Forum Index > Trail Talk > Wilderness or Recreation Land - which do you prefer
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
borank
Lake dork



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 503 | TRs
Location: Lynnwoot
borank
  Top

Lake dork
PostSun Mar 10, 2002 4:47 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Reading the “Hidden Hikes in WW” thread, it appears there are differing views as the value of wilderness.  How do you define wilderness?  Do we need to preserve areas in a pristine state regardless of where they are found?  If so, how much is enough?  How strict should the standards be?  Would you rather see current wilderness areas designated as recreational lands without such strict standards imposed?
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
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5123 | TRs

MCaver
  Top

Founder
PostMon Mar 11, 2002 4:30 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I like the current Wilderness designation and would like to see more land protected. At the very least, all old growth forests in the state on federal lands should be covered. The way it is now, old growth in National Forests aren't safe from logging, as in the White Chuck area. Personally, I'd like to see all road building in National Forests halted, and what's left of the remote untouched areas protected by Wilderness designation. Ideally, I'd like to see all commercial extraction, particularly logging, stopped on federal land, but that's not going to happen. I realize this puts me on a far end of the spectrum, but there's a finite amount of "wilderness" left and I'd like to see it protected, particularly from companies only interested in getting cheap materials.
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
#19
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 2206 | TRs

#19
  Top

Member
PostMon Mar 11, 2002 6:04 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I don't think I could do much justice to your questions, but I would say I'm not sure if we have true wilderness in this state.
One look at the ALW and it's pretty clear that wilderness desgnation does not make a wilderness.  North Cascades and Pasayten are closer, but there are lots of trails.  I think of large tracts of land without roads or trails.  Like Alaska.

Preserving "wild lands"  as best we can, even if well trampled like many areas of the ALW, is as important as preserving....anything.  IMHO.  But they are our lands, and I don't believe in closing areas or limiting more than the quotas in the Enchantments.
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: 11514 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostTue Mar 12, 2002 5:40 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I think an argument can be made for extending additional wilderness designations to currently unroaded areas above an arbitrary size.

On lands not designated as wilderness, I have little problem with extractive activity performed using sound environmental practice and managed to minimize impact.

I'm not saying I want every square inch of trees cut, nor mines everywhere, but neither do I think everyplace should be off limits either. I like the outdoors and forests which are accessible, and I like areas where wilderness designation ensures foot access to lands that have not been disturbed, and I also like 2x4s and plywood, and coal, copper, gold, steel, kaolin, bauxite, uranium, and oil.

These items are not mutually exclusive if we don't choose to be single issue voters who seem to ignore where the things we use every day come from, or complain that someone else (or some nebulous version of "we") doesn't "need" what they choose to use.

I have noticed in prior discussions about extractive issues that the folks who hate extraction the worst seem to have the hardest time deciding not where they *don't* want these necessary activities to take place, which is seemingly everywhere, but where they *would* consider allowing access to the raw materials that improve everyone's lives. Especially when it comes to mining.

Trees are a slightly different story, they are renewable after all. You can choose where to grow trees. You can choose where to put up a building. You cannot choose where an ore body is located. It's either there, or it's not.

--------------
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
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 12304 | TRs
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
  Top

Feckless Swooner
PostWed Mar 13, 2002 10:59 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
SHOCKING NEWS FLASH!

Chris and I agree, at least in spirit.

Logging and other extractives on FS land need to continue to be regulated, even more than they are now, and I'm all the aforediscussed "Wilderness Buffer" designation for sensitive areas surrounding Wilderness areas: mixed usage, roads, but no extractives. But to say "no more extractives on any FS land" well, quite frankly, that's a lovely idea, but a little naive. Revise it to say "no extractives in any remaining Old Growth" and there, well, there you've got something people would get behind, including me. Now.....where on earth is there any non-Wilderness OG forest left? Can't say I can recall ever seeing much...

--------------
www.allisonoutside.com

follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
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
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5123 | TRs

MCaver
  Top

Founder
PostWed Mar 13, 2002 11:09 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I remember reading in some of the hiking books about hikes in areas of old growth that were in unprotected areas, and I also remember the White Chuck area being mentioned as a place where old growth is being cut in a National Forest. Unfortunately, I don't have any sources with me right now, but I'll see if I can dig them up. But that's just locally. Old growth is actively being logged in the Ketchikan National Forest in Alaska, or at least it was as of a few months ago.
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: 11514 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Mar 13, 2002 11:23 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
IMO the old growth situation also depends somewhat on the circumstances. Not cutting OG in the lower 48 where a significant portion has been eliminated, thus perhaps impacting native species severely, makes sense. In an area like AL, if there is nothing *but* OG to cut and substantial untouched stands remain, it may be permissible to cut some of it.

S'all about proportion. I don't favor cutting OG until none is left, and I don't favor protecting all of it in an area if there is OG for hundreds upon hundreds of miles.

--------------
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
Timber Cruiser
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 220 | TRs
Location: Cosi
Timber Cruiser
  Top

Member
PostWed Mar 13, 2002 1:10 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Below are some facts to chew on for this debate.  It always amazes me that after so much land has been preserved, people can still talk about cutting the last of the "old-growth".  As I have said before, the premium associated with "old-growth" type logs has just about disappeared.  Few mills even exist that could utilize such a large log.  Timber companies don't go after cheap F.S. wood, consumers do.  The F.S. timber sale program isn't even producing sales at a level that would take advantage of annual growth in non-"old-growth" timber.

Washington Forest Protection Association
March 4, 2002

Washington…nickname – The Evergreen State.  
Population…5.975 million – increasing about 80,000 people per year.
Land area…42.6 million acres – 20th largest state in the U.S.
Forestland…21.9 million acres – half of Washington State.
Some of the world’s finest commercial softwood trees.

State tree…Western Hemlock.
Forests provide clean air, clean water, diverse fish and wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities.
In the early 1800s Congress began designating preserves of land to permanently retain the ecological and environmental beauty and values of our diverse landscape.  About 44% of the total forestland, or 9.5 million acres in Washington was designated by Congress as National Forests & Parks, Wilderness, Scenic and Recreation Areas, and Wildlife Refuges.  More than 3 / 4 of this land is permanently preserved for ecological values.  The remaining federal forestland is designated as “multiple use” providing for recreation, water, timber, minerals, fish, wildlife and aesthetic values.

In 1889 Congress granted another 10%, or 2.2 million acres of forestland to Washington State to provide a means to fund public schools, universities, correctional institutions and capitol construction projects.  These lands are designed to produce income to the state “trusts” for the benefit of the people in Washington.  

About 2 / 5ths of the forestland in Washington is owned by private landowners – individuals, tree farmers, small and large companies – who harvest and grow trees on about 8.5 million acres.

While forestland is divided along property lines and ownership boundaries, maintaining sustainable ecological, economic and social values across the forested landscape requires a bigger picture view.  Through federal, state and local regulation, stewardship and sound forest management practices, a balance is accomplished across forestlands, which often have diverse priorities of use.

Washington’s forestlands have the highest level of environmental protection in the U.S.  Washington is the second largest lumber producer in the United States.
Commercial forestry helps preserve open land.

More than 75% of the timber harvested in Washington comes from privately owned land – which is replanted to sustain a continuous supply of timber.

We hope you enjoy WFPA’s “Forest Facts & Figures” and that it provides a broader context for the uses of forestland in Washington, the relationship between people and the forests and the diverse management priorities, ownership patterns, and values we have for the forests of Washington…The Evergreen State.

Quote:


--------------
"Logging encourages the maintenance of foilage by providing economic alternatives to development."
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
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5123 | TRs

MCaver
  Top

Founder
PostWed Mar 13, 2002 1:33 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
Timber companies don't go after cheap F.S. wood, consumers do.

Thanks for posting those facts. Very interesting, even though there were no "old growth" numbers to support your point. But I have a problem with this quote. Yes, it is consumers that drive demand for lumber products, but it's not the consumers that are clearcutting sections of the National Forest, it's the timber companies. The timber companies decide where to cut trees, and I am perfectly happy to pay whatever small price increase comes from taking National Forests out of the picture. According to the statistics you posted, those numbers are low anyway, so the price shouldn't be affected much.
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
polarbear
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 3683 | TRs
Location: Snow Lake hide-away
polarbear
  Top

Member
PostWed Mar 13, 2002 6:28 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
To me, the price of taking National Forests out of the pictures isn't small--$35 for the parking pass, and much diminished ranger activity.  I think we need to find a happy medium between clearcut and no cut.
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
mattp
Member
Member


Joined: 09 Feb 2002
Posts: 5 | TRs

mattp
  Top

Member
PostThu Mar 14, 2002 7:57 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Timber Cruiser -

I don't know all that much about the timber industry in Washington State, not having worked in that industry for about twenty years, but I would offer two points about "old growth."  

(1) Virtually all of the west slope, from Oregon to BC, was at one time covered with a forest full of trees with an average or at least very common diameter at breast height, I would guess, of six feet or greater, and frequent treest measuring ten feet in diameter.  I say this because anywhere that I have seen old stumps in the woods or in the back of some field, that is the size of the stumps that I see.  Yet now you can travel from California to Vancouver and you will not see a single tree that size, except perhaps some of the redwoods that have been planted in parks -- they grow very fast.  

I have been hiking in western Washington for twenty five years and I still haven't seen very many of those large trees.  Obviously, there are plenty in the Olympic National Park, and there are some low elevation valleys in the Cascade foothills that haven't been completely cut, but for the truly big trees that used to grow in the lowland forest, there is VERY little left.  Do people that advocate use of these remaining lowland giants believe there is no need to save any of them?

(2) You state there is no premium for the big logs any more.  If that is so, why are old-grown cedars so frequently the target of thieves who cut them down and truck them to the shake mills at night?  This is an ongoing issue on the Olympic Penninsula and in the Cascades.
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
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 12304 | TRs
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
  Top

Feckless Swooner
PostThu Mar 14, 2002 10:12 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
P-bear, I'm not sure that the $35 is paying for a ban on logging in the NFs, what gives you that idea?

A agree with mattp 100%. To say there is no demand for large OG logs is folly. They are worth huuuge amounts of $$.

Though guidebooks may say there are a few lowland OG trees around, and that may be true, old second growth looks a LOT like OG. It would be easy to mistake one for the other. There is a lot of old second growth in the lower elevations in Wilderness areas, the only place I can think of where it's close to 100% OG in lowland is MRNP. Maybe ONP too.

--------------
www.allisonoutside.com

follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
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
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5123 | TRs

MCaver
  Top

Founder
PostThu Mar 14, 2002 10:20 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The "Harold J Engles Memorial Cedars Trail" off he N FK Sauk Road in MBSNF goes through a square mile of old growth cedars saved from logging by Darrington Forest Ranger Harold J Engles in the 1930s, when the entire valley was being logged. The trees there are as large as the ones at MRNP's Grove of the Patriarchs. I believe there are a few old growth trees at the Baker River trailhead. They are much too large to be even 100 years old. Trying to remember where I might have seen more...
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
#19
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 2206 | TRs

#19
  Top

Member
PostThu Mar 14, 2002 11:07 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I know little about old growth except what I've seen, or at least what I  thought I've seen.  I thought all of the low elevation valleys Glacier Peak Wilderness and North Cascasdes National Park support true old growth.  No?
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
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5123 | TRs

MCaver
  Top

Founder
PostThu Mar 14, 2002 11:14 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Several tracts of old growth outside of federal lands have been / are being protected by the Paul Allen Forest Protection Foundation too. They gained some press when they helped bankroll the protection of old growth in the MFK Snoqualmie area a year or so ago. The Foundation's website has more info:

Paul G. Allen Foundations
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 > Trail Talk > Wilderness or Recreation Land - which do you prefer
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