There really isn't much overharvesting (as was the practice in the past) going on now, it is the very thought of killing an innocent tree that can't defend itself that drives a lot of these people friggin nuts. This really stems from said individuals being baby sat in front of the TV as tots, with nothing but Ferngully and the like for cartoons and vidios to watch over and over and now this is all they really see...
Have the Enviromentalist's Gone Too Far?
- Thread starter BigHornyRam
- Start date
Muledeer4me
New member
"Harvesting timber is an important tool in good forest management" ????????
LOL Thats what all the good PC environmental group's spout----------right up till it's time to do some logging,then they come up with all the lame excuses to stop it,because that is there true goal in life.
To stop ALL LOGGING OF PUBLIC LAND'S.
It's been proven time and time again where most of these group's stand yet some poster's still try to defend these nut-case environmental org. LOL
I think sometime's people get so cought up in these movement's (that on the surfice are good ,wanting to protect environment) but then they get in so deep that by the time they see that the main goal of alot of these groups is to stop most use on public land's,that these supporter's have to try to "save face" and can't back out and look at the bad in any of them.
They end up supporting radical org. and looking like a nut case thereself's.
LOL Thats what all the good PC environmental group's spout----------right up till it's time to do some logging,then they come up with all the lame excuses to stop it,because that is there true goal in life.
To stop ALL LOGGING OF PUBLIC LAND'S.
It's been proven time and time again where most of these group's stand yet some poster's still try to defend these nut-case environmental org. LOL
I think sometime's people get so cought up in these movement's (that on the surfice are good ,wanting to protect environment) but then they get in so deep that by the time they see that the main goal of alot of these groups is to stop most use on public land's,that these supporter's have to try to "save face" and can't back out and look at the bad in any of them.
They end up supporting radical org. and looking like a nut case thereself's.
BigHornyRam
New member
Here's some more reading.
Paul
This cut hurts
By SHERRY DEVLIN of the Missoulian
"We've met a lot of challenges by trying to stay involved with environmental issues over the years," says Ken Verley, owner of the Tricon Timber mill in St. Regis. "But we're at a stalemate. We don't know where else to go." A federal District Court injunction this week stopped a timber sale that Tricon is in the process of logging.
Photo by MICHAEL GALLACHER/Missoulian
St. Regis timber mill says it will have a hard time surviving after judge orders work stoppage on Lolo forest
ST. REGIS - This is the sawmill that Ken Verley built.
From scratch.
Beginning with bare ground 13 years ago, his Tricon Timber mill was designed to make the most of small-diameter trees. When existing technology didn't fit their needs, Verley and his employees custom-made new machines. They're still coming up with new ideas.
"We're proud of what we've accomplished," Verley said Thursday, standing on a catwalk overlooking one of a series of saws that make 2-by-4s and 2-by-6s out of trees as small as 3 1/2 inches at the top.
"When you're utilizing logs this small in diameter, you can't afford to waste anything," he said. Tricon's saw blades are thinner than table saws; the acceptable margin of error is about the thickness of a sheet of notebook paper.
"That's the value of this timber to us," Verley said.
This week, Verley's world went bust when a pair of environmental groups won a federal District Court injunction that stopped one timber sale Tricon was in the midst of logging and several others the mill hoped to win by competitive bid.
The timing couldn't have been worse, he said. Tricon's mill a mile outside St. Regis has less than a million board feet of logs in its yard, less than two weeks' supply. Verley already laid off nine workers; 85 remain on two shifts.
"We can't go much lower without shutting the place down," he said. "These next few months will determine whether we stay or go. We'll just have to see what happens."
On Thursday, Verley and community leaders from St. Regis and Superior met with congressional staffers and Gov. Judy Martz's chief policy adviser, hoping to call attention to their troubles. Then Verley took the group, and a half-dozen journalists, on a tour of his homemade mill.
By shutting down the Lolo National Forest's post-burn project - and its promised 35 million board feet of timber - U.S. District Judge Don Molloy put Tricon Timber and the families it supports at considerable risk, the citizens said.
"We are one of the last surviving small, locally owned mills," Verley said. "We've met a lot of challenges by trying to stay involved with environmental issues over the years. But we're at a stalemate. We don't know where else to go."
"These type of issues are devastating to our communities and our schools," said Bill Woodford, superintendent of schools in Superior. "How can we plan for the long term if there is no allowance made for the timber industry? What will happen with our kids?"
"There's got to be a balance and some logic here," he said.
"As a community, we are just sick and tired of being left out of this process," said Pat Hayes, director of the Mineral County Community Foundation. "Maybe we need to sue someone."
Tom Beck, chief policy adviser to the governor, assured the Mineral County residents that state officials share their fears. "We've got some concerns about what's happened here," he said. "We are going to get involved in this one because it's pretty obvious the Forest Service has been doing everything right."
In his order stopping work in burned areas of the Lolo forest, Molloy chided the Forest Service for authorizing timber sales in drainages with known - and severe - water-quality issues. Unless the state or the Forest Service calculates the total maximum daily load of sediment for each of the affected streams, there can be no proper evaluation of the effect of logging on those waters, he said.
Those calculations - called TMDLs - are typically the responsibility of the state Department of Environmental Quality, Beck acknowledged.
"But we've just come out of a legislative session where we took some pretty serious hits," he said. "I don't know if we have the resources to do the work Judge Molloy has required. When you study a stream and what load it can take, it takes quite a bit of research."
DEQ's priority right now is to finish the calculations for streams in southeastern Montana, so coal-bed methane development can begin, Beck said. It could be years before the department gets back to western Montana.
Verley said he worries there will be nothing left to log once the lawsuit runs its legal course, so quickly are the fire-damaged trees deteriorating. "We have about one summer left," he said, pointing to beetle tracks on a just-debarked log tumbling down a conveyor belt.
Before Molloy issued the stop-work order, Tricon had cut about 2 million board feet of timber off the Landowner sale west of Superior. The mill had rights to cut another 2 million board feet.
And Verley had hoped to be successful in bidding on some of the remaining 30-plus million board feet of timber to be logged as part of the post-fire project.
The environmental groups that won the injunction - Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the Sierra Club - have agreed to let Tricon pick up any timber already cut or decked, and to clean up its logging slash. And, as long as the judge approves, they've given the Forest Service the go-ahead to plant trees on 1,000 acres.
In Missoula, Sierra Club conservation organizer Bob Clark said his group has no quarrel with the communities. "The intent of our lawsuit was not to put people out of work or to harm the economy of those local areas," he said.
"But it is the Forest Service's obligation to stay within the bounds of the law when they write a proposal for activity on public lands," Clark said. "That's really where the discussion lies. We don't want to see logging activity that's going to be damaging to the water or fisheries, or that's in violation of the law."
The Lolo forest's post-burn plan is "a very big project," Clark said. "Thirty-four million board feet is not a small timber sale. It's not just about burned trees; it's about commercial logging. Large portions of this project are just flat-out timber sales - getting wood off the forests."
Which, of course, is exactly what Tricon needs, Verley said. Without the raw materials, his mill has no future. And at a time when the lumber market is depressed because of foreign competition and decreasing demand, mills need new low-priced timber sales - sales that reflect the poor market conditions.
"We can't afford to hold onto our lumber. We have to sell what we manufacture," he said as a pair of workers prepared stacks of framing lumber for a waiting rail car.
Tricon hopes to win a few upcoming sales on state-owned timberland, he said. And the Bureau of Indian Affairs has several possibilities. But small, private landowners are holding onto their stock until the market improves. National forests need to be part of the mix, Verley said. "We need them."
In fact, that's why Tricon - owned by Verley and three partners - built its mill in St. Regis. The community is surrounded by national forests burned in 1910 and grown thick in the 93 years since. Thirteen years ago, he said, no one imagined it being so difficult to gain access to the forests.
"People need to know what's happening to us," he said. "We've seen it happen in Darby and Seeley Lake, and now it's happening in St. Regis. It just doesn't seem right."
Reporter Sherry Devlin can be reached at 523-5268 or at [email protected]
Paul
This cut hurts
By SHERRY DEVLIN of the Missoulian
"We've met a lot of challenges by trying to stay involved with environmental issues over the years," says Ken Verley, owner of the Tricon Timber mill in St. Regis. "But we're at a stalemate. We don't know where else to go." A federal District Court injunction this week stopped a timber sale that Tricon is in the process of logging.
Photo by MICHAEL GALLACHER/Missoulian
St. Regis timber mill says it will have a hard time surviving after judge orders work stoppage on Lolo forest
ST. REGIS - This is the sawmill that Ken Verley built.
From scratch.
Beginning with bare ground 13 years ago, his Tricon Timber mill was designed to make the most of small-diameter trees. When existing technology didn't fit their needs, Verley and his employees custom-made new machines. They're still coming up with new ideas.
"We're proud of what we've accomplished," Verley said Thursday, standing on a catwalk overlooking one of a series of saws that make 2-by-4s and 2-by-6s out of trees as small as 3 1/2 inches at the top.
"When you're utilizing logs this small in diameter, you can't afford to waste anything," he said. Tricon's saw blades are thinner than table saws; the acceptable margin of error is about the thickness of a sheet of notebook paper.
"That's the value of this timber to us," Verley said.
This week, Verley's world went bust when a pair of environmental groups won a federal District Court injunction that stopped one timber sale Tricon was in the midst of logging and several others the mill hoped to win by competitive bid.
The timing couldn't have been worse, he said. Tricon's mill a mile outside St. Regis has less than a million board feet of logs in its yard, less than two weeks' supply. Verley already laid off nine workers; 85 remain on two shifts.
"We can't go much lower without shutting the place down," he said. "These next few months will determine whether we stay or go. We'll just have to see what happens."
On Thursday, Verley and community leaders from St. Regis and Superior met with congressional staffers and Gov. Judy Martz's chief policy adviser, hoping to call attention to their troubles. Then Verley took the group, and a half-dozen journalists, on a tour of his homemade mill.
By shutting down the Lolo National Forest's post-burn project - and its promised 35 million board feet of timber - U.S. District Judge Don Molloy put Tricon Timber and the families it supports at considerable risk, the citizens said.
"We are one of the last surviving small, locally owned mills," Verley said. "We've met a lot of challenges by trying to stay involved with environmental issues over the years. But we're at a stalemate. We don't know where else to go."
"These type of issues are devastating to our communities and our schools," said Bill Woodford, superintendent of schools in Superior. "How can we plan for the long term if there is no allowance made for the timber industry? What will happen with our kids?"
"There's got to be a balance and some logic here," he said.
"As a community, we are just sick and tired of being left out of this process," said Pat Hayes, director of the Mineral County Community Foundation. "Maybe we need to sue someone."
Tom Beck, chief policy adviser to the governor, assured the Mineral County residents that state officials share their fears. "We've got some concerns about what's happened here," he said. "We are going to get involved in this one because it's pretty obvious the Forest Service has been doing everything right."
In his order stopping work in burned areas of the Lolo forest, Molloy chided the Forest Service for authorizing timber sales in drainages with known - and severe - water-quality issues. Unless the state or the Forest Service calculates the total maximum daily load of sediment for each of the affected streams, there can be no proper evaluation of the effect of logging on those waters, he said.
Those calculations - called TMDLs - are typically the responsibility of the state Department of Environmental Quality, Beck acknowledged.
"But we've just come out of a legislative session where we took some pretty serious hits," he said. "I don't know if we have the resources to do the work Judge Molloy has required. When you study a stream and what load it can take, it takes quite a bit of research."
DEQ's priority right now is to finish the calculations for streams in southeastern Montana, so coal-bed methane development can begin, Beck said. It could be years before the department gets back to western Montana.
Verley said he worries there will be nothing left to log once the lawsuit runs its legal course, so quickly are the fire-damaged trees deteriorating. "We have about one summer left," he said, pointing to beetle tracks on a just-debarked log tumbling down a conveyor belt.
Before Molloy issued the stop-work order, Tricon had cut about 2 million board feet of timber off the Landowner sale west of Superior. The mill had rights to cut another 2 million board feet.
And Verley had hoped to be successful in bidding on some of the remaining 30-plus million board feet of timber to be logged as part of the post-fire project.
The environmental groups that won the injunction - Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the Sierra Club - have agreed to let Tricon pick up any timber already cut or decked, and to clean up its logging slash. And, as long as the judge approves, they've given the Forest Service the go-ahead to plant trees on 1,000 acres.
In Missoula, Sierra Club conservation organizer Bob Clark said his group has no quarrel with the communities. "The intent of our lawsuit was not to put people out of work or to harm the economy of those local areas," he said.
"But it is the Forest Service's obligation to stay within the bounds of the law when they write a proposal for activity on public lands," Clark said. "That's really where the discussion lies. We don't want to see logging activity that's going to be damaging to the water or fisheries, or that's in violation of the law."
The Lolo forest's post-burn plan is "a very big project," Clark said. "Thirty-four million board feet is not a small timber sale. It's not just about burned trees; it's about commercial logging. Large portions of this project are just flat-out timber sales - getting wood off the forests."
Which, of course, is exactly what Tricon needs, Verley said. Without the raw materials, his mill has no future. And at a time when the lumber market is depressed because of foreign competition and decreasing demand, mills need new low-priced timber sales - sales that reflect the poor market conditions.
"We can't afford to hold onto our lumber. We have to sell what we manufacture," he said as a pair of workers prepared stacks of framing lumber for a waiting rail car.
Tricon hopes to win a few upcoming sales on state-owned timberland, he said. And the Bureau of Indian Affairs has several possibilities. But small, private landowners are holding onto their stock until the market improves. National forests need to be part of the mix, Verley said. "We need them."
In fact, that's why Tricon - owned by Verley and three partners - built its mill in St. Regis. The community is surrounded by national forests burned in 1910 and grown thick in the 93 years since. Thirteen years ago, he said, no one imagined it being so difficult to gain access to the forests.
"People need to know what's happening to us," he said. "We've seen it happen in Darby and Seeley Lake, and now it's happening in St. Regis. It just doesn't seem right."
Reporter Sherry Devlin can be reached at 523-5268 or at [email protected]
BuzzH
Well-known member
Elkchsr said, "There really isn't much overharvesting (as was the practice in the past) going on now, it is the very thought of killing an innocent tree that can't defend itself that drives a lot of these people friggin nuts."
HUH?
I think you need to clarify that statement a bit. I'd agree that there isnt a lot of "over-harvesting" on federal lands as a whole, but thats about as far as I'd take that. Private timber lands in MT have been freakin' raped, take a look at PC timber company lands, for Christ sake, a good portion are nuked.
Also, to all the people who feel the only priority of National Forests is for logging, mining, etc. READ THE NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT.
How quick does everyone point fingers without understanding the constraints of Resource policy, made by YOUR REPRESENTATIVES to the Whitehouse, including a whole stack of policy implemented by REPUBLICANS... as well as DEMOCRATS. The poor bastards who have to take flak from both sides is the Forest Service as an agency. They take a hit from both sides, neither of which understand whats going on and where the problems lay.
This issue alone is not being addressed or well thought out by either side. I'd be the first to agree with the need to harvest burnt trees as quickly as possible, but it shouldnt be done to the detriment of the environment...enter DEQ. They are under mandated state law to research the amount of sediment loading in a stream. The last thing they need is another stream on the list of impaired waters in MT. Unfortunately, they dont have the funding to hire enough people to do the work, and MT's Gov. and Reps. have such a strangle-hold on the budget...combined with a small tax base (because MT's too frickin stupid to impose a sales tax) to afford the correct management of its resources.
So, each side blames the other, and nothing gets done or things happen at a snails pace.
What we need is get all the various parties in line, get the legal issues solved, get the various agencies in line and start managing the damn woods correctly...instead of the constant bickering and nit-picking shit that has become business as usual.
I know, easier said than done, but getting the public to understand basic Resource Policy has to be the first step to solving the problem. It aint as simple as the "the Forest Circus wont let us cut the trees." Most (as in 99.9%) of the public doesnt have a clue.
HUH?
I think you need to clarify that statement a bit. I'd agree that there isnt a lot of "over-harvesting" on federal lands as a whole, but thats about as far as I'd take that. Private timber lands in MT have been freakin' raped, take a look at PC timber company lands, for Christ sake, a good portion are nuked.
Also, to all the people who feel the only priority of National Forests is for logging, mining, etc. READ THE NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT.
How quick does everyone point fingers without understanding the constraints of Resource policy, made by YOUR REPRESENTATIVES to the Whitehouse, including a whole stack of policy implemented by REPUBLICANS... as well as DEMOCRATS. The poor bastards who have to take flak from both sides is the Forest Service as an agency. They take a hit from both sides, neither of which understand whats going on and where the problems lay.
This issue alone is not being addressed or well thought out by either side. I'd be the first to agree with the need to harvest burnt trees as quickly as possible, but it shouldnt be done to the detriment of the environment...enter DEQ. They are under mandated state law to research the amount of sediment loading in a stream. The last thing they need is another stream on the list of impaired waters in MT. Unfortunately, they dont have the funding to hire enough people to do the work, and MT's Gov. and Reps. have such a strangle-hold on the budget...combined with a small tax base (because MT's too frickin stupid to impose a sales tax) to afford the correct management of its resources.
So, each side blames the other, and nothing gets done or things happen at a snails pace.
What we need is get all the various parties in line, get the legal issues solved, get the various agencies in line and start managing the damn woods correctly...instead of the constant bickering and nit-picking shit that has become business as usual.
I know, easier said than done, but getting the public to understand basic Resource Policy has to be the first step to solving the problem. It aint as simple as the "the Forest Circus wont let us cut the trees." Most (as in 99.9%) of the public doesnt have a clue.
Ithaca 37
New member
Buzz, As many times as we've mentioned the NFMA here, I bet most of the SI posters have no idea what it is!
Ten Bears
New member
I would bet that a magority here have read it IT, not that I care to take a vote.
What I wonder is that the forest circus says they were going to decrease sedient loading through culvert and road repairs, close some forest roads, and decommission others, yet the idea that logging adds to increased sedinment loading will halt that. I am also diturbed that the enviro groups would be able to dictate "allowable" exceptions in this case.
What I wonder is that the forest circus says they were going to decrease sedient loading through culvert and road repairs, close some forest roads, and decommission others, yet the idea that logging adds to increased sedinment loading will halt that. I am also diturbed that the enviro groups would be able to dictate "allowable" exceptions in this case.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Elkchsr said, "There really isn't much overharvesting (as was the practice in the past) going on now, it is the very thought of killing an innocent tree that can't defend itself that drives a lot of these people friggin nuts."
HUH?
I think you need to clarify that statement a bit. I'd agree that there isnt a lot of "over-harvesting" on federal lands as a whole, but thats about as far as I'd take that. Private timber lands in MT have been freakin' raped, take a look at PC timber company lands, for Christ sake, a good portion are nuked. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
All I have asked you for repeatedly is coordinates of these "Devastated" areas, and when I get a chance, I will personally get pictures, but all I continually see from you, is that same tired old drum that just keeps beating and never seems to stop, no matter how good some thing finally gets. I will ask again, "SHOW ME", I will get the proof you so espouse and show every one on the board, but on the way, will get other areas that you seem to not ever look at and those will be shown also... All you said in the above post with what I stated was a variation of the same thing... Semantics is what it is called so that you have a name to put with the little differences and pettiness of this statement, nothing more.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> How quick does everyone point fingers without understanding the constraints of Resource policy, made by YOUR REPRESENTATIVES to the Whitehouse, including a whole stack of policy implemented by REPUBLICANS... as well as DEMOCRATS. The poor bastards who have to take flak from both sides is the Forest Service as an agency. They take a hit from both sides, neither of which understand whats going on and where the problems lay. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They, as you, have picked their paths in life and it has been very well documented for a couple generations, how this all works, there is not one individual that is doing any of the jobs in the FS that don't fully know what it is they will be expected to do when they take on the next level in their careers, unless of course they jump into the job with their eyes closed and then, they are very deserving of every thing they get.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This issue alone is not being addressed or well thought out by either side. I'd be the first to agree with the need to harvest burnt trees as quickly as possible, but it shouldnt be done to the detriment of the environment...enter DEQ. They are under mandated state law to research the amount of sediment loading in a stream. The last thing they need is another stream on the list of impaired waters in MT. Unfortunately, they dont have the funding to hire enough people to do the work, and MT's Gov. and Reps. have such a strangle-hold on the budget...combined with a small tax base (because MT's too frickin stupid to impose a sales tax) to afford the correct management of its resources. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is a very easy one to fix. You personally need to quit being an arm chair quarterback on this subject and become one of the politicians here in Montana, you know there’s a Governorship position that will be voted on soon and you could run for that position, then you could implement "All" of your ideals and see just where they go, otherwise your just sitting here on this board hissing steam. You seem to be very qualified for the job from all accounts of what you have been posting since I have been around here. Here is what I seem to always be saying to you, put your money where your mouth is and show us by actions, not just the words, they are becoming very meaningless...
JoseCuervo
New member
That second article is pretty funny, again the loggers cry about the town, and the conservationists cite the Law. The loggers will lose, every time, in front of the Judge. And the conservationists will lose, sometimes, in front of a ballot box. The loggers keep playing the wrong game.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>DEQ's priority right now is to finish the calculations for streams in southeastern Montana, so coal-bed methane development can begin, Beck said. It could be years before the department gets back to western Montana <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Based on the above quote, it appears the Governor of Montanny has decided that it is more important to facilitate coal-bed methane development. So why does anybody fault the Conservationists or the Judge?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
IBID
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>DEQ's priority right now is to finish the calculations for streams in southeastern Montana, so coal-bed methane development can begin, Beck said. It could be years before the department gets back to western Montana <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Based on the above quote, it appears the Governor of Montanny has decided that it is more important to facilitate coal-bed methane development. So why does anybody fault the Conservationists or the Judge?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
IBID
Ten Bears
New member
ELKGNR, you show me in the "law" were it says the "enviros" get to pick the "good" work projects from the "bad".
JoseCuervo
New member
Ten,
I am not sure exactly which comment you are replying to, but I'll assume it is the ones where the parties, including the judge, agreed to let the loggers get the already downed timber.
Is this what you mean? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The environmental groups that won the injunction - Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the Sierra Club - have agreed to let Tricon pick up any timber already cut or decked, and to clean up its logging slash. And, as long as the judge approves, they've given the Forest Service the go-ahead to plant trees on 1,000 acres.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My guess is that the Conservationists are just playing their cards, in their best way possible. Enough concessions to keep the judge satisfied they are working in good faith. But, I am not sure if that is what you are referring to.
I am not sure exactly which comment you are replying to, but I'll assume it is the ones where the parties, including the judge, agreed to let the loggers get the already downed timber.
Is this what you mean? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The environmental groups that won the injunction - Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the Sierra Club - have agreed to let Tricon pick up any timber already cut or decked, and to clean up its logging slash. And, as long as the judge approves, they've given the Forest Service the go-ahead to plant trees on 1,000 acres.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My guess is that the Conservationists are just playing their cards, in their best way possible. Enough concessions to keep the judge satisfied they are working in good faith. But, I am not sure if that is what you are referring to.
BigHornyRam
New member
Law trumps common sense every time. The enviro's are using up a lot of political capital on this one.
Paul
Paul
Ithaca 37
New member
The laws are in place. The environmentalists have won. Now it only remains to make sure the laws are enforced. Marvel and others are taking care of that.
JoseCuervo
New member
So is this common sense?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tricon hopes to win a few upcoming sales on state-owned timberland, he said. And the Bureau of Indian Affairs has several possibilities. But small, private landowners are holding onto their stock until the market improves. National forests need to be part of the mix, Verley said. "We need them."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am a "shareholder" of the Forest Circus lands, and as such, I think common sense is that my managers (the Forest Circus) witholds the timber from the mill, due to the low value. If the private holders are keeping their timber off the market, as it is not worth selling, then I would like the Forest Circus to hold the timber I own off the market until prices go up.
You are right, we may not need the laws, if the common sense was used. I don't think it is the governments job, in a captilistic society to provide timber when the free market says the timber is not valuable enough to sell. If the Forest Circus will quit selling MY timber, then the value of the other timber will increase (assuming the Bush administration's 29% tariff on Softwoods from BC stays in effect.)
er
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-03-2003 22:21: Message edited by: Elkgunner ]</font>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tricon hopes to win a few upcoming sales on state-owned timberland, he said. And the Bureau of Indian Affairs has several possibilities. But small, private landowners are holding onto their stock until the market improves. National forests need to be part of the mix, Verley said. "We need them."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am a "shareholder" of the Forest Circus lands, and as such, I think common sense is that my managers (the Forest Circus) witholds the timber from the mill, due to the low value. If the private holders are keeping their timber off the market, as it is not worth selling, then I would like the Forest Circus to hold the timber I own off the market until prices go up.
You are right, we may not need the laws, if the common sense was used. I don't think it is the governments job, in a captilistic society to provide timber when the free market says the timber is not valuable enough to sell. If the Forest Circus will quit selling MY timber, then the value of the other timber will increase (assuming the Bush administration's 29% tariff on Softwoods from BC stays in effect.)
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-03-2003 22:21: Message edited by: Elkgunner ]</font>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I am a "shareholder" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This being said, true or not!!!
Is it that every shareholder should have a say in what goes on here? Then to take the mob majority and go the way the winds blow it, or should we leave it up to the people we pay to manage this stuff for every ones betterment. I am just asking, some on here see mass destruction in the natural landscape if they find pretty much another foot print that is not their own, (I know that is going a little overboard), and it could be thought, others would not see any thing wrong with the land razed,(that is going to the other extreme and I really doubt that any one on this board really thinks that either). What I am getting at here is the fact that we can't follow along the trail of mob mentality to take care of our forests, sure it makes one feel warm and fuzzy about themselves but that is just an empty hollow victory. In the past, every one looked at these lands as a place to have a renewable source of timber and other natural resource, or the other side, in the here and now wants to turn all of the fs lands into National parks and/or wilderness designations. Doesn't that make us hypocrites to say "Lets save the environment at any cost" and then let a neighboring country trash theirs so we can have our "Stuff"... We need to wake up and realize along with all of the good things that we all utilize every day, almost if not every minute of our lives has a cost, and that means far more than what one reaching into their pocket, I will say it again, just so that some of you newer people in these debates don't read way more into what I have said here and run off on some farfetched tangent as has happened time and time again. There is a happy medium, of course it won’t please every one, how could it, but it will utilize the land for its best uses, with out turning it into a park or a desert, I don’t believe it is as hard as is tried to be explained here, or as technical as some would like to think to reach this objective and you can argue semantics with me and others here all day to no avail...
This being said, true or not!!!
Is it that every shareholder should have a say in what goes on here? Then to take the mob majority and go the way the winds blow it, or should we leave it up to the people we pay to manage this stuff for every ones betterment. I am just asking, some on here see mass destruction in the natural landscape if they find pretty much another foot print that is not their own, (I know that is going a little overboard), and it could be thought, others would not see any thing wrong with the land razed,(that is going to the other extreme and I really doubt that any one on this board really thinks that either). What I am getting at here is the fact that we can't follow along the trail of mob mentality to take care of our forests, sure it makes one feel warm and fuzzy about themselves but that is just an empty hollow victory. In the past, every one looked at these lands as a place to have a renewable source of timber and other natural resource, or the other side, in the here and now wants to turn all of the fs lands into National parks and/or wilderness designations. Doesn't that make us hypocrites to say "Lets save the environment at any cost" and then let a neighboring country trash theirs so we can have our "Stuff"... We need to wake up and realize along with all of the good things that we all utilize every day, almost if not every minute of our lives has a cost, and that means far more than what one reaching into their pocket, I will say it again, just so that some of you newer people in these debates don't read way more into what I have said here and run off on some farfetched tangent as has happened time and time again. There is a happy medium, of course it won’t please every one, how could it, but it will utilize the land for its best uses, with out turning it into a park or a desert, I don’t believe it is as hard as is tried to be explained here, or as technical as some would like to think to reach this objective and you can argue semantics with me and others here all day to no avail...
JoseCuervo
New member
Even better than "mob rule", how about a system where we elect Representatives to set laws, and then our elected Representatives hire people to manage the resources?
Many times true courage and leadership is to stand up against the "mob", and listen to a conscience or facts, and do the "right" thing. Unfortunately, many times the Forest Circus (and state Biologists and other scientists) are silenced, as their opinion goes against the "mob".
I didn't even post they should lock up this Timber Sale, I was just commenting on the business practice of the Tricon management, who was so naive to build a mill, and be completely dependent on one supplier (Forest Circus), that they are now in trouble. This looks to me, like bad management at Tricon, and not the fault of Conservationists.
The private timber holders don't think it is wise to sell timber in this market, so Tricon is left looking only to Public Timber. And Triocn is left claiming the government needs to provide the timber to keep the mill going, and the town healthy. That sounds like Welfare Logging to me.
I honestly don't believe that it is the government's role to be the "Supplier of Last Resort" to timber mills, nor the "Buyer of Last Resort" to the the Ag industry or any other industry. Typically when the goverment does these things, two events occur. First, the market is even more pushed "out of whack", as the artificial intervention exagerates the conditions, and secondly, weak producers (bad managers) are allowed to survive, to the detriment of the stronger producers.
er
Many times true courage and leadership is to stand up against the "mob", and listen to a conscience or facts, and do the "right" thing. Unfortunately, many times the Forest Circus (and state Biologists and other scientists) are silenced, as their opinion goes against the "mob".
I didn't even post they should lock up this Timber Sale, I was just commenting on the business practice of the Tricon management, who was so naive to build a mill, and be completely dependent on one supplier (Forest Circus), that they are now in trouble. This looks to me, like bad management at Tricon, and not the fault of Conservationists.
The private timber holders don't think it is wise to sell timber in this market, so Tricon is left looking only to Public Timber. And Triocn is left claiming the government needs to provide the timber to keep the mill going, and the town healthy. That sounds like Welfare Logging to me.
I honestly don't believe that it is the government's role to be the "Supplier of Last Resort" to timber mills, nor the "Buyer of Last Resort" to the the Ag industry or any other industry. Typically when the goverment does these things, two events occur. First, the market is even more pushed "out of whack", as the artificial intervention exagerates the conditions, and secondly, weak producers (bad managers) are allowed to survive, to the detriment of the stronger producers.
I know what the private timber industry is basically up to right now, and that is great, but the FS job is in a different category. The first is to make a profit, even if they have to sit on their resource for a little while waiting for the market to change, the other (FS) is relegated to proper management of the forests, i.e. keeping them healthy, and sustained, even if this means extracting and thinning in an off economy, for some reason the trees don't know or understand they need to go dormant until the markets or what not come back to bring in the best profit. I see the FS job as (I may be mistaken here) making sure our forest lands stay healthy, vibrant and productive, no matter what the political climate at the time, and yes I would agree with you, if the government could set up a total separate entity to over see the absolute peek capacity of our forest lands and keep things in there best performance levels possible, that would be a grand thing, but, as always there is a but, and we all know on these threads and this site do every thing but pull ours and others hair out in the battles that ensue, can't seem to get the petty politics out of the whole thing, and that is always present when some individuals can't see the whole picture and think they have more power (and some times they do) than they actually have. I see this in the fire world in an immense way, it permeates almost every aspect of every thing we do, and all we are there for is to do a job that needs to be done...
JoseCuervo
New member
I don't want to get into semantics, so I will ask what this says: (It is by far, one of the longer sentences I have ever seen posted, and I am unsure of the comment.)
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I see the FS job as (I may be mistaken here) making sure our forest lands stay healthy, vibrant and productive, no matter what the political climate at the time, and yes I would agree with you, if the government could set up a total separate entity to over see the absolute peek capacity of our forest lands and keep things in there best performance levels possible, that would be a grand thing, but, as always there is a but, and we all know on these threads and this site do every thing but pull ours and others hair out in the battles that ensue, can't seem to get the petty politics out of the whole thing, and that is always present when some individuals can't see the whole picture and think they have more power (and some times they do) than they actually have. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not trying to be a smart-a$$, but the thought escapse me. Maybe I am just not very bright.
The other comment also could use some explanation, for those of us, including myself, who do not know what the private timber industry is up to right now.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I know what the private timber industry is basically up to right now, and that is great, but the FS job is in a different category. The first is to make a profit, even if they have to sit on their resource for a little while waiting for the market to change<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In my simple mind, there would be two styles of managing Private Timber lands. The first, would be to manage it for the maximum long term sustainable wealth for the owners. The second, would be for a quick source of revenue, and then move on, with little regard to the area left behind. I think that is what Buzz was commenting on when he said:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Private timber lands in MT have been freakin' raped, take a look at PC timber company lands, for Christ sake, a good portion are nuked.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If the private timber companies are after the first goal, maximizing long term wealth, then that would be very close to what perhaps the Forest Circus would be aiming toward, as only a healthy forest has long term value.
And finally, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I see the FS job as (I may be mistaken here) making sure our forest lands stay healthy, vibrant and productive, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> if this is the Forest Circus' goal, and I am not sure if that is the goal, then I don't see the objective of the Forest Circus to be the "supplier of last resort" to the Tricon mill. That would be a much different objective.
er
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-04-2003 09:40: Message edited by: Elkgunner ]</font>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I see the FS job as (I may be mistaken here) making sure our forest lands stay healthy, vibrant and productive, no matter what the political climate at the time, and yes I would agree with you, if the government could set up a total separate entity to over see the absolute peek capacity of our forest lands and keep things in there best performance levels possible, that would be a grand thing, but, as always there is a but, and we all know on these threads and this site do every thing but pull ours and others hair out in the battles that ensue, can't seem to get the petty politics out of the whole thing, and that is always present when some individuals can't see the whole picture and think they have more power (and some times they do) than they actually have. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not trying to be a smart-a$$, but the thought escapse me. Maybe I am just not very bright.
The other comment also could use some explanation, for those of us, including myself, who do not know what the private timber industry is up to right now.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I know what the private timber industry is basically up to right now, and that is great, but the FS job is in a different category. The first is to make a profit, even if they have to sit on their resource for a little while waiting for the market to change<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In my simple mind, there would be two styles of managing Private Timber lands. The first, would be to manage it for the maximum long term sustainable wealth for the owners. The second, would be for a quick source of revenue, and then move on, with little regard to the area left behind. I think that is what Buzz was commenting on when he said:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Private timber lands in MT have been freakin' raped, take a look at PC timber company lands, for Christ sake, a good portion are nuked.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If the private timber companies are after the first goal, maximizing long term wealth, then that would be very close to what perhaps the Forest Circus would be aiming toward, as only a healthy forest has long term value.
And finally, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I see the FS job as (I may be mistaken here) making sure our forest lands stay healthy, vibrant and productive, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> if this is the Forest Circus' goal, and I am not sure if that is the goal, then I don't see the objective of the Forest Circus to be the "supplier of last resort" to the Tricon mill. That would be a much different objective.
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-04-2003 09:40: Message edited by: Elkgunner ]</font>
BigHornyRam
New member
Elkgunner,
The trees in this particular instance are burned and dead. Wait a couple of more years and they will have no value. Much of the other trees Tricon uses are small diameter trees thinned from dense stands to allow the remaining trees to grow faster and more healthy. Thinning also reduces fire potential.
Paul
The trees in this particular instance are burned and dead. Wait a couple of more years and they will have no value. Much of the other trees Tricon uses are small diameter trees thinned from dense stands to allow the remaining trees to grow faster and more healthy. Thinning also reduces fire potential.
Paul
JoseCuervo
New member
Paul,
Thanks for the comment and the insight. One question I always have on the "fire sale" timber, is the urgency. But as I seem to remember, each year has a fire season, so there is always a continual supply of "recently burned" timber. If this sale turns out worthless to the mill, there is still value to the forest to have the dead timber. And like a bus in the city, there will be another fire coming along, and more possible timber for sale.
I saw a guy from the FS on TV today, saying that the natural forests in the Boise Nat'l Forest were 35-50 Ponderosas per acre. But due to supression and logging, there are now 1500 Doug Fir per acre, so fires are worse, and thinning is needed. It would seem like the thinning is only needed to counter previous policy.
Just some more thoughts...
er
Thanks for the comment and the insight. One question I always have on the "fire sale" timber, is the urgency. But as I seem to remember, each year has a fire season, so there is always a continual supply of "recently burned" timber. If this sale turns out worthless to the mill, there is still value to the forest to have the dead timber. And like a bus in the city, there will be another fire coming along, and more possible timber for sale.
I saw a guy from the FS on TV today, saying that the natural forests in the Boise Nat'l Forest were 35-50 Ponderosas per acre. But due to supression and logging, there are now 1500 Doug Fir per acre, so fires are worse, and thinning is needed. It would seem like the thinning is only needed to counter previous policy.
Just some more thoughts...
Ithaca 37
New member
Paul, "Wait a couple of more years and they will have no value." Do they have any value when they rot and the nutrients go back into the soil? Do they provide any shade at all for seedlings? Do they provide any habitat for small animals when they fall over? Do insects inhabit them as they rot? Do any birds eat the insects?
Aren't those things valuable?
Aren't those things valuable?
