Logger Bush!

[beardown]

Cutting the Tongrass will create a few jobs, but will cost taxpayers millions............ Perhaps the most bizzare part of the Bush plan to open the Tongrass to logging is economic. The administration and its allies in the timber industry say cutting down oldgrowth trees will put people to work. But the industry was dying long before the goverment barred logging roads in the Tongrass. Tree farms in the lower 48 provide plenty of wood to meet the country's needs and a world wide glut of timber has been forcing timber prices down for years. Taxpayers, meanwhile will be forced to subsidize the industry. In 2002 alone the goverment shelled out 36million in the Tongrass-mainly to build roads in areas that were'nt covered by the roadless rule. At the same time, the administration charged timber companies only 1.2 million for the wood removed. That means Americans paid nearly 35 million in a single year for the privelage of having private companies destroy a unique national treasure. In the last two decades, taxpayers have forked over nearly 1 billion to support timber sales in the Tongrass, making it the most heavily subsidized forest in the country. Now I'm not sure but this makes absolutely no sense!! In fact it kinda chaps me that Bush continuely goes through the back door to screw the enviroment just so a few of his buddies can make a buck!!

Anyone taking bets on rather or not you even hear the word ENVIROMENT in Bushys little speach tonight?

 

[Calif. Hunter]

I'm no forest expert, but now they are saying that the lack of logging and fires created the tinder box that led to the fires here, as well as set up the whole bark beetle infestation. There are 300-400 trees per acre when the healthy level is 50.

Obviously, clearcutting is not attractive and may not be the best alternative. Then again, maybe it is - it has some of the same results as a massive fire and sets up the progression from meadow to forest. I don't claim to have the answers, probably just more questions.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Ca. Hunter, I wouldn't say a "lack of logging and fires created the tinder box that led to the fires here." I would say it was simply a lack of fires. Logging or not logging has nothing to do with it. I realize you aren't necessarily saying that, but "they" are. I don't have anything against logging either, as long as it's done responsibly, but I just get tired of hearing how the lack of logging is responsible for all the fires we've been having in the last several years.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-20-2004 18:21: Message edited by: Washington Hunter ]</font>

 

[1_pointer]

Clearcutting and fires are vastly different in one aspect, nutrients. Fires return much more nutrients to the soil than removing them via clearcutting.

I'd be curious how much timber is produced from logging old growth than is produced in tree farms in the Southeast. I've herd that Auburn Univ. has genetically engineered a tree that produces timber quality trees in around 10yrs.

 

[beardown]

CA.....I dont think lack of logging has anything to do with the bark beetle. I was told its the drought. What I dont get is if you drive through northern AZ you see the forest being swallowed up by the bark beetle, yet you dont see them doing anything about it. Why are they not logging these trees? Actually I'm curious as to why, is there a reason ?.........Also the Tongrass was made off limits by Clinton, but the govenor of AK is an old logging lobbyists and got Bush to over turn the no roads rule. Thanks to him now six other states have begun the same process! I'm not against logging but I do feel it is an unecessary resource. Most construction has switched over to steel and the tree farms are obviously working and are alot more profitable. Instead of spending 35million to save a couple hundred jobs, why are we not training these people in new jobs ? Logging should be like oil, we should save ours and buy others.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

If No. Arizona is like Southern California, there are no loggers around to take out the infested trees. AS an advisor to the Boy Scouts, who have a 640 acre camp in the San Bernardino forest, I know that there are no local logging resources since there has been no logging in the area for decades. It is not economical to log the trees and ship them up north to mills. So they are having to hire guys to cut down the trees and use chippers to create mulch that we will use around buildings, etc. It is costing the Scouts thousands. The forest is not doing much of anything about it - there is just too much ground and too many infected trees. There is concern that the pines will disappear completely and only oaks or cedars will be left - a complete change of local ecology. A good fire would solve a lot of problems, but create others.

I do not know how the drought affects the bark beetle. From what I understand, the dense growth of timber allows the bugs to spread quicker.

 

[1_pointer]

Densely packed trees compete more for water, which only gets worse in a drought. Just like us, trees are more susceptible to 'infections' when severely stressed.

CH- Sounds like a good way to stockpile some firewood for the future!

FWIW, the Boy Scouts in UT are helping the situation by starting fires!!

Just give 'em some sparklers and start the car.

IMO, fire is the cheapest and most efficient way to deal with this issue. Smokey Bear should've been slapped upside the head with a polaski (sp?) a long, long time ago.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

The other option, though expensive, is to have the forestry firefighters chopping down trees! Give them some off-season employment!

 

[1_pointer]

Would the gov. also be in charge of getting them offsite? I may be for that on fed. lands as it would keep these guys in work and the regs/paperwork would be such that there would be very little chance for abuse. Something like this would get watched close.

 

[BuzzH]

Beardown said, "What I dont get is if you drive through northern AZ you see the forest being swallowed up by the bark beetle, yet you dont see them doing anything about it. Why are they not logging these trees? Actually I'm curious as to why, is there a reason ?"

For starters there really isnt a whole lot anyone can do about the current condition of the forests in AZ. The trees were/are drought stressed and are being hammered by beetles. There is some salvage logging being done in AZ, but not on a large scale. The problems are many with recovering the trees being killed. Everything from lawsuits to writing EA's to finding areas/trees with enough commercial value to make it worth it. Plus, you have to jump right on those trees to salvage them before they blue-stain, which usually happens within 18 months. Also, from what I've seen in AZ, the hardest hit tree species are pinyons, which dont have much commercial value.

As to the Tongass, I agree, its ridiculous to spend millions to make thousands. The Tongass has taken care of itself for a long time without roads and logging. I feel theres just easier and cheaper timber to be had in the lower 48.

Bush should stay the hell out of resource issues and let the professionals make decisions based on science rather than politics, he knows very little about what a "healthy" forest is.

 

[BHR]

Buzz,

Blued pine paneling is becoming the in thing, and is in demand these days. The HFI should make it easier to remove the dead wood without all the typical legal manuvers from the tree huggers that makes removing this wood impractical.

Paul

 

[BuzzH]

Paul, you are correct, on each to a certain extent.

The blue-stain wood does have a small market, but not to the extent that tree value is not vastly effected by those buying/selling timber sales. Try selling a couple hundred acres of blue-stain Ponderosa pine...you'll see how high the demand is, and how much less its commercial value is (if you can sell it at all).

As to the HFI, again, on small quick sales in areas that are hit really hard by say, mountain pine beetle, yeah the HFI should work.

But, that shouldnt be confused with whats going on in Arizona. The area being hammered is large, well beyond the scope of the HFI. Further, infestations vary from stands with very intense beetle kill to some with only a few trees per acre. From what I've seen, the most intense beetle activity is in the Pinyons rather than the much more valuable Apache Pine or Ponderosa Pine stands.

Try setting up sales to deal with the complexities of that, once again it really becomes an excercise in futility.

Thats one of my main gripes with the HFI, the scale of the problems its trying to address is well beyond whats allowed within the law and HFI itself. What it is, in reality, is a politicians way of "doing something".

 

[BHR]

Buzz,

Don't know much about the trees in Zona so I'll take your word on it. Lot's of dead and dieing trees around these parts and they have value. Looks like we can agree, that if the tree huggers can tie things up in court long enough, its win-win for them. Maybe if we could cut some of the trees in the lower 48 without all the legal crap, we wouldn't be looking at roadless areas in Alaska?

Paul

 

[BuzzH]

Paul, I dont believe that the lack of public land timber sales has anything to do with the Tongass.

I'm pretty convinced that it once again boils down to politics as usual. Its no secret that the Alaska governor, and reps. along with sidekick Bush, want to "create" jobs in AK by ripping the Tongass. The good thing is though, at least all that below cost timber is being funded with YOUR tax dollars. I dont think that the logging in the Tongass is based on science, or supply/demand for timber, or even good economic policy. Do you?

 

[BHR]

Buzz,

I think it is being done both for Alaskan jobs, and lumber demand. Have you bought any lumber lately? With the declining U. S. dollar, Canadian lumber is not such a good buy anymore. Logging in the U. S. can be profitable and provide U. S. jobs. Isn't that what we want, U. S. jobs?

The sale of this timber would bring in positive revenue if we didn't have to deal with endless tree hugger lawsuits and bloated Forest Service beauracracy. Why don't you mention these problems when your pointing fingers? How much of the forest service budget is tied up in legal support and administration?

Personally I think timber should be harvested closer to consumption first. I also think that small portable mills producing a finished product on site will be the way of the future. JMO however.

Paul

 

[BuzzH]

Paul, I agree with you that in the case of the lower 48, large sums of the FS operating budget are consumed in the legalities of day to day operations. Things like EA's EIS's, etc.

That said, its the AMERICAN public and YOUR elected officials that have passed laws and acts like NFMA, RPA, NEPA etc. that require the processes we have in place, and for good reason.

We could argue over the necessity of such things, but I feel with the past history of the USFS, its a good thing such measures are in place to keep the FS timber beast in check.

Also, please keep in mind that the intent of the National Forests is not to just supply raw materials to the U.S. economy.

Not sure if you checked out the link Ithaca provided, but the last few years the USFS has cut about 2-2 1/2 billion board feet a year. Thats a pretty responsible ASQ, in my opinion.

All that being said, I still think its fiscally, economically, and socially irresponsible to log the Tongass. Thats JMO.