Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > ex-FS Chief: a little clearcut logging good for biodiversity
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
yew
non-technical



Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 1173 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellingham
yew
non-technical
PostMon Jul 17, 2006 11:00 am 
To anyone interested: In my opinion http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_4034795 ("New approaches needed to ensure a future for forestry, wildlife") is right on the mark. It's a good read for people who are interested in national forest management. The link is to an op-ed in the Salt Lake City newspaper. It is written by Jack Ward Thomas who used to be Chief of the Forest Service who was also a big part of the Northwest Forest Plan, the regional plan for the spotted owl forests. He's a wildlife biologist by training. Excerpts I really like: "Recent dramatic declines in forest management have brought some undesirable consequences for forest health and wildlife" "the pendulum of attitudes toward forest management has swung too far to the side of constraint" "Many stands are in or moving into mid-successional forest condition - the least productive stage for enhancing biodiversity. The key to overall biodiversity, therefore, will be creating and maintaining both younger early successional and late-successional forest stands" "The idea of ''letting nature take its course'' is seductive in its simplicity but has significant downsides" I've noticed that the old clearcuts on the Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest have mostly closed up and are conifer thickets. The grasses, shrubs and brush have been shaded out so species that need that are in decline. Wildfires aren't going to create young, brushy areas like they used to in the old days since most of society wants wildfires extinguished. The notion that clearcut logging can ever be good for wildlife sounds crazy to many people since a recently logged area looks so devastated and devoid of life.

"I aint jokin woman, I got to ramble...We gonna go walkin through the park every day." - Led Zeppelin
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
mike
Member
Member


Joined: 09 Jul 2004
Posts: 6389 | TRs | Pics
Location: SJIsl
mike
Member
PostMon Jul 17, 2006 11:47 am 
The arrogance of people who think they can "improve" upon nature never ceases to amaze me. History is littered with the wreckage.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostTue Jul 18, 2006 3:14 am 
yew_betula: Thanks. Interesting read, and as you said: right on the mark. It's unfortunate so many are so poorly informed about long-term forest management, primarily caused by allowing the cacophony of "environmentalist" hysteria to drown out the facts. I'm not familiar with the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF, but those "conifer thickets" you refer to are more than likely plantation units or LSRs in need of a proper thinning, an operation which accelerates the creation of more diverse forests and attempts to re-create "old growth" characteristics (in LSRs), but nonetheless receives opposition from some very vocal (and politically savvy) groups. Sure, clearcuts look bloody awful at first, but not nearly as bad as the southwest corner of Oregon after the Biscuit Fire a few years back. I'll take checkerboard landscapes any ol' day over thousands of acres charred by an out-of-control wildfire. see also "Breaking New Ground" by Gifford Pinchot smile.gif

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ted
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Jul 2006
Posts: 38 | TRs | Pics
Ted
Member
PostTue Jul 18, 2006 12:10 pm 
I agree with Mike. The reason the forests are so unhealthy is because of human tampering (fire supression, logging, monoculture replanting) in the first place!

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Davidą
Token Canadian



Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 3040 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Great White North
Davidą
Token Canadian
PostTue Jul 18, 2006 12:24 pm 
Unless you think humans arrived here on spaceships we are part of the environment, we are here to stay. "Letting nature take it's course" is all fine & dandy when you are talking hundreds of years - dinosaurs & many other creatures managed to go extinct without the 'evil' known as humankind. We need paper & wood products, trees are a crop just like any farmer's field - they need to be managed in order to have the kind of yields we require. A lot of the 'Environmental Policy' prostituted by politicians is just an excuse to reduce funding and has nothing to do with what was really good for the environment. I won't go into detail here because I'm not an expert but I know enough second hand (Karen took forestry in university) that much of the "tree hugging" agenda is based on poor science.

Warning! Posts may contain traces of sarcasm. Hiking Website: http://members.shaw.ca/karenanddavid/Index.htm
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostTue Jul 18, 2006 3:45 pm 
Quote:
The reason the forests are so unhealthy is because of human tampering (fire supression, logging, monoculture replanting) in the first place!
I can only respond to that by referring to the second and last lines of my earlier post.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ted
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Jul 2006
Posts: 38 | TRs | Pics
Ted
Member
PostTue Jul 18, 2006 4:13 pm 
Ski, Point taken. Just like you prefer checkerboard landscapes, I would prefer acres of charred forest. I don't know if anyone has all the facts. They are twisted in favor of whatever side is arguing. I'm probably not going to do anything about it but complain anyway, so there's no real threat to your point of view. Thanks for the fun debate.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostTue Jul 18, 2006 4:57 pm 
Ted wrote:
I don't know if anyone has all the facts. They are twisted in favor of whatever side is arguing.
How much room do I have here? Perhaps not, but forestry ( as both a science and an industry ) is far more well-informed than it was a hundred years ago, and far more than only 25 years ago. I will submit, therefore, that while they may not have "all the facts", the bottom line is that we are today light years ahead of where we were less than a quarter-century ago insofar as the science of forest management. The arguments only get "twisted" when the issues of politics, economics, and aesthetics are tossed into the pot. Those issues, for which all of us have differing opinions, only serve to obfuscate the arguments for sound long-term management of our National Forests. Let's take one point mentioned: "charred landscapes". In the case of the Biscuit fire in SW Oregon ( as well as MANY wildfires recently in Eastern Washington ) the out-of-control and extensive damage was the result of excessive fuel loads ( small and large woody debris left behind after harvesting activities ) which, granted, would not have been there had the land not been logged and/or had different practices been in place when those areas were harvested. Those fires were not "natural" in any sense of the word, as they were fueled by litter and debris from harvests, making them burn MUCH hotter than a naturally-occuring fire. This resulted in trees being killed which might well have survived a naturally-occuring fire, the earth sterilized by such tremendous heat, and an increased problem with soil erosion. In a perfect world, maybe we would never have logged those forests, and there would be no need for this discussion. The world isn't perfect. The forests were logged. We've learned that early timber harvesting practices didn't always produce the desired conditions later on. A lot of that learning process was done the hard way, by trial and error, and the costs have been decimated fish runs; degradation of riparian habitat; diseased forests; and the loss of property, homes, and human lives. Jack Ward Thomas' editorial commentary essentially asks that we USE what we've learned and apply it on the ground to more productively manage our National Forests for BOTH sustained yield AND better ecosystem health. Again, PLEASE see "Breaking New Ground" by Gifford Pinchot. Thanks. smile.gif

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ted
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Jul 2006
Posts: 38 | TRs | Pics
Ted
Member
PostTue Jul 18, 2006 5:16 pm 
Ski wrote:
The arguments only get "twisted" when the issues of politics, economics, and aesthetics are tossed into the pot.
That is exactly what I am talking about. I will pick up "Breaking New Ground" next time I order some books, but would like to add that just because one man says it, doesn't make it so. I am one of the only non-scientists where I work, and I see a lot of healthy and constant debate over most every issue (that I can understand). One senior scientist said "people expect us to be 100% accurate and we can't!" With our fragile and simple minds, I mostly object to man's belief that he can do it better. Maybe I'm the only one with a simple mind, but it's all I know! smile.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostTue Jul 18, 2006 5:30 pm 
Ted wrote:
to man's belief that he can do it better
The point is: we CAN do it better than we have done before. Doing nothing is NOT "better". Doing nothing WILL result in more wildfires, more destructive wildfires, diseased forests, lack of biodiversity, and "artificial" forests in which most of the stand is of the same age, resembling the tree farms of Weyerhauser, Simpson, Rayonier, et al. Just as you have to break eggs to make omelettes, so you have to do a bit of tweaking to get a 50-year-old managed stand to start looking like a "real" forest of mixed age and species able to support a wider array of wildlife.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostTue Jul 18, 2006 5:34 pm 
... and add this one to your book list as well: "Olympic Battleground: the Power Politics of Timber Preservation" by Carsten Lien. I have the Pinchot book here in hardcover if you'd like to borrow it, but it was a gift from my step-father ( a 30+ year career timber cruiser ) and you'd have to promise to bring it back.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ted
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Jul 2006
Posts: 38 | TRs | Pics
Ted
Member
PostTue Jul 18, 2006 5:38 pm 
Ski, Perhaps you are right. I hate the artificial forests you describe (though not as much as I hate traffic on I-5), and perhaps there is someone in the forest-harvesting industry not only concerned with board-feet, but the health and sustainability of the forest. I'd like to meet them.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostTue Jul 18, 2006 5:48 pm 
That last remark is exactly why I referred to Lien's work. After you read it, I PROMISE you that you will NEVER trust anybody employed by Weyerhauser ( or any of the other timber giants ) or any politician involved in public lands management. If you want to meet with somebody in the timber harvesting industry who is as concerned about sustainability and ecosystem health as board feet, contact the closest NFS ranger station and initiate a dialog with them. Listen a lot, talk a little. Get on their mailing list. Get involved in the NEPA process yourself, if only by writing letters. They DO want to hear from the public, otherwise they're working in a vacuum. I've always been amazed by the people I interacted with from NFS, both by their genuine love of the forest and their concern for its long-term care.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
mgd
Member



Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 3143 | TRs | Pics
Location: Full Moon Saloon
mgd
Member
PostWed Jul 19, 2006 7:06 am 
So what is everyone's idea of a sustainable forest? How long does a crop of trees have to grow? 100 years? 150 years? Has the formula been arrived at yet?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostWed Jul 19, 2006 9:13 am 
re: How long does a crop of trees have to grow? It depends upon whose land it is, and what the intended end product is. Down in Pacific County (fastest tree-growing region in the world) Weyerhauser plants a fast-growing hybrid Douglas fir they can crop out in 30-35 years. Higher-quality end products ( nice, straight-grain Douglas fir 2x4's ) can be had in 50-60 years if the stand has been thinned and pruned. The "Dry Burton" project I referred to in another thread is on plantation units which are 50-60 years old, and should yield 15"-18" DBH trees. There are all sorts of variables, however: higher-elevations or drier areas necessarily require more time to produce commercial products. I doubt you'll see NFS cutting much in Western Washington that's 100 or 150 years old, because a lot of that's been designated LSR ( late-successional reserve ), although there are exceptions to that as well: designating an area "LSR" doesn't automatically make it "old growth", nor will the stand develop "old growth characteristics" ( in some cases ) without some management ( pruning and/or thinning ) over a course of time. One idea which came as a result of the creation of the AMA's ( adaptive management areas ) in the early 1990's was to allow some stands to mature to 100-150 years ( 24"-30" DBH ) to produce high-end products for which there continues to be increased demand and will yield much higher market prices. As Weyerhauser, Simpson, Rayonier, et al seem to cut wood as fast as they can, producing those high-end products as part of a long-term management plan would give NFS a greater share of a growing market niche. So no, there is no absolute "magic formula" for "sustained yield". Again, it depends on whose land it is, and what the intended end product will be.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > ex-FS Chief: a little clearcut logging good for biodiversity
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
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