Logging article in the Oregonian?

[biederboat]

Well it sure is nice to see that the Oregonian, as are many other newspapers I'm sure, is stirring the pot on the logging issue again. A few years ago they were only too happy to report on how critiical it was that logging be stopped to save the owls and salmon and know they are harping on how little timber is coming out of Federal forests and how that will create a fire problem. Know before you call me an anti-conservationist, I consider myself to have a "balanced" viewpoint between sustaining the ecology and the economy. My point here is that all of the feelings and emotions that were inflamed with all newspaper articles (and other media coverage as well) let to very drastic action (virtually shutting down logging on public lands). That drastic action is now showing problems of a different sort (the fire mangement) and, God forbid, that the pendulum should swing the other way too far (too much logging). I guess what frustrates me here the most is a good compromise CAN be achieved. Who is going to suffer? The consumer (higher lumber prices), the hunter (less clearcuts = less animals), the logger (can't log) and the average person who just wants to go camping (too many fires). I do suppose that the fires will creat some SPECTACULAR deer & elk hunting (I'm not joking here, they can be the best to hunt it a few years after the burn) but I think we had plenty before all of this.

Ah heck, I just had to vent but the real point I'm trying to make is that I think the media just likes to stir the pot on all this. I honestly believe their goal is to stir emotions as that sells newpapers. I long for the days when you could get a balanced view point on KPTV's NW Reports (before Lars Larson got a bit too radical).

How about it, Bill Monroe, any comments?

Thanks,
Biederboat

[blacktail]

Washington Hunter,

I realize that fires are good for the wildlife in that they create browse to feed on, but do you really think that the "lack of fires" is one of the major reasons for the Mule deer decline throughout the West?

I'm not trying to create an argument, but I have never heard this was a "major" problem towards this decline.

Everything I've read, heard and experienced has been loss of habitat due to encroachment, hard winters, increased predation, poor management, etc.

Mike

[Washington Hunter]

blacktail, yes it is definitely a major factor in the decline of mule deer. It takes fire to create and maintain habitat that is ideal for mule deer. Man has completely changed that natural cycle and many areas that used to be perfect for mule deer are now really not much good for anything other than growing timber.

[Tilla]

Cerainly lack of fire is not the only reason for declining Mule Deer populations. But, the fact that some studies show deer populations can achieve greater than 15x pre fire levels certainly can't hurt.

I have no problem with responsible logging.
But logging cannot actually replace fire. Fire creates chemical benefits to the soil. There are also several plant species in which heat from fire is the germination mechanism for species to survive.
Planting of forests after logging is the real joke. I guess nature can't take care of itself.
These lumber companies expect us to be pleased with the re seeding with a single plant species. Instead of 100's of different plant species, we get one! These pseudo forests provide little natural value except for the next harvest dollars. (Especially when Smokey has the public protecting it)

I think a balanced plan can be worked out if you can get the public from acting like suckers.

[skein]

I think everyone who has read my posts in the past know where I stand:

Pro timber harvests - pro forest management
Pro marine mammals - pro nearshore management
Pro predators - pro predation management
Pro cormorants - pro....okay, I lied about that one

Management - management - management. We CAN manage habitation and habitat.

I'd better take a deep breath.... Merry Christmas, you guys...we're all in this together and ultimately we will count on each other to make it work.

Skein

[ 12-22-2002, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: skein ]

[fishwhenican]

Like it or not one of the main problems with lack of school funding today is the lack of timber harvest revenues. If they only cut the amount they stated in the federal plans not 10% of it. :depressed: Your'e right skein, Merry Christmas, I won't get started :smile:

[TheRogue]

We are here....humans have infested the earth. Anyone who thinks things can be perfectly "natural" is, quite frankly, an idiot.

We've suppressed fire for way too long for forests to recover naturally, without huge devasting fires. Regardless of what we do, with apparently changing climate trends (possibly natural), we will have some more of the Biscuit-type fires.

Please read these links, we've beaten this logging horse pretty hard:

Forest Practices Act
Short-Term stream damage OK??

TR

PS....Lack of federal land logging and use of herbicides on private timberland are the MAIN reasons for the severe drop in the blacktail population, especially on the South Coast, where it is mostly federal ground.

[ 12-22-2002, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

[GutshotApe]

Tilla - Of all reasonable silvicultural systems (in the coast range and westside of the cascades) clearcut logging and slash burning (leaving the requisite number of standing trees & downed logs) then regeneration with 100% Douglas-fir comes closest to mimicking natural stand replacing events. Normal plant succession with all the usual species occurs (unless herbicides are used for brush control). In other forest areas, i.e. east of the cascades and parts of the Siskyous) partial cutting, shelterwood or other system may be appropriate. But in most of western Oregon anything but clearcut/burn is unnatural and ultimately leads to unhealthy forests.

Rogue - Right on once again!

[Tilla]

I agree with most of this. The Timber Industry pays my bills too.
Merry Christmas.

[Lured In]

One other issue to keep in mind. A 'burn' is not necessarily a forest fire that rages so hot it sterilizes the soil. The cycle of burning as Tilla mentioned is one that should keep itself in check. Unfortunately if not allowed to do so, you will end up with so much deadfall on the ground that the fires torch the soil to the point that nothing will grow on it.

Could you imagine OR establishing a burn schedule for every sq. mile of state/federal forest? People would freak out. I can hear the the tree huggers up in arms over that. Realistically, that is what would be necessary to prevent (a) massive, raging, earth sterilizing wild fires, (b) loss of personal property for those that live on the borders of the forest, and (c) the wasting of MILLIONS of dollars fighting something that could have only cost in the tens of thousands to proactively manage. The end result would be healthier forests and more abundant wildlife at a lower cost. [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img]

BuKuBass....I sincerely hope you know more about how clear cuts effect deer and elk populations than you express in your post. The comment about an "unimpeded shot" was either complete ignorance or a gross oversight on your part. Biederboat (for that matter probably everyone else on here) knows that young clear cuts provide some of the best habitat mix for deer and elk while improving the food base. (Think of it as an artificial burn that is usually rectangular.) I am not trying to rage on you, but that was a cheap shot (pun intended and 'unimpeded') and was uncalled for.

[Washington Hunter]

I have nothing against logging if done in a responsible manner, but I don't think more logging is the answer to reducing forest fires. It's just not that simple. We're having bigger fires in the west now due to the fact that for the last 3 or 4 decades we have been very effective at suppressing fires. This was a big mistake. Fires are a natural phemomenon and are necessary for healthy forests. Also very important for wildlife species, one of which is the mule deer. A lack of fires is one of the major reasons the mule deer are declining throughout the west. I would like to see more logging in the national forests, but not necessarily clear cutting, and I think the few areas that are roadless should remain roadless.

P.S. Now is not spelled with a "K."

[ 12-22-2002, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: Washington Hunter ]

[Tilla]

Ah one of my favorite subjects: Fire
Facts (at your local library):
Fire will occur naturally on average about :
Every 7 years in the Chapparal around Malibu Ca.
Every 20 years in the Pine-Oak woodlands of N Calif.
Every 70 years in a mature forests.

It's a cycle. Get it ?

(This is for those of you that were force to watch the nature film "Climax Community" in school.)

This happens and has been happening for 1000's of years before man decided it needed to be managed but mostly mismanaged.
Smokey the Bear has been a government plot to brainwash it's citizens for decades. It's really a money thing. Come on now a Government subsidized cartoon character! Who are they kidding? Pretty much everybody it seems.
OK, I'm through now.
For a bit anyway.

[BuKuBass]

biederboat: Altho I agree with much of what you say, the equation "less clearcuts=less animals" is too great of price to pay just so that you have a unimpeded shot.
Washington Hunter: "know" is applicable in the context of how it was used; the phrase "you should", atho unstated, was implied.
And if there was enough logging, there wouldn't be any forest left to burn. I'll bet that in some lumber company's corporate board room, that arguement has been proposed.

[ 12-22-2002, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: BuKuBass ]

[riverrat]

a few thoughts

1.) years ago the public forests were mismanaged for tax revenue.....the state and local cofers had millions more for their budgets

2.) thee pendulum has swung the other way....started with the spotted owl, then the marbled worblet(sp)....result, shut down most federal lands or severely restrict the board footage harvested.....ie: less tax money

3.) sound managment practices, when and where to log are as escential as logging to maintain a healthy forest.....clearcutting with leaving seed trees and slash burning for soil remediation to cat logging which helps turn the soil like tilling your garden.....these practices are good for the forests....don't worry about replanting the hundreds of plants lost during logging, the birds will be busy replanting with natural seeding

4.) take a drive over the longview bridge and look at the docks where at times 2 ships are being loaded with export logs.....many lost mill jobs ie: higher unemployment, lost tax revenues....to overharvesting of private lands...supply and demand is depleting the private lands while making our public lands stagnet with no new grow, due to very little logging

5.) logging took the place of "natural fires" ...i personally do not like putting people on the front lines of a raging fire risking their lives which too often lives are lost in trying to save the forests for the semantics and esthetic value to a few people that do not realize the true value of our forests

[Bill Monroe]

Biederboat...as to your original suggestion about that !$?%#&! media...

We don't need to sell papers in a one-paper market. And even if we did, the way to do it is not with inflammatory, inaccurate stories, but rather by correctly reflecting the events occurring around us, which is what Michael did.
You don't win three Pulitzers in three years (two at once last year) by being inflammatory or inaccurate...that's the job for supermarket newstand journalism.
What you bring up is what we call "break the mirror." You don't like what you read, so you suggest it shouldn't be written regardless of its truth.
(BTW, there is nothing whatsoever accurate about television news. They DO have to sell air time and aren't worried at all about accuracy...KPTV's "exclusive" first news last night about the Tillamook murders (gleaned from the morning bo-regonian) listed them found in the "Tillamook National Forest.")
Readers are far more savvy than you might think. The Oregonian's circulation would be falling, not increasing, if we were only writing stories to sell papers.
And there certainly isn't any attempt to sway the news in our newsroom...I'm not sure we're smart enough sometimes to do that even if we wanted to...which we don't.

As for the rest of the thread, sheesh...you guys are all arguing your points from intelligent, well-educated positions...must have been reading the paper.

(GSA...sometime I'd like to see the succession progression question addressed...fire, forbs, brush, alders and nitrogen replacement then fir overstory...That pretty important step is conveniently side-stepped in forest-health discussions)

[GutshotApe]

Yeah Bill, but there is only so much the average ifish reader will wade thru :tongue: . Every forested acre is different than every other one, some differences are profound, some subtle. There are plenty of examples of naturally regenerated Doug-fir forests that skipped the alder phase. Nitrogen fixation, if it occurs in those stands, will be via legumes or lightning. Generally, westside forests will respond to aerial application of nitrogen (usual dose is 200 lbs/acre) but they grow OK without any extra. What happens after 5 or 10 rotations if alder is suppressed or gone? Nobody knows. But in the near term there doesn't seem to be a problem.

Beiderboat - I don't like some of the news in the Oregonian but I think it is basically a fair & honest paper and IMHO better than most other papers of their size. Sure, they occasionally run stories about $500 salmon that are incomplete but most of the time, they get the story right, or as close to right as the deadline allows. The Oregonian's timber story this thread is about was pretty accurate, I thought. It said the federal forests are irrelevant these days as timber producers (hopefully Bush will change that) and the private forests are cutting on short rotations (50 yrs or less). Southern production eclipsed northwest production some time ago. All true.

[PeterMac]

I applaud the Oregonian for their reporting (and resulting educating) the public on the many issues of forest management. The public is too gullable when decisions are made about forest management by emotion, not education.

PeterMac

[biederboat]

Well, I guess I'll try and close out this one by saying "I hope I'm wrong". I think overall some of the thread took a different turn than what I expected. I was more trying to see if other people felt the newspapers were influencing things in one direction or the other, not to debate the issue. I guess the proof will be in the pudding. If, 10 years from now, we are with logging practices like we had 30 years ago, then I say the pendulum swung too far back. Will it be the newspapers that caused this? No. Will they have influenced it? Perhaps. I can't help but think that the ecologists and economists could work out a decent solution but throw public opinion in there a bit too much, wellwatch out. It can be a good thing and it can be a dangerous thing.

Bill, thanks for answering, I knew I could count on you. For the record, I always like your articles as you write from personal experience or can at least relate it to what you are writing. Not sure I can say that about most other journalists. Most are involved in "fact finding" which is dangerous if you only uncover part of the facts but show them to the whole world. Also, even the Oregonian has to try and sell. I could be the only igloo salesman in Portland and how many would I sell?

But most of all, I want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year and I hope 2003 is the "year of the bull" for me!

Biederboat

[Bill Monroe]

I'd rather sell papers (even a few) than igloos...thanks Bieder...call any time, too...my number's in the paper and if it's long distance, to my desk is 888-222-8231..
Best holiday wishes to all