Montana DNRC Gets It

[BigHornRam]

http://www.kpax.com/story/38206731/dnrc-begins-lolo-peak-fire-salvage

 

[MattK]

This is funny because I was just listening to the radio (KGVO talk back) and there is a guy living near Seeley that was complaining because this timber salvage in Lolo is hurting the cost of his timber on his property. He was basically having someone remove his trees and create fire breaks for his property with the proceeds of the timber that was being removed. Now, he claims, that can't be done because there is too much timber on the market and he will have to pay someone to remove the trees (he's losing money). He also was complaining about the fire line they put up on his property (which from the sounds of it, he may have a legitimate gripe).

 

[BigHornRam]

This is funny because I was just listening to the radio (KGVO talk back) and there is a guy living near Seeley that was complaining because this timber salvage in Lolo is hurting the cost of his timber on his property. He was basically having someone remove his trees and create fire breaks for his property with the proceeds of the timber that was being removed. Now, he claims, that can't be done because there is too much timber on the market and he will have to pay someone to remove the trees (he's losing money). He also was complaining about the fire line they put up on his property (which from the sounds of it, he may have a legitimate gripe).

What exactly is the point you are trying to make here Matt? That the State should not manage our fire damaged property properly because this guy thinks it is effecting the price of his timber going to market? There are some interesting characters that call into talk back. Maybe this guy is one of them? What species is he selling? What species is the DNRC salvaging? Important questions to ask before jumping to conclusions.

 

[huronmtns]

This is funny because I was just listening to the radio (KGVO talk back) and there is a guy living near Seeley that was complaining because this timber salvage in Lolo is hurting the cost of his timber on his property. He was basically having someone remove his trees and create fire breaks for his property with the proceeds of the timber that was being removed. Now, he claims, that can't be done because there is too much timber on the market and he will have to pay someone to remove the trees (he's losing money). He also was complaining about the fire line they put up on his property (which from the sounds of it, he may have a legitimate gripe).

I have a hard time believing that the wood harvested on 400 acres is going to be enough to have a significant impact on the market.

 

[tjones]

Anyone with logs right now have nothing to complain about. Finished lumber is at record highs. Good time to have logs, bad time to build new.

http://naturalresourcereport.com/2018/05/log-prices-hit-25-year-record/?utm_

 

[BigHornRam]

Anyone with logs right now have nothing to complain about. Finished lumber is at record highs.

http://naturalresourcereport.com/2018/05/log-prices-hit-25-year-record/?utm_

True. There is however only one mill that takes ponderosa pine in Montana, and the price for that species is not the best. Maybe that is the species the guy that was complaining has on his property? It is most likely the guy is doing fuel reduction work on a small acerage property consisting of very small diameter low value timber. These kind of projects never pay for themselves.

Lolo National Forest did have 10% of its acerage burn last summer, and even if a small percent of it eventually does get salvaged, that will be a significant amount of logs coming in to the mills. The state is moving quicker on salvaging its dead timber as the story indicates and is bringing in revenue, and providing logs for the mills. Hopefully the Lolo Forest can start getting their salvage plans going soon as well.

 

[Bulldog0156]

I believe DNRC also will pay landowners to thin their property to mitigate fire hazard potential. Not something the state has to do...

 

[BigHornRam]

Anyone with logs right now have nothing to complain about. Finished lumber is at record highs. Good time to have logs, bad time to build new.

http://naturalresourcereport.com/2018/05/log-prices-hit-25-year-record/?utm_

Great time to sell, clean out your barn full of sawn lumber, at start building new.

 

[BigHornRam]

Delivered log prices are moving up. Not as fast as finished lumber though.

http://inlandforest.com/log-prices/

 

[BigHornRam]

I believe DNRC also will pay landowners to thin their property to mitigate fire hazard potential. Not something the state has to do...

DNRC administers grants that are federally funded to do fuel reduction work. It is a competitive process and not all applicants are funded.

http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/forest...estern-wildland-urban-interface-grant-program

Forest in Focus program is funded with state funds.

http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/forestry/forestry-assistance/forest-in-focus

 

[tjones]

True. There is however only one mill that takes ponderosa pine in Montana,.

No,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[BigHornRam]

No,,,,,,,,,,,

Who,,,,,,,,,,

 

[Sytes]

Thanks for sharing, BHR.

This is awesome! If it clears and holds $ in the green for our schools... Amazing the anti this and that didn't get in the way.

Only thing better would be to have some prime timber properly thinned from our school trust land prior to a burn... that and all our Nat'l forests need a good thinning.

“The main thing here is if we just allowed this to go, all these dead trees would eventually fall over. Then you’re at a threat for re-burn and not only that, we’ve lost value to these trees," Jacques said. "Those are school trust lands so all funds and monies and proceeds from this sale goes to the common school trust K-12. So part of my responsibility as a land manager for DNRC and on these trust lands is to produce some income for the school trust so if we were to let these trees go, we would lose all that value to the school trust.”

 

[Ben Lamb]

The DNRC is constitutionally obligated to make money for the school trust. They have little obligation to respond to citizen comments or plan for wildlife outside of their Habitat Conservation Plan, which wouldn't really apply to the Lolo fire.

So yeah, if you like to cut the public out of public land decisions & not really give two sh#ts about wildlife habitat, the DNRC is great!

 

[Straight Arrow]

....and all our Nat'l forests need a good thinning.

Here we go again! Let's ignore the science (forest health, fire behavior), the costs, the impacts (wildlife, watersheds, roads, etal), the magnitude (millions and millions of acres), the future advocacy to repeat the thinning (costs to future generations), and all the other realisms which point to the absurdity of a "good thinning".

 

[Ben Lamb]

Hey man, can't have any fires if you don't have any trees.

That's science!


(Kidding, Charles)

 

[Sytes]

Damn Ben, my feeling has been *touched.

Here we go again! Let's ignore the science (forest health, fire behavior), the costs, the impacts (wildlife, watersheds, roads, etal), the magnitude (millions and millions of acres), the future advocacy to repeat the thinning (costs to future generations), and all the other realisms which point to the absurdity of a "good thinning".

"Absurdity"... Choice words to share with the USDA, under the prior Administration to reduce any form of "Trump wants all trees eviscerated", hype type rambling.

Interesting opinion you have, Straight Arrow. Here is the scientific "opinion" shared by the USDA. .PDF link via Google:
I apologise for the screwy copy/paste of the portion quoted below maybe due to use via phone.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAEegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw1g2NolN8hVeXwsLTuaYCGr

The Science of Thinning
While there is ample science to support the benefits of thinning to improve tree growth, there is less
science on thinning benefits for wildlife and other resources. Still, a growing body of science from both the
Pacific Northwest and Southeast Alaska supports the potential for thinning to improve wildlife habitat for
many species. Studies show that, with active management, young stands can contribute some values
associated with old growth. Key features of old-growth forest include large, old decadent trees, multiple
canopy layers, standing snags, down woody debris, and an abundant herb layer—features which can be
created through active management of young, even-aged stands.
Research from Southeast Alaska indicates that both pre-commercial and commercial thinning of young-
growth stands benefits black-tailed deer by opening up the forest and promoting the growth of understory
vegetation (Figure 2). Research also indicates that active young-growth management has potential benefits to
other species as well, including predators such as marten and goshawk, by increased small mammal
populations. Small mammals such as red squirrels and red-backed voles are major prey for these species, and
may benefit from more open forests with abundant understory and by speeding the succession of older
young-growth stands toward old-growth condition. In riparian areas, thinning encourages the growth of large
conifers, which can produce large woody debris to enhance stream habitat for coho salmon spawning and
rearing fry. Studies by the Pacific Northwest Research Station and the Sitka Wood Utilization Center find
that removing trees with commercial value (young growth aged 50-90 years) can re-establish understory and
provide wood products as well.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Yes, I humbly accept that the science copied and pasted is valid ... but with significant limitations (as alluded to in the paste itself) and with specific locales and political and commercial situations. Again, the magnitude (millions and millions of acres) of National Forest as one predominant factor points to the "absurdity" of a "good thinning" of "all our Nat'l forests".

 

[Nameless Range]

It's great that the DNRC is making hay out of the ashes of the Lolo Fire. In terms of generating revenue off of the land, DNRC Foresters and Land Use Specialists are as skilled as professionals get and Montana is lucky to have them.

Something I have wondered as it pertains to fires:

Over the last 20 years, the DNRC has put out 97% of fires that have started under their direct protection before those fires achieved a size of greater than 10 acres. The USFS is slightly below that, but is right up there as well. It would be an interesting study to look at those 3-4% of fires that get away from initial attack, and what common attributes we could identify about them. My gut assumption would be that the parameters that allow a fire to get into that small percentage of fires that aren't put out quickly has more to do with weather conditions and difficult terrain than anything else, but that is just a guess.

 

[BigHornRam]

So yeah, if you like to cut the public out of public land decisions & not really give two sh#ts about wildlife habitat, the DNRC is great!

That was one of your more absurd comments made to date, Ben. Sad that you think this way. Luckily few people in Montana think like this.