IFish Fishing Forum banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

3,902 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
How was it?

How may participated? What took place? Were eyes opened?
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">
Did the tour take place?

After all the discussion before hand I am curious of the results.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yes the tour took place. It was a great tour and missed opportunity for many.

Probably around 30 folks participated and out of that only 4 ifisher's. One of the four might not have been an ifisher. Kenny Bell is Rusty's (rebell) Dad and I’m not clear if he is a participating member of ifish but was there. A few Tillamook locals were there that found out about the event through Jerry Dove and also the local newspaper and radio. One Willamina resident that was a former Tillamook resident still subscribes to the Tillamook paper and found out about it that way.

Rusty (rebell) had to work 16 hours on Friday and worked Saturday (physical inventory) and could not make it against his will. GSA could not make it because his 81 year old mom was arriving at his house Saturday and I believe I heard the Pilar's were sick. :depressed: I do not know what happened to the rest of the ifisher's. Jerry Dove, Jeff (Barviewrocks) and I were there representing ifish. David Moskowitz was there representing the “Wild Salmon Center” and the “Rainforest Coalition”.

"What took place?"
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">First of all we sat and watched a 19 minute video; "Sea Of Green" - The Story of the Tillamook State Forest at 9:00AM, (Which I obtained a copy of and am open to share with ifisher's). An excellent video of the history of the Tillamook forest.

Then we loaded up in the vans provided by the Oregon Dept. of Forestry (ODF) and headed for the hills.

The first stop was Stuart Creek a trib of the Miami River for introductions of the group and to show an old log stringer bridge crossing that was vacated and a bridge removed and some rather large logs that were placed in the stream. The logs came from the old bridge.

The next stop was on the Miami where in the past the anchor system was used (using cable to hold rocks and logs in place), and the newer practice where logs were anchored against living trees to create off channel support during high water and allow for logs to move a little with the current.

Next stop was where a recycled bridge was used to replace a culvert and talks about fish habitat and a little biology. The old culvert that was there would not pass fish. ODF chose to put in a bridge rather than replacing the culvert with another culvert. More expensive but does a better job of passing fish. Note: Most of the habitat restoration was aimed at supporting the listed coho but is helpful to other salmonids also. The newer habitat restoration practices mimic the natural phenomena the best way possible. ODF emphasized that from 1992 to today, they have spent $1.2 million dollars on 421 stream habitat projects in the Tillamook District including placing 1,681 pieces of large wood in the streams and placing 450 boulders. ODF also mentioned they had opened up 12.8 miles of new spawning and rearing habitat with these projects.

Then it was off to the Wilson River watershed to show modern FMP (Forest Management Plan) in which we saw examples of the SAH’s (Salmon Anchor Habitats). Any management within these areas should be designed to minimize the risk to habitats and populations. We were shown some clear cutting to reduce the effects of a severe forest health issue affecting the Tillamook called Swiss Needle Cast disease. It’s a fungus that affects the needles and the needles fall off and the trees stop growing. We also saw a thinning near the south fork of the Wilson where the east slope was left intact because of it’s steepness and possible risk to habitat because of landslides.

17 SAH basins were selected from a pool of possible candidates provided by ODFW.

I will add pic’s that I took later today along with other info. Jeff took some pic's also.

Were eyes opened?
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I would have to answer yes to that question. Especially to the environmentalist. I talked to Dave Moskowitz after we got back to the ODF office as he was waiting a ride. I asked him what he thought. He told me; “it looks like they are doing some good things”. He also stated that; “he thought they should leave some of the forest unmanaged”. I questioned him on that and he said; “he thought they should leave some of it wild”. It was my opinion that they were doing just that in the SAH areas where they are leaving significant portions of the areas out of the harvest equation in addition to leaving larger riparian areas.

I would have to say my eyes were opened also. I saw a lot being done for wild fish that I hadn’t expected. I saw forestry practices that were impressive to me. The future looks bright in the Tillamook State Forest and it is producing large amounts of wild fry including a few pink’s we were informed!

Everything I saw, read (we were given many handouts, some included before & after pic’s) and heard reconfirmed everything I have heard from biologist over the last several months since this tour was started. Logging and wild fish can co-exist. There is a lot of work to do however for habitat reconstruction, but I didn’t see anything detrimental or disturbing in the current Forest Management Plan by ODF. It was in my opinion that these foresters do care and are concerned in the future health of the Tillamook State Forest.

Some of the ODF and ODFW personnel involved and present were:

Mark Labhart
Tillamook District Forester, Tillamook

Mike Schnee
Forest Plan Coordinator, Salem

Wayne Auble
Assistant District Forester, Tillamook

Tony Klosterman
ODF Road Engineer

Dave Plawman
ODFW Habitat Biologist, Tillamook

John Germond
ODFW Forest Plan Coordinator, Portland

Thanks to Mark Labhart, I found him most helpful and a great “Devils advocate” :wink: (you’d had to been there to understand) and I don’t think anyone could not appreciate the “nice guy” personality and sincerity of Mike Schnee! :smile:


3,902 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
First Pic is of the group at our first stop at Stuart Creek introducing ourselves.

This pic is when we made our short hike down to the Stream. Pictured from L to R is Tony Klosterman, Dave Moskowitz, Sandy Bell, and Jeff (Barviewrocks).

The two folks in the upper left are Tony Klosterman and Dave Plawman.

Stuart Creek, vacated (closed) road, removed culvert and added logs.

Big Logs!

[ 04-29-2003, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

3,902 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
This picture shows three things of interest. Directly below down the hillside is a clearcut. Probably not what you are used to seeing in a clearcut. Resembles eastern or southern Oregon. It was clearcut because of the Swiss Needle Cast disease.

Also accross the canyon or valley you can see a thinning near the south fork of the Wilson where the east slope was left intact because of it’s steepness and possible risk to habitat because of landslides.

Thirdly, you can see the branches of a tree infected with Swiss Needle cast on the left (foreground/close-up). It was pointed out the tree should have more resembled a Christmas tree, not the sickly tree it was.

A couple more pic's later including the ifisher's.
Got work to do.


[ 04-28-2003, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

3,902 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Salmon Anchor Habitats (SAH’s)
Questions & Answers
(Updated April 23, 2003)

1. Where did ODF get the direction to develop and implement SAH’s?
• Governor’s Direction:
The Governor wrote a letter to the Board of Forestry on January 3, 2001. He specifically said on page 2:
“Protection of Anchor Habitat Areas: Another issue that I raised at the April Board meeting concerns the protection of key habitat areas for sensitive species, especially salmon. The Forest management Plan (FMP) has, in fact, been modified to describe a strategy of “anchor habitat areas” for key species of concern. This is a welcome addition. Any management within these areas should be designed to minimize the risks to habitats and populations”.

• Specific Forest Management Plan Direction
Pages 4-82 through 4-83 of FMP.
“The anchor habitats will be subject to alternative management standards for the initial implementation period, while more comprehensive watershed assessments are completed”.
“Management standards will be focused on accelerated restoration and enhancement actions to address identified limiting factors, and management guidelines to lower the risk of adverse effects from forest management activities through the application of alternative management strategies designed to further lower the risk of adverse impacts from forest management activities during the initial 10-year implementation period."

• Board of Forestry Intent Statement on adoption of the FMP
Board Intent statement No. 12 dated January 12, 2001: ODF will use existing FMP strategies and any alternate management strategies, anchor habitats, as the basis for management activities.

• Independent Scientific Team Recommendations 1999
Several members ( page 29 of summary ) of the FMP Independent Scientific Review team noted concerns that while the active management scenario will more quickly restore diverse forest conditions and properly functioning aquatic habitats, it can be assumed that ODF is taking a level of risk and uncertainty with this strategy. They suggested some sub-set of the forest take a “lower risk” approach until the hypothesis can be tested further.

• Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team
In their technical report 1999-1, the Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (different group than our ISR group) made the following recommendation regarding our forest management plan...modify our plan to include "the immediate protection of all existing core habitat while implementation occurs."

2. What are Salmon Anchor Habitats (SAH)?
SAH’s are basins (usually 6th field watersheds) designed to protect areas of high or core salmonid populations.

3. What is a 6th field watershed?
6th field watersheds are generally 5000 to 15000 acres in size.

4. How did you pick the SAH’s?
17 basins were selected in northwest Oregon. They were selected from a pool of possible candidates provided by ODF&W.

5. What methodology did ODF&W use to identify the pool of possible SAH’s?
• Watershed containing a high amount of coho, chinook or chum salmon. Spawning count data used.
• Watershed contained historic centers of salmonid spawning abundance.
• Watershed had higher quality habitat
• Professional judgement from ODF&W

6. What is your strategy in SAH’s and what makes it different from what you are doing in other basins?
• Larger no touch buffers
• Avoid clearcut harvests on high hazard and high risk land slide areas
• Reduce some of the harvest planned in SAH’s and shift those reduced acres to other less sensitive areas.
• Management of Roads - Emphasizes a well planned road system which minimizes the amount of new road construction and requires high quality maintenance and restoration of existing roads.
• Complete comprehensive watershed assessments first in these basins.

7. What’s it going to do to the harvest figures by implementing this strategy?
The harvest acres and projected volumes do not change for the district. Some of the acres and its accompanying volume shifts from SAH basins to other basins.

8. How long are you going to implement this strategy?
The Implementation Plan says ten years from July 1, 2003 – June 30, 2013. A comprehensive review of these strategies is scheduled for 2011.
In addition, ODF is conducting a forest re-inventory and modeling exercise to be completed by 2005. This data may result in a review of the current strategies and this may affect harvest levels either up or down.

3,902 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Little North Fork Wilson River
12.3 miles long
Fish Outmigration Surveys

Years - 1998 - 1999 - 2000 - 2001 - 2002 Total
Chinook Fry "1,223,944" "451,236" "226,121" "431,523" "1,048,385" "3,381,209"
Chum Fry "145,002" "59,346" "27,813" "7,052" "138,476" "377,689"
Coho Fry "9,437" 418 "21,676" "6,923" "6,175" "44,629"
Coho Smolts "3,345" 246 259 "14,442" "6,055" "24,347"
Steelhead "19,025" "6,150" "11,467" "33,917" "9,223" "79,782"
Total "1,400,753" "517,396" "287,336" "493,857" "1,208,314" "3,907,656"

Total Coho per mile "1,039" 54 "1,783" "1,737" 994
Total Chinook per mile "99,508" "36,686" "18,384" "35,083" "85,235"
Total Steelhead per mile "1,547" 500 932 "2,757" 750
Total fish per mile "113,882" "42,065" "23,361" "40,151" "98,237"

Average fish per mile last five yrs. "63,539"

"In the last five years, the Little North fork of the Wilson river has produced 3.9 million fish in a basin that is 94% "
in stands 60 years of age or less.

<20 years of age 256 ac. 2%
"20 - 39 years of age 1,772 ac. 17%"
"40 - 59 years of age 7,768 ac. 75%"
60+ years of age 515 ac. 6%

3,902 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·

I believe that is the only data available on Fish Outmigration Surveys in the Tillamook system. It was pointed out that it is very expensive to man smolt & fry screw traps. $50,000 a year if I remember right.

Also after searching Google a minute ago, I see there is certain criteria that needs to be met for the screw traps to function properly and small tribs might be the limiting factor there. Listed the criteria below.

Trapping Site Selection Criteria

1. Good geographic spread of sites coast-wide. Currently, ODFW has partial funding for field crews to be based in Tillamook, Newport, and Charleston. Without additional funding, it will be difficult for ODFW to operate traps that are long distances from these three areas (e.g. South Coast streams).
2. One person can run two traps. Paired sites should not be more than a 30-minute drive apart so that trap watcher can cycle between traps during high streamflows. This is particularly important during smolt trapping. Trapping sites do not necessarily need to be within 30 minutes of the field crews office if travel trailers, or some other means of housing can be arranged.

3. Candidate streams should have spawning populations of coho, steelhead, and cutthroat, and where possible, chinook.

4. To maximize the number of fish sampled, streams should be as large as trapping technology allows. In practice, this generally means fourth to fifth order streams that are no wider than approximately 30 meters active channel width.

5. Existing fish ladders should be used where possible as adult trap sites. This will reduce construction costs and enable more adult traps to be operated, improving the geographic range of the monitoring effort.

6. Sites must be of sufficient depth (> 2.5 feet) and of sufficient velocity at low spring stream flows to allow operation of a rotating screw smolt trap (or the site must be amenable to modification to meet these criteria). The site should also be neither too constrained or high gradient so that the smolt trap will be damaged due to excessive water turbulence, or be too unconstrained so that the stream becomes too wide and slow for efficient screw trap operation during high stream flows.

7. Land owner willingness to allow access to site for long term (> 10 years) monitoring.

8. Candidate streams without existing fish ladders need to have sites with the following characteristics to enable the construction of an adult weir:

a) Uniform (preferably bedrock) bottom and stable streambanks.
b) 1-2 percent gradient

c) Road access (close enough for delivery of materials needed to construct weir).

3,902 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
A picture of Stuart Creek taken before habitat restoration by ODF that you can compare with the picture above of Stuart Creek with the big logs. Certainly a big improvement there.


3,902 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Is there further work planned for the closed Stuart Creek road?
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yes. I believe for one they are planning on planting the stream banks where the road ends at the stream for protection against erosion. I'm not sure of the work planned for the road itself. Maybe Jerry does. The road had trenches dug accross it to prevent tresspassing by vechicles.

The next two pic's show a replcement culvert and the rocks being placed inside to make it more natural for the salmon. The second pic shows a couple coho entering the culvert.

The participating ifisher's: L to R, Jeff - Barviewrocks, Kenny Bell - ?, Jerry Dove - Jerry Dove (real original) , Dan - DepoeBayDan

A landing above the Wilson. Wayne Auble (assistant District Forester) to the left wearing the light blue pants) and Mark Labhart (Tillamook District Forester) to the right wearing red jacket and drinking a soda.

Yes it rained!

Over looking the Wilson again and one of our many disscussions.

I did talk to Mark Labhart at the ODF office after the tour was over about the possibility of doing it again sometime pointing out that some ifisher's were sick and some had the Willamette springer flu and he said he would be more than happy to do it again and it would only take a dozen or so folks to make it happen. Maybe durring the summer months when the weather is somewhat more predictable?

Thanks for your comments. I did work hard on this and put in some time. Thanks to Jerry Dove and Mark Labhart for putting this event together.
Thanks again to Mark for emailing me the electronic copies of the SAH's, pictures, fish outmigration surveys, and all the other info that we were given as handouts as I requested.

You're right Jerry, I didn't take notes (except mental notes), but spent some time with Mark on the phone on Monday and also extracted some info from the handouts and emails I recieved.

Guess I should post a pic of the vans that were borrowed from Salem for this event.


3,902 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
Here are my takeaways - sorry for the long wind but I learned a lot:
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">ooh nice one Jeff! You can get windy anytime. Next time go for the hurricane instead of the gale! I didn't see you taking notes either. What did ya have a pocket recorder with you? You covered a couple points I was going to address but did it better. And some points I missed or was ignorant about.

By the way, Jeff invited whoever to come to his nice beach pad in Barview afterwards for discussion, food, drink, and to stay the night if they chose. He was a most gracious host, good cook and we had fun fishing the jetty the next day. Thanks!


To Dan: GSA and I have mentioned a couple interesting biological topics – long term natural LWD recruitment, salmonberry climax stage, and conifer restoration. By chance, did these items get discussed during the tour?
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yes, some of these if not all of these issues were discussed during the tour. I was going to answer you to the best of my knowledge, but do to my inexperience (I'm just learning the difference between a conifers and Christmas trees), I copy/pasted your post and emailed it to Mark Labhart and will post his reply here. Along with his reply came an attachment regarding this issue. I believe it requires PowerPoint to open it (it says Microsoft excel when it opens on my PC). I will email it to you because I don't know of a way to copy/paste. Possibly you or Jeff or the Geek could figure something out later.

Email from mark:
Thanks Dan
I think Garyk hit it right on the head. You need large wood over time in the stream to provide habitat and to provide shade. That's why we want to eventually get away from putting large wood into streams artificially and let mother nature do her thing. Alder dominates a lot of riparian areas and that is why we are trying to convert them to a conifer/alder mix over time. I have included our new riparian stds. we are applying on state forest land to try and do just that. This does not happen overnight as it takes a long time to grow these alder dominated riparian areas back to mainly conifer. That's why we are not waiting and working with ODF&W to place some large wood directly back into the systems most in need of it as well as managing the riparian areas to get the conifer growing again.

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

3,902 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
OK Rusty, I edited my post and now Sandy has his claim to fame!

Yes I also wished more environmentalists or at least Liz Hamilton from NSIA (whom I respect and like) would have participated in this tour. My discussion with Liz one night on the phone didn't remotely resemble what we saw on the tour. Times have changed! And you probably cannot compare the Tillamook State Forest or ODF with other management practices. Where was NSIA? The Rain Forest Coalition had a represenitive there.

My conclusions were that there was a healthy forest intact considering the "6 year jinx" (devastating forest fires) and the type of replanting of the forest back then. Habitat restoration is being pursued wholeheartedly and things will continue to improve over the years bar no '96 floods and 90's El 'Nino's.

If there seems to be a lack of fish (especially chinooks) to some (arguable), then you might want to take a look at the other 2 H's (Harvest & Hatcheries).

The Tillamook chinooks are harvested in the ocean from Tillamook north to Alaska by commercial fishermen. When they return they are harvested by local commercial fishermen and then the sports fishermen outside the bar and in the bay and tidewater by sports fishermen.

Even though biologist claim that most chinook in the bays don't aggressively feed or bite and most escape the onslaught of fishermen, you still have the numerical disadvantage of the ones that do bite. For example, if you have 100 fish that choose to bite and have 1,000 fishermen fishing for them, few are going to get lucky. But if you only have 100 fishermen fishing for them, the percentage is going to be much larger. Then there are the ones that choose not to bite and are forced to (flossing). There you go, less spawners.

The documents I have seen however are the more hatchery fish you have, the less wild fish production you have.

So where does the actual problem exist?

According to the Tillamook ODFW office there seems to be plenty of spawners and smolts (chinook). According to their website, this is not the case unless I interpreted it wrong, the returns have continued to decline? We have suffered the results of the ’96 flood and poor ocean productivity, but in my area which includes the Siletz, Yaquina, Alsea, and Siuslaw Rivers, the Chinook stocks are doing fine/great and on the incline.

If this is the case, there are better logging practices up north, but they have hatchery Chinook that we don’t, and they definitely have more pressure (sports fishermen) on them than we do. We both endure the same commercial fishermen as our stocks migrate north also.

I have to conclude the problem if any is in hatcheries and/or harvest in the Tillamook basin.


3,902 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 ·
Oh I know Straydog. There was a lot of reasons people didn’t or weren’t able to attend the tour. But it would have been nice for Liz to attend especially since she is the president of NSIA and they backed the Rainforest Coalition. But it can take place again and maybe she can attend the next go around.

When I talked to Liz one night on the phone regarding the Rainforest Coalition and the Tillamook Tour she told me how bad the devestation was and how the timber companys left larger buffers along side the road than they did the streams to hide the devastation. That might be the case in some forest, but not in the Tillamook State Forest.

I agree with you that NSIA is involved in issues to help ensure we are able to continue fishing in the future. I don’t agree with NSIA “signing on” to the Rainforest Coalition.

When I asked a few fish biologist a couple months ago about the Coalition (including a Tillamook fish biologist), they answered my question with a question. How many more fish would it produce?

I went on the tour and saw, read, and listened to all involved. I liked or was impressed with all I saw, read and heard. It was my opinion and probably shared by all involved that ODF was making great improvements in habitat restoration and future management practices in the Tillamook state forest. I have no complaints.

The Tillamook Rivers can benefit from more extensive habitat improvements starting with tidewater all the way up into the State forest. Maybe there is room for volunteer work as was done after the devastating fires.

Did you see any areas where there are still negative impacts apparent from past work?
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Very few Straydog. Although the Tillamook State forest is a vast area and we only saw a very small part of it. The only negative impact I saw if you want to call it that was the Stuart Creek project. The culvert was removed, woody debris (LWD) added and the road closed off to improve habitat. The stream banks where the road ends on both sides of the stream need to be planted to stabilize the stream banks during high water. Maybe room for some volunteer work there. The closed road itself might need some improvements yet. It was pointed out and shown where the added LWD has already created fish friendly pools.

In reality the only negative impacts I saw or heard of was the great fires themselves and the planting (reforestation) of non native trees and shrubs.

It was pointed out by Mark Labhart (Tillamook District Forester) that the Tillamook Rivers were producing millions of smolt and fry. They have no control of them after they enter the ocean.

3,902 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
Not to take this too far, but one only has to look at some of the 3000 miles of roads, and untold numbers of former roads to see the impacts.

There is no way ODF can maintain that magnitude of road network. Do the simple math and figure how many acres are taken out of production due to the land is replaced with roads.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">What kind of production are you referring too? Trees? Fish? A lot of these roads are not near salmon habitat or streams.

These are a major source of the sediment that continues to move through the system. Just begin hiking up the L.N.Fk.Wilson and you'll quickly see where the road has blown out and then down-cut in the last 7 years. This is repeated across the landscape.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That would be an interesting road to see. Maybe you ought to organize a future tour and we can check that one out. It appears to me however that the L.N.Fk.Wilson is producing a lot of fry and smolts. What was cut down in the last 7 years? The road? Trees? I’m not too clear on that one. So what are your suggestions or implications regarding roads in the Tillamook State Forest? Close them all down and keep all the deer & elk hunters out of there and the rest of the recreational users? Hwy 6 has caused some major landslides silting the Wilson River over the years. What should we do about that one?

I don’t know Gary but it seams to me the Tillamook Rivers are capable of producing plenty of wild fish and there is a lot of ongoing habitat restoration which should improve things tremendously. I’m sure you have seen the sports harvest of Tillamook Chinook caught in the rivers, bay, and ocean and it is quite large. Not to mention all the Tillamook Chinook that are commercially caught all the way from Tillamook up to Alaska. Of course some of the Chinook harvested by Tillamook sports fishermen in the ocean are Nehalem and other stocks.

While the fires were damaging, authorities have written that the salvage logging itself actually caused more resource damage as cat roads were punched into every ravine with no consideration for erosion control. Either then or later.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I don’t think anyone is going to argue the fact that the salvage logging 50 years ago was not damaging. Things are different now and a lot of the past mistakes are being corrected and avoided. If we only knew then what we know now.

3,902 Posts
Discussion Starter · #38 ·
Let's see...how far would I go to restore the salmon, restore the decimated forest and salmon habitat, create a huge sustainable economic engine based on fish, recreation, tourism? Preserve the watershed that future growth requires? Preserve a heritage for future generations?
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well Brion, I disagree with you (nothing new there). The Tillamook Bay fishery is already too crowded and has been for many years. I quit fishing it 13-15 years ago for that reason and know a lot of other fishermen that did the same. I don't know if you have ever fished it but we referred to it as a circus many years ago before you even moved to this state.

I haven't seen a lack of fish there (chinooks) but too many fishermen. As far as preserving a heritage for future generations, I believe we are doing this. These fish are not going extinct but are doing quite well depending on whom you talk to. Now if you really want to see a lot more chinook return to Tillamook Bay, then go talk to your neighbors (BC & Alaska) and get them to ban commercial fishing in the ocean. You would have a lot more fish, but you would still have the growing pains of an over crowded fishery.

Consider that the 1,000+ year old forest and salmon habitat that the timber industry destroyed in about 100 years has never recovered. They got to cut it all down and take their profit while destroying other people's livelihoods and heritage. They had their turn. They made their money. Their turn is over.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">First of all Brion, I don't consider the forest and habitat destroyed. Seems we have some strong wild runs of fish in some places. Also, do you live in a house made from wood? How about your parents and ancestors? Do you buy toilet paper, newspapers, and other wood products? Seems you're some kind of hypocrite? You want to shut down logging but you want wood products.

What people’s livelihoods and heritage were destroyed? Seems there are more guides in Tillamook than there used to be. Too many as far as most everybody I talk to is concerned. Kimmels is still there. Now there is the huge Tillamook Sporting Goods store that opened 3 or 4 years ago. Fred Meyers has opened a store in Tillamook and sells sporting goods. Who? Maybe the charters? The ones combined with the rest of the sport fleet and commercial fishermen who about fished coho to extinction. The lack of coho fishing is what hurt the charter industry. I'll point my finger at the fishermen before I point it at the loggers.

Ya know Brion, we had to drop the limits on rockfish a few times over the years because of growing pains and the amount of folks wanting to exploit them also. They were not to long ago considered garbage fish by many. But ya see Brion, you can't blame the timber industry on the decline of the rockfish. I know you would love to, but they don't spawn in the forest.

Then there is the sturgeon. Same thing there. Over fished, over exploited. Can't blame the timber industry on that one either.

So I would go so far as to make all the public land, State and Federal forests, off limits.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Oh so all of it off limits. You're finally confessing up. We already knew what environmentalist wanted anyway.

Since it is clearly in Oregon's best interest to not have any logging on the 3% of the state timberland that is in the state forests, the timber corporations would be wise to take the compromise offered.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Clearly? This is your opinion Brion and not shared by most.

3,902 Posts
Discussion Starter · #42 ·
Cool post and some good points Rusty. I am way too busy with the tackle business right now but will check to see what is going on here when I get to Longview tomorrow afternoon.

I will bring some razor's up to Brads if you and your wife want to jump accross the river and cook some up or take home with you. Might even find time to wet a line. Email me if you are interested.

Wished my mocycle hadn't gotten stolen. Honda XL 500. Maybe I'd still hunt?

3,902 Posts
Discussion Starter · #44 ·
Of course it's my opinion. Rebell asked for my opinion. Seems a bit odd for third party to complain about one person providing what someone else requested.

As for who shares my views, I only claim to speak for myself. I'll leave it to others to declare what "most" people are thinking, that's a bit too grandiose for me.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Mr.Lutz, I was not complaining about your opinion, I was just pointing out it is in the minority. Most folks don't see things the way you do. It's just your opinion and I have mine.

I wouldn't think it would seem odd for a third opinion because this is a public thread and read and expressed by many.

As for facts vs. opinion, on page 24 (Overview) of the 10 Year IP's, 774 miles of new roads will be built in the Tillamook and Clatsop state forestsm table 1-7. 700 miles of new roads with funding for less than 100 miles "deconstructing" old roads. That doesn't even get into the issue of the inadequacy of timber corporation and forest service road deconstruction.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well wait a moment, you lost me, are we talking Tillamook or Tillamook and Clatsop State Forest now?

As you know from the tour, roads are one of the most damaging aspects of timber corporation logging.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Is that so? I didn't see anything damaging and I know the Tillamook streams are producing a lot of fish! I saw a lot of improvements for fish habitat and I was very satisified.

I have read that roads can have damaging impacts to habitat due to landslides, siltation and culverts. But I did not see any of this on the tour.

That they are desperate for public forest land demonstrates what poor stewards they are of their own resources, much less public resources.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That doesn't demonstrate poor stewards, only that trees grow slow.

They had their opportunity. They cut down the forests. They made their profit. They destroyed other peoples livelihoods, jobs and industry. They failed to manage their own resources well and now want to profit again by their shortsighted policies for which we pay a huge price.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">" They destroyed other peoples livelihoods, jobs and industry."

I pointed this out on a few post or two back. Should I try again? Do you want me to mention some other sporting good stores that opened in recent years to compete for business and make it difficult for other businesses to make a profit? How about Garibaldi Bait & Tackle? (One I overlooked). At least when Burger King & Taco Bell realize the demographics are not there, they don't open a store!

By dedicating a small, 3%, portion of Oregon's forests to salmon and watershed resources, we create a huge number of jobs in salmon fishing, commercial and sport, in mfg of boats, jet drives, tackle, clothing and gear and in the recreation and tourist industries.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brion, go back to the East Coast. I'm sure most of us don't want to see any more huge number of jobs in salmon fishing, commercial and sport, in mfg of boats, jet drives, tackle, clothing and gear and in the recreation and tourist industries.

Get a clue, salmon fishing is all ready too crowded here on the Oregon Coast! Lack of fish is not as big a problem as too many anglers.

You sure won't win any new converts amongst the native Oregonians!

It doesn't matter how many fish we can produce, there are growing pains and you are one of them.

It is quite obvious you don't have a clue what's going on.


[ 05-02-2003, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: DepoeBayDan ]

3,902 Posts
Discussion Starter · #45 ·

Well...since I don't share you omniscence in speaking for others, I can only offer my opinion that GI Joes, Fishermans, Columbia Sports Wear, REI, Nike, Luhr-Jensen, Alumaweld, NorthRiver, BayLiner, Kodiak, Fred Meyers, American Turbine, etc. probably all want more business.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">And chainsaw salesman want more business also. Of course they do Brion. But ask them to show you their zipperlip spots where they fish! Zipperlip Brion. Zipperlip means too many folks fishing.

More fish is fine. I catch plenty fish anyway. More folks salmon fishing on the rivers is not something I will exploit. Have you ever heard of the Kenai in Alaska Brion? Well its been spoiled by folks wanting more business also.

If I'm not mistaken, the trade organization representing many of these businesses, the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, feels that it is an economic benefit to give salmon, watershed and other public interests equal footing with the multinational timber corporation's interests.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yea, so? NSIA is a political organization. They also support hatchery fish which are proven detrimental to wild fish. They have done some good for the trade but I don't support all there decisions. I know of a couple sporting goods stores that were pretty upset with there support for the Rainforest coalition.

Your logic seems to be if we reduce the number of salmon there will be less fishermen so there will be more room for you to go and chase non-existent fish.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That is not my logic and is pretty twisted. I never suggested reducing the number of salmon and don't have a problem with more salmon. I don't chase non-existent and I catch more than enough fish. Mine and many others problem is the number of people, guides, drift boats, sleds, etc, on the rivers and Tillamook bay these days.

You on the other hand keep preaching more fishermen, more... More fishermen means more lobbying you stated a few months ago.

Start a stupid poll Brion and ask how many folks would like to see more fishermen on the rivers and how many would like to see considerbly less fishermen. Sure you might get a few buisness folks to vote for more, but it would be totally lopsided when the fishermen voted for less.

I'm done with this thread. I was going to try and learn something from garyk and others but have lost my patience or tolerance with you. You are an environmentalist and extremist, obviously new to the area, don't have a clue, and a total waste of my valuable time.

Also if you post those URL's for me you are wasting your time. I would venture to guess most if not all are environmentalist propaganda sites. I do not read environmentalist or cult material.
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.