scott_harpell Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 2. Commercial logging may actually increase fire risk by opening the canopy, taking out the fire resistant trees and leaving a lot of slash behind in the units. The science is out there. If anyone is interested, I can send you a more detailed analysis of how commercial sales may actually increase fire risk in and around Cooper Spur on Mt. Hood. totally agreed. 4. Nature takes care of itself. Why log in wilderness and roadless areas? We should be managing forests near communities, letting Mother Nature take care of the rest of the forest. read it. they are not proposing this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 mattp said: Bronco - do you really believe that anything the Bush Administration has promoted has had anything to do with compromise? 1.) The recent Medicare Bill 2.) Steel Tarriffs Neither of these issues were well received by conservatives, and that Bush thought he could ever placate liberals to any degree just demonstrates the folly of 'compromise'. The Sierra Club's version of compromise .....is not to. I can't think of any issue that any major environmental groups have shown any interest in compromising on. There just comes a point when your adversaries say to themselves, "what's the use in talking to these guys?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 FW- You don't know what you're talking about. The Sierra Club and others offered compromiser on this bill by proposing a plan that allows logging near communities. I recently settled several large old growth sales on the GP where we gave volume and responsible prescriptions and the FS droppped 30 million board feet of old growth clear cuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 scott_harpell said: 2. Commercial logging may actually increase fire risk by opening the canopy, taking out the fire resistant trees and leaving a lot of slash behind in the units. The science is out there. If anyone is interested, I can send you a more detailed analysis of how commercial sales may actually increase fire risk in and around Cooper Spur on Mt. Hood. totally agreed. 4. Nature takes care of itself. Why log in wilderness and roadless areas? We should be managing forests near communities, letting Mother Nature take care of the rest of the forest. read it. they are not proposing this. Yes they are. The act prohibits logging in the wilderness system but says nothing about the rest of the roadless areas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 (edited) Winter said: FW- You don't know what you're talking about. The Sierra Club and others offered compromiser on this bill by proposing a plan that allows logging near communities. I just visited The Sierra Club site and the only link I could find even closely regarding your statement is this: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/106440552699250.xml If the Sierra Club wants to "allow" the clearing of trees near homes (on private property?) and considers this a compromise...well then, that's real big of them. The article, and your statement above, don't say if this compromise involved public or private land so I'll just have to take you at your word. BTW, is the Roadless Areas issue decided, or is it still working its way up through the courts? If the Sierra Club indeed came to a compromise on this issue, then upon what do they base their continued harping about the initiative? They don't like the compromise they agreed upon? It wasn't enough? They're angry that they had to compromise at all? I guess I just don't understand..... Edited December 4, 2003 by Fairweather Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Make that slope steeper and it will resemble a good ski run Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Patrick_Beebe and Winter are both on the mark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 FW - Ya better look harder. Check S. 1453 You can also see how ONRC was pushing S. 1453 It wasn't just the Sierra Club. It was a bill sponsored by Leahy and Boxer. Your rhetoric aside, the left did offer a compromise based on SCIENCE. None of this debate focuses on private lands. This is FEDERAL litigation dealing with FEDERAL forests. We're upset because the administration is subsidizing the timber industry at the expense of our forests. The HFRA creates huge incentive to abuse the process to get out the cut and ignores the best science out there. And Harpell, our taxes ALREADY go to subsidize the timber industry, because the federal timber sale program loses billions. Take the billions we lose, pay the loggers to clear small diameter and brush from near local communities, and we're there. What's the problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 patrick is there, but i dont think it is a practical application. it would have to be funded by the government. and that would mean huge tax increases. the current suggestion is a compromise. the loggers can clear it away while making a profit. if they are not gonna make proffit, which the wouldn't in fringe urban areas, why would they do it? for charity? sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Winter said: FW - Ya better look harder. Check S. 1453 You can also see how ONRC was pushing S. 1453 The first link doesn't work. The second link just leads me to a form letter and a bunch of hysteria. (IMHO) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Go to thomas.loc.gov and punch in the bill #. Sheesh learn to think for yourself dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 any legistlatiom purposed by boxer is trash(feinstain as well)......please do not include that liberal bitch in these discussions. thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 erik..why shouldn't boxer's actions be included in this discussion? why shouldn't a liberal view point be included? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Minx, looks to me that Erik stated his point succinctly and eloquently. Don't know why you'd have questions about that. Scott, about that global warming/increased forest fires thing, well I don't have time to explain it, but if you were to say, Google the words forest+fires+global+warming you'd come across a wealth of information about how increased tems lead to decreased sap production, weakening trees and making them more vulnerable to both fires and beetles (species vary from place to place) and how a weakened/dead tree burns better. Then there's the part about how when it's warmer, even the tiny bit you get from global warming, fires burn better. Of course in oder to accept any of this, you have to accept global warming to be a real thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtn_mouse Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 marylou said: about that global warming/increased forest fires thing, well I don't have time to explain it, but if you were to say, Google the words forest+fires+global+warming you'd come across a wealth of information about how increased tems lead to decreased sap production, weakening trees and making them more vulnerable to both fires and beetles (species vary from place to place) and how a weakened/dead tree burns better. Then there's the part about how when it's warmer, even the tiny bit you get from global warming, fires burn better. Of course in oder to accept any of this, you have to accept global warming to be a real thing. Climatic changes, or global warming is happening. The cause still seems to be debatable to many though. On the east side of the cascades, the weather is warmer and drier, and small climatic changes have impact. Trees do not grow as fast as they did 100 years ago. Simple increment cores taken from trees here show larger periodic growth rates years ago compared to PGRs measured in younger trees today. Decreasing PGRs indicate a stressed tree. Stressed trees have a higher flammability due to decreased fuel moisture. As you know, fire danger is related to low RH, high temps, low fuel moistures. Most of these trees, other than the true firs, produce large quantities of pitch. This pitch is necessary to defeat the attack of bark beetles. There are of course other reasons why beetle populations are high, but with these stressed trees, the beetles can easily overcome the trees defenses. Some species of dendroctonus can manage a mass attack, and infest so many diseased trees, that they also can take down healthy trees in their path. Some tree species are not well suited for the dry hot east side, like the grand fir. This tree has been increasing throughout the years for several reasons. There was an increase of logging of the ponderosa pine and doug-fir, and lots of fire suppression. This created an enlarging understory. Grand fir germinate and grow well in shade, pine don't. So the grand fir have been taking over out here. With this global warming, or climatic change happening, these trees are now the most stressed of all. They are very suseptible to root diseases, rots, heart rots, etc, and then it takes very little for a bark beetle to succeed. The fir engraver, scolytus ventralis is in outbreak status in the blue mountains. So what does this mean?? THe HFRA may have a place in restoring health forests, if it is done by the resource professionals, and politics left out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 Pretty well put, MM. Thanks. Unfortunately the Healthy Forest Act is not really about what the Administration wants you to think it's about, but I think we mostly all agree on that already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 Interesting read from you folk. One interesting thing. If the forest service would like to eliminate a little grove of trees from the forest due to infestation and this grove is not near a suitable road, it would not build a road. They would contract out for a helicopter to take the trees out. It is cheaper alternative--but of course it depends on the length of the road and the slope encountered. Got this little bit of info from a Forest Service employee. As you are going up Highway 20 and take a turn up Granite Creek right after Canyon Creek you will notice on the hillside of McKay Ridge there are a number of "dead trees". I do not know if this is caused by infestation. IMO, I believe this area will be considered to be logged due to the "dead amounts" I know it is not in the NCNP but borders it. I don't think it is Wilderness either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 Interesting about the FS 'ee saying that they would heli log. My dad's been in the timber industy since the '70s and according to him, heli logging is virtually not done on the west side. It's not just the cost issue, it's the terrain, the weather, and the density of the wes side forests that makes heli logging both unsafe and impractical. I'm not saying it is never ever done, but boy if I'd be surprised to see that done west of the Crest under too many circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 up here in Bc most if not all heli logging is only done in what is "west side" conditions. nobody bothers heli logging those dinky little interior pecker-poles it isnt cost effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 Perhaps then, if that's true, it does come down to a matter of money. In that case, the Canadians will do it one way, the Americans another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.