IFish Fishing Forum banner
41 - 47 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,382 Posts
Gentlmen,

PLEASE, All our views are in the name of saving fish and our own personal heritage. Yes roads and logging in the past have caused landslides and added siltation in to Tillamook bay. Logging in the 50s and 60s caused some major fish issues in the Tillamook area and others. But over the last 20 years things have improved dramaticly.

I raced and road dirt bikes all over the north coast area, also in Washington, Idaho and California. In the Wilson and Trask drainages, I road dirt bikes to go hunting and fishing in the upper reaches that a pickup could not access. At the time it was legal to fish in those areas. Now day's most of these roads are blocked to any kind of motorized access. The roads most are wanting to close are allready inaccessible to motorized vehicles.

As far as logging goes, they have only in the last few years started harvesting some of the timber that was planted after the burn. Brion makes it sound if they have never stopped since the early 50s. This is not true at all. One difference might be the logging that was done on the Little North Fork of the Wilson that GaryK mentions. This was done on private land, not state land. Laws have changed since that time and for the better. The logging that was done on the Little North Fork was in the mid 80s. I know, I set chokers for the outfit that logged it.

One thing everyone must take in to consideration when reading my posts on these issues. I once made my living in the woods. After that, I made my living taking people fishing for the next ten years. Once at a Tillamook Guides Assoc meeting we had represenitives from the ODF. I expressed that some of the things I saw while working in the woods made me sick, I stated what I saw that I felt was wrong. ODF honestly listened to what I had to say. Since that time things have definetly changed, not because they listened to me, but because the state has learned what not to do. Some have stated that the Timber companies are making millions off OUR state forest. Please wake up, the state and our locall goverments made much more in tax revenue from the timber sales, and income taxes that were collected from the people who worked on these sales. Stopping all logging in the Tillamook state forest is not going to help fish, it will only cripple our economy that much more.

Brion has stated in this post and a earlier one that his main goal is to halt logging on all public land. Fish, like the spotted owl are not the true objective here. Ending access to our forest is the true reason. We have read that the rainforest coalition plan calls for 112 million board feet of timber to be harvested per year. If you actually new anything about timber, you would know that this is a very small amount. I am sure others would argue.

In closing, I want everyone to know that I have no intrest in timber revenue. I fish for fun, and release 90% of the salmon and steelhead I catch. There are people that are on this board (and not) who will recognize my passion for salmon and steelhead, and also would recognize my abilities af harvesting them if I so choosed. So when you read my posts from here on out, please understand that my passion is for the people of Oregon and the fish that we all cherish. And please understand that I am willing to fight to the very end when it comes to taking away my right to ride my dirt bike, hunt and fish on public land. If I felt for one second that the rainforest coalition plan was to truely help preserve our salmonoids, I would support them. But I am able to read between the lines, and I have also learned from the past when it comes down to enviromental groups making management desicions concerning our publicly owned lands.

Tight lines to all,

Rusty Bell
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,904 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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
DepoeBayDan,

This is your opinion Brion and not shared by most.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">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.

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.

As you know from the tour, roads are one of the most damaging aspects of timber corporation logging.

If the multinational timber corporations were as good with forest management as their PR claims, they would not need the small 3% of the forest land that is owned by the state.

That they are desperate for public forest land demonstrates what poor stewards they are of their own resources, much less public resources.

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.

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.

The forest, salmon and recreation represent a huge sustainable economic engine.

Back to the future.

Brion
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,904 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.

Dan

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

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,904 Posts
Discussion Starter · #45 ·
Brion,

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
DepoeBayDan,

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

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.

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.

In my opinion, we need to keep increasing the salmon/people ratio and the only way to do that in this world (vs your world where everyone including the native Americans leave Oregon and "go home")is to greatly increase the number of salmon.

We do know from economic studies, RAND and NGS, that salmon restoration which requires significant environmental restoration has a huge positive impact. The NGS study noted that salmon restoration provided 30 times the economic benefit of the alternative of agriculture in the Klamath Basin.

RAND Study
NGS Study

We also know that watershed resource issues are looming larger and larger. One of the huge lessons of the drought years combined with population demographics which show the Pacific Northwest gaining close to 30 million new residents over the next 20 years.

Tillamook Forest Economic Study

The forest is much more economically productive to Oregon, the Pacific Northwest and the US if it is restored rather than cut down.

These facts are the reason that Governor Kulongoski has bagged the ODF plan and instructed ODF to modify it per the economic and scientific realities presented by the Tillamook Rainforest Coalition.

Brion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
DepoeBayDan,

And chainsaw salesman want more business also.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Of course they do...that's the whole point isn't it <grin>.

You had claimed that GI Joes, Fishermans, Alumaweld, NorthRiver, AmericanTurbine, Kodiak, REI, Columbia Sports Wear, Nike and other Oregon businesses didn't want an increase in sales.

My point and the point of the economic studies is that there is much more economic benefit in restoring the forest than in cutting it down again.

While I don't think pure economic benefit is the only issue, just because we can make a buck at doing something (polluting the air, water, cutting down the forest, killing off the salmon, etc.) doesn't mean we should do it.

However, with the economics on the side of preserving the forest, it seems a minimal compromise to set aside 50% of the public land for the public's benefit and 50% for the multinational timber corporatiouns.

Brion
 
41 - 47 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