Common Sense From Connell

[BigHornRam]

James do you agree with Buzz that we can and should have sustainable harvested timber on FS lands where appropriate?

I'm in no way opposed, and fully support sustainable timber production on Federal lands.

Kat,

Can you find a profitability map more recent than 1993? That was almost 25 years ago.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Pat's a good man, and a friend, but he's off base with this.

Zinke's feeling heat for his vote against public lands. We can debate the Forest Resiliency Act and whether or not it is a good bill (I don't think so, others whom I greatly respect disagree) but the Labrador bill is a turd wrapped up in a moldy bread sandwich.

Keep the heat on Zinke. He's clearly feeling it.

 

[katqanna]

Kat,

Can you find a profitability map more recent than 1993? That was almost 25 years ago.

BHR, Gorte's CRS 2004 Report To Congress - Below Cost Timber Sales: An Overview states,

At the direction of Congress, the FS developed a system for reporting the financial and economic results of timber sales. Data were reported annually for each national forest, beginning with FY1989, but no report has been issued since FY1998.

If you read through the report, Gorte explains the history of the politics and the obstructions to measures to have further reports and measures against the below cost timber sales. This kind of information was inconvenient for politics. So there is no more current information with which to make a more up to date map.

 

[James Riley]

James do you agree with Buzz that we can and should have sustainable harvested timber on FS lands where appropriate?

Yes, WHERE APPROPRIATE. You see, the vast, overwhelming majority of the forested land of the lower 48 has been cut, at least once. If the concept of "sustainable harvested timber" was anything more than "get out the cut BS" then there would be plenty of forest to re-cut without touching anything that had never been cut before. So, "where appropriate" is all that land that's already been cut. Have at it. "Manage" the hell out of it if you want.

But, since "sustainable harvested timber" is not defined, we have to flesh that out. Timber is to a forest as a pork belly is to a pig. A pork belly is not a pig. And a forest is not timber. Let's say there is a stand of virgin giant Sequoia or Red Wood, or maybe even some "tight grained Montana fir" (still waiting on a definition of that) or any other stand on public land in the U.S. that the timber industry is just salivating over as they ignore that old whore they just got done with a hundred years ago. Just because you can cut that and go in and plant some new trees does NOT make that stand sustainable. You can't F for virginity and sustain it at the same time.

 

[shoots-straight]

Thanks James. I believe I understood what your saying. We over cut the hell out of things, roaded as fast as possible to keep lands from Wilderness review, and then the bottom fell out. I remember arguing with mill worker friends of mine in the Root 30 odd years ago. Telling them that the Timber industry was largely over and they needed to find a new job. Well eventually they did, but eeking out every last stud that the owners could produce at limited employment was the routine. In the end, the workers lost their pensions because they were had by the timber bosses.

My first argument with a Senator from the Root was over sustainability. He saw a forest that as a whole could produce 100 million bd ft of timber and that was the number he thought needed logged. I argued that what I though was sustainable was the lands that were already logged and roaded and nothing more. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and apparently so is sustainable timber supplies.

 

[TrickyTross]

I only got half way through before I started to hear echos of North Carolina and TrickyTross. Here it comes, Montana: east meets west.

While I can see legislation to encourage locals to participate, I don't think any more time, money or effort should be spent on that than on legislation to encourage non-locals to participate. Oh, wait, we have federal land managers for that.

Oh well, I'm going to stand down and take the responsive beating like a man. I'm not feeling like an argument today. Besides, I've said my piece elsewhere.

I will say that I walked past a pile of fire wood today and got the distinct smell of elk piss. Metaphorically made my dick hard.

Damn.... I must have struck a nerve over wanting to manage 10% of a 1.2 Million acre Forest System in NC. On down you say "Where appropriate" that's all I'm asking for. But, I reckon I'm gonna be lumped into being a "land grabbing local" or some foolishness because I like management and think the fire spending and USDA budget could be re-visited.

Again, what's your proposed solution?

 

[James Riley]

Damn.... I must have struck a nerve over wanting to manage 10% of a 1.2 Million acre Forest System in NC. On down you say "Where appropriate" that's all I'm asking for. But, I reckon I'm gonna be lumped into being a "land grabbing local" or some foolishness because I like management and think the fire spending and USDA budget could be re-visited.

Again, what's your proposed solution?

Is your 10% the best of the 1.2 million? "Best" meaning what's most profitable/desirable from a logging industry perspective? "Where appropriate"? Is that defined likewise?

Anyway, like I said, if it's been cut before, which I'm sure 99% of N.C. has been, go for it. Manage the hell out of it. We've managed the hell out of it for 300 years.

My proposed solution? Every tree that is cut down is cut for forest health, fine-chipped on the spot and left to rot. Remove removal. Yeah, yeah, I know about the slash being more important than the trunk. But that's not why I want to remove removal. I want to remove the market incentive to come up with all kinds of contortions to justify a cut and remove. Money pollutes science and perverts scientists.

 

[TrickyTross]

Is your 10% the best of the 1.2 million? "Best" meaning what's most profitable/desirable from a logging industry perspective? "Where appropriate"? Is that defined likewise?

Anyway, like I said, if it's been cut before, which I'm sure 99% of N.C. has been, go for it. Manage the hell out of it. We've managed the hell out of it for 300 years.

My proposed solution? Every tree that is cut down is cut for forest health, fine-chipped on the spot and left to rot. Remove removal. Yeah, yeah, I know about the slash being more important than the trunk. But that's not why I want to remove removal. I want to remove the market incentive to come up with all kinds of contortions to justify a cut and remove. Money pollutes science and perverts scientists.

Nope. The best area for their historic habitat is where all the urban\suburban areas are. They (wildlife) already have the second rate places. So, where appropriate to me means most desirable from a wildlife standpoint. I know, you are gonna assume I mean most profitable for logging. I don't. Remove removal? Yea, TSI (timber stand improvement) in the form of crop tree release. Works for me.
Just so you don't think I'm being a "States maintence only" Homer, understand that there are more elk in portions of Fed land where you are, than there are deer on Pisgah-Nantahala. Deer. And now we have a elk herd that is expanding and the NPS and -USFS are not offering anything for their habitat. Just want more opportunities for my son's. If that makes me an ass, than so be it.

 

[James Riley]

Nope. The best area for their historic habitat is where all the urban\suburban areas are. They (wildlife) already have the second rate places. So, where appropriate to me means most desirable from a wildlife standpoint. I know, you are gonna assume I mean most profitable for logging. I don't. Remove removal? Yea, TSI (timber stand improvement) in the form of crop tree release. Works for me.
Just so you don't think I'm being a "States maintence only" Homer, understand that there are more elk in portions of Fed land where you are, than there are deer on Pisgah-Nantahala. Deer. And now we have a elk herd that is expanding and the NPS and -USFS are not offering anything for their habitat. Just want more opportunities for my son's. If that makes me an ass, than so be it.

I have a hard time understanding you. I think we are talking past each other. When you say "The best area for their historic habitat . . ." Who is "their"? Is that trees, or wildlife? I'm talking about trees. You seem to be talking about wildlife. Yeah, I get that cutting the forest down and promoting browse and graze with some edge is good for wildlife. And hunters. But that's not my interest.

I would like to see an effort made to put some of the east back the way we found it. If that means canopy and sparse wildlife, so be it. I made the analogy before and repeat it here: Old forest may not be good for elk populations as far as hunters are concerned, but neither are wolves (or grizzly). But I support, and would like to see what was, at any given location. Impossible, I know. But I'd like to see the effort and I'd like to remove money from the equation because it causes people to lie about just how to go about it. For some reason, the best answer always conveniently happens to fit right in with the proponent's pocket book. I guess if you are all about elk and hunting, then money is not the goal, but elk and deer are. I think that is just as great a threat to re-establishment of indig habitat as money is. It's like wild horses out west. They don't belong. But some folks have an interest in it and will bend and contort reason to make their argument.

Now, we can debate what the east looked like before we trashed it. Geist and others have said that wildlife was sparse when the Indians thrived; so sparse the Indians ended up in agriculture; The wildlife only boomed when the Indians died out from disease and there was that 100 or 200 years when nature was left to itself before the westward push through the Gap. Wildlife (bison included) loved the open farm land left by the Indians. Boone's "Dark and Bloody Hunting Ground" chock full of wildlife.

Others disagree with Geist, et al, and talk of a squirrel going from the Atlantic to the Mississippi without touching the ground, in a tree species-and-age-rich and diverse canopy forest where the sun rarely touched the ground. Personally, I'd like to see some of that.

Those urban areas you mentioned that were so good? Those are about the only places you find giant white oak that marvel the eye. Because people like them aesthetically, in their city parks. I'd like to see whole forests of something similar, only wild.

So maybe we are talking past each other. You probably would not like the Taiga because it's not rich in big game. But it's "natural" and I don't think we can improve on it. Management would F it up. Because "management" is always for us, whatever our specific interest may be. Management is never for it, as it would be, but-for us.

 

[TrickyTross]

I have a hard time understanding you. I think we are talking past each other. When you say "The best area for their historic habitat . . ." Who is "their"? Is that trees, or wildlife? I'm talking about trees. You seem to be talking about wildlife. Yeah, I get that cutting the forest down and promoting browse and graze with some edge is good for wildlife. And hunters. But that's not my interest.

I would like to see an effort made to put some of the east back the way we found it. If that means canopy and sparse wildlife, so be it. I made the analogy before and repeat it here: Old forest may not be good for elk populations as far as hunters are concerned, but neither are wolves (or grizzly). But I support, and would like to see what was, at any given location. Impossible, I know. But I'd like to see the effort and I'd like to remove money from the equation because it causes people to lie about just how to go about it. For some reason, the best answer always conveniently happens to fit right in with the proponent's pocket book. I guess if you are all about elk and hunting, then money is not the goal, but elk and deer are. I think that is just as great a threat to re-establishment of indig habitat as money is. It's like wild horses out west. They don't belong. But some folks have an interest in it and will bend and contort reason to make their argument.

Now, we can debate what the east looked like before we trashed it. Geist and others have said that wildlife was sparse when the Indians thrived; so sparse the Indians ended up in agriculture; The wildlife only boomed when the Indians died out from disease and there was that 100 or 200 years when nature was left to itself before the westward push through the Gap. Wildlife (bison included) loved the open farm land left by the Indians. Boone's "Dark and Bloody Hunting Ground" chock full of wildlife.

Others disagree with Geist, et al, and talk of a squirrel going from the Atlantic to the Mississippi without touching the ground, in a tree species-and-age-rich and diverse canopy forest where the sun rarely touched the ground. Personally, I'd like to see some of that.

Those urban areas you mentioned that were so good? Those are about the only places you find giant white oak that marvel the eye. Because people like them aesthetically, in their city parks. I'd like to see whole forests of something similar, only wild.

So maybe we are talking past each other. You probably would not like the Taiga because it's not rich in big game. But it's "natural" and I don't think we can improve on it. Management would F it up.

Remember last time when I said "Biome specific"? Yea I'd like the Taiga. It's a different biome than where I am at. I was actually agreeing with you. But, must be getting bored Directly Above the Center of the Earth. And yea, I'm talking about wildlife. Kind of my thing. Hence me being on a forum where we talk about hunting....

 

[James Riley]

Remember last time when I said "Biome specific"? Yea I'd like the Taiga. It's a different biome than where I am at. I was actually agreeing with you. But, must be getting bored Directly Above the Center of the Earth. And yea, I'm talking about wildlife. Kind of my thing. Hence me being on a forum where we talk about hunting....

I thought we might not be as at-odds as it first appeared. But, while this is a hunting forum, we were talking about logging and land transfers and the interests of those who want the transfer. Biome includes plants. Those plants often dictate wildlife species types and populations. So, what *is* your biome? Is it what you want? Or what would be, but-for us? Or have we changed it so much that it becomes whatever any given special interest wants it to be. There are some who want it to be a condo biome. I'm just saying that if your biome was left to it's own devices, it might be like the taiga as far as elk populations are concerned. I'd be okay with that, if that is what it was before we got a hold of it. Otherwise we could go like Texas and introduce some African stuff and hunt that.

 

[TrickyTross]

I thought we might not be as at-odds as it first appeared. But, while this is a hunting forum, we were talking about logging and land transfers and the interests of those who want the transfer. Biome includes plants. Those plants often dictate wildlife species types and populations. So, what *is* your biome? Is it what you want? Or what would be, but-for us? Or have we changed it so much that it becomes whatever any given special interest wants it to be. There are some who want it to be a condo biome. I'm just saying that if your biome was left to it's own devices, it might be like the taiga as far as elk populations are concerned. I'd be okay with that, if that is what it was before we got a hold of it. Otherwise we could go like Texas and introduce some African stuff and hunt that.

Yea. That's why I go with what science shows. What works in Wyoming, won't work here and vica versa. Then there's are some practices that can be applied everywhere, it's just what is best. And my personal preference is what's best for wildlife in each area.
Again, not a fan of transfer. I am a fan of active management, specifically where I am at. Unfortunatley, with all the species we have lost, the encroachment of invasive/exotics and the never ending "urban sprawl", areas for wildlife are dwindling. When Teddy set land aside, it was meant for multi-use, and in our area us hunters have got too complacent. Now we have to overcrowd WRC managed land or pay for private land to have the ability to see an animal, if you harvest, you are lucky. I actually am on a lease in Ohio with a buddy and his dad, just so I can make sure I bring some meat home and to hopefully have a place that my sons can actually see deer. I drive 6 hours and pay an additional $2,000 a year just to see a wildlife species that others have rampant in their area. Wildlife management started here (Pisgah Game preserve, started by George Vanderbilt and Carl Shenk, now it is part of Pisgah NF), first forestry school was here (Biltmore School of Forestry, again, Vanderbilt/Shenk and then a Pinchot fellow). But, if you came here, you wouldn't know. Areas are overran with manny invasives, fuel load is ridiculous, but the mountain bike trails are in tip top shape! Certain FS personnel in the area prefer those users to the traditional mountain boy with Grandpas 30-06. Part of the beast. I work primarily with farmer to protect water quality, some of my colleagues absolutely hate agriculture, but won't acknowledge that the 365 home site development they live in, or the pits for the zinc mining in China for their Prius they drive.... I am getting off topic.
My point is that we need to do what is best for the lands. Many stumbling blocks in the way, but we gotta figure it out. Don't expect it to be all "Rainbows and Unicorns" and there is no way we can have a "one size fits all" management scheme. But it's on us hunters and wildlife enthusiast to be a part of the conversation. Many need to educate themselves. It's not a "local vs everyone else" issue. If Randy or Buzz or you say what is best in your area, that's who I am putting my weight (however little) behind. You know it better than I do. Chances are what you are asking for is in line with certain federal land managers, we are experiencing that as well.
Congress needs to listen and loosen the chains on the Fed land managers. Non-profits need to stop being able to utilize certain laws to litigate and get rich. FEMA needs to pick up wildfire after a certain threshold. Fuel loads need to be reduced. I could go on about how the USDA budget and fire affect so many other things than just the USFS...

 

[James Riley]

Yea. That's why I go with what science shows. What works in Wyoming, won't work here and vica versa. . . . I am a fan of active management, specifically where I am at. . . . If Randy or Buzz or you say what is best in your area, that's who I am putting my weight (however little) behind. You know it better than I do. Chances are what you are asking for is in line with certain federal land managers, we are experiencing that as well. . . .
Congress needs to listen and loosen the chains on the Fed land managers.

I agree with the science issue. The problem is policy. For instance, the science can show you need to do A if you want B; but if you want X then you have to do Y. What do we want? You want an emphasis on wildlife. I understand that. It' a desire much more in accord with my personal desires than, say, condos or mining or logging. I would just like to see wildlife of certain species and numbers and locations that emulate, as closely as possible, that palette we started with.

I don't trust locals to know better than outsiders, precisely because locals all have different policy points. Randy, Buzz and I differ, and so do those mountain bikers you have do deal with and a thousand other constituencies. I see the federal land managers as buffer between all the competing interests. They are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination though. I used to sue them all the time because me or my clients didn't perceive them as acting in accord with their mandate. Their scientists often helped us sue them because they knew the agency was not following the science or the regulations. And litigation was not a cash cow. I didn't make squat, even on cases won, until I started wearing a black hat (working for industry). Then I started making money. That's when I quit because I couldn't sleep at night.

In the end, though, my policy preferences leave what everyone wants intact, or endeavors to return it to what it was that we liked so much in the first place. "Management" can play a roll in that, but a lot of it is "managing" people and their demands on the land; not simply the land itself. In other words, my policy preferences endeavor to leave to the next generation what was left to us. It's not like my policy preferences irreversibly alter the biome. If the next generation wants to change it or ruin it, that's their call. But if they don't have it to go into and develop a relationship with, I doubt they will care about it. And they will get further and further from ever knowing what it was; further even than we are. And we aren't even sure what it was any more. And that, to me, is one of the saddest things I know.

 

[Irrelevant]

That map is garbage. Apparently western OR and WA don't have any classified timber land, and NE WA isn't profitable, although all the private land around it sure seems to be.

 

[BigHornRam]

Yes, WHERE APPROPRIATE. You see, the vast, overwhelming majority of the forested land of the lower 48 has been cut, at least once. If the concept of "sustainable harvested timber" was anything more than "get out the cut BS" then there would be plenty of forest to re-cut without touching anything that had never been cut before. So, "where appropriate" is all that land that's already been cut. Have at it. "Manage" the hell out of it if you want.

But, since "sustainable harvested timber" is not defined, we have to flesh that out. Timber is to a forest as a pork belly is to a pig. A pork belly is not a pig. And a forest is not timber. Let's say there is a stand of virgin giant Sequoia or Red Wood, or maybe even some "tight grained Montana fir" (still waiting on a definition of that) or any other stand on public land in the U.S. that the timber industry is just salivating over as they ignore that old whore they just got done with a hundred years ago. Just because you can cut that and go in and plant some new trees does NOT make that stand sustainable. You can't F for virginity and sustain it at the same time.

Here's an "old whore" for you James with a fair amount of tight grained fir. This is what I'm talking about. Look at all the resistance.

http://www.bitterrootstar.com/2016/07/12/westside-forest-management-project-approved/

 

[BigHornRam]

Pat's a good man, and a friend, but he's off base with this.

Zinke's feeling heat for his vote against public lands. We can debate the Forest Resiliency Act and whether or not it is a good bill (I don't think so, others whom I greatly respect disagree) but the Labrador bill is a turd wrapped up in a moldy bread sandwich.

Keep the heat on Zinke. He's clearly feeling it.

Connell's comments pretty much mirror Bullock's Forest in Focus comments here Ben.......

http://dnrc.mt.gov/news/governor-bullock-forest-health-and-restoration-are-good-investments

“Rather than promote the transfer of federal lands to the states, I believe we should help federal agencies succeed in managing lands under their jurisdiction,” said Governor Steve Bullock. “Growing the state-federal partnership is vital to meeting forest health challenges and the needs of our state’s rural communities. I’m pleased that through these project investments we are able to increase the impact of citizen collaboration on federal lands and increase the pace of forest restoration.”

Both Bullock and Zinke are trying to mitigate the dis-function within the USFS and get some common sense forest management on the ground on FS lands in Montana.

 

[James Riley]

That map is garbage. Apparently western OR and WA don't have any classified timber land, and NE WA isn't profitable, although all the private land around it sure seems to be.

I would imagine there are significant additional costs for cutting on federal land (mitigation, etc.) that don't apply to liquidation of timber on private property.

 

[James Riley]

Here's an "old whore" for you James with a fair amount of tight grained fir. This is what I'm talking about. Look at all the resistance.

http://www.bitterrootstar.com/2016/07/12/westside-forest-management-project-approved/

All what resistance? Sounds like a bunch of locals to me. Don't you want local input? Don't locals know best?

Anyway, if it's been cut before, like I said, I don't care as much, unless we are trying to put it back the way we found it. That might be an admirable goal but I'm not familiar with the area so I'm not sure. If it's got a bunch of locals and roads and houses and human footprint all over it and it's been cut and trashed before (old whore), then it's probably not a good candidate for leaving alone.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Connell's comments pretty much mirror Bullock's Forest in Focus comments here Ben.......

http://dnrc.mt.gov/news/governor-bullock-forest-health-and-restoration-are-good-investments



Both Bullock and Zinke are trying to mitigate the dis-function within the USFS and get some common sense forest management on the ground on FS lands in Montana.

Forests In Focus doesn't eliminate bedrock environmental law for massive treatments or remove public land from public oversight like the Labrador Bill would. Devil is in the details here, not the political rhetoric.

Zinke's doubling down on a vote for a bill opposed by almost every sportsmen's organization in the US. Bullock is leading on forest reform in a bipartisan fashion through Farm Bill & WGA. Big difference.

 

[tjones]

The project could begin as early as this fall and would provide 6.5 million board feet of timber to Montana sawmills.

So Paul, which mills do you think will bid on this and based on the current lumber market what will the logs have to go for to be profitable for the mill?