Timber "Sale" to Cost Taxpayers $3Million in the Gallatin

[Ten Bears]

Where's the link to the full article, or is that all of it?

I guess the next question MATT is who is to decide what is "the best interest of the forest?"

 

[BigHornRam]

Matt,

I can see you do not have a clue what is being discussed based on your comments. The Forest Service says that this project will cost $300,000. The tree huggers say it will cost $3,800,000. Big difference of opinion here. Who's right? My question is why is a timber sale of 4.5 million board feet taken of the side of an existing forest service road going to cost anything? If it was coming off private land it would be a big money maker.

And when you auction of the timber to the highest bidder, and the closest mill is hundreds of miles away because all the local mills throughout Montana are being systematically closed due to lack of available timber which is partly due to obstructionist enviromentalist shutting down one timber sale after another, how do you think the price of the bid will be when that amount of road miles are calculated into value of the timber? A lot less than if the mill was 30 miles away. The enviros do understand this, and that has been there game plan to acheive there goals. Zero cut on public land.

So now this administration has changed the rules, making it harder for the tree huggers to obstruct, and they are reverting back to the old play book, look how much this timber sale is costing the taxpayers. So Matty, wouldn't you like to see Garrity's numbers or do you just take his word for it, like you and Buzz take the dam breeching numbers as FACT?

 

[MattK]

I would like to see how the FS comes up with a mere $300,000. That seems to be a pretty low number.

 

[Ten Bears]

MATTy, your avoiding the questions. I guess we'd need to know if there is a road that needs to be built. There are more questions than answers in that article.

 

[BigHornRam]

"I would like to see how the FS comes up with a mere $300,000. That seems to be a pretty low number"

When do nothing guys like Buzz suck off the Forest Services teat, $300,000 to build an outhouse seems like a low number.

 

[BigHornRam]

Matty,

Be honest. Your a zero cut guy aren't you. Don't you think renewable resources like trees should be managed like game animals on the National Forest? Some of the excess should be allowed to be harvested?

 

[MattK]

BHR- As my dad is a one who has been in the timber industry all most of his life. My father in law is a logger. No, I'm not a zero cut guy. On public lands, there should be a good balance. As long as cutting is done correctly (not necessarily efficiently) on public lands, I would be all for it. When you have to punch in 50 roads to efficiently clear cut an area, I'm not for it. Until the timber industry can properly (with good management) cut an area, it makes it difficult to trust them.

 

[BuzzH]

BHR,

Since you didnt answer the last question...you know, the one about the current law that states the mission of the USFS is to provide an escapement road from the church camps....maybe you could answer this question:

Where in any legislation, law, or act is the FS required to provide raw materials to mills that are only 30 miles from the source? In fact, just point me to the law that states the mission of the FS is to provide logs to ANY mills.

The reason for below cost timber sales is because unlike private property PUBLIC property is held in public trust. As such, the sale of that public timber can only be cut under the scrutiny of EXISTING federal mandates. If you want to gripe at someone, gripe to YOUR representatives that passed laws like NEPA, ESA, NFMA, etc. The FS is bound, by law, to answer to the public and public demands. Thats a fact, and its unavoidable. Also, please note that the FS is not required to run like a business, never has been the mission, never will be...and for good reason.

Also, when was the last time YOU have seen a 4.5 mbf "fuels reduction project"?

Its intuitively obvious, even to a casual observer, that all this project is about is an excuse to log. I dont think most reasonable people would have a problem with these types of sales...I think some people just dont like the lieing, excuses, and calling it ANYTHING but what it is...liquidating timber. Kind of reminds me of the reasons for another of shrubs "projects" and the reasons for the project.

I'm not against logging, in fact the emphasis of my degree is timber management/silviculture, but on FEDERAL lands the FS is required to answer to many regulations, laws, acts, etc.

In your fantasy make-believe world I'm sure you believe that we should just grab up the chain saw, fire up the logging truck and go cut ya' a load of wood for the local mill. That aint the way she works these days...and rightfully so.

Paul, its becoming real obvious you need to do a couple things if you want to be taken seriously:

1. Take a course in Natural Resource policy (or at least study up on federal laws, regulations, etc. in regard to how they apply to federal and state land management agencies).

2. take a course in REALITY.

 

[YourRoyalHighness]

Timber sales by the FS cost, on average, about $1500 per acre by the time the FS/GAO gets done fully allocating the costs. If you do the math, assuming you are capable, that works out to about $3.8million. The FS is only directly attributing $300k and will get revenue of $315k. Why on earth would any body think the 5% margin would not be blown thru in the project.

 

[BigHornRam]

So Matt,

Do you favor this timber sale, or do you side with the obstructionists on this one?

 

[MattK]

BHR- Do you like wildlife and the environment or do you simply cower to extrative industries?

 

[BigHornRam]

Matty,

I like wildlife and the enviroment and support the extractive industries only when they opperate within the strictist of standards.

Now answer my question.

 

[Ithaca 37]

BHR, "I like wildlife and the enviroment and support the extractive industries only when they opperate within the strictist of standards."

Complete BS. If that's true please explain why you're not in favor of breaching the Lower Snake River dams.

 

[MattK]

I think this timber sale would be great if done only within severe guidelines and is upheld by all the standards required with all pertaining laws and regulations. It must also be done in the most environmentally (not economically) sound fashion. If the timber sale exceeds these standards, yes!

 

[ELKCHSR]

Timber sales by the FS cost, on average, about $1500 per acre by the time the FS/GAO gets done fully allocating the costs. If you do the math, assuming you are capable, that works out to about $3.8million. The FS is only directly attributing $300k and will get revenue of $315k. Why on earth would any body think the 5% margin would not be blown thru in the project.

They have brought a lot of this on themselves with the cost, by creating paper work and jobs for those that do nothing in the logging industrie, i.e. going overboard with the red tape to get even the first tree out of the hills and on it's way to the mill...

 

[BigHornRam]

Buzz,

Is harvesting 1,800 board feet of timber per acre over seven years whacking and stacking? Would the forest service get better bids on their timber sales if there were more mills to bid on the timber? According to my math, an average of about 400 feet on both sides of the road would be thinned by this project. Most likely few if an roads would have to built to access this timber.

So Buzz, do you support this timber sale or do you support the obstructionists? What do you think of Michael Garrity and his outfit? How about the other obstuctionist outfits, Ecology Center, and Native Ecosystems Council? Seems like every time you have a choice, you side with the obstructionists. Why is that? If the forest service is that untrustworthy of our public lands, then maybe we should clean house and start from scratch.

 

[MattK]

BHR- Due to the large areas of tree extraction (ie. clear cuts). It makes it difficult for the forest service to do anything but allow no cutting on their lands. If you need examples go to Gold Creek (just outside of Missoula). There are clearcuts up there that go at least 5 miles sq. After you look at that clear cut please explain why I shouldn't want to save more trees on my public land.

 

[MarvB]

BHR- Due to the large areas of tree extraction (ie. clear cuts). It makes it difficult for the forest service to do anything but allow no cutting on their lands

Matt, I don't know squat about the FS in your area but why isn't there allowances for alternative harvest methods? Are you saying its clearcuts or nothing? They have there (somewhat limited) place in some harvest schemes but why wouldn't they selective methods like over/understory removal, shelterwood cuts, selection cuts, seedtree methods, etc.?

I've written a ton (ok...maybe a half-ton ) of stand/site mgt. proposals back when I wore my forester hat and clear cutting was just one application not the sole application....

 

[BigHornRam]

Matt,

WTF does a clear cut near Missoula have to do with a thinning and fuel reduction project in the Boulder River? What difference is there between thinning the trees on public land and thinning the excess wildlife? You oppose one then you got to oppose the other. These are two different watersheds that flow in to different oceans. I've got some good views of mother nature's clear cuts right outside my window. The Boulder already has some of these as well. Do they need some more? How much sediment will go in the Boulder after a good hot fire on those steep slopes? How many years will it take before grass and other wildlife feed will grow after such a fire?

So you are truely an obstructionist that is not interested in taking each timber sale's merits on a case by case basis. The Forest Service has allowed bad practice in the past, so all future cuts should be banned because of it. Makes no sense.

 

[BigHornRam]

Matt,

I just took a look at a Lolo F. S. map and the clearcut you are bitching about is on private property. So you blame the F. S. for allowing a large clear cut to take place on Plum Creek land? Do you know the difference between public and private land? Do you even know where the Boulder River is? Why am I even wasting my time on a moron like you? I'm beginning to think you don't hunt or even get outdoors. At least Buzz shows us pictures of his trophies every other post. Let's see some of yours (and your Jellystone Park trip to see the wolves doesn't count).