Short term stream damage Ok??

[Troller]

I found this on the web and not sure how I feel about it I think that I need to read it again.

Bush plans to boost logging in NW

By Craig Welch
Seattle Times staff reporter

E-mail this article

Print this article

Search web archive





The Bush administration wants to rewrite logging rules for Northwest forests to allow for short-term damage to salmon-bearing streams, claiming forest managers still could protect the overall health of watersheds.

The stream and fish rules, created by the Clinton administration, were the foundation for a series of high-profile environmental lawsuits that have tied up hundreds of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) timber sales since 1999.

The agencies' proposed rule change will go through a nine-month review process, but both supporters and opponents expect the proposal to wind up in court.

Administration officials yesterday suggested the proposed new language was a clarification of existing forest policy that had been misinterpreted by the courts.

But environmentalists dismissed that characterization as "revisionist history at its worst."

"They're saying, 'We may be degrading a few acres, but don't worry, overall, things are going to get better. Trust us,' " said Andy Stahl, director of the whistle-blower group Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics. "And they're saying, this is what (the Clinton administration) meant all along."

But industry groups said it was about time.

"The agencies do protect water and fisheries," said Chris West, spokesman for the American Forest Resource Council, a timber-industry group. "The successes environmental groups have had have been on pure technicalities."

Yesterday's announcement is in response to a court ruling last year that shelved 120 or more timber sales on thousands of acres in Washington, Oregon and Northern California.

But it's also part of a broad administration push to boost Northwest timber harvests back to levels agencies originally projected under the landmark 1994 Northwest Forest Plan.

That plan attempted to balance the demand for timber with the need to protect dwindling spotted-owl habitat. It made logging off limits on roughly 80 percent of 24.5 million acres of federal land in the three states. Agencies had projected loggers could take 811 million board feet of timber a year off remaining lands, but in recent years they haven't come close.

The industry took out only 145 million board feet of timber in 2000, and 300 million in 2001.

President Bush, who generated more than $1 million in contributions from the timber industry during one campaign stop in 2000, had promised to try to increase logging access to the woods.

"The BLM has had a hard time meeting its projections and the main reason is the variety of lawsuits," said BLM spokesman Chris Strebig.

The bulk of those lawsuits have focused on two facets of the plan, both of which the administration is now moving to change.

One, called "survey and manage," refers to guidelines that require forest officials to survey for hundreds of plants, fungi and wildlife that depend on old-growth forests before approving a timber sale. Earlier this fall, the administration announced it wants to recast those rules.

The other area was the so-called "aquatic conservation strategy," which the administration moved to rework yesterday.

In June 2001, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that forest managers weren't considering the short-term or cumulative impacts timber harvests have on threatened coho-salmon runs.

Instead, the federal managers had been looking 10 to 20 years into the future and deciding how or whether each sale by itself affected the overall watershed.

Not counting the BLM timber sales, the Forest Service's sales alone that were stalled by the ruling would have produced 250 million board feet of timber.

"They'd been rubber-stamping these individual timber plans and saying that, with restoration projects, over time, is part of a bigger strategy to protect the watershed," said Glen Spain, with the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, which filed the original suit. "But if you do enough of these little projects, you won't have much of a watershed."

While logging projects can take place on a few dozen or a few hundred acres, watersheds are often 20 to 200 square miles in size. The Forest Service and BLM contend they still do look at site-specific effects of logging on salmon streams, but that it isn't practical to evaluate each project with the same depth they use to review watershed-level impacts, said Phil Mattson, assistant director of strategic planning for the Forest Service in Portland.

Instead, they say, existing standards and guidelines for individual projects, if followed, are adequate to protect the watershed.

In other words, "even though there may be some short-term effects, the overall aquatic quality will continue to improve," said Forest Service spokesman Rex Holloway.

For timber interests, the proposed change is long overdue.

"We asked the previous administration to pursue this, to no avail," said West. "It's ironic that the Bush administration is doing what has to be done to make the Clinton-Gore forest plan work."

Environmentalists, meanwhile, also found irony. Said Stahl: "Having been beat up by the District Court, then the 9th Circuit, now Bush is saying, 'Wait, we'll just change it to what Clinton really meant.' "

Craig Welch: 206-464-2093 or cwelch@seattletimes.com.

[ 11-26-2002, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: troller ]

[Uglygreen]

I thought that the "Clinton Forest Plan" was a compromise. At least it was billed as such at the time by the mainstream conservation movement.

And then the fringe envirodudes said "its not enough - back to court!".

I believe that there needs to be some level of harvest, am I wrong?

I am fully convinced that the logging means and methods and oversight today is far beyond what it was in the 1980's. Heck much of the time now they use helicopters and highline rigs - cause its cheaper than roadbuilding / skidding when you are required to remove the road and restore the area.

No I dont trust the timber industry to be left alone in the public forest and woodlands, but I trust the enviornmental organizations to tell the truth even less.

Certainly any logging causes some damage. Certainly there is a level of logging that each watershed can tolerate. How much is too much? I don't know.

UG

[Pilar]

Uglygreen, there is much to this whole story that both sides just gloss over. That includes me too.

The forest service is at the heart of the dilemma. They are charged with making the forests available to recreation interests and to timber harvest. At the most basic level this is a conflict of the first magnitude. How much recreation is possible in a clearcut or a silt clouded stream? Road building makes the forest accesssible to everyone and causes erosion and silt problems.

Everywhere we look the two interests are opposed and polarized.

Add to that the problems in the timber industry ... such as ..

1) Federal lands that are much harder to harvest because of overzealous environmental activity, lawsuits and regulation.

2) Unfair competition from our neighbors to the north. They can produce softwood lumber at a lower cost due to the subsidization of thier industry by the Canadian government.

3) Past practices and accumulated damage to streams and fish spawning/rearing habitat from unsound management of the federal and state timberlands.

4) Federal ESA listing of selected Salmon and Steelhead populations in the NW.

There are others as well ... anyone?

No doubt there could be a better balance. The fact is that the land in question belongs to you and me, the public. To just throw open the gates to timber harvest and allow the industry to regulate itself is folly ... the fox guarding the henhouse. I can't see a good outcome for that scenario.

You do make some good points. The industry has adopted the measures you list as a result of regulatory pressure not out of a sense of stewardship for the land.

I do not agree in entirety with the Clinton plan. It has devastated the industry and the economy of timber communities. But to throw it away for political reasons is the wrong approach.

[Mojo]

Pilar, I agree with you completely.

Anyone that enjoys the outdoors, and fishing and hunting as much as we do is an environmentalist. An environmental extremist, NO, but you cannot enjoy the outdoors and not care about them. If you like to breathe clean air, and catch fish in clean water, you are and environmentalist. I know that this is just a case of semantics, but it is imoprtant.

I think reasonable environmentalism is mandatory. I think that any type of extremism is dangerous. Extreme environmentalism, extreme corporate greed, extreme liberalism, extreme conservatism, religous extremism...all are very scary to me. What ever happened to common sense.

People have to work. People need toilet paper and homes. Trees need to be cut for those needs. Fish need clean streams and silt free streambeds. There IS a happy medium. If we can all stop name calling and carefully evaluate the multifaceted situation, we can (and MUST) find an equitable soultion.

[TheRogue]

Tripled harvest levels on federal land?? NEVER HAPPEN!!! Not because of the courts, or the environmentalists. You know who benefitted most from the woods being locked up?? Not you, not me, not the fish, not the owl or the murlet!!

Big Timber companies are the reason why the environmental movement was so incredibly successful against federal land logging. Federal timber was cheap, big, and plentiful (still is). Most of the private old growth was logged already, and much of the timber was just coming around to the 50-70 year harvest cycle age in the late 1980's. Which is less work for the board foot, a 16'10" length, 60" diameter slick old growth doug fir log, or a 16'10" 18" diameter 2nd growth doug fir log?

Look at what happened to the value of LP, GP, WeyCo, and the other big timber companies when the federal timber shutdown began!! They sold off their old, outdated mills that were set up for old growth logs, and wouldn't handle the small second growth very well....sold them for a loss or closed them, taking large tax write-offs. Then, some of them packed up the bulk of the corporate headquarters (and $$) and moved to the SE, where the timber there is prime for harvest, and not tied to any owl, salmon, etc.

My father was a 3rd generation gypo logger in Gold Beach. He was also the smartest person I ever knew. He called it right from the beginning, when the owl and murlett first started becoming an issue. His is the theory I've espoused above, and I believe it whole-heartedly!!

TR

BTW.....I know a person in the "owl business" that says the birds never were really numerous, even before white man got here, and that there's probably more living in second growth forests now, than there ever were in the old growth.

[foxer]

I have heard that they have not been logging anywhere close to the #'s set forth in the Clinton deal due to the enviro's lawsuits. The figure I heard was less than 10% of the quota

[Uglygreen]

TR - back when young and foolish, I worked for the USDA Forest Service. An easy way to get overtime was to go out and do spotted owl survey work at night. Probably 75% + of the owls we found (including nesting pairs) on the Mt. Hood National Forest (out of Ripplebrook RS) were living in second growth timber. I once took (on a bet) my environut friends and a very environut professor from Portland State University to a nest located about 200 feet from HWY 212 and about 100 feet from a large clearcut.

The owls would come when called and eat white mice from Ally Cat pet store out of our hands. I won about 500 bucks for that little trip.

UG

[Uglygreen]

Originally posted by Pilar:
I do not agree in entirety with the Clinton plan. It has devastated the industry and the economy of timber communities. But to throw it away for political reasons is the wrong approach.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I guess I dont understand,

1) I thought the Bush (Jr.) Administration was trying to push the harvest levels up to the amount perscribed in the Clinton Forest plan.

2) I thought the environmental fringe groups were pushing lawsuits that resulted in harvest levels far BELOW the Clinton Forest plan levels

"But it's also part of a broad administration push to boost Northwest timber harvests back to levels agencies originally projected under the landmark 1994 Northwest Forest Plan.

Are you saying you agree with or disagree with the Bush Administration's efforts?

UG

[GutshotApe]

Gee, what an interesting thread. It seems strange how many people hold very firm views about the the effects of logging and "timber industry" but who have very little or no experience with it (other than on TV) and who apparently never get off the highway and out in the woods. Or if they did, it was years ago. And, as a state district forester once told me, "They don't know what they're seeing when they see it." :whazzup:

Modern logging does not automatically mean habitat destruction, stream siltation, etc. Done carefully, logging can enhance terrestrial habitat while not harming aquatic habitat. If you think clearcuts cause headwater streams to heat up significantly, you're wrong and I've got the data to prove it for 10 small streams in the Siuslaw and lower Umpqua area. All streams worthy of the name are provided with un-logged buffers of trees and brush for shading and LWD recruitment. New roads are built to prevent sliding. Etc, etc, etc.

There is no monolithic "timber industry", as such. There are many different companies, operators, landowners, etc. who have a lot in common but never speak with one voice on any issue. Yes, the price of logs skyrocketed and peaked in 1993 - coinciding with the elimination of most public timber sales - but its a stretch to say "big timber" was behind the environmental restrictions on federal and state lands that led to the cessation of timber sale programs. I worked for a big timber company at the time and they sure didn't want BLM sales terminated because they bought quite a few to augment their own log supply. As a small woodlot owner, along with many others, I was able to capitalize on the 1993 price spike and that enabled me to retire early. :grin:

There were many abuses in past years and decades in the woods. But since 1973 Oregon has had a forest practices act which ensures proper logging & reforestation, stream protection being job #1. The FPA has been revised several times and today is the model for all other states to try to emulate. It has a compliance rate of 99%+. Check with state forestry dept. if you don't believe me. But Joe Q. Public thinks its "anything goes" out in the woods.

I'm retired now and don't have a dog in the fight. I was an environmentalist before it was popular, before I became a forester, and still am now that I,m retired. I'm not worried about increased logging in the national forests - in fact, I welcome it. Maybe we will be able to sustain the deer & elk herds with some strategically-place clearcuts.

Yes, clearcuts! Its nature's way!

[TheRogue]

GSA....I should be more specific, "Big Timber" wasn't behind the restrictions, but they spent miniscule $$$ in the fight, compared to, say, coal strip mining companies back east.

I agree, most people don't know a good clearcut from a bad one....and the rules today just don't allow very many bad ones!! It's a proven fact, it's not economically feasible to select cut most of the coastal fog-zone forests(unlike the east-side Ponderosa forests), and it's also unwise to do so, as this simply allows the brush to grow back in the gaps. Unless, of course, you use herbicides....don't wanna go down that road!!

We need clear-cutting to start back up again on the west-side forests, no doubt about it, I just don't ever see it getting close to what the NWFP mandated, too many legal hurdles and Clinton-appointed judges to get through.

UG....did ya do anything like leave in different rigs each night, and drive in round-about ways to your destination, so the owl hunters wouldn't follow you?? Some of my USFS "night ******" friends jumped through those hoops.

TR

[Pilar]

UG, needless to say this a complicated topic.

I work in the 'timber industry' for a supplier of sawmill machinery. I seldom see the tree fellers and logtrucks in the field but I see first hand the effects of the restrictions on the sawmills I visit during installation episodes.

Much of the equipment we sell has to do with retooling for smaller logs. Reflecting the change in the log supply since the federal forests were restricted.

The 'Clinton' plan as such is an attempt to force a consideration of the environmental effects of a timber sale before the logging occurs. The problem with the plan is that the extreme environmentalists have used it to tie up a large percentage of federal timber sales in court.

Some of these challenges are valid and may cause poorly thought out harvests to not occur. In theory this type of challenge would protect important habitat from irreversible degredation. Some challenges are simply obstructionist tactics at work. By removing or reinterpreting the rules that are being used to challenge the individual timber sales the valid challenges will become more difficult to mount.

I will grant that the obstructionist tactics need to stop and logging should occur at an environmentally sound pace in the federal forests. Simply dismissing the rules that make a challenge possible or 'fixing' the plan is probably not the best way to do it. The aim here for the Bush administration is to weaken regulations in general and as has been said swing to the other 'business friendly' and exploitative extreme.

This is my opinion based on my observations of the current administration and Republican poilitics in general.

[skein]

TR, GSA,

I agree, most people don't know a good clearcut from a bad one....and the rules today just don't allow very many bad ones!! It's a proven fact, it's not economically feasible to select cut most of the coastal fog-zone forests(unlike the east-side Ponderosa forests), and it's also unwise to do so, as this simply allows the brush to grow back in the gaps. Unless, of course, you use herbicides....don't wanna go down that road!!

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Is that true? I've watched those faller/bucker/stacker machines reach out and selectively take this tree or that tree, and it seems pretty low-impact to me. Maybe I'm making a mistake by equating east-side logging with west-side logging. I agree that clearcuts are where the animals are, from grouse to elk to deer to bear, but man, they're ugly and they fuel the fires of those folks who hate 'em and (maybe) don't know any better. East-side logging often leaves an area looking like a park. West-side (clearcut) logging leaves an area looking like Hiroshima. Does it *have* to be so decidedly different?

Skein

[finclipped]

I think it has more to do with private vs. public lands. The Environmentalists continue to push lawsuits on public land in what could be considered "under harvesting" while private land owners **** it to stream bank. I was a third generation log truck driver, until I went to school, but I can't support these private land owners who cut too close to the stream bank. I honestly don't know what the required buffer is, but it isn't big enough. Their disregard for the stream, has had a negative impact on spawning habitat. The Lower Umpqua/Coquille/Coos is a prime example of this.

Skein,
Those machines only work on relatively level ground, of which there is little of in the coast range and Cascades.

[GutshotApe]

As the old forester told me many years ago, "When your raw material is everybody else's scenery, you've got a problem". Boy, was he ever right.

Most people agree, clearcuts don't look very good for the first 6 mos. to a year (west of the Cascades). After a year they green up and look like a slightly rough meadow from a distance. After 7 to 10 years the replanted trees are visible from a distance. After 10-15 years the new stand closes in and the clearcut is again "tourist-grade scenic". A lot depends on the previous stand, the time of year it was cut, where the required leave trees are located, how big the clearcut is, how far from the observer, whether the slash was burned or piled, etc, etc. There is no question that the aesthetics of a fresh clearcut swings the balance of public opinion and the enviromentalists exploit that knee-jerk reaction to their benefit.

The trouble is the public has a very short memory and tends to think things they see are permanent. They can't recognize that the horrible clearcut they saw 20 years ago is now the beautiful young forest of today. Back in 1936 Franklin D.Roosevelt toured the Olympic Peninsula and his entourage stopped at a fresh clearcut near Lk. Quinault. He said "I hope the dirty ********* that did this are roasting in Hell!" That ugly clearcut regenerated into a vibrant young 2nd growth forest that was again clearcut in 1982, as I recall, and has again regenerated and will be ready to cut again in about 2025.

I think beauty can be found in a clearcut - even in one year old clearcuts. But it takes an open mind. And the annual progression of vegetative succession is a continuing parade of both plant and animal species that use the habitats available in young forests.

Not saying we should cut it all - but we have plenty of old forests set aside. Over 85% of the Willamette NF will be offlimits to logging even after Bush et al do their thing. Its time to make some clearcuts here and there, create new deer/elk habitat, provide some good paying woods and mill jobs, generate tax revenue, provide domestic wood products, etc, etc.

[Straydog]

Gutshot,

Here I go being picky again but I really have this "thing" about misinformation......especially amongst friends. :smile:

You say there is no timber industry as such.

I sit on a committee with a person that says he is vice president of the Southern Oregon Timber Industry Association.(SOTIA) The papers all say he is from SOTIA when they quote him or when they run his frequent guest opinons espousing much of the same propog... 'scuse me, information that you do. :grin:

This is also the group that was reported in the newspapers as having come up with $500,000 to meet with George Bush when he was but a candidate stumping in Portland. (a significant motivating force for the current "relaxing" of environmental standards in my mind)

If indeed there is no "timber industry" as you claim, just who is this group and why do they seem to seek so much press and spend so much time involved in natural resource issues? :whazzup: Also, where did they get and why did they spend a half mill for a chat with GW before he was elected?
:whazzup:

[ 11-26-2002, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Pilar]

Thanks for that Troller.

Is anyone else surprised to see big business rolling over the environmental interests? Do you trust the timber industry to cark the forest carefully? Once the trees go down the road to the mill, the clearcut is quickly forgotten by the timber company. The silt then goes into the streambed with every hard winter rain, the unshaded watershed gets too hot in the summer months to support the anadromous hatchlings and the cycle of the 80's clearcut heyday repeats itself.

Politics is almost no fun anymore. You know how it will turn out because the same old tired crap has been going on for years.

As was suggested indirectly by the news article .... follow the money.

Just wait till the oil interests have their field day. Shrub is after all very closely tied to that particular industry.

Oil rigs in the artic refuge? or on the Oregon coast? How about oil prices high enough to support domestic exploration and exploitation?

Would we (the US government) give a damn about the Middle east if not for the oil?

[skein]

And both sides continue to lie.

I listened to a talk by one of the movers and shakers in the spotted owl debacle (a biologist) and when asked how the owl was doing, he shook his head and replied, "Not well. And we don't know why." Gee, if we could just get them to nest in closed mill-yards and empty log decks or foreclosed homes, maybe that would bring them back.

Then I go out and look up at the hills and see six different clearcuts, and drive through the woods and see the slides from those same (and other) clearcuts and badly constructed roads, and I think, damnit, this has to stop.

My take on this? Every time a logger clearcuts a timber sale, he shoots himself in the foot. Some day he will bleed to death. Every time an enviro uses bad science (BS) and legal technicalities to further his agenda, and gets caught, he destroys his credibility and his cause.

I wish we could find some middle, and sensible, ground, but until we do, the pendulum will swing wildly from one side to the other. Right now, it's in Bush's court.

My .02

Skein

[Sadie-Lynne]

Totally agree with skein
There has to be a balance. It seems as if everyone is extreme This is on both sides.

[Nuttinbutnet]

Let us not forget that Enviromentalism is also a big business in this country. There have been billions of dollars in State revenue lost with the rapid downsizing of our forest products industry. Can we find a medium? Yes, as long as both sides are willing to negotiate. But, remember, the Envirometalist groups want to stop the logging altogether. Not much room to negotiate.

[lost_sailor]

"It's ALL short-term damage, man!" How many years do you need to eliminate a salmon run? Ten ought to do just fine!

Guess what - the number of trees is not "infinity." Something's got to give.

And - we live on the same planet as the owls and the salmon ... wonder who's next on the endangered list?

I still can't understand how people who appreciate Nature reconcile their love of Baby Bush.

(I used the word "salmon" - it IS about fishing!)

[speyfly]

I want to cry every time one of YOU start talking out of your butt about who is radical about our environment. I would like to hear about a river or watershed where the timber companies wanted to do something for the fish and the water sheds without their feet being held to the fire. It does not exist. The only time the timber industry does anything for our fish runs is when they have too. You talk about environmentalism like it is a four-letter word. I say that if it were not for the ones that had the guts to protest and try to make a difference, our fisheries would be in worst shape than they are now. Yes there are extremes on this issue but which ones are the true extremists.

I don’t see anywhere on the stock exchange where an environmental group is in the top 500, how about the top 10,0000. You guys that side with the timber companies either don’t have a clue or you’re just as greedy as the Kilchis snaggers (what’s wrong with snagging? Their going to die anyway).

[GutshotApe]

Speyfly - Who is "vocalizing rectally"?

I worked for a big timber company that did many things to help fish without being forced to. Publically-held corporations are required by law to maximize return to stockholders. Fish & wildlife enhancement expenditures made by companies are made to build public good will, etc. so, yes, there is always an "ulterior" motive.

We used company crews and rock drills to blast a fish ladder thru bedrock over a usually-impassible falls on Scare Cr (Smith R.). We used a track-mounted excavator to build jump pools so fish could avoid kegging up at the mouth of Spencer Creek (Smith R.). We replaced two large impassible culverts on Pittenger and Johnson Creeks (Siuslaw) - spent thousands of $$$ on a job that was not necessary except it would help fish migration. We provided space, building materials, rock & gravel, and technical assistance for two STEP hatcheries - a big one near Gardiner on the lower Umpqua and another on upper Wolf Creek (Siuslaw). We allowed free access the the whole treefarm for other STEP habitat projects and assisted with materials, labor and expertise on at least 30 sites. When ODFW wanted to use co. land for an acclimation pond on the upper Siuslaw we said "yes" and offered to help fund it. The list goes on....................................and I'm not talking about measures required by law. This stuff was voluntary - and, judging by the comments you and others make, it didn't gain much public appreciation.

Other landowners did and still do much of the same - but if they keep getting slammed no matter what, they may decide it isn't worth it and just close the gates year-round.

I want to cry everytime I hear people condemn the timber industry without knowing what they're talking about :depressed: . Take off the blinders and open your mind.

[Troller]

NO kidding who is talking out their sphincter.

There are two many radical groups on either side of the fence. I have to laugh every time I see a extreme environmentalist try and force their believes down our throats. Weird things happen like they fall out of trees or get run over on their jet ski by the coast guard
I am just glad their are more of us middle of the road comon sense people out their than the extremists.

[Fishbulb]

Wow! This has got to be one of the best posts I have ever seen on this BB. Talk about a spectrum of opinion. All the way from Gutshot to Lost Sailor. I love how simplified the arguements can be. One member wants to liberate forests from environmental protections, one wants a moderate approach with some protection and some clearcutting and another claims the sky is falling.

The Oregon Forest Practices Act is administered on the ground level by foresters who work for the state and whose programs get new offices, new rigs and who get paid salaries because timber is sold. There is no wonder why the compliance rate is reported to be so high. ODF does not get paid to protect resources other than the resource of harvetable timber. They protect recources that cut into their harvest $ like fish, wildlife and water when we force them to do this and when we are not blindly following their lead.

The FPA is very complex. No stream buffer is like another. Buffer dimensions are based on all types of factors including slope, watershed substrate, tree type and diameters on the bank, waterflow, fish presence or absence, uitilization of habitat below by salmonids, ect. This is why buffers can be shaped so vastly different from one another. This is also why two streams temperature data that Gutshot touts is not sufficient to guide policy for the region. Stream dymanics are unique and different from one another.

Thinning works well (even in the coast range). I am really impressed with what I have been seeing in the coast range state forests in the last three years. Reprod is sometimes too thick and stunts out at 25-30 years. This thick canopy allows no sunlight to hit the forest floor and results in no vegetation for deer and elk. Elk and deer utilize the thick vegetation that begins to grow after thinning. The trees that are left get room to grow again. Smaller conifers on the forest floor will get sunlight to grow into a second mid-level canopy for ulilization by both birds and terrestrial species. Check it out sometime, it looks awesome. For a better understanding of this check out "The Tillamook" by Gail Wells. It is a very interesting and fast read (174 pages) that goes into detail about this multi-layered conopy concept and its potential for great benefit to fish and wildlife and future big timber harvest oportunities.

Thinning is expensive. The most economical way to harvest is to cut it all. Thinning drives down the profit margin. Mixing the two methods is what ODF is currently doing. In the future there will be a flow of habitat/forest structure that will be more diverse than todays Clearcut/Reprod/Dense Second Growth. The future looks like Clearcut/Reprod 5-15%, Dense Second Growth 10-20%, Thinned 15-30%, Layered 20-30%, Older Forest Structure 20-30% with this pattern flowing across the landscape through time. It also will no longer be a monoculture of Douglas Fir. The state is now planting Western Red Cedar and other species that only made it into prior reprod units by way of natural regeneration. But this is only state forests. Private land will remain the old standby monoculture (unless the market instructs them to do it another way).

I hate to aggree with Gutshot on anything ( just joking) but when I look at a clearcut or a reprod area I too see the jobs it created recently ( and those it created at the mill, production facility, and at the constuction site), the firebreak it currently is, the food and habitat for hoofstock in the next 2-15 years and future job opportunities. I never see them as all wrong. We depend on timber and we will continue to depend on it in the future. There is no way around it. Lets work on ways to do it smart and with both $, water and fish and wildlife values as guiding principles. If either the far right or far left wins out (and they seem to only win cyclically resulting in booms and busts periodically for each side) on this issue I think the damage done will be terrible. For the last 20 years we have been oscilating wildly to either extreme while trying to pay the other side back while missing the middle of the road where I think we should be and where both sides can come out winners. The balance is a plan like ODF's new forest stratagy that is a blend of all types of harvest and resource values while incorporating the FPA.

A pay back is what Clintons plan was and is what Bush's proposal currently is. Just a bunch of got-ya-lasts. In the long term all our forest/F & W/water resource/values suffer. The cycle of revenge will get-us-last in the end.

The Rouge's insight into this issue is great. He is truly playing chess off the board. Other BB participants would really benefit from a more elaborate explaination of this thought, I think. I think there is a lot of truth to this line of thought and I think it goes back much further in time.

[speyfly]

GSA. It's funny that you bring up the Smith river as a example. I remember one winter (I think it was 1997) where there were slides below just about every clear cut that entered the river. Hmmmmm... The culvert work done on the Smith was mandated to prevent further washout's along the road and too try to prevent further sliding of the unstable slopes created by the clear cutting. Yes there are some efforts by the timber companies to do some PR work but they fall very short of the mark. If left up to the timber industry without the public watching them like a hawk, they would have continued to cut to the river bank (just what they did on the Smith) on public lands.

[speyfly]

1996 was the year of the slides. GSA, was it your logging company that caused all of the damage? Here is a link about slides in Douglas County.

http://www.umpqua-watersheds.org/loc...des.html#plane

[GutshotApe]

Speyfly, Fishbulb, etc. - This a very complex topic and I don't have the time it would take to adequately address all the issues you and I have raised, and all the other related issues. It took me 4 yrs in forestry school and 25+ years in the woods to come to the conclusions I have reached. I'll briefly hit a couple of issues:

ODF is not in the pocket of the timber industry and is not funded based on how much timber is cut. What do you really know about the dept?

My data was 10 streams, not 2, and I agree it isn't enough data to claim scientific truth. But it was part of a region-wide private industry study, lead by Weyco research scientists. The coldest of my 10 creeks had no tree buffer at all - yet never exceeded 59 degrees during the hottest weather of summer when it was 104 at the nearby Eug.airport. The stream was heavily shaded by brush. That study showed that many preconceived notions people hold about logging and water temp. are misfounded.

Thinning is good and most timber companies do some where the ground allows and the stand permits. But if you want to grow Douglas-fir (our most valuable and productive species) you can thin once or twice but eventually you need to clearcut and start over. Doug fir won't regenerate in shade but hemlock and cedar will. They are also worth about 1/3 the vallue of a stand of Doug-fir.

Under undisturbed conditions, after 700-1000 years, a forest consisting of hemlock and cedar is the climax forest in western Oregon. But for the first 700 years, Douglas-fir dominates most sites and in younger stands under natural conditions it forms a "monoculture". The average fire cycle of from 90 to 200 years doesn't allow many stands to reach climax conditions.

All I can say is there is a lot more to the forest management issue than what many people have been led to believe.

Just sit back for the next couple of years and we'll see what happens under a Republican administration [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] . Things have gone way too far to the left. The pendulum is about to swing a little back towards the middle and it's going to be interesting to watch.

[Fishbulb]

That sounds like a great study. I would love to read the report. Where is it published? I am not being facetious here at all. I would like to see the methods, data and conclusions. I am always open to something that may turn a current paradigm upside down.

It is absurd to believe that ODF is not beholden to timber interests. Timber interest members have historically and currently sit on the state forestry board. The same is true of all natural resource departments not just ODF. Commision members making the resource decisions have personal financial stakes in the outcomes and have been molded by the segments of society they came up in and will need to probably go back into when their term is up. And they are beholden to their constituents who put them in power (via the governor) who also have interests in timber harvest. Even someone like Sam Johnson, who has ties to the Nature Conservancy has to answer to the Governor who may wish a particular outcome based on political pressures.

Timber harvest makes money now. Yes, yes, I know, timber sale receipts go to fund the schools of the county in which the sales occurred. Sounds nice right? It is all government money. If the sales where not occurring then the funds would come from tax payers. Fewer funds that need to come from state coffers mean the gov has more to appropriate to state agencies. You look at the resources directed to ODF in the way of equipment and facility accomidations, compare this to other agencies and anyone can connect the dots. Timber harvest makes money now! It makes a lot of money now. Conservation for fish and wildlfe and may take decades to pay out dividends. Watch the money, right?

Is it the contention here that prior to anglo settlement virgin forest stands here where 90-200 years old? Why then does the Olympic National Park, other parks and National Forests have such older tracks? Why also is it when I look into second growth that was probably natural regeneration from the early 1900's do I see so much hemlock and spruce. Surely it should be all Doug fir right? Just like the young reprod that is 100% Doug fir? That is really beside the point anyway. The point is for a wide array of habitats and harvest opportunities through time and space that will mimic, to a greater degree than is currently being realized, the natural progression of forests. Yes eventually there will be large timber harvest opportunities in areas and then the process will begin again. And yes, there will be a lot of Doug out their to ensure the $. It just won't be all Doug fir and the forest won't get stunted at 30 years old.

Please let me know about that publication.

[crabbait]

Great topic guys. And thanks for remaining civil while discussing something that harbors a lot of sentiment for both sides.

The best thing I see about the quandry is that neither side gets everything they want and both sides get some of what they want. This means that some old growth is protected (we cannot reproduce it) and sensible logging which minimizes environmental impact is achieved.

No matter what our personal view, the middle could not be reached without the fringe elements on both sides.

[speyfly]

Crabbit, I wish that were true. Finding the middle is getting harder to do. Both sides spin it in whatever direction they think serves them while blurring the picture for the masses.

GSA is right "the pendulum is swinging back” to the right but I am afraid that it will be at the expense of our air, water, salmon habitat and anything else that might get in industry's way. I am sorry to say that it is about politics and money and has nothing to do with what is moral.

[crabbait]

I agree Speyfly. Imagine what it would be like if we did not have the environmental extremists? We would be lucky to find a tree larger than 10" diameter anywhere.

Then again, imagine how it would be if the environmental extremists had it all their way. We would not be allowed to interact with the outdoors at all for fear we might upset the balance of nature.

We are living in the middle. There will be fluctuations one way or another and we need to let out voice be heard if either side starts to get the upper hand. Our way of life hangs in the balance.

[skein]

Speyfly, GutShotApe, and all,

That was an interesting link you pointed us to, Spey. Lots of slides and, yes, it appeared they were the result of clearcuts. Remember, I'm the guy who compared clearcuts to Hiroshima, so I'm really interested in another way to harvest our resources. Take that sentence apart and you find that I am anti-clearcut and pro-harvest. Now we know where I'm coming from. Back to you guys.

That report and those pictures were taken during some of the worst floods in this century. Doesn't it stand to reason there would be damage to the hillsides just as there was damage to communities? Ashland darned near washed away and I don't remember clearcuts being the cause. Tillamook was waist deep in water and, well, on and on and on....

What I'd like to do is fly over those same hills today and see what they look like. We just raised holy hell with the Oregonian because they posted data from 94-97, so I can't just abitrarily accept a report from the same time-frame without knowing what changes have occured since then. Then I'd like to wait until the winter storms really hit and fly over the areas that burned up this year, and see what non-harvest accomplished.

I wonder if I'd be brave enough to put you and GSA in the same light plane while we made the flight.....

My guess is the two of you are never going to convert each other - but there are a lot of us, starting with me, who stand to learn a great deal from you both. I already have.

Skein

[OneLastCast]

My God Crabait:

As soon as I can get these straps off of me I will agree with you. It is wo tugg tuppinf wiff mw nose,

OneLastCast

[speyfly]

Hi Skein, just contact the Umpqua Watershed website that I linked you with and they can suppy you with the latest data regarding the 1996 side areas in Douglas County and much more.

Cheers,
Dennis

[GutshotApe]

Straydog, Speyfly, Fishbulb, etc. - I've been having one heck of a time today on the internet. Takes two or three times to log on and then as often as not the msn homepage won't download. Twice today I've composed lengthy posts for this thread, posts that would have answered all questions and settled you guy's hash once and for all . But when I click the Add Reply button it just sits there and after a minute or two a screen comes on and says This page can't be displayed, and then, crash. Back to sq. one.

Speyfly - 1. The stream study was headed by Dr. Kate Sullivan who, in 1994, was with Weyerhaeuser's Centralia Research Center. She could make a copy of the report available if you want one.

2. If you have evidence that board of forestry members are guilty of a conflict of interest and didn't excuse themselves from voting, let's see it! Board and commission members are required by law to declare conflicts.

3.Can't quite follow your argument on funding. Yes, its all government money but there is a difference between county, state and federal govts. Timber sale receipts from federal timber sales is money raised from the sale of the timber. The money Oregon counties now gets from DC in lieu of timber sale money is a federal welfare payment that comes from tax revenue raised elsewhere.

4. Re-read my post - I referred to AVERAGE fire cycles. You would learn a lot if you got a copy of "Natural Vegetation of Oregon & Washington", USFS, PNW Forest & Range Experiment Station, Portland, General Tech. Report PNW-8, 1973 by Franklin & Dyrness. In it you will find there never were many true hemlock/cedar climax stage forests west of the cascades because it takes centuries for the seral Douglas-fir stands to breakdown from their early monoculture stage and allow the understory of shade-tolerent species to dominate. With AVERAGE fire cycles of half or less that time, many sites remain dominated by Douglas-fir. There is a small part of the NW Olympic Peninsula, near the Dickey River, where researchers haven't been able to find evidence of forest fires in the past. All other parts of the PNW have burned repeatedly and will burn again.

One last thought: yes, there were some slides during the bad winter a few years ago. There were some people killed by a slide in Douglas county. But, you would have had to have been an idiot to live in a house where those people were. Right at the bottom of a side canyon with ample evidence of previous sluice-outs. The slide that killed them, along with most slides from the 1996 storms, were not caused by clearcutting. They were road related. The fatal slide came from a landing on a 10-yr-old clearcut and the landing ditching had filled in creating a mini-lake which eventually saturated the roadbed. That's what failed and slid down the hill. You can find slides that begin inside clearcut boundaries but you can also find slides that occur in untouched oldgrowth. Next time you are in the Mapleton area check out the 1996 slide directly across the river from the old ranger station building. Big muddy gash that starts at the headwall and goes all the way to the river. Oldgrowth timber. Never been a chainsaw near it. State Forestry did a flyover study and found lots of other slides inside unlogged stands.

It ain't as simple as you might like to think it is.

[rob allen]

Here we go back to the 1980's we have been there and done that!! I am not being disloyal to our counrty by saying that George W Bush does not care about anything other than what helps large coprorations period!!!!!! end of story! helping large corporations is what these rules are all about..

[speyfly]

GSA, what is your point? Slides are bad for fish and the fact that they happen more often than not when you build logging roads and clear cut on steep slopes. Just to say that it can happen in untouched areas does not address the problems cause by cheap logging practices.

[GutshotApe]

Slides CAN BE good for fish - where do you think spawning gravel comes from? In the coast range the parent material is sandstone and if not replaced by erosion it soon turns to sand, is washed downstream, and nothing is left but bedrock.

I'm not defending "cheap" logging practices - you apparently assume that anything goes in the woods but you're wrong if you do. You apparently have only part of the facts. Slides in the coast range are a fact of life and it is not conclusively proven that clearcutting alone causes overall increases in slide rates. And, even if there are a few more, it hasn't been shown to be as detrimental as you apparently think. The Univ. of Washington [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] ran a multi-year study on Archie Knowles Creek, a major lower Siuslaw trib near Mapleton in conjunction with American Rivers (I think) or similar enviro group to study the effect of several "devastating" slides that "destroyed" some side draws in the upper creek drainage. The study found increase native coho production due to improved aquatic habitat in the main creek where sluice-outs created gravel dams providing good spawning areas and slackwater rearing areas. And the increases weren't just a statistical bump - they were significant.

I'm saying logging practices and environmental protection has advanced to the point that logging is not the problem it once was, or as it once was perceived to be. A fresh clearcut won't win any beauty contests - but neither will it stay ugly for long.

As I said before, sit down, strap yourself in, and get ready to watch logging resume, in a small measure at least, in the national forests.

[Jennie@ifish]

This is a great topic!

Want to keep learning from it and discussing it?

Then keep from name calling, keep personal comments out and keep cool...

Otherwise, we'll all lose the chance to learn something because of a few who lose their temper. The topic will be deleted, cuz I don't have the time to edit things out of it.

Keep your cool!-- Also, I think it should be required reading here at ifish. Print all this stuff out and take it to a nice quiet place. Read, learn, then come back and peacefully discuss.

I'm not going to comment on it, cuz I haven't done that yet!

Jen

[sinker]

I did go to college for forestry, didn't graduate, but I did learn a few things there.
First off, yes it is temporary. Those trees will grow back. When they clearcut and build houses those trees aren't coming back. EVER.

Second, Natures way of cleaning the forests is through fire. the closest man can come to recreating this is clearcutting. Not in all forests but primarily on west-side forests. If you look at the environment that tree species need to grow and look at the natural cycle of things you can come to a conclusion.
There are primarily 3 species of trees in your typical stand of trees that gets logged. Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar and Western Hemlock.
Douglas Fir's require shade when starting out and then after a few years require full sunlight.
Western Red Cedar require full shade pretty much all the time.
Hemlocks thrive in the understory and do all right in full sunlight.
Now if there are never any fires or any logging, eventually you’d have a forest full of hemlocks. The hemlocks would thrive in the understory up to a point of becoming full size trees and blocking the shade out to the Doug Fir trees which are small.
Now you’re thinking I’m higher than a kite because there aren’t any forests like that. Well I’m not higher than a kite and there are no forests like that due to nature and it’s fires. But man has decided that fires are an evil thing. But go take a walk through the woods at Mt Rainier or on the Olympics where there are true old growth forests still. Pretty much the only Douglas fir trees you see are the big ones, there aren’t any smaller ones. The only small trees you see are cedar and hemlock.

Better way of logging around here to prevent erosion? Clearcutting is it. The vast majority of slides and erosion come from the roadbeds that are used to get the trees out. If they clearcut they can get in get the logs out and plow the road and plant it.
If they want to selective cut they have to keep these roads open and maintain them. Around here the DNR has been plowing and planting roads for years. The forest service has recently started doing it to all the spur roads. They claim they don’t have the funds to maintain them anymore. Hhhmmmm Before they didn’t have the funds to plow them.
Maybe that’s why they’re called the Forest Circus. :grin: :grin: :grin:

I don’t like to see the large clearcuts but do agree with small ones. It’s better for the forest and for the wildlife. Everyone up above Enumclaw is complaining about how there are no deer or elk anymore. Can’t remember the last time the forest service had a cut. One of the reasons there are more deer in this country today than there were 200 years ago is due to logging. What deer require to forage on is found either in openings created by windfalls, openings created by clearcuts or streams and rivers.

[Fishbulb]

I'd still like to find that journal article on stream temps if you have it.

[skein]

Slinker,

Amen, brother.

When they clearcut and build houses those trees aren't coming back. EVER.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Make it a rule that every time you drive by Clackamas Town Center, Mall 205, or many, many others, you say to yourself, "There's a clearcut that will *never* grow back." Or as I tell my non-hunting, non-fishing co-workers, "the subdivision you live in has destroyed more habitat - and the wildlife that lived there - than my rifles or rods ever will."

Just an observation.

Skein

[sinker]

By law everytime land is cleared of trees unless that land is going to a better purpose. What do the consider a better purpose? development.
I realize the population is getting larger, but all it's doing is expanding out and gobbling land up. Unfortunately after 9-11 I don't think you'll see a whole lot of high rises for quite some time.

[speyfly]

OK guys. You have stated your positions that clear cuts are good for the forest and fish. Historically the timber companies have *****, pillaged and plundered at our (the tax payers) expense. When they do damage they just say oops, maybe pay a fine and leaving the taxpayers with the problem.

Now I for one would like you to back up your statements with independent studies (not studies done by timber interests) that back up your mantra. Show me the proof where slides and siltation are good for fish. As far a gravel making in the stream, if a stream is healthy from the head waters to the river mouth it will make gravel without the so called help of sliding stream banks.

I would like to see the evidence that supports your position that clear cutting and slides improves any fishery.

Happy Thanksgiving

[GutshotApe]

Spey - As posted above, check with Kate Sullivan with Weyco at their Centralia (WA) Research center for info on the stream temp. study I mentioned. I don't have a copy - just my notes from the 10 streams I measured.

The Archie Knowles Creek study was headed by a UW grad student named Lee Benda, whereabouts unknown to me. The American Rivers rep. on the study was Charlie Dewberry who lived in Florence as of a couple years ago. That study was conducted by the University of Washington - yes, I know, they too are pawns for the timber barons . This was a study that the enviro groups probably would like to supress because it contradicts what they say when trying to justify no more logging at all.

Sinker - You may not have graduated but you learned more about real-world forest ecology than most of the "enviros" ever will :grin: and who, for the most part, merely parrot the standard enviro line without any knowledge or evidence to back it up. Its the Big Lie technique - repeated often enough, anything soon becomes believable.

The only flaw with your post is that Douglas-fir does not need shade to germinate or grow for the first few years. DFir will germinate and grow in shade but will do so poorly. And if established in the shade, when released, those trees never catch up. Its like starving a child for his first five years then putting him on full rations. The kid will never achieve full growth potential. Doug-fir needs full sunlight throughout the entire life cycle for best growth. Shelterwood systems, thinning from below, thinning from above, etc, etc, - these methods work well for some types of forests in certain regions - but its a dead giveaway that the speaker doesn't have a clue about westside OR/WA forests if you hear them advocate thinnings but never a clearcut. You're right about the need to keep roads open under a thinning regime and the negative impacts of that practice. There is also the problem of soil compaction from repeated thinnings and the resultant changes in the local hydrologic cycle. And residual stand damage, etc.....................

The new forest practices rules with stream protection measures (logging, spraying, fertilization buffer strips, etc.), requirements to leave significant numbers of downed logs and standing trees, road construction, maintenence & abandonment standards, reforestation standards...............all these add up to a well regulated industry. I don't want to hear about what happened here decades ago - or what you imagine happened. We're talking about 2002.

[Straydog]

I will keep this brief as I am almost cross eyed from reading all of this information.

1. I am with Speyfly..... show me the data on the stream temps. that have no canopy shade.

2. I am with GSA, the new forestry methods and standards make it possible to harvest in a more forest friendly manner. The problem I see is that many don't follow the rules..... simply a fact of life when the almighty dollar is the end goal.

3. Past logging practices had almost everything to do with the slash, rock, dirt and overall mayhem that blew down into the Umpqua's tribs and main river.. Drive it today and you will see mainly brush growing up around the debris except on those steep slopes that have been denuded since the last wet winter. It is only a matter of time until we see somewhat of re-run of this situaiton.

4. Skein, you really don't need to get in an airplane.... simply drive down the Umpqua River and observe what is taking place. Same in the Coquille drainage. Drive hiway 42 to the coast one day and observe the forest pactices first hand. "It aint purty" and I say it ain't healthy.

5. Under the Bush administration the pendulum will not stop in the middle, it will go way over to the other side. The Timber Industry bought that promise for themselves. (sorry GSA, you are simply mistaken if you truly believe there is no organized collective effort by the Timber Industry)

It is my belief that for whatever reason, the Gov. Leaders are really not as anxious to find the middle as they would have us believe. Look at the Klamath water issue for evidence. Two years ago the Fed. Gov. made the mistake of taking ALL of the water from the Klamath irrigators. This last year, with the Fed. Gov. controlling the pendulum, gave ALL of the water back to the farmers. Tell me, is that evidence of Fed. leaders looking for middle ground??? :whazzup:

[ 11-28-2002, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[sinker]

I'm not saying logging is good for fish. I'm saying clearcutting is the best thing. There will always be logging in the region. You may as well come to accept that.

As far as ****** and pillaging the land, yes it's happened. But every day people do far more of it, not to mention the industrial zones. Nothing is worse than the industrial zones spewing their pollution.

We need to stop the swings and come up with a balanced harvest. I HATE CLEAR CUTS!! The Cube Cove area of Admrality Island is cut from ridge top to creek bottom for over 20 miles!

[GutshotApe]

SD - I'd be happy to show you the streams I used, the recording thermometers ( still have a couple around here someplace), the spherical densiometer used to to measure degree of shading, and my notes. The creekbed doesn't care if the shade comes froman oldgrowth tree or a sword fern. What matters is % of sunlight/shade. Of the ten streams I monitored, one (Saleratus Cr-upper Suislaw drainage) flowed thru BLM oldgrowth timber. Big stuff. That creek had about 50% shade - and 50% open to the sun. The only creek that had higher temps was Lutsinger Creek (lower Umpqua) that flowed thru a pasture area and the sun beat down on exposed bedrock because the farmer cleared the streamside alders and the cows took care of the rest.

Most little streams inside clearcuts now rate a buffer strip. Back when the temp. study was done fishless creeks didn't rate a buffer and didn't get one. That was the case for the coldest stream I measured - a year after logging everything, the ferns and salmonberry had covered the creek providing heavy shade - and optimal 59 degree temps in August.

Yes, there are mutual interests that cause many timber outfits to band together - I'm just saying that "the timber industry" is not monolithic. There are companies probably opposed to resumption of even limited federal timber sales. There are other issues that divide the industry. I've sat in on many meetings at the AOL/OFIC offices across the street from the capitol in Salem and know that the industry is very diverse and there are many differences. That's all.

[speyfly]

Straydog, I have an idea. It's called cradle to grave insurance. If a logging company logs an area, then they own it and all of the problems that might arise from their logging practices forever or until it is logged again. Let them pay all of the mitigation costs for anything that happens.

Too many industries don't have to pay the cost for cleaning up the damage they cause. A good example is the Willamette Super Fund clean up. Even though industry caused the problem, the taxpayers are the ones that will pay the bill.

If you choose to make a profit from public lands it is your responsibility to clean up the mess that you created.

[GutshotApe]

Spey -

We already have that arrangement - its called private land. The FPA is the tool we use to ensure compliance with best management practices.

The public profits from logging on federal and state-owned forests so I agree with you there, too.

Resource protection and damage mitigation is ultimately the landowner's responsibility no matter if public or private.

[ssteelheadsteve]

[ 11-29-2002, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: ssteelheadsteve ]

[Straydog]

Recently an independant logging company was fined $10,000 for illegal logging practices up in the Azalea area near Glendale. (so much for new practices and guidelines)

Realize that he was ****** a watershed above Cow Creek. This stream has been closed to all fishing for several years due to the endangered species act. Due to this all of the people of Glendale, Quines Creek, Azalea and all of the folks scattered around the hills of this area as well as you and I were told we can not fish this water.

The businesses that used to sell a little tackle have gotten out of the business. The kids complain of little or nothing to do in these rural areas in the summer.

Now, this guy has committed his crime and was fined for what will simply be a cost of doing business and let go.

If we want to make this equitable and workable let's treat it like some hunting or fishing violations. You get caught breaking the law you will pay fine, you will forfeit all of the equipment used to commit the crime and you will never be allowed to participate in this activity again.

Then and only then will I be comfortable trusting the timber industry as a whole to do the right thing. I am not saying the company Gutshotape worked for are crooks. I am not saying anyone in particular are crooks. What I am saying is that there are crooks out there and as long as the consequences are as marginal as a 10K fine, the crooks will operate as such.

I know, I know, the forest this guy ruined will likely heal itself in 30 to 50 years but in the meantime my ability to enjoy the fruits of this stream or the income to be generated by selling equipment to others who would like to enjoy the fruits of this stream are denied.

Where do I sign for my "takings" money???

[ 11-29-2002, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[speyfly]

Straydog. Just one of the trees that was taken from that area that you are talking about more than likely paid that minimal fine that was levied against the logging company. Wooo, they really hurt his pocket book didn’t they.

GSA, you've done a good job of making my point. The way things stand; the taxpayers pick up the bill for damage done but a logging company. Now how fair is that? If I rent a piece of property, I not only pay the rent but I am responsible for anything that happens. Tell my why industry (in this case the logging industry) is exempt from being responsible for what they do. In your perfect world the taxpayers and citizens of Oregon are the ones that are getting screwed. Yes we get revenue from timber harvesting but that should go without saying since it is our land yet you want to make the state responsible for mitigations when it was not the state that did the damage. Come on GSA, let’s face the facts that the timber industry like many other big industries don't have to pay their fair share. Why do you think that Bushy Baby and the Republican Environmental Terrorists (ultra conservative republicans are the true terrorists) received so much money from the timber industry during the 2000 election? Now that they have the power it is back to trashing the environment for the sake of profits.

[The Fishing Geek]

Originally posted by skein:
Slinker,

Amen, brother. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana,arial,helv">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">When they clearcut and build houses those trees aren't coming back. EVER.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Make it a rule that every time you drive by Clackamas Town Center, Mall 205, or many, many others, you say to yourself, "There's a clearcut that will *never* grow back." Or as I tell my non-hunting, non-fishing co-workers, "the subdivision you live in has destroyed more habitat - and the wildlife that lived there - than my rifles or rods ever will."

Just an observation.

Skein</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Clackamas Town Center was built on a marsh, FYI. I grew up over there, chasing pheasants and rabbits. I think about that marsh and all of its inhabitants from time to time and miss their presence.

I also look up on Mt. Scott and see all the new development that has happened up there in the last 10 years, which has left huge scars on the mountain. It does raise interesting questions about a person's ownership of land vs. a communty's ownership of the scenery. Obviously the law is in the property owners favor but the community loses a lot in that instance as well.

Modernization has both positive and negative lasting effects.

[TheRogue]

My last comment on this subject is this:

The timber industry has made huge strides in coming toward what is environmentally sound. There are a multitude of environmental laws out there, including the ill-fated NW Forest Plan, which, by the way, was agreed to by most of the major conservative groups involved.

The environmental conservationists and preservationists (there is a difference), have never budged a bit. The majority of them have never accepted the fact that we MUST HAVE timber harvest, and that there WILL BE some environmental damage. This includes the groups that agreed on the NWFP.

Nowhere in the world are there stricter environmental timber harvest regulations. Instead of supporting sound harvest practices, most groups and their un-informed members oppose all this harvest. So, instead, the importing of raw logs, lumber, and other products from Canada, South America, and Russia continues to rapidly grow. Do you suppose that most of these places have ANY harvesting laws WHATSOEVER???

Please people, pull your heads out of the sand, don't close your eyes to this. I encourage you to go to the following site:

http://www.greenspirit.com/index.cfm

and read what Mr. Moore has to say. His credentials are impecable, and his studies are sound. He's what I consider an environmentalist/realist.

TR

[ 11-29-2002, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

[Straydog]

The Rogue,

I was given this person's video by a friend in the paper mill business.

He wanted to get my 'take' on it hoping to change my mind.

It did not work.

This is one sided timber industry propoganda, nothing more, nothing less.

There is the valid point that we need trees to build houses and make paper as well as other commodities. No argument there.

Beyond the obvious, this man's views are no more relevant than an extreme environmentalists view of his bias in my mind.

[speyfly]

If Bush gets his way and unwinds all of the environmental laws, federal forestlands can be clear-cut WITHOUT doing an environmental impact study. What does that mean? If the forester chooses to log a watershed on steep unstable slopes, that will be OK.

Over the last 20-year, our fisheries have been in decline with some holding their own and very few getting healthier. In the early 80's we saw many of our fish runs crash. We now know that we have a weather phenomenon that wait’s just off shore (El Nino) that threatens our anadromous fishes every year. That said, with more stream degradation from thermal pollution, siltation and overall loss of habitat it, throw in El Nino and the lack of $$$ targeting these potential problems and won't take but just a few years before our fish runs are severely impacted.

How much are our fisheriesand public lands really worth? How much do we give up?
Check this out and make up your own mind.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/840599.asp?0dm=C21IN

[GutshotApe]

My last post on this, I hope.

It would take one big mother of a tree to pay the logger's $10,000 fine. If the logging job referred to was a private land job, the landowner would need to generate about 8 truckloads of good #2 & better sawlogs to make 10 grand after taxes and expenses. If it was a timber sale, it would take many more loads to come up with 10 grand after paying for the logs, taxes & expenses. It is apparent that some people have very hazy idea of real world economic conditions. Believe me, each and every logger I know would be severely hurt by a $10,000 fine.

And what were the alleged damages - how many fish were actually injured or killed? How much worse off is the Cow Creek drainage now (in real, demonstrable measures)? And, how does the bad job you mention compare to the average logging job?

I have seen some forest practices act violations in my time in the woods, most of them are unintentional and inadvertant - often made by some low level worker and not a contrived plot to maximize profit at someone else's expense. The vast majority of logging operations, both on public and private ground, meet the stringent requirements of the FPA.

Timber sales put up for bid on federal and state lands are scritinized from top to bottom and all sorts of environmental protection is incorporated. The operators are not turned loose - they are monitored virtually daily and are held to the plan. George Bush 2 isn't going to roll back all the environmental laws and anyone who thinks that is seriously confused. One thing that will change is the requirement to conduct never-ending surveys for a host of plants and animals that might be out there. We know that converting mature timber to a fresh clearcut leading to a young replacement forest will radically change the terrestrial environment and will eliminate habitat for some species while creating new habitat for other species. Its nature's way.

Yes, fresh clearcuts don't look too good for a year or two. But that doesn't mean they're automatically bad. One of the characteristics distinguishing foresters is they can look at a landscape and see it now and visualize what it will look like in 10, 20, 30 - even 100 years in the future. Most non-foresters see things in the natural world as static and never-changing. Even if all of Oregon's forests were declared to be "no touch wilderness", there will be continual change. Some slow and imperceptible, others sudden and dramatic.

I guess it boils down to which philosophical view one subscribes to. Should Oregon be a highly urbanized state with people living and working (competing against Taiwan, I guess) in metro areas and the rest of the state a park (the only people living outside the UGB would be federal rangers and federal agents along with a few gas station attendants, motel & lodge workers and perhaps some nature interpretive - not fishing or hunting - guides)? Or should we make wise use of our natural resources and capitalize on the world's best tree growing land and the world's most useful tree species?

I had a new house built and moved in January of this year. Sad to say, much of the wood used in the construction came from Canada. Yet, I look out off my deck and I see a mix of vigorous second growth fir, oldgrowth fir, and a few regenerating old clearcuts - all growing on the most potentially productive forest land base in the world. The counties around here are dotted with sawmills closed due to a lack of logs. Ever been to Canada and seen how they manage their forests? I have - and they're about 2 or 3 decades behind Oregon forestry - with one major exception. They at least are using their resources instead of watching them burn up in wildfires.

[Straydog]

GSA,

You ask,

"And what were the alleged damages - how many fish were actually injured or killed? How much worse off is the Cow Creek drainage now (in real, demonstrable measures)? And, how does the bad job you mention compare to the average logging job?"

I am going to assume you are serious when you ask this, as alarming as I find that from one with your background.

Just as you can not stand at a dam and say "look, look there are no dead fish therefore this dam does not harm fish." you cannot look at damaged fish spawning habitat and since there are no floaters proclaim there is no fish kill. I am disappointed you ask how many fish were killed or harmed. I guess the answer will be building year after year after year that siltation, overly warm water, compacted soils, and other habitat altering issues take their toll. I will get back to you in 20 years on that one.

As for your other questions, I am not a soil scientist, forester or biologist so am unable to quantify an answer in any immediate "demonstratable" measures. Again, check back in 20 and we can review.

As for how this logging job compares to others, I don't know.

I do know that I live in an area and work in an industry that has been very negatively impacted by the timber industry and the travesties it has created over the years. I know that my ability to use my public resources have been reduced by these actions. I know that my abilty to make a living has been hampered by these actions. I know that society as a whole have been negatively impacted by these actions. And I know that given the opportunity to do so, many in the industry would repeat those negative actions for the benefit of money.

I also know of several logging companies that would not be sevearly impacted by a $10,000 fine. I ask that remember that the local industry group came up with a half mill for campaign contribution to our present President. A creative accountant will find a way to write this off faster than you can say "habitat destruction."

You said "We know that converting mature timber to a fresh clearcut leading to a young replacement forest will radically change the terrestrial environment and will eliminate habitat for some species while creating new habitat for other species. Its nature's way."
I must strongly disagree. Clearcutting is not natures way. If you are going to convince me that clearcuts mimic wildfire you are going to have to show me clearcuts that mimic the irratic nature of fire, burning everything in one place, a little in others and nothing in others. You are going to have to explain to me how the lack of the heat element of fire that is missing in clearcutting allows for the mimic of nature. And you are going to have to convince me how many of the old clearcuts that are now overgrown with buck brush, scotch broom and poison oak mimic nature.

No, clearcuts are not nature's way.

I too will try to make this my last comment on this issue and stick to topics you and I agree on to discuss with you, it is pretty obvious we can respectfully agree to disagree strongly on timber industry issues.

[ 11-29-2002, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]