[polarbear]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0820/p01s02-uspo.html

[MCaver]

I am all for fire management in National Forests, but unfortunately "thinning" in the past has meant clear-cutting, which I oppose. If there's a way to reverse the well-intentioned but misguided fire suppression tactics of the last century, while protecting the health and beauty of the forest -- particuarly the old growth trees -- then I am all for it. I must admit though that I am skeptical of any forest initiative the timber companies like, considering the track record and reputation of the industry.

[MtnGoat]

thin them out, allow selective cutting of a percentage of trees to sweeten the pot for contractors. Modern selective cuts are less damaging than in past decades, trees reseed with natives quickly in selective cut areas. If the fuel load is not reduced, the trees *will* burn, and lots of 'em. Does one prefer a huge fire killing zillions of trees, or no fire and the loss of a few to a logging outfit?

[Malachai Constant]

There have been fires every summer for as long as I can remember, this year is worse than usual due to dry conditions on the east side of the southern cascades (global warming?) Considering the reputation of the current administration I have little doubt that the intent of the current proposal is resume logging in currently protected areas. The administration has refused to defend the rules generated after extensive review because that offends their contributors. This is also the reason tariffs were imposed against Canadian timber in violation of NAFTA.The proposal reduces to the vanishing point present environmental safeguards. Logging companies are not particularly adept in removing brush and surface material, their business is producing timber. The only way to remove such material is by use of controled burns. The primary problem is buildup in on the dryer east side where there are relatively few environmental restrictions. There is currently as much or more fire hazard generated by logging as naturally occurring processes. Most fires start and grow in recently logged areas. In recent years there has even been many fires started by out of work loggers or firefighters. The result of the proposal will be increased logging in the west where there are many more protections. On the east side the decline in logging is much more due to reduction of timber prices than environmental restrictions.

[MtnGoat]

"The only way to remove such material is by use of controled burns. The primary problem is buildup in on the dryer east side where there are relatively few environmental restrictions. There is currently as much or more fire hazard generated by logging as naturally occurring processes." So we can't use controlled burns because of the fuel load, we can't log because of it's fire hazard, what's left?

[Malachai Constant]

I suppose you could put unemployed people to work on it but that would cost $$. The problem tends to be self correcting and thats what we are seeing. The poicy of putting out fires was established to perserve timber not to prevent fire. In places where the hazard occurs logging is already legal. Cutting old growth will not pevent fires as there is much less fuel there.

[MtnGoat]

"I suppose you could put unemployed people to work on it but that would cost $$." To work, logging and clearing? Didn't you say this kind of activity increases fire hazards? I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm confused how who does the same work changes a fire hazard. "The problem tends to be self correcting and thats what we are seeing. " One could make a case for that, is the damage caused by fires with unnatural fuel loads an acceptable "self correction", in your eyes? "Cutting old growth will not pevent fires as there is much less fuel there." Does the plan put forth allow cutting old growth? I believe your point on this is entirely valid, but I'm less certain what is actually in the proposal. thanks for your time!

[Malachai Constant]

I am at home with a root canal coming up. ""I suppose you could put unemployed people to work on it but that would cost $$. "" ”To work, logging and clearing? Didn't you say this kind of activity increases fire hazards? I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm confused how who does the same work changes a fire hazard. “ Not the same work. It depends on the particular area. I believe there are proposals to remove fuel that are in built up areas by clearing. It off course would depend what type of timber marketable or not is in the area. If there are firebreaks in the area you can have controlled burns. They would have to be cut if they are not there. Just logging does not remove the most dangerous fuel. Usually Ponderosa Pine, which is in these areas can withstand fires unless it gets into the crowns. The problem tends to be self correcting and thats what we are seeing. ”One could make a case for that, is the damage caused by fires with unnatural fuel loads an acceptable "self correction", in your eyes? “ It is not necessary acceptable but we have little choice what is is. It will take years to do as much in a controlled manner. In Yellowstone the forests have regenerated quite quickly. Cutting old growth will not pevent fires as there is much less fuel there. ”Does the plan put forth allow cutting old growth? I believe your point on this is entirely valid, but I'm less certain what is actually in the proposal.” I do not believe there has been any detailed plan put forth. There is nothing to prevent removing fuel in 2nd or 3rd growth areas under current regulations. The reason for my comments is because this seems to be another stated reason for removing protection in roadless and old growth areas because that is the only place where logging is currently prohibited. thanks for your time! Thank You!! BTW I do not have a problem with logging in general especially on replanted areas. What I am against is using current concerns (Fires, Terrorism, Energy Shortages, etc. ) as a reason for a raid on irreplaceable public property. BTW here is an artice which expesses these thoughts in an organized manner. http://slate.msn.com/?id=2070027

[Timber Cruiser]

Malachai, Has your pain medication kicked in for the root canal already? You are all over the road and I don't think I follow you, so I'll make my own points. What little news coverage of the Bush plan I have seen has been dominated by environmental groups decrying the lack of public input into the plan. They also call for fuel reduction along the rural-forestland interface first. The latter is a "red herring"(along with alarm over potential logging of "old-growth") as they claim public safety should come first. The former points to their real agenda of tying up any plans to log on public land through continuous studies, hearings and litigation. The 1994 Clinton-Northwest Forest Plan (1 billion board feet production annually) was a significant reduction in timber harvest levels from the national forests which had historically produced 6.1 billion annually in the 80's and 4.6 billion in the 90's. Washington State now contributes less than 10% of the volume mandated under the Clinton Plan. 44% of the total forestland in the state is under federal management yet it accounts for only 2% of the timber harvested in this state. Only 15% of the federal forestland in the state is even considered for commercial timber production. I have one basic question for these NIMBYs and "environmentalists". How are you going to pay for the forest protection, recreation etc. that you feel we should manage the public forests for? How big of a check are you willing to cut? Because according to you - money shouldn't grow on trees.

[Tom]

I hate to bring this up in the middle of a debate but it's real easy to "quote" someone while still making it easy for the rest of us to figure out who said what. First, copy and paste the text you want to quote into your post (as you have done). However, instead of putting quotes around the quoted text, please differentiate it by either:

[Malachai Constant]

Timber Cruiser, Root Canal acomplished no drugs, yet! I do not really see your point, At the present time there is a glut of timber as evidenced by falling prices and imposition of tariffs on Canadian wood. There are few if any mills capable of handeling old growth in the northwest so any such timber cut would have to be exported. I would say that enviormental regulations are the real "Red Herring" the decline in the industry is more due to economic realities thean them. The Timber Co.s would rather use pine from the Southeast where it can be havested more easily and cheaply(nonunion labor). The Old growth Timber Idustry is dead in the NW and we might as well face up to it.As I said, I do not have a problem with logging on later growth land.

[Newt]

Leave the GD trees alone. Thinning could be possible clearcut. All thinning means in regards to fire is a somewhat smaller fire. Forest fires are natural AND need to happen. Let nature have its way. My opinion is just an excuse to log. Please don't take that as a jab at the loggers. NN

[Sore Feet]

Who are we as a species to decide that we know what is best for the trees anyway? Before we were around, "managing" our forests, there were destructive fires. Always have been, always will be. It's just part of the natural cycle. Why can't it just be left at that? I can certainly understand controlled burning to protect homes, business, whatever may be threatened by advancing wildfires. However, controlled burning and logging out forests to prevent forest fires (which pose no threat other than to the forest itself), which clear out forests naturally I might add, is a totally ludicrous idea that only a species as self-centered and egotistical as we could create.

[McPilchuck]

Cutting old growth? "Never"

[Timber Cruiser]