Forum Index > Stewardship > Lawsuit Backlash
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 8282 | TRs
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostSat Sep 23, 2017 11:36 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
But you know -- if those laws hadn't been passed -- all those trees would have been cut by now and there would still be very few jobs in the timber business -- but those timber towns would be surrounded by clear cuts instead of forest.

I doubt it.  The private timber lands are still producing.  Trees planted in the 1950s are of the right size now for harvest.  Ever heard of second and third growth timber?

Regulations about reforestation were passed before the enviro movement began.  Reforestation was taking place in the 1930s even.

--------------
What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
DIYSteve
mere tourist



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12168 | TRs
Location: here now
DIYSteve
mere tourist
PostSat Sep 23, 2017 12:00 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
treeswarper wrote:
There is the Biscuit Fire example to start with.

The Biscuit fire USFS action is not a good example of anything. It was a unique case with unique circumstances, e.g., vast wild roadless area that would be forever changed to non-wild by the USFS action, and the larger question of how to deal with wild burned out forests. The USFS and timber companies eventually won that citizen suit, but subsequent scholarly research strongly suggests that the USFS action was based on crappy pro-timber industry junk science that, if not challenged, would set a terrible precedent. You might want to choose another example.

And are you suggesting that the Biscuit fire citizen suit was frivolous?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 5392 | TRs
Location: Greenlake
RandyHiker
Snarky Member
PostSat Sep 23, 2017 12:09 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
treeswarper wrote:
RandyHiker wrote:
But you know -- if those laws hadn't been passed -- all those trees would have been cut by now and there would still be very few jobs in the timber business -- but those timber towns would be surrounded by clear cuts instead of forest.

I doubt it.  The private timber lands are still producing.  Trees planted in the 1950s are of the right size now for harvest.  Ever heard of second and third growth timber?

Regulations about reforestation were passed before the enviro movement began.  Reforestation was taking place in the 1930s even.

Commercial tree farms are still in operation yep -- and yes for example the 2nd growth slopes of Tiger Mtn right outside Puget Sound City which were logged in the 1920s or so now have some timber of some commercial value.

If your view is the only purpose of forest lands is to provide timber employment I suppose you think those should be clear cut now because they can.

I still assert that cutting the remaining small fraction of original old growth forest would not substantially changed the amount of timber employment available today.   The rate of cutting in the 1950's and 1960's was far above the rate that the timber re-grows -- thinking otherwise and blaming environmentlists for the lack of timber employment is a convienent deflection, but not based on a realistic view of the rate of timber re-growth.
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
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2373 | TRs
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
Member
PostSat Sep 23, 2017 1:32 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
DIYSteve wrote:
GMLO citizen suit is far more relevant to this thread than your ranting re the administrative process. GMLO case is an example of what I'm talking about: The FS taking action without a competent record and findings supported by the same.

Begging leave of the court, I must object.  I agree GMLO is a relevant example.  Accepting the court's finding that the NEPA process was defective, the appropriate remedy is to remand to the agency to cure this defect in their process.  It was inappropriate for the court to impose it's own remedy "in equity".  This is the 3rd time (1,2,3) Congress has determined the court's remedy is not in the public interest, thus we are compelled to conclude plaintiffs have a uniquely well-established record of acting contrary to the public interest, and that courts may be poorly equipped to discern the same.  Further, plaintiffs failed to comment, object or appeal pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act.  Falsely claiming GMLO repairs were kept "secret", plaintiffs further allowed the statute of limitations to expire.  I therefore respectfully submit that plaintiffs should not have been accorded standing, do not represent the public interest, and their complaint was based on false representations.  I therefore beg the court to permanently enjoin plaintiffs from filing another suit on this or similar grounds within this court's jurisdiction ever again.

(1) Cumberland Island Wilderness Boundary Adjustment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 108-447, § 145, 118 Stat. 3072, 3072-74 (reversing Wilderness Watch v. Mainella, 375 F. 3d 1085 (11th Cir. 2004));
(2) Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Backcountry Access Act, Pub. L. No. 112-128, 126 Stat. 373 (2012) (vacating an injunction issued in High Sierra Hikers Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 848 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2012),
(3) Green Mountain Lookout Heritage Preservation Act of 2014, Pub.L. 113-99

Steve, by picking nits, is it possible you may have missed the big picture in this thread?  Too much process, not enough product.

--------------
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated.  It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
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: 8559 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostSat Sep 23, 2017 9:23 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RodF wrote:
"...may have missed the big picture..."

kinda looks like he's not the only one.

lifetime supply! free!

--------------
"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
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 8282 | TRs
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostSun Sep 24, 2017 6:59 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
DIYSteve wrote:
And are you suggesting that the Biscuit fire citizen suit was frivolous?

It is an example of how delaying a salvage sale caused a loss of value and revenue.  The sales that were allowed to happen after all the court action had so much deterioration that the logs became almost worthless. 

I'll explain it ONE MORE TIME.  When a salvage sale is held up, because of a law suit and injunction, which you should know the meaning of, the trees stay put until the injunction is lifted or the law suit successful.  While the DEAD trees are standing, decay and insects move in.  The wood is rotting and being eaten up.  It is important to get those trees out and to a mill quickly or too much rot sets in.  Usually a year is the maximum.   It takes a year of planning so by the time the sale is ready to be sold, any longer delay hurts.


On the Biscuit sales, which were pretty darn small compared to the size of the burn, and were in roaded areas, they were held up.  By the time logging operations could commence, the timber was in bad shape.  I seem to recall that some logs were falling apart when the chokers tightened up.  Value was lost, tax revenue was lost NOT because the FS was in the wrong, but because the law suit took too long to resolve. 

Now, you've not answered the question of "what is a short time for a law suit?"  What is a reasonable time?

--------------
What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 8282 | TRs
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostSun Sep 24, 2017 7:15 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
If your view is the only purpose of forest lands is to provide timber employment I suppose you think those should be clear cut now because they can.

I still assert that cutting the remaining small fraction of original old growth forest would not substantially changed the amount of timber employment available today.  The rate of cutting in the 1950's and 1960's was far above the rate that the timber re-grows -- thinking otherwise and blaming environmentlists for the lack of timber employment is a convienent deflection, but not based on a realistic view of the rate of timber re-growth.


Nobody is talking about cuttiing old growth.  And your statement inferring that timber towns would be surrounded by clearcuts if not for the enviro industry is speculation.  I don't know about Tiger Mountain.  Once again let's go over what is currently the ideal tree size for the current state of the lumber mills.

The MAXIMUM diameter of an acceptable log is around 27 inches in DIAMETER.  Trees that have a diameter at 4.5 feet up from the ground, of 12 to 20 inches are highly desired.  Some mills take logs that are only 4" on the small end--remember that logs taper.  If a log is delivered that is too large for the mill, they deduct that amount from  THE SCALE and the logger is not paid for it.  We call that "Paper Bucking".

It doesn't take a century to grow trees to that size.  Depending on site (growing conditions) trees that were planted in the 50s and 60s have easily reached the desired size for harvest.  They can be clear cut or partial cut--neither has anything to do with the logs being taken out.
Even if those "clearcuts surrounding timber towns" weren't reforested, they'd now have commercial sized alder on them.  And yes, I'm thinking of forests for harvest because that's what the original post is about.

Tiger mountain does not represent the rest of the world.  I suggest you get around a bit more and talk to foresters and other experts on forestry.  Then research the history of the little towns by talking to long time residents.  You might learn something.

--------------
What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 5392 | TRs
Location: Greenlake
RandyHiker
Snarky Member
PostSun Sep 24, 2017 7:36 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
treeswarper wrote:
Tiger mountain does not represent the rest of the world.  I suggest you get around a bit more and talk to foresters and other experts on forestry.  Then research the history of the little towns by talking to long time residents.  You might learn something

I hiked through an area that was clearcut in 1982 and replanted soon after yesterday.  The 35 year old or  re-growth trees are bigger than Christmas trees, but the trunks are still under a foot in diameter.  How long is the re-plant to harvest cycle supposed to take?

How many acres of re-growing forest are needed to provide continuous employment for 1 logging crew tending to and harvesting in a sustainable manner?

How much more timber employment would be possible for the next generation of loggers if the greater cooperation with the environmental orgs so that timber operations and harvesting didn't have to get tangled up in court ?
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: 8559 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostSun Sep 24, 2017 9:20 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
"...bigger than Christmas trees, but the trunks are still under a foot in diameter..."

^ Probably too close together, which stunts their growth. Possibly in need of a pre-commercial thinning.

--------------
"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
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 5392 | TRs
Location: Greenlake
RandyHiker
Snarky Member
PostSun Sep 24, 2017 1:17 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski wrote:
RandyHiker wrote:
"...bigger than Christmas trees, but the trunks are still under a foot in diameter..."

^ Probably too close together, which stunts their growth. Possibly in need of a pre-commercial thinning.

Point is that the rate of re-growth in already cut areas is insufficient to support anything close the same level of timber employment as during the heyday of "timber mining".   Even without lawsuits.
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
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 8282 | TRs
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostSun Sep 24, 2017 5:47 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:


I hiked through an area that was clearcut in 1982 and replanted soon after yesterday.  The 35 year old or  re-growth trees are bigger than Christmas trees, but the trunks are still under a foot in diameter.  How long is the re-plant to harvest cycle supposed to take?

That all depends on site conditions and treatments.

How many acres of re-growing forest are needed to provide continuous employment for 1 logging crew tending to and harvesting in a sustainable manner?

That depends on the site, volume per acre, slope etc.

How much more timber employment would be possible for the next generation of loggers if the greater cooperation with the environmental orgs so that timber operations and harvesting didn't have to get tangled up in court ?

Probably not much because the enviro organizations only support  "light" cuttings.  I have no idea what greater cooperation means ....how much volume per year?  What logging methods are allowed?  Your questions are too general.

My other two answers reflect the fact that one size does not fit all.  Different sites, aspects, elevations etc. have different rates of growth.

--------------
What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 8282 | TRs
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostSun Sep 24, 2017 5:50 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
Ski wrote:
RandyHiker wrote:
"...bigger than Christmas trees, but the trunks are still under a foot in diameter..."

^ Probably too close together, which stunts their growth. Possibly in need of a pre-commercial thinning.

Point is that the rate of re-growth in already cut areas is insufficient to support anything close the same level of timber employment as during the heyday of "timber mining".   Even without lawsuits.

Ummmm, that's not true.  It depends on the location.  One guy on the Oregon Coast was working with a logging operation on a stand he had planted.  Sounds like we have better growing conditions in Lewis County than on Tiger Mtn.  Tiger Mtn. does not represent all forests.

--------------
What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 5392 | TRs
Location: Greenlake
RandyHiker
Snarky Member
PostSun Sep 24, 2017 5:56 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
treeswarper wrote:
Ummmm, that's not true.  It depends on the location.  One guy on the Oregon Coast was working with a logging operation on a stand he had planted.  Sounds like we have better growing conditions in Lewis County than on Tiger Mtn.  Tiger Mtn. does not represent all forests.

Of course the yield depends on the location.

What I'm saying is that over the entire state of Washington the amount of regrowth is simply not enough to support timber employment on anywhere near the scale of the 50s and 60s
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: 8559 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostSun Sep 24, 2017 7:07 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The rate at which a tree grows depends upon a number of different factors: soil fertility, rainfall, amount of sunlight, and space for the tree to grow without competing with its neighbors.
If the stand is crowded, the trees are going to grow slower. Once the stand is thinned (commercial thinning or pre-commercial thinning) the rate of growth accelerates.

The same principles are at work in your vegetable garden at home. Think: thinning carrots.

RandyHiker wrote:
What I'm saying is that over the entire state of Washington the amount of regrowth is simply not enough to support timber employment on anywhere near the scale of the 50s and 60s

Where did this come up? Who claimed that it would?
This isn't about whether or not there is a fast-enough growing supply to support an industry.
It isn't about the 1950s or 1960s (or even the 1970s or 1980s.) It isn't even necessarily about timber harvest.
It's about having forests that are in good health. Over-crowded stands are not healthy forests.

treeswarper is (of course) on a different track in this conversation - she's employed in the timber industry. You cannot lump us both together. I have NO vested interest in timber harvesting and don't personally know anybody who does.

FTR: Pacific County, Washington is the fastest Douglas Fir growing region on the planet. Nowhere else even comes close. Home of the first tree farm: Weyerhauser's "Joe Creek" timber farm, just south of Cosmopolis.

Surprisingly, the area that treeswarper is in - the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District - is a great place to grow timber pretty quickly at the lower elevations. They get boatloads of precipitation up there.
Not the same deal when you start going north a ways, particularly at the higher elevations.

==

and while I'm thinking of it:

RandyHiker wrote:
The idea that lawsuits are excessive and a drag on the economy is myth that corporations have spread to further their interests and increase their profits.

B.S. - plain and simple.

and when you were asked for something to support that statement, your "answer" was another question.... and you're talking about "you got nothing", seriously? lol.gif

--------------
"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
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1202 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostTue Sep 26, 2017 4:34 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
treeswarper wrote:
We'd have to go back a ways since the GP has now been totally afraid to do anything the might cause a hint of a lawsuit.  The group running and that still runs the forest is the Gifford Pinchot Task Force.

The GPTF (no known as the Cascade Forest Conservancy) - I know of this group and a friend of mine has been involved with them deeply for years. He tells me that they have sued the Forest Service about logging a grand total of once and that this did not affect logging levels after that. Can you list all these supposed lawsuits that leads you to say that they run the forest?

treeswarper wrote:
The Mt. Adams district ranger was/is a former leader of that group.

Right, so after years of always appointing resource people to be the district ranger, we now have somebody with an environmental background as District Ranger. I don't know how many of these there are around the country but it is overall a rare thing, and I think a good development. I did see that 14 timber sales are up for bid on the GPNF website.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Lawsuit Backlash
  Happy Birthday mountainflamingo!
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