[Tom]

I don't know if that's the premise or not. If all ends well, that's fine by me. The past several years have made me less inclined to just laugh things away. BTW, Ski, I did a search on sacbee in the database. I found NO articles appearing anywhere on the site relating to the subject so perhaps you are thinking of something posted on another forum site.

[treeswarper]

I'm not going to do it for you because I'm basically lazy. Tom, to feel better, look up acres and volume available for logging in the original Northwest Forest Plan--the owl plan. You should find that the those were never achieved. Matrix ground was supposed to be fair game for timber harvest. It hasn't turned out that way. The last administration increased timber targets, but failed to increase the budget for doing so. WA state was going to take over some of the work, but I don't know how that turned out. I'm sure that the last of the ancient old growth will not be liquidated by logging. It will be hyped up in order to get more donations to the non profit enviro industry. No threat--no money rolling in.

[altasnob]

The NWFP's 20-year Monitoring Reports (1994-2013): Status and Trends can be found here. I cannot think of a better source of non-partisan, accurate information on the state of PNW National Forests than this report. One of the goals of the NWFP is to maintain the amount of old growth forest within the NWFP area over the course of 100 years. The 20 year monitoring report found that old growth areas has declined, but not so much that the 100 year goal could not still be achieved. Below is a graph from the report that indicates the amount of old growth each year using three different definitions of "old growth;" late-successional/old-growth (LSOG) and old growth structure index 80 and 200

You can see in the graph that regardless of what definition of old growth one ueses, there has been a reduction of old growth in the the NWFP area over the 20 year period. This loss can be explained by "losses from wildfire (4.2–5.4%), timber harvest (1.2–1.3%), and from insects or other causes (0.7–0.9%)." "The NWFP anticipated continued declines in older forests for the first few decades until the rate of forest succession exceeds the rate of losses." In other words, this slight decline was expected and is not something alarming. Old growth areas are reduced, but they are also increased by not cutting down trees. The goal is to try to reach a stable equilibrium. "Losses of about 2.5% from wildfire and 2.5% from timber harvesting were expected each decade. Observed losses from wildfire were about what was expected (5% over two decades), but losses from timber harvesting were about one quarter of what was anticipated." So in other words, yes, there has been a decline in logging in the NWFP area over the last 20 years over what was expected. However, the total loss of old growth was within the target range so there is no reason to increase areas open to timber reduction. And regarding the timber production loss, note that Oregon suffered minimal decline in those 20 years, with most of the loss in Washington and California. Further, the report indicates the decline in timber production is due to a number of factors including a housing market crash, international competition, and more efficient timber technologies. The report says fewer logging and wood manufacturing employees are needed for each million board feet of timber, so less total jobs. However, increased labor productivity led to an increase in average annual real income in timber-related sectors. Therefore, while fewer people are employed in the timber industry, the individuals in that sector are typically better compensated than they were 15 years ago. The overall PNW economy has fared very well in these years so does it really matter that there are less timber jobs today than 20 years ago?

[Ski]

[treeswarper]

Altasnob, you really need to get out and walk through a few hundred acres of forest. The NWFP carved up the federal forest into different areas for different emphasis. I am talking about Matrix lands which are supposed to be available and managed for timber harvest. They are not LSR, or Riparian or even (my brain is tired) for experiments. Matrix is timber land. Read that plan. Don't dig up papers and newpaper articles. Read the plan and then a few forest plans. Matrix lands are not old growth nor are they owl nesting areas. Therefore, it was supposed to be fairly easy to have timber harvest in those acres and meet a certain amount or ASQ allowable sale quantity. That target has never been met. You also need to quit bringing up old growth. A. If it is cut, it is because it is a hazard to life or in the way of a parking lot or road repair or construction. It is not part of a timber sale. Read that over until you understand. B. It isn't going to be put up for sale. THE MAJORITY OF MILLS ARE NO LONGER ABLE TO MANUFACTURE LARGE DIAMETER LOGS. They do not want it. They won't pay for it. C. Second growth stands already have roads or remnants of roads and landings on site. This lowers logging costs, should it ever be logged again. D. The FS is deathly afraid of clearcuts, and if they do any clearcutting it is to create openings for wildlife or vegetation. Not to make money. E. Second growth contains plantations. These plantations were over planted, which is a sound practice but if left alone, become stagnant. We call it doghair. It's a thick tangle of sickly poles that is hard to walk through, much less provide food or shelter for wildlife. It needs to be thinned and thinned again. I'm done here. Taking part in this topic makes me sympathetic for the medical people at this time who are being second guessed and their recommendations ignored. I use lumber, therefore I support the harvest of trees. I went to school and studied forestry, I worked in it for 30+ years from planting trees to figuring out logging systems. End of story.

[Ski]

[Tom]

[altasnob]

[brineal]

[treeswarper]

[Pyrites]

I assume this letter in last Sunday’s Seattle Times has by now been read by every district ranger in R-6, and by timber associations. As much of a Fine, we’re ready to fight, how did that work out for you last time, notice as I’ve ever read. Best. https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/the-return-of-the-spotted-owl-wars/ PS: Yes, I still read ink on dead trees printed material.

[Ski]

^ Some of the reader comments below the article underscore a point I've tried to make several times here over the years: Designating the Spotted Owl as the "indicator species" was a mistake. If it's being pushed out of its habitat by another species - the Barred Owl - no amount of regulation will prevent that from happening. I have essentially the same thing happening in my back yard: the Western Scrub Jays have pushed out the Stellers Jays, which I very rarely see here now. When I first moved into this house the Stellers were here all the time. That had nothing to do with any timber harvesting. Things happen in the animal kingdom over which we have no control. In this case, it's quite possible the role of the Barred Owl is being grossly understated. === As for that Sacramento Bee article mentioned above: I was not hallucinating. It was linked to here somewhere. Maybe the link got lost in one of the database crashes, Tom. I don't know. You guys can go ahead and argue among yourselves about the numbers - it doesn't change the overall picture, which was comprehensively detailed in that series of articles. But by all means, feel free to cherry-pick the facts that support your argument - it will serve you well to convince each other how right you are. Two more of you being added to the ignore list. I'm done listening to (and reading) your noise. If I'm not responding to your posts, you now know why.

[brineal]

[Ski]

[altasnob]

So answer this question please: why did the Trump administration announce this new rule expanding logging lands on January 13, 2021, AFTER the election and just days before Biden took over? If the rule was announced before the election, like opening ANWR for bidding, one could argue it was done by Trump to please his constituents to get their vote. But why did Trump open the PNW National Forests to logging knowing it would likely be reversed by Biden? You seem to suggest the only purpose was to get people to donate to their environmental group of choice, which doesn't make much sense that Trump would do this to help environmental groups.