Good news for N. W. Forests???

Straydog · 10-31-2003, 06:51 AM

freespool · 10-31-2003, 08:22 AM

Straydog,this really sounds like a good deal for our forests. I'am hoping this is truely an attempt to do some good,not just a thinly veiled disguise to start clearcutting our national forests. Don't get me wrong,the forests need help,this is very apparent. But thinning a forest and clearcutting are two different concepts. Perhaps the federal government can give the timber concerns some economic insentives to thin,simular to road building credits of the past.

TheRogue · 10-31-2003, 08:31 AM

We know that this administration won't pony up the $$$ it will take to do the thinning and clean-up, so, yes, we needed a compromise...to log enough timber to make it worthwhile for companies to do the work. I believe this is one of the best things that will EVER come out of this administration and Congress.

My .02

TR

Thumper · 10-31-2003, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheRogue:
We know that this administration won't pony up the $$$ it will take to do the thinning and clean-up, so, yes, we needed a compromise...to log enough timber to make it worthwhile for companies to do the work.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well, lessee here ... The House version dedicates $937 million of taxpayer money towards thinning, while the Senate version spends $760 million in taxpayer funds. Sounds to me like the administration is certainly "ponying up the $$$."

TheRogue · 10-31-2003, 09:04 AM

That'll will barely cover the environmental assessments, not to mention the road building and other things involved!! Yes, this bill will cut a BUNCH of red tape, but still won't get rid of the ESA impacts....courts won't allow it, period.

TR

BrionLutz · 10-31-2003, 06:52 PM

Straydog,

If Wyden and Feinstein are OK with it...I guess it's OK. I noticed Cantwell voted against it.

The biggest beef with it is that it doesn't really focus the thinning on the wild/urban interface where all the property damage occurs.

This was the ostensible problem but if the bill only addresses 50% of that, what is going on?

What it going on is the timber companies get 50% of mature forest areas to log. That really has nothing to do with the problem. The scientific thinning that needs to be done as the forest starts to recover from logging is hugely unprofitable for logging companies. I'd be OK with paying them to do it right as long as the method is scientific and the goal is restoration of the old growth forest structure.

Brion

2LEYS · 11-02-2003, 08:07 PM

I will find an article if you want but I read that Grey Davis tried to get the dead trees removed from the areas in So Cal that are burning a while ago and FEMA rejected him.

Straydog · 11-02-2003, 08:31 PM

I heard something similar, 2Leys.

[ 11-02-2003, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

SSPey · 11-02-2003, 08:34 PM

The vast majority of the area burning in So Cal is chapparal - brush - there's no trees to be removed.

Straydog · 11-02-2003, 08:37 PM

floatnfish,

From what I know you are right.

However, there was a sizable amount of acerage that had dead beetle killed pine, as I heard it on NPR. That was the area the Governor tried to get funded for removal but was denied.

willametteriveroutlaw · 11-02-2003, 09:11 PM

Just as a question,
Why don't we let certain areas burn? I.E. the desolation wilderness area (or atleast in parts) It is very good for wildlife as a whole and it was a natural part of the forest cycle until man decided it was better. Some of these wilderness areas are literall so choked w/brush and fallen jack pines that alot of valuable feeds can't grow.

BrionLutz · 11-02-2003, 09:31 PM

WRO,

Quote:

Why don't we let certain areas burn? I.E. the desolation wilderness area (or atleast in parts)/

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">We should but it's a property issue. Great aerial photo of development around Arrowhead Lake. In just 30 years, it's almost completely develped. The fire fighting is to save the property. Firefighters were describing how much harder there job is when the goal is not fire management but property protection.

Quote:

It is very good for wildlife as a whole and it was a natural part of the forest cycle until man decided it was better.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Many of the chapparal plants need the fire to germinate. They've evolved with it.

Some 3,000 homes burned. It cost $3B to fight the fire. That makes them $1M homes. Better to let them burn and give folks $500K each to rebuild and save $1.5B.

On the plus side, the developments that had to abide by the new zoning codes when building in the wild/urban interface and the high risk fire zones did OK.

Brion

Lured In · 11-03-2003, 08:08 AM

While I also see this as a step in the right direction, I had heard this only applies to federal lands, not state lands which are usually closer to residential areas. Can anyone confirm thtat?

Reelentless · 11-03-2003, 04:12 PM

The state already does a decent job in managing its land. The federal lands are shut down by the courts and tree huggers. It takes way too long for any type of management plan to happen. Thats what needs to be changed.

Albacore Tuna Captain · 11-03-2003, 06:50 PM

Quote:

It is very good for wildlife as a whole and it was a natural part of the forest cycle until man decided it was better.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Many of the chapparal plants need the fire to germinate. They've evolved with it.

Some 3,000 homes burned. It cost $3B to fight the fire. That makes them $1M homes. Better to let them burn and give folks $500K each to rebuild and save $1.5B.

On the plus side, the developments that had to abide by the new zoning codes when building in the wild/urban interface and the high risk fire zones did OK.

Brion [/QB][/QUOTE]

I agree with you 100% Brion. Let em burn and let the insurance pay for the rebuild. It would be cheaper. When you build into mother nature, you must live with her.

[ 11-03-2003, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: Albacore Tuna Captain ]

Reelentless · 11-04-2003, 04:56 PM

Some items can't be replaced.

I would bet most of those home are worth much more than 500k. If its anything like the bay area, you can't buy any home for that price.