Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Trump Administration Seeking To Overhaul Forest Management Rules 06/12/19
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 5805 | TRs

Kim Brown
  Top

Member
PostMon Jul 01, 2019 1:14 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Yes, yes, I do have an education in watershed management and environmental policy. Roads and trails give ample opportunity to see cuts.

There is no reason to treat me or any of us like foolish ninnies by posting mocking comments as if we've never read anything about logging and conservation before in our lives.

We’ve gone over this millions of times on this site. We are not stupid people, we’re not unreasonable idiots. We understand science.

As stated earlier, I feel clear-cut overwhelms a forest, thereby inhibiting or destroying its ability to function in the ecosystem within it, surrounding it, and down the watershed from it.  The 2 photos below are examples of a forest overwhelmed by clearcutting. They are different from the experience you posted about.

As evidenced by the lack of forest in your photo of a meadow that once was forest, that forest was severely impacted by logging. This forest is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!He's f*ckin' snuffed it!..... THIS IS AN EX-FOREST!!

forest trying to recover
forest trying to recover
not a fully functioning forest or a meadow
not a fully functioning forest or a meadow

BUT back to the point of the thread.

Does anyone know how the current rule proposal is different from the 2012 Planning Rule?

--------------
" I'm really happy about this! … I have very strong good and horrible memories up there."  – oldgranola, NWH’s outdoors advocate.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11141 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostMon Jul 01, 2019 11:17 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
^ Nope.. not a clue.

Curious about your photos there.... those are on... PUBLIC land? or PRIVATE land?

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Gregory
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Mar 2014
Posts: 336 | TRs

Gregory
  Top

Member
PostTue Jul 02, 2019 7:07 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski wrote:
Curious about your photos there.... those are on... PUBLIC land? or PRIVATE land?

If I had to guess I would say that the pics are of DNR trust land. They plant twice as much as I used to for the forest service as a kid and then go in and thin it out at maybe fifteen years. I wish I would have taken pics or video of a section on  Snahapish river I hiked through cutthroat fishing.....just begging to become a nasty forest fire. they kill half of what they plant.I do not get it
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11141 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostTue Jul 02, 2019 8:40 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like these I took on a plantation unit between the 22 road and Sams River? Most likely on a DNR unit:


Most of that real estate up there is school trust land managed by DNR.

There are units like that all over the Clearwater/Solleks watershed and in a little pocket between the Queets and Quinault.
If you get in there on the more mature units stocked mostly with hemlock the chanterelle picking is pretty good.

Kim wrote:
We’ve gone over this millions of times on this site.

Yep... and nobody's changin' anybody's minds, are they?

I'll refer again to that recent University of Michigan study that concluded that when people with belief systems/ideologies are presented with facts that refute their belief systems/ideologies, they become more resolute and more convinced that they are right, facts to the contrary notwithstanding.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12000 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostTue Jul 02, 2019 12:38 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Kim Brown wrote:
A few photos of a selected logging operation that doesn't result in a totally churned stomach doesn't prove that most cuts aren't stomach-churning, and clear-cuts always are.

We're not stupid - we drive forest roads, we can see it.

I'm uncertain how an objective argument can be formed about stomach churning, since the churn depends entirely on values you've chosen to hold, and thus, the same objective evidence presented to two people can be churn full, or churn free, depending on their chosen values.

Another poster said it's not about the looks, it's about something else, like impacts of other sorts, presumably..where we wind up in exactly the same territory, based upon ones chosen values.

This is the reason there is no solving and no mind changing taking place. The basis is not actually a reasoned one on any side, hence no amount of reason will persuade.  It's not about anyone being stupid, which I recognize as a light jest of sorts. Both sides will have to make their peace with a compromise, and make the same peace with allowing that those darned other folks are not immoral, evil or stupid....IF the goal is a healthy, functional society with give and take and not endless, throat cutting political warfare and gamesmanship. (I'm not saying this is your deal as such)

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11141 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostTue Jul 02, 2019 1:32 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Just a note here regarding Kim's two photos above and the four I posted just above:

Forests evolve and develop due to disturbances. Catastrophic disturbances seem to cause things to evolve a bit quicker than minimal disturbances.
In the case of the units in the six photos above, even after the pre-commercial thinning that's taken place, there will still be a dearth of understory growth, the units will still be pretty much even-aged (and even-sized) stands.
It's highly doubtful that the DNR is going to change their practices - they are in the business of generating timber revenues for public schools as mandated by the State Legislature.
It is effectively jousting at windmills to think that's going to change at some point in the near future.

The unit cited up-thread north of Ozette is either a privately-owned or tribal-owned unit, and as such will be managed in the manner the owner of the property sees fit, as long as it's in compliance with federal and state regulations.
The solution, if one exists, to curtail clearcutting on privately-owned timberlands, is really quite simple: pony up the money and buy the real estate, as has been done by The Nature Conservancy and other groups.

In the end, the only timberlands about which the public has any say is only on USFS and BLM managed real estate, and even then one has to wonder what, if any, impact public comments really have on any given project proposal, particularly in light of management decisions being made based on whether or not there may be litigation involved in the form of lawsuits filed against a District Ranger or the management agency.

There are some here who clearly support a complete "hands off" policy when it comes to management of public timberlands - they want NO management of any sort done and espouse a mantra of "let nature take its course".
That's all fine and well, except that it takes about 1500-2500 years for a Pacific Northwest temperate rain forest to reach that "climax" late-seral stage. By that time, it may well be the case that the climate here might be completely different than it is presently and no longer suitable to support those dominant species which currently call this area their native habitat range.

I would suggest to those who think that "letting nature take its course" is the best management policy take a little drive up the #21 West Boundary Road off Hwy 101 just north of Quinault. Turn left onto the #2180 road, and then left again onto the #2180-010 road. Follow that to the Park entrance, and very carefully take a look at what is all around you as you descend down the hill for the next half mile.
According to my communications with J.L. at UW Fisheries, those units were clearcut at some point around 1936-1939. That's about 80+ years ago, give or take. The area was naturally re-seeded, primarily with Sitka Spruce and Western Hemlock.
You will note the largest specimens have yet to attain a girth of 24" DBH, and the trees are for the most part spindly and crowded. There is virtually no understory growth of any sort.
Are you willing to wait 1500 to 2500 years for those three sections to develop the same characteristics as those found on the adjoining units just down the hill?

The above is not an anomalous example - units like that exist all over the western U.S. The Cispus valley is rife with them, particularly on units that were cut later and restocked (as Gregory notes about the stand up on the Snahapish) by over-zealous managers who re-planted at ridiculous ratios (e.g., 5:1 or more.)

I regret to a degree having started this thread, as it has, as have so many other threads here, devolved into a sniping contest, which accomplishes nothing.

Personally, I don't have any sort of visceral "stomach churning" reaction to clearcuts - I see wild blackberry fields three years in the future, huckleberry fields, and ungulate browsing habitat - the things that the native tribes sought to obtain with their continual and relentless burning of the forests up until the early 20th century.

But by all means, feel free to continue to make wild unfounded statements about "sockpuppets", or being a shill for the timber companies - "cheerleading", or any other crazy nonsense you feel appropriate. I'm sure that my trip reports are clear evidence that I'm a long-term hater of big trees, right?

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 5805 | TRs

Kim Brown
  Top

Member
PostTue Jul 02, 2019 2:24 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski wrote:
There are some here who clearly support a complete "hands off" policy when it comes to management of public timberlands - they want NO management of any sort done and espouse a mantra of "let nature take its course".


True; even an area not seeded is soon full of invasives. Those seeded areas are as you describe and the photos I posted. Lack of the possibility of management is one cry against portions of the Wild Olympics campaign, and one of the two photos I posted are now within wilderness, never to be managed – and that doghair mess goes on for miles. (to be fair – even if not in wilderness, it wouldn’t be managed; it was heavily seeded in 1948 and hasn’t ever been managed; there was no expectation of it being so now).

And as you point out, private forests are managed. Washington State’s Fish and Forest program provides grants and education, as does King and Snohomish Counties (I don’t know about other counties, but I bet they do), and various conservation easements.

Managed logged areas do look and function well.

--------------
" I'm really happy about this! … I have very strong good and horrible memories up there."  – oldgranola, NWH’s outdoors advocate.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12000 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostTue Jul 02, 2019 3:38 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I don't see a single person here advocating for hands off. Arguments are better when they're legitimate arguments, not strawmen.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11141 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostTue Jul 02, 2019 5:42 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Not in THIS thread, MtnGoat. Other threads.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11141 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostTue Jul 02, 2019 6:09 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Kim wrote:
Managed logged areas do look and function well.

IF they are managed properly.

The units you posted the photos of - and that unit where I took those four photos posted above - are both examples of areas where the replanting ratio was arguably excessive.
There are a number of reasons for over-planting, granted, but I was just last fall hunting chanterelles in the Clearwater valley on units that made me think "Why didn't they knock down twice as much wood when they did the pre-commercial thinning here?"

As I see it, there is a lot of USFS real estate on which some fairly radical pre-commercial and commercial thinning operations would be in order. Whether that generates lots of board feet of lumber or not really isn't the issue - these are dangerously over-crowded spindly stands that are overdue for wildfire or infestations of bugs and disease. (I'm thinking of the #55 Road just south of Randle as I'm typing this ... and up above the Iron Creek campground.)

But because of lack of adequate funding, the shortage of administrative staff people at the District level, and the never ending game of submitting, compromising, and withdrawing units from sale proposals to avoid litigation, very little is actually happening on the ground.
The GPNF isn't cutting anywhere near as much wood as what the NWFP called for, and (unless the CVRD silviculturalist was lying to me last time I spoke with him) that number continues to go down.

There are, scattered here and there, success stories and examples of modern-day effective management getting us closer to the desired objectives, but in the larger context it's simply not happening fast enough to keep up; the trees don't stop growing just because the U.S. Congress reduces funding appropriations, and fires don't stop starting because we pour more money into wildland firefighting.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11141 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostTue Jul 02, 2019 9:42 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Somewhere (possibly in this thread) I made mention of an essay I read years ago written by former USFS Chief Jack Ward Thomas.
After reaching out to some other members here, Rod dug up this dissertation written by Thomas in 2011.
While it is not the article that I had referenced, it is nonetheless well worth reading in its entirety.

Date: 7 September 2011 
 
The Future of the National Forests – Who Will Answer an   Uncertain Trumpet?

By  Jack Ward Thomas, PhD
Chief Emeritus, U. S. Forest Service
Professor Emeritus, College of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Montana

If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle?” I Corinthians. Verse 13.

“Where there is no vision, the people perish.” Proverbs.


http://forestpolicypub.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/uncertaintrumpet.doc

https://ncfp.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/uncertaintrumpet.doc

(* sorry I cannot recall the title of the essay I previously mentioned. there's a little voice in my head telling me that it might have had the term "old growth" in the title, but I just cannot remember. it was very late at night when I stumbled across it on the web digging around for some information. *)

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11141 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostTue Jul 02, 2019 10:04 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
This might be the one, but I just don't have time to read it right now as I have an early morning appointment:

Of Spotted Owls, Old Growth, and New Policies: A History Since the Interagency Scientific Committee Report - Bruce G. Marcot and Jack Ward Thomas - Sept. 1997

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12000 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Jul 03, 2019 8:25 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski wrote:
Not in THIS thread, MtnGoat. Other threads.

That's a simple answer, but I don't think it's true. I have never seen anyone in any thread arguing for a hands off approach to forest regulation.

I agree with a lot of your arguments, but I don't think strawmen are good arguments.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12000 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Jul 03, 2019 11:56 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
So, you don't actually have any examples of what you claim is true. Of course it's not worth your time to find what doesn't exist, and I'm expected to prove a negative.

One could argue that folks don't agree on the types or character of management, or any other number of arguments that don't involve strawmen. But that doesn't provide the emotional pull of claiming there are nefarious characters who advocate for a mythical hands off standard, does it.

Quote:
There are some here who clearly support a complete "hands off" policy when it comes to management of public timberlands - they want NO management of any sort done and espouse a mantra of "let nature take its course".

These supposed people "clearly" support something you cannot show them to support, yet it's 'clearly' true, unless I wade through 15 years of posts to find something I argue doesn't exist to begin with. Better yet, the 15 years you refer to is *your* posts, while the question is the assertions made by other posters, so I then have to search all posts for what does not exist. Hmm.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11141 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostWed Jul 03, 2019 8:44 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Anne Elk -

I just finished reading that second document ("Of Spotted Owls, Old Growth, and New Policies..."), and it is not the one I mentioned up-thread.
While it is an interesting read, it's not getting to the point of the one I mentioned previously.
Perhaps another stab in the dark that missed, but it nonetheless does try to put the pieces all together in a manner that makes sense.

The one I mentioned previously was much shorter, and it was just regular ol' HTML format on a regular ol' web page. I still have no idea about title or website.

The repeated attempts to derail the thread here are a bit disconcerting, but these documents by JWT kind of make up for that.

Right now I've got to head up to SeaTac, and I've still got four property owners wondering when their yards are going to look like candidates for a Sunset Magazine photo spread.
(I'm getting there little by little but the weather the last couple days hasn't been the most cooperative, and I'm not having great success with propagating Oregon Grape here and that's holding up one project interminably.)

You've got my email addy if you need to get in touch.

BK

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Trump Administration Seeking To Overhaul Forest Management Rules 06/12/19
  Happy Birthday DayveeB, Movenhike, clerr!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy