, and liquor tax. And the myriad of other taxes and fees. If you don't want to pay it, don't use/consume it.

[Cool Texan]

That sounds more logical....but I'd still vote against it.

[Thumper]

STG --- Are you seriously recommending such a tax?