[iron]

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/115837739.html

[treeswarper]

BS on that comment. I'll type slowly so you may understand. The operating sawmills are not built to handle big trees. The ideal size is now 14 to 24 inches, diameter at breast height. If you think those are big trees, we are in trouble. 14 to 24 inches folks. Second and third growth. If you believe differently, please list the mills that take the bigger trees. I believe there may be a whopping 4 in our fair state, and one of them can't handle wood over 48". Any big trees that are still standing, are there for a reason. Mainly that they were and are hard to reach, not economical to go for, and or have a lot of defect. Capice? The best prices are for the 14 to 24 inch logs.

[trestle]

This is well said and can be directed at both sides. "We have to get away from focusing on our own narrow niche of what we want the world to be and recognize that we have to share the world with other folks who have interests that need to be recognized." Vilsack said. The big trees seem to be well protected for a variety of reasons but it would be beneficial to us all if second and third-growth forests were allowed to be managed instead of quarantined. Proper management will do more to preserve recreation access and healthy forests than the ESA-based measures currently in place.

[Scrooge]

Iron said

[iron]

just because a tree isn't "old growth" does not mean that it is not big. you start cutting down 2nd and 3rd growth and before you know it, you have spindly little trees like the east coast. awesome.

[MadCapLaughs]

I won't pretend to be knowledgeable about the intricacies of the logging industry. But I think the comments in this thread are revealing. We see the forest as a piggy bank, a smorgasbord, a thing to be willfully exploited for personal material gain. Maybe if we treated a forest as thing of value in itself, we might discover that we are treated well in return.

[Scrooge]

Ah, phooey! What are we? The Elves of Middle Earth or the Druids of Ancient Greece, that forests are somehow sacred? Nuts! Our ancestor came ashore and cut down the trees to clear their fields and build their cabins and stoke their fireplaces. They burned the wood to make charcoal to fuel the smithies to build the plows and the waterwheels. They mushed it up to make the pulp that let the newspapers exercise their freedom. Using the forests is about as American as anything gets. Sure, we've learned to strike a balance between use, now, and preservation for the future, but let's keep it a balance.

[iron]

sorry scrooge. just because something was done in the past does not make it the right practice for the present. i don't care what things are american or not; that's not what this is about.

[Malachai Constant]

We also held human beings as property, gave smallpox blankets to Indians, slaughtered buffalo for their tongues (or just for the hell of it),considered women property yada yada yada. Just because we did something in unenlightened time does not mean we should do it now.

[HikerJohn]

Folks, I'll admit I have a unique position in that I grew up in a logging town (North Bend), had lots of family in the business, spent most of my childhood hiking in the woods out there (in old growth, clearcuts, selective cuts, and 2nd/3rd growth) and I think there is a position to consider that many don't think of: When I was growing up we watched logging take place and clearcuts created-- but now it is 30 years later and what do I see? Trees the size of those I hiked through when I was a teenager. As I tell many people who are more recent arrivals, think of these trees as very slow growing corn. While some of the Cascades are beautiful and unique, there are lots of places that are flat, boggy (not wetlands, just wet), and not unique. Not every place is worth locking away from any use except protecting trees. Also, what many people miss is that while there are unique places and features that need to be preserved, we must consider that these trees are living -- and dying organisms. While we can preserve Old growth for a while, we won't preserve every OG tree forever, because eventually they die. What we need to preserve is some places where the geological features are unique and/or the flora and fawna are special-- but that is not EVERY SQUARE inch of trees in the NW. There is a happy balance that can be achieved (well managed tree farms providing a biodegradable, renewable source of building materials), preserved areas (NOT just for trees), and space for people to live. But BALANCE is the key... OK, I'm ready for the Flames!!! Yours, John

[Scrooge]

Malachai Constant said

[treeswarper]

[Slugman]

Well, if someone wants to cut some 60 or 80 year old trees, I say go ahead. Just please don't cut slopes so steep they will slide for sure, don't cut right up to streams, and don't make the taxpayers pay more for the roads than we get from the timber sale. If you can manage those things, then I have no problem.

[HikerJohn]

Well said, Slugman-- all of these are aspects of good forestry. I'll point out Hancock Forest Management as an example of a good stewards of their forest lands (and in some places, USFS-- not necessarily around here...) I've wondered for years why the USFS would pay for the roads, instead of billing the purchaser for the costs of building the roads...

[Hulksmash]