Idaho plans to Slaughter 51 Wolves

[BigHornRam]

An article similar to the one Hfool has been trying to post was in this mornings Missoulian, but again no link to cut and paste. I would not bet a wooden nickel on this one happening but I hope I'm wrong. At least it will flush out the opposition and get a chance to see a few of their cards. No doubt the hand they play will be similar to Ithaca's blather here on this forum over the last several years.

Thanks IT for giving us a peek at your team's playbook!

 

[Wapiti Slayer]

Heres some more info on the subject.

http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/idaho-gains-wolf-management-clearwater-proposal.htm

 

[BigHornRam]

I see Ralph is getting the troops fired up for battle! Same old Ithaca blather!

 

[ELKCHSR]

Good read....

It looks like one of the things that would let the elk populations rebound would be to thin out about 30% of the forest taking only the largest trees, this would pull about 70% of the volume out and give lots of light for elk habitat...

 

[BigHornRam]

Yeh EC,

I was suprised how Ralph was making a solid case for increased logging in the Lochsa country.

 

[ELKCHSR]

Just think of the real dollar revenue and tax base that would bring to the area!!!

 

[TheTone]

Instead of logging any of it they need to let a few fires go in some of that country. That would probably be the best thing they could do for elk habitat in the region. As for thinning out 51 wolves, I doubt it will happen.

 

[BigHornRam]

You're right Tone. Logging is too much like hunting......harvesting the excess resource. We should not cut any trees down. Burning them would be far better for the enviroment and habitat.

 

[TheTone]

Logging harvests the excess? Burning isn't better for the environment or habitat? Enlighten me please, specifically on the second one.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Tone,

Don't you remeber how Elk like the roads that are created by logging???

 

[ELKCHSR]

Thats why road hunters are fairly successful, they do like the logging roads.

I have seen a huge amount of elk sign on logging roads...

So whats the point???

 

[1_pointer]

I've noticed lots of pictures of BIG elk from UT with burnt trees in the background.

Depending on the management plans for the specific areas, both may or may not be allowed.

Elkchsr, if 30% of the trees contain 70% of the volume, wouldn't removing them lead to a higher density of trees in a few years? Just curious as I know very little about forest systems.

IME this past fall near Salmon, the areas with the larger/older trees hd more browse/forage under them than those with younger more densely packed trees.

 

[BigHornRam]

Tone,

Burning trees is good for the air, correct? Fires never sterilize the soil, correct? Fires never lead to soil errosion, correct? Fires never kill the plants, animals, and bugs in the forest, correct? All logging is bad, correct? You live in a mud hut, correct? You whipe your ass with pine cones, correct? Are you enlightened yet?

 

[ELKCHSR]

Tyler…

Yes, you would be right on that account, but after the trees were thinned, then a burning/thinning process could take place on a regular schedule with a lot less over all cost, plus if you get any "wild fires" there isn't near the volume of material to burn.

Now I know some would want to keep the larger trees and take the smaller ones.

Problem is, and this is one that’s been ongoing in this type of scenario-

There’s not enough money to implement all of the work that needs to be completed on the actual scale needed because it has to come directly out of tax collected budgets

If you take a usable marketable product to help offset the costs, then it adds to what can be done.

If the thinning and follow up maintenance are done properly, logging wouldn't be necessary in any of these areas for a long time if ever and the wild life habitat would be greatly diversified.

We all run into a quandary when ever we start taking on maintenance chores for Mother Nature.

It is an ongoing issue for the life of man in the area, or it has to be completely left to her own devises.

I will liken it to clearing a lot and putting a house on it.

For the life of that house, or habitation of that spot, it will have to be maintained by man, or it will be over taken and nature will again return to its own devises for upkeep with its own set of rules (i.e. fires from over growth in most areas).

 

[TheTone]

Tone,

Burning trees is good for the air, correct? Fires never sterilize the soil, correct? Fires never lead to soil errosion, correct? Fires never kill the plants, animals, and bugs in the forest, correct? All logging is bad, correct? You live in a mud hut, correct? You whipe your ass with pine cones, correct? Are you enlightened yet?

Ok let’s get started on these, one at a time. Smoke, generated by burning trees, can't be good for air quality, there is no doubt about that, but fire is natural. What about the air pollution that would be created by tractor/skidder logging these areas? Kind of looks offsetting to me.

Fire can damage the soil if it burns very hot, sure. Sterilize it may be a stretch. Get a good fire cycle returned to these areas and I'm sure it would be amazing how much better the habitat looks.

Fire can certainly lead to erosion, especially in the case of a catastrophic burn; again these types of burns could be avoided by returning to a more natural fire cycle.

Fire can certainly kill things like animals, bugs, and plants. It happens; it’s a fire for god’s sake. It’s also amazing at the way the environment responds to fire and prospers afterwards. A great example can be seen in looking at how Yellowstone responded after the fires in the late 80's. Also this whole region being debated was so prosperous and diverse due to fires in the early to mid 1900's. Then we began suppressing fire at the first sign of it and now we are where we are; big, dense uniform stands that lack diversity.

All logging is not bad, but I'm not a big fan of using logging in areas that have never been logged before or in areas where the problem that is trying to be solved can be accomplished in a better way. I'm sure it could help some of the local economies if some of this timber was opened up for sale, but in reality the local economies in these areas would probably do better to try and move away from the timber industry and look towards increasing the education of the populace and diversify the job base instead of relying on what I see as a spotty industry in these days. Logging can definitely have some negatives such as increased road building (I hope I don't have to explain the well studied effects of roads on elk survival and age class) and increased noxious weeds (which are probably the biggest threat out there to habitat).

I live in a house made from some absolutely beautiful old timber, lots of cedar in fact. I've never stated we shouldn't log all together. I think we need to be selective about it, really study the impacts, and if it seems reasonable and will have no real ills then ok. A lot of areas that have been logged in the past and are on a new logging cycle it is probably to late to really restore it to pre-log conditions and in those cases I really have no problem. But going into unroaded and previously unlogged areas just makes so little sense when there is so much country we've already opened up; we need to preserve what is left out there.

I'm actually a big fan of two-ply myself, but thanks for being concerned with my ass. I've been told it’s quite nice, the price I pay for trying to stay in good shape.

 

[ELKCHSR]

Ok let’s get started on these, one at a time. Smoke, generated by burning trees, can't be good for air quality, there is no doubt about that, but fire is natural. What about the air pollution that would be created by tractor/skidder logging these areas? Kind of looks offsetting to me.

I would state that smoke from machines is far less noticeable than that from a fire, and far less pollutants in one shot...

To think it is off setting or equal tells me that you have never been in an area that is saturated with fire smoke.

 

[BigHornRam]

Tone,

If you look at a Clearwater Forest map of units 10 and 12 you will see that considerable amount of roads already exist. I'm am not lobbying for openning up new areas to logging. Just appling common sense logging to some of the areas that are already openned up. Problem is, is that Ralph and his friends are not interested in that either. I remember reading about a recent proposed cut that was being held up because some tree hugger group was concerned that it was too close to the historic Lewis and Clark trail. What a pile of crap reason that is.

 

[TheTone]

BHR, I realize some areas of units 10 and 12 are heavily roaded. Too many roads even at that, which is why the forest service has been actively decommisioning roads in those areas for several years and continues to do so.

 

[BuzzH]

TheTone,

Please keep in mind that you're not dealing with people who understand complex issues like fire, ecosystem management, etc. and in some cases, even common sense is a stretch for some (in particular the cheese).

I mean look how the cheese tries to sound intelligent on forest management. Thats laughable at best. Anyone that understands how forests work will see through bullshit like that in about 2 seconds flat. Classic example of someone talking about something they really dont know much about. Broad generalizations made by a ditch-digger...and thats the truth. A forester he isnt, and rightfully so.

I applaud your efforts at attempting to educate people like the cheese.

 

[BuzzH]

TheTone,

To illustrate the BS posted by the cheese:



The cheese said, "Yes, you would be right on that account, but after the trees were thinned, then a burning/thinning process could take place on a regular schedule with a lot less over all cost, plus if you get any "wild fires" there isn't near the volume of material to burn."

Pure BS, heres why.

First of all, if the cheese would have looked at a map of the Selway and Upper Lochsa he would see that a good portion is in wilderness. If he'd ever spent any time in the Lochsa/Clearwater country he'd also find that the granitic soil types found there are not conducive to road building and have caused a major amount of siltation problems. Another thing the cheese fails to realize is that the Forest Service has to deal with pesky little things like MA's which prohibit certain forestry practices in the Clearwater/Selway areas.

To go a step further, the cheese "logic" of maintaining forest through thinning/burning on a regular schedule is not only laughable, but IMPOSSIBLE depending on forest types. I wonder how good the cheese's junk theory would work in Lodgepole pine types (a very large component of the Upper Lochsa)? I'd love to see the regular burn/thin schedule played out in those forest types. What a joke. I'm sure it would be equally impressive to see the burn/thin plan used in Spruce/fir habitat types. An even bigger joke.

Cheese said, "Now I know some would want to keep the larger trees and take the smaller ones.

Problem is, and this is one that’s been ongoing in this type of scenario-

There’s not enough money to implement all of the work that needs to be completed on the actual scale needed because it has to come directly out of tax collected budgets"

If cheese knew anything about say Ponderosa or Larch forest types, he'd know the only way to implement his burn/thin cycle would be to keep the largest trees. So, in the areas where his plan may work, he wants to slick it to make a buck so the local drunks in Orifino and Kamiah can keep a seasonal job. Great idea, and what kind of sustainability to you have in over-harvesting your very oldest trees (that make up the smallest over-all forest component of the clearwater?) Again, the cheese has been spoon-fed his mush by people like Rush Limbaugh, GW, etc.

Cheese said, "If you take a usable marketable product to help offset the costs, then it adds to what can be done."

I'm not sure what the cheese was smoking when he thought this one up. The FS has had big problems with above cost timber sales, in that they rarely have one. You dont "offset" costs of forest maintainence by creating controversial timber sales of old-growth forests. The FS shouldnt run into any problems high-grading whats left of their forest lands.