Slide up the Kilchis affecting color again

[Jennie@ifish]

All day the Kilchis was beautiful steelie green.

A little rain, and... poof! It's chocolate mud now, and I mean UGLY. I guess the slide sloughed off another chunk.

Yip, I'm a sensationalist alarmist because I care about our rivers and streams. Just call me a river/stream/steelhead/salmon/tree hugger.

:smile:

Jen

[freespool]

Jennie there's an old saying about believing 10% of what you read. Well I'm pretty sure you can believe all of what you see.


salmon hugger

[GL2]

I was gonna post a question about this. I've been thinking about this alot @ work today.
It will be interesting to see the accumlitive rainfall @ the Kilches Canyon weather station.
I'm also curious to know if more sloughed off, or the run off is just carrying a bunch of mud into the river.
I'm hoping it didn't slough.
If it's run off then, look for a repeat everytime we get heavy rain.

Now any new redds will be getting silted.
We will know next year the effect on the redds.
The outmigration trap numbers will tell the tale.

I think my son & I might go check it out tommorow.
Last time he was up there was @ the park in Augast swimming. It will be educational for him to see it, and have it explained to him.

[ 12-27-2003, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: GL2 ]

[Jennie@ifish]

Two days ago, or three? It muddied up big time, but was clear again in the morning. It was muddy for about 8 hours.

Jen

[GL2]

Originally posted by Jennie@ifish:


Yip, I'm a sensationalist alarmist because I care about our rivers and streams. Just call me a river/stream/steelhead/salmon/tree hugger.

:smile:

Jen

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Can I call you someone who cares? Some one who is in tune with Gods earth? Someone who is pro-active about things she cares about. Someone who cares about what we leave behind for our kids?
Am I out of line?

I've never been more honest, when I say that a day doesn't go by I don't think about that slide, and what the next heavy rain will bring.
I've been to busy, to get a chance to check it out.
Tomorrow I coming over to see it.

[Lund]

C'mon lets get a grip here. The fish in the river that have or are going to spawn will do so in areas of fast moving water. thus will not be affected by the silt(wrong) its mud or top soil. The effect will not harm the fish or they would of all died long ago with the first dirty water after a rain.

Maybe I am just un-educated here, but doesn't the river get dirty after every high water? If so, why is it any different now, than normal? Ya it looks to stay brown a bit longer than normal. Look at the big Nehalem river. It stays dirty for months and has some of the best steelhead and salmon runs in the state.

[Jennie@ifish]

I'll take a picture of our chum spawning beds tomorrow, Kevin, if you want.
It's in fairly fast moving water... and redds are buried underneath 3 to 5 inches of heavy clay colored silt.

There is a difference between mud that normally fills the water during high flows, and the red clay silt that is now covering our spawning redds four inches deep in areas.

When we have regular muddy high water, it flushes out. This stuff isn't flushing. I won't call you uneducated, but I would call you to come over and take a look for yourself.

I'm not going to get into a debate. I was just letting people know that the river is now colored, with the rainfall we have.


Jen

[ 12-27-2003, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: Jennie@ifish ]

[GL2]

Lund,

From a Bio's perspective... Mr. Plawman

quote from ODF-FORESTRY:

Hello, this is Mark Labhart Distrcit Forester for the Oregon Dept. of Forestry in Tillamook. I understand the Little South Fork Kilchis River Slide has generated some interest from fishers on this site. I thought I would post some information in the hopes that it would provide some background on the slide from my point of view.....

What happened?
Sometime during the second weekend of Dec. a large slide originated on ODF property. Estimated volume that moved is 15,000 to 30,000 cubic yds. of material. A dump truck holds about 10 cubic yds. Estimated volume of material that entered the Little South Fork of the Kilchis River is 300 - 800 cubic yds of material...


What are the effects on fish?
ODF&W Fish Habitat Biologist Dave Plawman provide the following comments.
Short-term impacts
The slide primarily affects chinook redds in the area adjacent to and immediately downstream of the slide. Some impacts to juvenile coho, steelhead and cutthroat juvenilles adjacent and immediately downstream of the slide. There is potential sedimentation of chinook and chum redds downstream. There is potential for continued sedimentation throughout the winter until the slide stabilizes.....
end Quote:

&lt;Seem's like he's concearned with the sedimentation ...

It's all about volume...
300 to 8000 cubic yards in the Little south Fork.
Thats from 30 to 80 dump truck loads of mud. Dumped into the river. It's gonna settle no matter how fast the water because of the shear volume of material.
This is without a doubt a trajedy.

Any how, I hope find this information educational, and let me know if I can help you understand anything else.

Jen,
I'm up for that pic, if you'd be so kind.
Regards,
Jason

Happy Holidays!

[ 12-27-2003, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: GL2 ]

[Lund]

When we get the next HIGH water it will wash all that away and expose all the gravel again. The slide will eventually become stable. as soon as vegitation starts to grow it will no longer seep mud into the river and all will be well again.


Only time will tell the effects of the slide. I've watched many occur on the Wilson that made lakes out of the river and within a a few months and a few high water events it all evens out.

[GL2]

Originally posted by lund:
When we get the next HIGH water it will wash all that away and expose all the gravel again....

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Lund;
Great point, yes high water will eventually scour the gravle beds clean.
Will it be the next? Or will the next high water have a abmormal volume or clay slit, to bury the redds even more?

My point:
It all about the O2.
But, what about the Oxygen in the NOW. How are the eggs in the redds suppossed to get Oxygen right now, or since the slide??
How many redds will not be viable because of suffacation from siltation??
The potential impact could be huge, and it could allready be over for some of the eggs in the redds.
Personaly, I bet the numbers will be staggering.
I hope you understand the impact this could be having everyday since this slide took place.
Thats why I think about this some every day.
I'm not saying the runs will be gone, I'm saying they might be substantilly impacted.
Regards,
Jason

Happy Holidays

Edit:
BTW- It could take months for the slide to stablize.
Silt comes about when mud or top soil disovles & breaks down into small particals.
So what goes into the river as mud becomes silt.
I think I got it right, but I know some guys can explain the silt from mud thing to a T.
Thanks for being interested, in how silt is affecting the redds.
Good night, gonna hit the road and check it out tomorrow.

[ 12-27-2003, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: GL2 ]

[flop eared mule]

Read Bob R*** report today in the 12/28 Sunday commentary of the oregonian. He got it right and hit it dead center in my opinion.

--j

[Pete]

Here's a link to Bob Rees's story:

Toward forestry that favors fish

[freespool]

Thanks Pete for that link. I feel this concept is gaining momentum everyday. At present time the logging rules are clearly in favor of timber harvest. Fish have always bore the brunt of bad logging practices. It's high time they recieved equal status with timber harvest,when cutting up the forest management pie. Fish habitat and clean water are just as important as dollars per board foot that can be extracted from our state forest land.


salmon hugger

[ 12-28-2003, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: freespool ]

[Lund]

I like a respect Bob as a guide and person. However I feel(my opinion) that the slide occured in 2003 after logging in 97 could not be the cause. We had the 99 flood of Nov. and it didn't slide then. Everyone always looks to blame someone else.

Did anyone ever think of how many salmon get taken from our river/bays from our local fishing guides. I'll bet that impact is drastically higher than the mortality caused by the Kilches slide. By no means am I trying to start an issue with Bob, as he and the loggers must make a living.

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by freespool:
It's high time they recieved equal status with timber harvest,when cutting up the forest management pie.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">What is your definition of "equal status"?

As I understand it, under the so-called 50/50 plan half the state forest would be offlimits to any timber harvest...leaving the rest open to harvesting. But that's not a 50:50 split because timber harvesters in those areas would still be required to leave streamside buffers untouched and unlogged...and to make many other concessions, such as long rotations and headwall leave areas, for the presumed benefit of fish.

A real 50:50 split would let the "loggers" do anything they wanted on "their half", without limitation...but even if that happened, there would still be considerable fish production in those areas.

The so-called 50/50 plan is probably more like 70/30 or 80/20...with forest management, and those Oregonians who want to maximize timber revenues, jobs & taxes...or deer & elk production...getting the short end of the deal...once again.

I'm with Lund...it is a real stretch to attribute the current Kilchis slide to a partial-cut (alder removal) 6 or 7 years ago. It is also wrong to assume there is total devastation and destruction of eggs in the redds downstream from the slide. The only real measure of the slide's effect on fish would be a count of out-migrating smolts over the next few years...but without an identical control watershed that didn't have a slide to compare with, even a count of Kilchis smolts will be inconclusive.

Most federal timberlands are now off-limits to timber harvest to benefit one species or another...it would seem the Tillamook State Forest offers a good opportunity to show that forestry and fisheries are not mutually exclusive land uses.

We CAN have our cake and eat it, too.

[ 12-28-2003, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: GutshotApe ]

[Lund]

Finally, someone with a little optimism. Sorry if I hurt your feelings Bob. I know you understand where I come from, And I too understand your disagreement with the system.

[blackdog]

Sorry, but that article by Bob Rees is a load of B.S. [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

Let's look at a few points Bob makes in his article:

A recent landslide thousands of feet long and hundreds of feet wide slammed into the salmon spawning beds of the Kilchis River, smothering thousands of salmon eggs and harming future generations of fish populations for years to come.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">First off, that statement is completely false, as the slide took place in the Little Kilchis, a tributary of Sams Downs Creek, which is a trib of the Kilchis. I also think the arguement could be made that while the slide did cause some short term damage it also provided the stream with new critical habitat that will benefit fish populations for years to come. It's not all doom and gloom.

Next:

A state Department of Forestry official told The Oregonian, "The slope has clearly had a history of instability that has been ongoing for probably thousands of years." ("Slide stirs logging debate," Dec. 19)

Before logging took place, this same slope survived the massive storms and flooding of 1996. But when a storm dropped just an inch of rainfall recently, the logged slope failed.

With such clear evidence the slope was unstable, the question is why did the Department of Forestry allow the logging?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Selecting only part of the whole story doesn't mean the other part doesn't exist, it only means you're trying to pull one over on the general public. You fail to mention that the slope that recently slid has slid many times in the past and will slide many times in the future. And there is NO direct correlation between the recent inch of rain and the slide. Since it was logged in '96, it's probably rained well over an inch in the area well over a hundred times that didn't cause a slide, including the massive flooding that took place in '99 Trying to tie the two together is a HUGE stretch. I guess I don't see your 'clear' evidence. :whazzup:

In regards to the TSF plan that you are opposing you say "There is a better way." Are you trying to make me believe that you're group (whoever that is?) has put together a better plan in the last year than the group of experts from all fields selected from around the world who put somewhere around ten years of study into their plan? I'm still not buying it.

Lastly, Bob states:

Today we have a state forest plan that favors logging, landslides and fish-kills.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Bob, if you honestly believe this to be true, great for you. But trying to pass along this alarmist view to the general public as fact is deplorable. I sincerely hope the public can see past your facade and not buy into your rhetoric.

[freespool]

For any of you folks out there that are confused by all this back and forth about us needing a new forest plan. Please take the time to travel the back roads of the coast range,where you'll see first hand our modern up to date forest practices in action. Try the Seletz River,see first hand what a 20ft high graded buffer looks like up close. Our public lands deserve better,our fish deserve better,and we deserve better. Go out there and take a look for yourself,see if you don't think there maybe a better way to manage our public lands over the long haul.


salmon hugger

[Reelentless]

Yo Freespool,

Did you hug that Salmon before or after you bashed its head in and gutted it? [img]graemlins/program.gif[/img]

[freespool]

SSD,I'm a bleed it out,then hug it kinda guy.


salmon hugger

[blackdog]

freespool,

just curious, if the Siletz area forest is in such bad shape and the Tillamook State Forest hasn't been logged in many years, how come the Tillamook Bay streams don't have HUGE runs of salmon and steelhead comparatively speaking?

With all that harmful logging that's going on down there, those 10 chinook my brother and I got one day this fall and the many steelhead I caught there last winter must have just been figments of my imagination. :grin:

[TheRogue]

I copied this out of the Other Thread, Page 2 , I encourage everyone to go back and read it..

Originally posted by lucky roostertail:
Hello,

This is Jason Hinkle, Geotechnical Assistant at the Oregon Department of Forestry. I was made aware of this ongoing discussion earlier this week, but did not have time to register until Friday night and was granted access this morning. I definitely appreciate the wide range of perspectives shared on this site. Some of the posts have been entertaining at the least. I am writing on my own behalf and am not officially representing ODF here. I would like to try and clarify a few things. If I don't answer your question (there were quite a few), post it again and I will check back at this site and see what I can do.

(This went way further than I thought it would and it is entirely too late now. I have put some subject lines in bold, so if you don’t care about my qualifications or my take on the politics, than scroll down to my discussion of the slide. If you want references, ask.)

My qualifications:
Somebody questioned my qualifications. Here they are:
-BS Virginia Tech Major Geology Minor Geography
-MS Portland State Geology
-Currently taking a series of geotechnical engineering courses from Portland State
-I worked on the Metro Landslide Inventory with Dr. Scott Burns, mapping hundreds of '96 slides across all three Metro counties.
-I conducted my thesis on 150 or so '96 landslides in the Mt. Hood National Forest.
-I was a co-author of ODF's Landslides and Public Safety Issue Paper and performed quite a bit of data analysis on the 1996 ODF slide inventory as well as conducting field surveys of debris flows.
-In the last three months, I presented to my professional peers on the ODF geotech approach to landslide hazard and risk assessment at the Association of Engineering Geologists National Meeting and at the Geological Society of America National Meeting during a special session on the role of geologists in forestry in the Pacific NW.
-I am registered with the Oregon State Board of Geologist Examiners as a Geologist in Training. Now that I have the required three years working under an RG (Registered Geologist) and CEG (Certified Engineering Geologist), I am scheduled to take the RG exam in March and will take the CEG exam next October. Until that point, my mentor, the ODF Northwest Area Geotechnical Specialist, Dave Michael, reviews and stamps my work.

Somebody asked if I was held accountable for my statements or if I had nothing to lose. I am held accountable for my actions by the Oregon Board of Geologist Examiners and they can suspend my license to work in this state. Dave is also responsible for my work for the time being.

My job description:
I work across the state 50/50 Forest Practices/State Lands. I work directly with the Southwest Oregon Area and Northwest Oregon Area Geotechnical Specialists. I agree that my job title is not the best. Maybe I will try and get it changed since some have interpreted it to mean the equivalent of lackie, to put it nicely.

I work mostly on landslide hazard and risk assessment for natural resource protection and public safety protection. I also work on road issues and quarry development.

Politics etc.

Before I started working in the woods, I assumed that our National Forests were being liquidated with no benefit to the public and mega profits to big logging companies as they logged everything in their path and left barren wastelands. I was not very happy about that.

When I started working in the woods, I started noticing a few things. Whoa, somebody has been planting trees after these areas were logged. Whoa, they sure do leave a lot of trees in riparian buffers (about a gross third of the Hot Springs Basin in the Mt. Hood National Forest). Whoa, there are actually old growth trees left (about half of the Hot Springs Basin, which does benefit from having a fair amount of wilderness area).

Then I started working for ODF. Now the state operates differently than the Feds (nobody would argue that, well almost nobody...), but I was amazed to find out what private landowners had to do to meet the requirements of the Oregon Forest Practices Act. The State Forest program meets or exceeds the Act and at the same time generates millions of dollars of revenue for the public. In general, I have been really impressed with forestry in Oregon. I guess I thought the worst was happening out there, when it was far from it. I think the environmental movement should get a lot of credit for where forestry is today, but at the same time they need to realize how far forestry has come and that things are a lot better than those conditions that were bad enough to spur the movement in the first place. Give credit where credit is due.

I have had a pretty strong paradigm totally crushed. I have tried to take this lesson and apply it to a lot of other things where when I think about it, maybe I don't have all the facts. I don't trust the media, that’s for sure... I stopped watching TV a long time ago.

The way I see it, the U.S. definitely has a major demand for wood products. Let’s produce those products here and have a say in how the logging is conducted as opposed to getting those products from some other country with little or no thought going into the process.

I was crossing into Canada last year and the border guard asked me what I did for a living. I said, "I am an engineering geologist and I work in forestry." She said, "Oh, so you’re trying to stop the loggers." I said, "No, I am helping them log smarter."

OK, enough spiel...

My observations and interpretation of the slide:
I was recently asked by a fellow geologist who works in forestry up in WA, "How come everybody thinks they can do geology?" I don't know. I think people that work or play outdoors see geology everywhere and naturally think they know whets going on and with surprising authority sometimes. I know I don’t try and tell the biologists how to do biology. I definitely don’t take my car to the mechanic and then tell him exactly how to fix it.

Somebody asked if I had ever admitted to being wrong. No, I haven't had to. I am always right! For those of you without a properly functioning sense of humor, I was joking. I have been trained to work with the concept of multiple working hypotheses. The idea being, that when you first start to wrestle with a problem, you develop more than one possible explanation for your observations, and then you narrow down the selection with further directed observation. This process of developing your understanding of a problem requires a constant shifting between hypotheses and often the original favorite gets moved to the side. This is critical in science, especially in geology, with all its complexity.

I visited the slide the first Monday morning after it happened. Dave Plawman, ODFW, and some ODF workers were there. Even though I probably had the flu, I hiked across the bottom up one side and down the other, and tried to avoid coughing my lungs up. I talked to a few people in the Tillamook office about it at the end of the day. To me it was a pretty interesting, big slide, but I did not anticipate that by the end of the week I would hear myself quoted on OPB and end up in a front page story of the Oregonian. Mark Labhart, the Tillamook District Forester, called later in the week and asked for a brief summary of what I saw so he could provide the press with the best available technical information he had. I had about 20 minutes, so I tried to boil down the most important observations from my field notes. Mark posted those at the top of the first page when he kicked this string off. He gave you exactly what I gave him.

I took the Northwest Oregon Area Geotechnical Specialist, who had been on vacation the week before, out to the slide last Monday. He agreed with my observations and we started to refine our thoughts on the mechanics of the slide and also refined my initial size and volume estimates, which for the most part I had underestimated. At the end of the day, Dave agreed with all of the statements that I made and that Labhart posted.

And if you’re wondering about Dave's credentials, he is a licensed RG and CEG and was trained by arguably one of the best, Doug Williamson, retired USFS. Dave is currently the chairman of the Oregon Board of Geologist Examiners, i.e. he is the one that reviews work of geologists across the state. When the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries encounters a slide that is out of their league, they often call Dave.

Some people have hit some of the main points already, but I will reiterate and add a little.

Timber harvest has been associated with an increased rate of occurrence for shallow, rapid landslides. The ODF '96 Storm Study found that the rate roughly doubles for the first ten years after clearcut harvesting. These slides averaged about 40' long, 25' wide, and 3' deep. Although the initial slides were small, where they entered channels, they often traveled hundreds or even thousands of feet as debris flows. That is what I expected to see that Monday morning. Although the initial reports were a little conflicting and I wondered if I might get taken to a large, deep-seated earthflow. When we came around the corner on Sam Downs Road it became clear that I was being taken to neither. The slide was clearly large and deep-seated, an order of magnitude larger than the average shallow, rapidly moving landslide, but the slide also moved rapidly.

So did logging cause this slide?

Landslides in the Coast Range are usually triggered by increases in pore water pressure according to the effective stress principle. Shallow slides respond not only to the volume, but also the rate of delivery, of water to the soil. The triggering events that provide the increase in pore water pressure are usually rain storm events or rain-on-snow events. I think snowmelt contributed water to this slide, but I was not there when it happened so I could not say for sure. Compared to rain events, rain-on-snow events are just more dynamic.

As for quoting rain gages... Rain gages are way better than doppler radar. However, storms can be so spatially variable, that you can not say with too much certainty what actually happened at the site of the slide. We are all familiar with Oregon's squally weather.

Somebody speculated that since this site had survived the '96 storm, but only after it was logged had it failed. Obviously it was the logging right? If that was the case than we shouldn't expect any slides anywhere in NW Oregon for decades or whatever, unless the site has been logged recently. That boat doesn't really float and our '96 Storm Study showed that. If it was the logging, why didn't we have slides on all of the hillsides logged in the past six years? It’s a complex problem and although the logging is visible, that doesn't mean that it was the cause.

Let’s think about the mechanics of how timber harvest could affect slope stability. Basically, there are two commonly cited possibilities, root strength and canopy interception of rainfall.

Roots in the Coast Range usually don't extend more than a couple of feet into the ground. This slide was way deeper than typically observed for roots. I did not observe any roots exposed in the base of the slide scar either. Clearly vertical root reinforcement was not a factor, and lateral root reinforcement was likely inconsequential due to the shear breadth of the slide.

Removal of forest canopy could potentially affect the volume, but often overlooked and I think underestimated, also affect the rate of water delivery to a slope during a storm event. Now my understanding is that the harvest occurred six years ago and was considered an alder conversion. So if it was mostly alder on the site, and most of the alder don't have much of a canopy this time of year, then presumably the removal of the canopy at this site was significantly altered.

So if we can rule out root strength and rule out canopy removal, then how did timber harvest cause this slide?

Well it wasn't the black helicopters. And I did not get anything more than a pat on the back for doing what I had to do, even though it upset some people and added to the controversy. I did not want to be in put under the microscope. I don't think anybody does. No special checks were issued. No special gifts arrived on my doorstep the next day. If you think that is how ODF's decisions are made, I think you are wrong. I don't know for sure, the politics at the higher levels can be interesting that’s for sure, but I have met most of ODF's upper management and I would trust them to do the right thing. It is a big mistake to stereotype all state workers and all state agencies. There is quite a difference between agencies from what I have seen. Just like in the private sector.

So I have not asked for or received anything because of this slide, but I have seen the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition trying to fly this slide as the classic example of logging gone wrong. Did they get a geologist to say that? I doubt it. I would love to talk to the geologist that would say that. And then they ask for your donations. Now that is ironic. Talk about putting a little spin on something.

So why did ODF log a slide-prone slope?
Because the evidence of past slide activity there is of deep-seated slides not typically associated with timber harvest. The conversion of alder is good in the sense of providing a winter canopy to the site and when the slide does happen it delivers conifer to the stream that, as somebody pointed out, last a lot longer in the water than alder.

Somebody else pointed out that the site was logged prior to implementation of the current forest plan so it should not be used to reflect on the current plan anyway.

What about the old cat roads?
Those cat roads are presumably from the salvage harvest, in the 50's? We have the air photos on the way, but I have not seen them yet. Again, the size of the slide makes the influence of the cat roads unlikely. This wasn't your typical side-cast failure like you see on a lot of the old roads. The headscarp extended upslope of the highest catroads cutslope. We checked for possilbe water contributions from some of the catroads too, but did not see anything. By the way, that is where some of our best improvements have come over the years, avoiding side-cast road construction on steep slopes and pulling it back on old roads when we have the opportunity.

PERS etc.
Somebody commented on PERS. Do not take this as complaining. I agreed to work for what I receive and I am perfectly happy with it. I sure didn't go into geology because I wanted to get rich. I traded pay for benefits. My wife on the other hand thinks I am greatly underpaid. I would suspect everybody’s spouse says that though. What you don't hear mentioned a lot is that after about '96 all new employees got dumped into Tier 2, which is not nearly as sweet as Tier 1, which is the one generating all the problems. My wife works in the private sector and she has been unimpressed with my benefits compared to hers. Somebody made a good point that if you want the lavish state worker lifestyle, go get a job with the state. Somebody needs to explain the lavish part to my wife though. She sure doesn't see it that way.

Fishing
I enjoy fishing whenever the opportunity presents itself. I caught a nice trout back in October out at Wallowa Lake on my lucky roostertail.

Let me know if you have any more questions or if I missed something. I got a little fired up writing this and its late.

Thank you for your time,

J

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

[ 12-29-2003, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

[freespool]

Blackdog,this hack job is only a couple of years old,give it some time to fester. Are you saying the Siletz has more fish than the Tillamook drainage?


Salmon hugger

[blackdog]

sorry freespool, you're wrong again. They have been logging the Siletz since I was in school in Corvallis in the early 90's and probably earlier than that. Maybe you have some specific examples you're referring to, but I'm still not buying your alarmist generalities.

And as far as which basin has more fish, I don't know exact figures but the Siletz stands up pretty darned good compared to any stream in the Tillamook watershed I would think, at least in terms of chinook and steelhead production.

You seem to be trying to say that logging in the Tillamook watershed will be the end to fish runs, I'm just saying they can co-exist with logging. It's been what, 50 years or more since any real logging in the TSF and by your arguement, there should be fish coming out our ears. Well there isn't. What does that tell you? Maybe there are some other issues that you could focus on that might bring about a better result and more positive impact. There's obviously more negative impacts out there other than logging or else the TSF streams would be at historic levels.

[freespool]

Blackdog,what I'm saying is the logging rules and regulations are stacked in favor of the harvesting of wood products. It's the prime directive of the forest practices act. Get the wood out of the forest as cheaply and fast as possible. The bottom line is profit margin with maximum board feet harvested. So along comes the TSF 50/50 plan to maybe try a new management plan,one in which salmons needs are just as important as the needs of those of would harvest timber. This public tract of land is but a small persentage of the havestable timber,3% or somewhere around 600,000 acres. The other really cool idea in this 50/50 plan is the concept of growing trees that may reach 200yrs plus. Like down near the streams. These ideas and concepts are very foreign sounding I know,but this and other innovative management ideas could be tested in this plan. The plan does not lock up the forest,it simply would do business in a little bit different way. Putting salmon on a more equal footing with timber is something I feel is long overdue,remember this is public land,not private. So just like the bottle bill and the LCDC,we Oregonians have a very unique opportunity to set the pace in salmon and timber management.

So you were in school in the early 90s? That's great gland to see your a Beaver. My grandfather was a locomotive engineer back in 30s in Valsets,I used to spend my summers there in the early 60s. I feel my prospective maybe a little more objective than yours.


salmon hugger

[rebell]

The very first thing the so called 50/50 plan would do is lock up the Tillamook forest.

I encourage everyone to take a look at the so called 50/50 plan. The first thing you will notice is that there is no reall plan. No mention of ORV user's, no mention of what part of the forest will be set aside for hiking, no mention of what parts will be set aside for fish, no mention of what part will be for logging. This so called plan is as bogus as it get's. You would think if you are going to get the people of Oregon to vote for a plan, that you would have a complete plan put together.

The Rainforest coalition has no reall plan! Then there is the opinion article in the Oregonian by Bob Reese, a total joke. He makes false statements, and expects the people of Oregon to believe him. I would hope that most people are smarter than that. The one and only thing Bob and the Rainforest coalition want is to stop logging on all public land. There biggest supporter, brion lutz stated that he would like to see all public land closed to logging.

The saddest part of all of this is, people think this so called plan will put a few more fish in the rivers. There are a lot bigger problems in the Tillamook watershed that a lot of people choose not to recognize. Aggagrate mining, over fishing, to many hatchery fish introductions, the loss of deep water habitat in the estuary, and the channelization of the rivers themselves, just to name a few. Then there is the call for large woody debris in the rivers. So why is it every time a large tree or stump ends up in the river, people want it removed because it becomes a navigation hazard? Or they want it removed because it is sitting in one of their favorite fishing spots (something I have seen on my own property). If everyone here really wants to help the Tillamook fisheries, they will look at the whole picture.

The so called 50/50 plan is just the first step in locking up our public land, nothing more.

[sparkleboy]

Originally posted by blackdog:
sorry freespool, you're wrong again. They have been logging the Siletz since I was in school in Corvallis in the early 90's and probably earlier than that. Maybe you have some specific examples you're referring to, but I'm still not buying your alarmist generalities.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Um, no, actually, Blackdog, you're wrong on this one. The areas close to the river which Freespool is referring to have been logged in only the past three years, with a majority of the logging closest to the stream occuring this year.
Georgia Pacific/Plum Creek has done a very good job with forest management/replanting in certain areas, and a terrible job in other areas. The area closest to the river has seen the poorest management, in my opinion.
The logging that has taken place in the Siletz gorge has alarmed ODFW fish biologists. The practices are legal, but in my opinion, are not ethical.

[Reelentless]

Freespool,

You said, "what I'm saying is the logging rules and regulations are stacked in favor of the harvesting of wood products. It's the prime directive of the forest practices act. Get the wood out of the forest as cheaply and fast as possible."

How can you say that when you don't even know what the rules are? Give us specific examples of the rules you feel are inadequate and why.

To say the prime directive of the FPA is to expedite logging is like saying imposed speed limits allow us to travel faster. That makes no sense. The FPA does just the opposite. It regulates what and where we can harvest in order to protect all resources.

If you don't want any timber harvesting done on our public forests, just say so. Then vote for that so-called 50/50 plan.

[Jerry Dove]

Let's see 50/50. Lock up 50% of the Tillamook Forest to all logging. Now is that in addition to the % already set a side for the Endangered species, stream buffers, hiking trails, ORV trails, horse trails, camping sites, fire trails and fire roads, parks, power lines, etc.. OK we lock up 50% and it grows with a lot of under brush and old growth. Now the large wild life, ie deer and elk, move over to the other 50% that is managed for forest, fish, clean water and wild life. These animals need clear cuts and timber that they can browse in not heavy timber and underbrush. Now you hunters think how crowded that 50% is going to be come hunting season. ---Now let me tell you about a litle know fact. The logging in the Tillamook State Forest, I like to call it the Tillamook County State Forest, supports schools state wide. Now the Rain Forest Coalition will not tell you that. But due to the state law that you all voted on in about l992, give schools equal funding. If Tillamook School district gets one million dollars worth of timber money then that is one million dollars that the state does not give to Tillamook School, it goes to other schools state wide. So let's all vote for the 50-50 plan and it will cost us all a lot of money and a lot of loss of many things that the tillamook forest now provides. Not to mention that an unmanaged forest is prone to fire.

[freespool]

OK, here are a few of the things I think are stacked in favor of timber harvest. How many fish biologists work for the state forestry board? How much power do they have? Do they have veto power? Not likely. The fact steep ground is logged and roads are built near fish bearing streams is allowed is wrong. The 20ft buffer,which all the conifers that don't lean over the stream are high graded, is woefully inadequite. How in the world can large woody debris ever be created with this rule? The fact that timber is being raised like corn,with as little as 30yrs per rotation is wrong. Exporting raw logs overseas is really wrong. I'm sure there are many more reasons,but what you and many others who work in the timber industry don't seem to care about is the fact that this is public land,not a wood lot meant to supply wood for your needs. So if the people of Oregon so choose,it can be something else. And contrary to your endless referance to locking up the woods,this is a new fresh idea,with fish and fish habitat at the same level as logging.


salmon hugger

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by freespool:
Exporting raw logs overseas is really wrong.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">No logs from state or federal forests can be exported. Private landowners who export their own logs cannot bid on state or federal timber sales (with a very few exceptions).

BTW, what kind of car do you drive? Where is your fishing tackle made? Just wondering.

[SSPey]

[quote]Originally posted by GutshotApe:

No logs from state or federal forests can be exported. Private landowners who export their own logs cannot bid on state or federal timber sales (with a very few exceptions).

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Let's clarify - does your statement (and the law) apply to ALL logs, or just raw unprocessed logs? Remember that if you strip the bark off a raw log, it can be considered "processed" and no longer raw. Weyerhauser still exports 1/3 of of its raw logs.

In any event, about 7% of jobs in Oregon depend on logging. I'd like that to be 10% with less cutting - and it can be done.

[SSPey]

Originally posted by jerry dove:
Not to mention that an unmanaged forest is prone to fire.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Misleading statement for Tillamook county. The old trees retain fire scares that indicate a chance of fire survival. If anything, young stands are more flammable due to thin bark. But, when the big one comes, ain't no tree big or small gonna stand a chance.

not playing opinions here, just clarifying some statements.

[Reelentless]

floatnfish,

Weyerhaeuser is allowed to buy state owned Alder, thats it. They convinced the state that they would have to shut down mills unless they were able to continue to purchase raw materials (alder) from the state. The state folded and gave them that exception.

Grinding the bark off doesn't qualify the log as being processed as far as I know. I believe a cant must be removed at a minimum. I will check into that though to be 100% sure.

[Reelentless]

freespool,

How many fish biologists work for the state forestry board?

Not many, thats why we have ODFW. They work cooperatively.

How much power do they have?

They can write citations for FPA violations.

Do they have veto power? Not likely.

Not sure on this one.

The fact steep ground is logged and roads are built near fish bearing streams is allowed is wrong.

What is steep? 60% ground? Because the ground is steep doesn't make it unstable. Ive seen rock bluffs that are vertical and probably wont be moving any time soon.

Roads arent allowed to be built along fish bearing streams. A road can cross a fish bearing stream, but a written plan must be submitted to the state showing how the crossing will provide for fish passage.


The 20ft buffer,which all the conifers that don't lean over the stream are high graded, is woefully inadequite.

No trees inside 20' can be cut, period. If they are 200' away from the stream and lean over it (not likely) they still cant be cut. Just because the minimum is 20' doesnt mean thats what everyone cuts down too. The rules are much more complicated than that. Id guess that on large fish streams, the average buffer width is 80 feet. On medium fish streams the average width is 50-60 feet, and on small streams the average is 30 feet. True, under perfect conditions, you may be able to harvest to within 20 feet, but its extremely rare on medium and large fish streams.


How in the world can large woody debris ever be created with this rule?

Well, according to you, logging causes landslides. If we stop logging, how will the trees slide into the creek?

The fact that timber is being raised like corn,with as little as 30yrs per rotation is wrong.

Why?

Exporting raw logs overseas is really wrong.

Why? Even on private land? Every other industry uses foreign labor and materials, why shouldn't the wood products industry be allowed to?

[flop eared mule]

I guess they are hatchery fish. Been planted and not reared naturally.
--j

[blackdog]

Nope. Try again.

[blackdog]

It seems every post by proponents of the 50/50 plan get more and more comical. floatnfish points out a small statement GSA makes that might be misleading that was made to a small audience here on ifish yet ignores the hugely misleading, if not blatant lies, in Bob Rees' editorial in the Oregonian. How about addressing some of the points of contention that rebell brings up instead of trying to mislead the general public with your emotional hysterics?

By the way Bob, care to try and defend any of the comments made regarding your Oregonian piece? I would be very interested to see how you try and defend that drivel.

[freespool]

SSD,I'm pretty sure GSA told us you can cut conifers that do not lean over the stream. At any rate the 20ft buffer is a joke. The buffer should be at least as wide as the trees in it are tall. That's of course is if you really want to foster large woody debris in the first place. To me this is only common sense,like your statement that 60% slope is not unstable,please sir you are making me laugh. The more you spin doctor this issue the better the 50/50 plan looks. The way I look at this issue is the more you timber advocates squirm and yabut, the more I think this is a good idea. I think your afraid that this plan might catch on and somehow upset your idea of how timber should be managed in other areas outside of the TSF.


salmon hugger

[SSPey]

Blackdog, you keep using words like emotional hysterics and alarmist reactions to describe others. Your collective posts DO make it pretty clear that these attitudes are alive and well on ifish.

[Jennie@ifish]

Again... Ladies and Gentlemen,

Any posts that are meant to inflame or call names in these political threads will be deleted at the moderators discretion. It would be helpful, and probably better for you, also, if you edit your own posts. There is a little icon in the top right of your post that makes this easy for you.

Please post with respect and thoughtfulness.

Thank you for keeping this thread educational.

Jen

[Jerry Dove]

flotnfish, check with the experts on forest fire, you will find that you are wrong.

[SSPey]

Originally posted by jerry dove:
flotnfish, check with the experts on forest fire, you will find that you are wrong.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I work with them on a daily basis. thanks.

[SSPey]

oh, and if you cut all the trees - then yes - the chance of them burning drops off pretty darn fast.

Fires in the Tillamook are pretty much a non-issue anyway. Either the climate cooperates and lets you suppress it - as occurs every single summer with virtually all ignitions. Or the climate doesn't cooperate (drought, east wind) and you get T-burn scale fires. And ain't no amount of thinning gonna stop the effects of a drought and a strong east wind.

[TGFwriter]

I am reposting my response from the other thread as it has lots of application here but if you want to go to the other thread and re-read it there, I am sure we can have a group salmon hug!

Lucky Roostertail writes: “So why did ODF log a slide-prone slope?
Because the evidence of past slide activity there is of deep-seated slides not typically associated with timber harvest. The conversion of alder is good in the sense of providing a winter canopy to the site and when the slide does happen it delivers conifer to the stream that, as somebody pointed out, last a lot longer in the water than alder.

Bob writes: Roostertail, I certainly appreciate your insight as I have learned much from your dialogue. I have to really question your above statement however. I may be one of those that lack trust for a state agency whose mission statement is to manage the state forests for timber harvest as a primary purpose. After all, wouldn’t you be a bit alarmed if we managed the state forest for fish as a primary purpose?

So, my question is, isn’t it a stretch to say that ODF cut the alder trees from this site in hopes that conifers could be propagated there for future recruitment into the river system? Since when does ODF manage for recruitment of woody material into river systems? I might buy off on ODF cutting alder to make way for conifer propagation as conifers draw a better price on the market- at least they did when the replanting took place (as that may not be the case now). I don’t think you can even get anyone from ODF to back up your statement here! :whazzup:

Blackdog writes: Now, get ready for the backlash from the extremists. Being that your explanation doesn't support their alarmist viewpoint, I expect they'll want to argue it ad nauseam.

Bob writes:
Blackdog, it’s people like you and Rebell that make my friends ask me "why aren’t you on Ifish defending myself ALL THE TIME?" They say I am continually getting bashed! I had to answer my friend that there is no sense in wasting my time on the petty arguments you are trying to make. My friend wasn’t giving enough credit to the readers of Ifish that they can read through your attempts to instill fear into anyone that will listen. Your arguments only fail your cause and help salmon so I thank you in advance!

Our message is simple and continually trying to get buried the rhetoric offered up by the forest butcher extremists. BE ALARMED! BECOME AN ALARMIST! YOUR SALMON ARE SUFFERING!

What better example do you need than looking in your regulation booklet seeing that once again, in the 2004 booklet that you will NOT BE ALLOWED to fish for wild cutthroat trout, wild steelhead, wild coho, wild spring chinook salmon and wild chum salmon? And are you trying to say, that is nothing to be alarmed at? Are you trying to say, don’t bother looking at the fact that all of these species depend on fresh water habitats (most of them upper basin fresh water habitats), that isn’t really the cause of their demise? Why be alarmed? There are so many other issues to work on. [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

Well, I got this issue to work on, why don’t you guys work on some of the other issues you are so worried about?

The Rogue writes:

Originally posted by Straydog:


Would either of these sources get a pass on the obligatory fish story????????

NSIA...sure!!

Rainbow Coalition...I'll take the 5th Amendment on that one!

Bob writes:
You are so right Rogue and Straydog: How selfish of me not to make my first post about a fish story. I don’t know how I slid past that one. I have to apologize to Jennie as I am not so special that I should get that obligatory pass. So, here goes…..

When I was a kid in grade school, every summer my parents drove myself and my brothers to Seaside to meet up with my numerous cousins for a reunion. It was some of the fondest memories in my life. While my brothers and cousins spent all their time and money in the arcades, bumper cars and fascination, I spent most of my time dangling a worm or casting a Roostertail off of the bridges in tidewater of the Necanicum River. Day after day, hour after hour and year after year I went back. Ever so inspired to catch a sea-run cutthroat trout to take home to show my parents or give to my Grandma (as at the time, she was the only one that liked fish). I learned about herring jigging, the big sturgeon that lived in the tidewater of the Necanicum and the various fish that used the Necanicum River as a home. I couldn’t get my hands on enough information on fishing- and I was only 8 years old! Some of the things I was not so proud of are the numbers of smolts I caught off that bridge thinking they were trout. Although not proud (but don’t feel I have to go to confession about it) I sacrificed scores of staghorn sculpin :grin: to the roadway day after day. Well, finally after many, many, many, many failed attempts at catching a sea-run cutthroat trout, I hooked one on a all gold stee-lee. But I lost it! About 10 minutes later, I hooked another! But I lost that too! At that point in my life, I felt it was my greatest accomplishment. In all the years I spent off that bridge in pursuit of wild and hatchery cutthroat trout, I NEVER caught one! But the opportunity I had to proudly show my catch to my family was worth the investment in time. The only thing I regret to this day is NOW, NO MAN, WOMAN OR CHILD HAS THE OPPORTUNITY THAT I DID AS A CHILD AND THAT IS A VIOLATION OF EVERYONES PERSONAL HERITAGE! Granted, not everyone is or will ever be as passionate about cutthroat trout or any other fish as I was at the time, the fact that they are being denied this and so many other opportunities is EXACTLY why I am a chief petitioner of the 50/50 Plan that will NOT STOP until I am satisfied with protections for these wild fish. It is our responsibility as primary users of this resource to ensure their sustainability! I WILL NOT BE SATISFIED UNTIL WE HAVE SELF SUSTAINING POPULATIONS OF ALL SPECIES OF WILD SALMONIDS THAT SUPPORT SPORTFISHERIES! Self sustaining populations first, sportfisheries second! And I realize this may not happen in my lifetime but I will NEVER not do anything about it!

I thought that would bring a tear to your eye Rebel, GSA, The Rogue and Blackdog! Need a tissue?

Lucky Roostertail writes: I am not totally familiar with the 50/50 plan, (although I might become more familiar if it passes!), but if the intent is to set aside half the forest, we are already setting aside a third or so I think (total swag guess). It’s just not in big blocks like I think the 50/50 proposes. Feel free to set me straight on that. With all the talk about this slide, I have not heard anybody mention the Salmon Anchor Habitat Areas. Isn’t the Kilchis a SAHA? I’m pretty sure it is. It’s already receiving special protection then in light of current practices. But SAHA’s are another issue. I think they are a really good concept, as long as they stay true to their purpose of providing a temporary stronghold while we make sure the plan doesn’t fail the fish in the rest of the forest. I think the counties are about to have a meltdown though. If the 50/50 plan passes, I hope it doesn’t become the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

Bob writes: You are right Roostertail, you are NOT familiar with the 50/50 plan. Like so many other “naysayers” of the plan, it is easy to draw conclusions on something you aren’t totally familiar with. Here is the ballot language for your review: http://www.tillamook5050.org/5050/me...le108_1029.doc
The argument that we already set aside 1/3 (in reality it is about 1/5) of the forest for species protection is a blatant misconception. The language in the initiative states that:

“The Oregon Department of Forestry, the Oregon Board of Forestry and the State Forester shall:
(a) Manage the Board of Forestry Lands in the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests to facilitate the permanent restoration of a native old growth forest structure on 50% of those lands over time. The protection of current and potential drinking water supplies and critical fish and wildlife habitat shall be a priority. Thinning of trees and other active forest management of this area must be consistent with the goal of restoring a native old growth forest structure.
(b) Manage the remainder of those lands with the goal of sustainable timber and revenue production for the state, counties, and schools where the forests reside, creation of family wage jobs and re-establishing forest tree species that are ecologically and genetically adapted to those areas.
(c) Manage the forests to prevent catastrophic damage from forest fires, floods, erosion, severe Swiss needle cast disease, forest pathogens and pests.”

Bob continues:
So, as you can see, it simply sets 50% aside for the primary purpose of fish, wildlife and clean water and 50% aside for timber harvest. The 50% for old growth structure promotes healthy fish and wildlife that are not only of “sensitive” status here in the Tillamook, but also LISTED on the endangered species list!
SO, to make this gin clear (because our rivers are not): the 50% the initiative is asking for INCLUDES the current set backs in the current Tillamook Forest Management Plan. AND we are leaving it up to INDEPENDENT STATE OF OREGON PROFESSORS of forestry, fisheries, aquatic ecosystem management and many other sciences to make this determination. NOT fishermen, not foresters, not the Rainforest Coalition, etc. so stop your propaganda as you have no excuses for it since the language is available to you here on this post!

And as far as the salmon anchor habitats , the concept exists but they have not been implemented by ODF at this point. And if they ever do get implemented by ODF, they have been significantly modified by ODF from the original concept that they were first proposed -likely compromising thier effectiveness! So right now, no management for old growth (so critical for coho) and no management for larger Riparian Management Areas- i.e 100 foot buffers that allow for better recruitment of woody material into rivers versus slides that bring in tons of silt along with a few YOUNG TREES that will not recruit long term into the aquatic ecosystems!

Roostertail writes: And “Thanks for the props Born to be Wild. Thanks to everybody else that has encouraged the discussion as well. Dave Plawman is a good man. I run into him a few times a year. He was out at the slide the first Monday morning I was there. I think I heard he is taking a new job somewhere or something. I was sorry to hear it and hope I am wrong on that. I would trust whatever Dave says about the fish. I don’t know him that well, but he seems to take a good, solid scientific approach and seems pretty level headed. I don’t pretend to be a biologist, but I think I can recognize a good scientific mind in him, and I respect that. Dave works for ODF&W by the way. Although I am sure we would be happy to have him at ODF.”

Bob writes: Dave is an excellent biologist and he will be sorely missed here in Tillamook. He wears an ODF&W patch but his position is FUNDED BY ODF . He has been a real asset to fish and this community and he is smart enough not to take offense when I state the fact that not only is his “paycheck” signed by ODF but ODF&W as a sister agency will not openly criticize ODF for their forest practices. After all, ODF does do a lot of good things for fish- A LOT of good things for fish. I will certainly not dispute that. BUT THE FACT REMAINS, our forests are clearly not operating at carrying capacities for wild salmon as we are past the ALARMED stage. We have to really do something about it- hence the 50/50 plan! Thank goodness for the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition. Not only are they doing all the hard work on promoting our sportfisheries and clean drinking water, we don’t even have to pay them for it! But I encourage all interested ifishers to log onto www.tillamook5050.org and submit a little bit of your gratitude to this strong organization so they can assure the future of our sportfisheries here in Tillamook County. It is one of the best investments you will make!

[Born to be Wild]

Bob, if you honestly believe this to be true, great for you. But trying to pass along this alarmist view to the general public as fact is deplorable. I sincerely hope the public can see past your facade and not buy into your rhetoric.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">May I suggest Blackdog that you write an editorial to the Oregonian refuting Bob's article and point out that two expert geologist feel the slide was natural.

What better example do you need than looking in your regulation booklet seeing that once again, in the 2004 booklet that you will NOT BE ALLOWED to fish for wild cutthroat trout, wild steelhead, wild coho, wild spring chinook salmon and wild chum salmon? And are you trying to say, that is nothing to be alarmed at? Are you trying to say, don’t bother looking at the fact that all of these species depend on fresh water habitats (most of them upper basin fresh water habitats), that isn’t really the cause of their demise? Why be alarmed? There are so many other issues to work on

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Bob, haven’t we been through this before?
Remember the Tillamook Forest threads back in February or March? [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img]
You were trying to blame the loggers for Tillamook’s problems.
I suggested that maybe hatchery fish might be the problem.
Rebell suggested that over fishing in that all too crowded Bay and rivers with way too many guides and other fishermen might have something to do with it.
&lt;Grin&gt; was out too lunch! :grin:

Look at the 2004 booklet you say?
Bob, did you realize that we gained back a fishery on wild coho this year on Siltcoos and Talkenitch lakes? (sp)
Did you realize that the small Yaquina River had an estimated return of 25,000 wild coho last year which is far more than needed to seed that river and provide a fishery?
Did you realize just a bit to the south of you that you can catch and kill a wild springer in the Siletz River where there are no hatchery springers?
Did you realize that the central coast you can harvest wild cutthroat trout?
Did you realize that some of the central coast rivers are thought to be at historical levels for their Chinook runs?
Did you realize that in some southern Oregon rivers you are allowed to harvest a wild winter steelhead where again you don’t have every guide in the country fishing and have no hatchery steelhead?
Do you realize that the Tillamook wild coho are rebounding also now that the hatchery programs in that area have been cut from about 1 million hatchery coho smolts annually to only about 100,000 presently?
Did you realize that the Tillamook basin is not a great wild coho producer because of the streams being too gradient?

So what’s wrong with this picture Bob?
Those central coast rivers that are indeed kicking out some impressive chinook and coho numbers have butcher’s like Georgia Pacific as Freespool pointed out creating some real abortions in that neck of the woods. [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]

So why are the fish in general doing so much better down south when they have much worse logging going on? :whazzup:

Did you read Rebell’s post?

The saddest part of all of this is, people think this so called plan will put a few more fish in the rivers. There are a lot bigger problems in the Tillamook watershed that a lot of people choose not to recognize. Aggagrate mining, over fishing, to many hatchery fish introductions, the loss of deep water habitat in the estuary, and the channelization of the rivers themselves, just to name a few. Then there is the call for large woody debris in the rivers. So why is it every time a large tree or stump ends up in the river, people want it removed because it becomes a navigation hazard? Or they want it removed because it is sitting in one of their favorite fishing spots (something I have seen on my own property). If everyone here really wants to help the Tillamook fisheries, they will look at the whole picture.

The so called 50/50 plan is just the first step in locking up our public land, nothing more.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">One important thing I learned in research durring all the Tillamook Forest thread debates was about the serious low lands habitat problems in Tillamook.
It is of my opinion that the most serious habitat problems in the Tillamook basin is right in town!
No logging there Bob, just dairy farmers that have channelized the lower river and urbanization where diking has taken place, ect.

How about all the new reports that have come out in recent months Bob showing and blaming hatchery fish for declining wild stocks?
Guess being a guide you don’t want to address that problem because it would be easier to put a logger out of work than get rid of some of them detrimental hatchery fish your clients depend on?

Bob I talked to about seven different fish biologist at an informal meeting the night before the fish commission meeting where I did a presentation endorsing the proposed wild coho fishery on the coastal lakes.
Every last one of them thought the Rainforest plan was not necessary and one or two thought it was bogus.
Now these were bio’s from all throughout the state including your area.
Some worked for ODFW and some were from the private sector.

So why is it you cannot face the facts and disagree with the experts?
Your article in the Oregonian placed the blame (“The Slide”) on logging yet the expert(s) don’t believe it had anything to do with logging.
Do you have more expertise than the geologist and fish biologist?

No Bob, I would definitely not site upper basin fresh water habitats as the cause of their demise.
Your barking up the wrong tree.

NSIA has done some good things for fishermen but they have done some bad things in the name of politics also and endorsing the Rainforest Plan was one of them and a bad move.

Dano

PS&gt; Oh yea, I was DopeyBayDan back then.