IFish Fishing Forum banner
21 - 40 of 47 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,904 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!

Garyk,

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

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,382 Posts
Depoe Bay Dan,

Wow!! Great post by you and Barviewrocks. As you guys witnessed, its a beutifull area. Yes there are problems, but for the most part our Tillamook forest is doing well.

Sorry I could not make it, but my biggest regret is that there were not more people from the rainforest coalition there. I dont understand why? It seems to me that they would want to understand the current state of the forest and understand whats planned for its future.

If ODF wants to have another tour I will be there. If anyone would like to go on a private tour of the area, I am willing to help. I know the area very well. I could take people in to areas that ODF did not. There are areas that might be of intrest to some (coalition and logger). There would be a little hiking involved, but nothing difficult.

And Dan, the unidentified person in your second picture is Sandy Bell, my uncle.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,904 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.

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
GSA,

The thinking of some OSU and other forestry professors is that without a catastrophic fire (followed by an aggressive, timely conifer reforestation effort with brush control), many coast range riparian alder forests will eventually die of old age and the creeksides will become permanently dominated by salmonberry thickets. Salmonberries provide good shade on tiny streams but not much LWD.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Or the non-thinking...the unnamed OSU "professors" apparently didn't consider that their scenario did not occur for the couple million years in which the Pacific Northwest rainforest and the salmon evolved together...oops <grin>.

Brion
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,726 Posts
Originally posted by Barviewrocks:
Douglas Fur was the primary rebuilding stock chosen and both saplings and seed stock from the western cascades was used as it was one of the most immediately available options.
· This choice of planting fur has resulted in a 72% “closed single canopy” forest structure. The most recent forest scientific theories suggest a diversity of structure types and plants as ideal for healthy forests, animal habitat, and resilience. One suggestion is the steep and wet slopes of the Tillamook drainage is perhaps not the ideal environment for a dense tree population of primarily Douglas fur. Rather, a mixture of spruce, hemlock and diverse ground coverings may be closer to the native fauna and would be more in keeping with natural coastal fauna. Unfortunately, this diversity of fauna is a very small portion of the forest.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">This is exactly what I have tried to tell our retired forester friend here about the plantations in most reforested clear cuts of the west side.

It sounds and looks like this was a very informative tour. It appears you got to see a lot of habitat rehabilitation work. Did you see any areas where there are still negative impacts apparent from past work?

Thanks again Dan and Barview and all for sharing this info.

Dan,

I cannot speak for Liz and am not speaking for NSIA. However, I do know that this is only one of many, many issues NSIA is involved with to help ensure we are able to continue fishing in the future. I also figure this is not a huge priority since NSIA is a 'sign on' to the coalition, in other words, not the lead organization on this matter. Please consider that we have hatcheries under attack, license fees to be settled, river access rights on the table, the Columbia Compact discussions going on, hydro spill rates to fight for, continued marking of hatchery fish, rock fish issues, springer fishing going full bore, families and a life to consider. Somewhere in there you might find the answer to your question of "where was Liz?"

[ 04-30-2003, 06:38 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,258 Posts
Originally posted by Straydog:
[QB]
This is exactly what I have tried to tell our retired forester friend here about the plantations in most reforested clear cuts of the west side. QB]
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">What's that straydog? You think most westside timber plantations were planted with off-site stock? Not my experience at all. In the early days of reforestation (pre-1970s) off-site stock was sometimes used (i.e. Tillamook, Weatherly Cr, and others) but by the time I finished forestry school it was abundantly clear that successful reforestation required use of local seed sources...and that's how I did it on the 55,000 acres I was responsible for regenerating.

And, dense, closed-canopy Douglas-fir 2nd growth forests are NORMAL in the Douglas-fir region (you're not in it, SD). Forests go through predictable, natural successional stages...it is completely normal to have "monocultures" composed primarily of Douglas-fir in regenerating stands throughout most of the D.fir region.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,904 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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,904 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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,382 Posts
Garyk, Brion, straydog, so how far are you willing to go to save fish?

Let's think about this in a different light for a minute. Your home and property that you live on destroy's habitat for fish and wildlife, the roads you use to go fishing destroy habitat, the city of portland sits on once was vital salmon habitat. So what do we do?

Maybe we can start by tearing down the city of Portland, then move on to all of it's suburbs and continue from there. Then we might even consider buying out every dairy farm in Tillamook. Then we can tear down all of the dikes that have been built up along the tidal parts of the rivers in Tillamook and let the valley flood like it did before man had the nerve to build there. Of course 1/2 of the town of Tillamook would have to be relocated also, but in the name of fish, thats O.K. Then we could also consider buying out the entire Tillamook valley and turn it in to a huge fish hatchery. Just think, we could have millions of salmon to fish for. But no roads to get there, but in the name of fish, thats O.K.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,726 Posts
Rebell,

You make a valid suggestion as to what we might do as we go forward. I respect your right to express your opinion.

However, I would respectfully suggest a much different approach.

I would suggest we learn from our mistakes and realize what differences all of the things you mention make. With those in mind, I would suggest we move forward cautiously and perhaps with more prudence than the attitudes that created Portland and the other habitat destroying development you mentioned.

How far do we go? I don't know. I guess that depends on ones value and vision of what he would like to leave behind. :wink:

Dan,

Thanks for your straight forward answers to my questions! :cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,382 Posts
Straydog,

I agree, and I feel ODF has learned from it's earlier mistakes. The mistakes mankind has made is not limited to the upper river basins. Many more mistakes have been made in our estuaries. Just my opinion, but our biggest habitat problem in The Tillamook area is in the estuary itself. There is no deep water habitat in the bay. This is a problem that is not easily fixed. As DBD reported, lots of smolts are heading out of the rivers. The problem lies in there survival once thay leave the river. I feel the best thing we can address is how to better manage there survival in the estuaries. It does no good to spawn thousands of adults if there offspring have no chance to make it to the ocean.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
Rebell,

..so how far are you willing to go to save fish?
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">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?

Well...I'd go so far as to say that multinational timber companies cannot do anything to jeopardize our future.

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.

It's always interesting that the timber industry goes on and on about what good stewards they are yet they have mismanaged their land and need the public land again. If they were the "good forest managers" that their PR claims, they would not need to destroy the public forests again.

So I would go so far as to make all the public land, State and Federal forests, off limits. That leaves a huge amount of private timber land.

We require that private land owners do not damage their neighbors land or the public land. Can't damage the streams, etc.

Seems simple, fair and based on good science and economics.

Just to keep this in perspective, the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition Plan is much more liberal that I would be, they call for 112 million board feet per year harvest, they call for the multinational timber corps to get 50% of the forest with all other economic and public interests the other 50%.

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.

The governor has already moved half way to the Coalition position making the original timber corporation plan moot.

Brion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,579 Posts
Hi DepoeBayDan, your questions cover a lot of ground, glad you're thinking about this; I'll do my best to answer:

1."What kind of production are you referring too? Trees?" Yes, calculate how many acres are devoted to roads - it's impressive. 3000 miles of road are a significant impact just from the forestland they occupy.

2. "What was cut down in the last 7 years? The road?" Sorry for the unclarity, after the road blew-out the water 'down-cut', dumping tons of sediment into the stream. This happened in several places. It's not fatal to the stream, but still an impacat; the sediment flows through the system, ending up in Tillamook Bay. There's hundreds if not thousands of these blow-outs across the forest.

I mention this road, since it's easy to see - no organized trip needed. Just head upstream from the yellow gate, just east of Mills Bridge.

3. "I don’t think anyone is going to argue the fact that the salvage logging 50 years ago was not damaging." Actually, ODF's spin, as you've reported earlier is that that _fires_ were the damaging event. Yes, these huge fires were damaging. However, the subsequent impacts caused by sloppy logging of the era are swept under the rug in what's truly "revisionist history".


4. "So what are your suggestions or implications regarding roads in the Tillamook State Forest?"

3000 miles of roads or a density of about 5 miles of road per square mile of forest (think about that a moment) is in itself a huge problem. Particularly in such an erosion prone area as the Coast Range. If you climb around on those crumbling mountains a while you come to asking yourself - "Man, what's holding this thing up?".

The answer is fewer roads, better constructed and maintained. Even roads a long ways up the ridges blow-out and impact the streams below. I'm sure you're familiar with this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,579 Posts
Rebell, C'mon, there's a huge range between between managing the Tillamook better and what you're rhetorically suggesting.

We can learn from past mistakes and not repeat them again (and again, and again, and again).

Yes, there's problems in the bay, and in the tidelands, and the flats, and on up into the forest. This 'chain' of habitats are all important. Some of the 'links' are more important to some species than others.

But the bottom line is, the healthier the chain is the better off all are - people and fish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,579 Posts
[Straydog asked about seeing impacts from past activities]:

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.

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.

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.

[ 05-01-2003, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: garyk ]
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,904 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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,726 Posts
Brion,

You left out the part about how we, the public, are paying for so much of the restoration work that is going on to repair the mistakes of the past in our public forests. Not mistakes we the public made, mind you.

I sit on a committee that appropriates Title II funds for forest and habitat rehabilitation. So much of is related to past mistakes in the woods by an industry that, like it or not folks, has a history of ****** and running.

Dan,

In all fairness, Brian has been calling for the public land to be off limits to logging since you guys first started sparring. Further, homes built from wood harvested on private ground work just as well as homes built from wood harvested on public ground........ might be time reevaluate that worn out cliche' of an argument.

I am not advocating for totally making public ground off limits to harvest as Brion is. However, I believe if we take an honest, open minded look at our past it is fair to say we should error on the side of caution if we are to error at all. And I am one of those odd balls that have lived here my whole life so your comment about "before you even moved here" impresses me even less than the cliche' about wood homes, etc. (I realize it wasn't directed at me but still, the "who got here first" argument is kind of warn out too.)

Another thing that gives me pause to think...... you are consistantly lamenting the "over exploitation" of Salmon, especially the coastal Salmon and the Tillamook area. At the same time, you post pictures and commentary touting the Ling fishing in your area. As you know, Ling fishing regs have been adjusted down over the years to protect the resource. Why would you lament the "over exploitation" of one species while promoting it on another species? I don't want to believe it might be because you sell plastics for bottom fishing but as one that has been on the recieving end of your accusations concerning my motives, I have to use the same logic in trying to figure out your approach to the Ling fishery. :whazzup:

Rebell,

Just a thought and I don't know but am wondering........ might some of the estuary problems in the Tillamook be related to siltation from what sounds like a whole bunch of roads in the Tillamook Forests?

The road issue is exactly why I asked Dan earlier if one road in his photos will be rehabed further. There is a small slide visible just up the road from the confluence with the stream. Further, my experience tells me that those members of the off road enthusiast crowd that are less ethical than others will likely, eventually, find a way to access that road and tear the dickens out of things in the process. Looks like a prime candidate for road obliteration project (at public expense, just like the culverts replacement, LWD placement, mulching, etc, etc.)to me.

[ 05-01-2003, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,579 Posts
Hi Dan, I don't want to take this thread off of fish, however, regarding the comment -

"As far as preserving a heritage for future generations, I believe we are doing this."

This concept of a natural heritage means different things to different people. Here, we've all focused on fish which dispite our differing viewpoints is clearly where our passion lies. Keep in mind though that fisherman are a minority and the State forests are the property of all Oregonians.

As such, there are many 'values' other than fish that people are concerned about, for example - scarce species, various forms of recreation, wilderness or solitude, biological functioning and evolutionary processes, restoration of an old growth coastal rainforest, and some folks just want to see big trees that will never be cut.

Today we celebrate the areas that our ancestors had the wisdom to preserve from Oswald State Park, to the Mt.Jefferson Wilderness. Beach and river access to high mountains. We need to ask ourselves - what will our legacy to the future be?

There's an old saying to the effect that the future will judge us by what we leave for them.

I suggest that there's no shortage of industrial logging lands in the Coast Range, the sort of mature and old growth forests that used to exist though are in extremely short supply. Portions of the Tillamook devoted to these values are what an increasing number of people want to create as a legacy for the future.

Then, future Oregonians can decide whether to keep or cut those acres - but at least they will have that choice and decision to make.

OK, back to fish. :smile:
 
21 - 40 of 47 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.
Top