BHR- I'm well aware it is Plum Creek Land. That's exactly my point. Due to the large clearcut Plum Creek (and to be more specific it was Champion International when it was clear cut) made, the Forest Service had to implement a no cut policy on their land in that area (to balance habitat).
Timber "Sale" to Cost Taxpayers $3Million in the Gallatin
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Matt,
WTF's your point? The Boulder is surrounded by wilderness with no man made clearcuts so how does your example apply to this timber sale? You've never been there, and are just grasping at straws to explain why you oppose a cut you know nothing about. Debates over you and your obstructionist pals lose. Neener neener neener.
WTF's your point? The Boulder is surrounded by wilderness with no man made clearcuts so how does your example apply to this timber sale? You've never been there, and are just grasping at straws to explain why you oppose a cut you know nothing about. Debates over you and your obstructionist pals lose. Neener neener neener.
BHR- I think the case is still on appeal isn't it? They will make a judgment in April if I'm not mistaken. You really should learn to read, Moron. I don't know this area I have to admit. The reason I bring up the clearcuts in the Goldcreek area (and many others) is to point out the necessity to keep remaining timber that lies on public land. It takes very little time for a clearcut to be made on private land that would throw any cutting done by the FS out of balance.
I'm not a forester but I know I like trees. If you could, please answer the questions posed to you about this timber cut by someone who does know the FS and is a silviculturist. (Please note Buzz's post #28). Thank you in advance.
I'm not a forester but I know I like trees. If you could, please answer the questions posed to you about this timber cut by someone who does know the FS and is a silviculturist. (Please note Buzz's post #28). Thank you in advance.
MarvB
Well-known member
MattK, I guess I'm interested (again not knowing FS policy in your neck of the woods or maybe it has DRASTICALLY changed since I've been out of the business) in again why selective cutting methods aren't/can't be considered??
Is it current Forest Service policy that just because a private F-Up'd its land that no harvest methods are now allowed in adjacent public tracts? I know out here there (and my father was a gypo logger for 20+ years for SPI and Simpson Timber) are NUMEROUS areas that were wronged due to past improper harvest methods but yet we didn't allow adjacent public lands to go unmanaged due to that fault. What about beatle kill, fuel loading, etc. on adjacent areas is that now just allowed to remain unchecked?
Is it current Forest Service policy that just because a private F-Up'd its land that no harvest methods are now allowed in adjacent public tracts? I know out here there (and my father was a gypo logger for 20+ years for SPI and Simpson Timber) are NUMEROUS areas that were wronged due to past improper harvest methods but yet we didn't allow adjacent public lands to go unmanaged due to that fault. What about beatle kill, fuel loading, etc. on adjacent areas is that now just allowed to remain unchecked?
MarvB- They do allow cutting on both state and federal land (from what I've seen) but it is done with a lot more care. I don't know all the policies but I can definitely tell where private land stops and state/federal lands begin. IMO the FS is strapped in doing some sales because of private land ownership and the wrongs done by those owners. There are definitely some areas that need thinned and in some cases clearcut (on a smaller scale).
BuzzH
Well-known member
MarvB,
You are partially correct in that there are other methods than just clearcutting...many of them are ultimately just another form of clearcutting but at a slower rate. For instance shelterwood cuts are just a staggered clearcut...you just enter the stand a time or two more to remove the entire overstory. Seed tree cuts are clearcuts with a tree or two per acre left for regeneration. After regeneration has happened, many times the seed trees are removed. Also, some species like spruce and lodgepole are not going to be cut with any method other than clearcutting (which by the way makes total sense and is the best way to handle harvesting those species).
Also, BMP's (best management practices) are in place in Montana, but those are pretty basic in regard to how private land is harvested. Its not law, its voluntary but most companies are pretty good about adhereing to them. But, about all they do is put 150 foot buffers around perennial streams, standing water sources, springs, etc. Roads are typically put in further away from streams and some other worthwhile stuff.
The FS is in fact bound under pretty tight guidelines to adhere to landscape ecology and landscape management. I assume you've read forest plans and understand the MA's? In many places where industry extracts resources the FS simply cannot under the forest plans and the adopted MA schemes do the same thing. Many tracts of FS land are simply off-limits to harvest under the definitions of the particular MA plan. The Forest Plans are revised every ten years or so to allow change in MA's as the forests change. Typically a good portion of that involves public comments, public meetings, open houses, etc. etc.
At the point of adopting a forest plan, the fs is pretty much bound to manage under the current forest plan. Of course there is then the adopted ASQ's that they are bound by as well (again through the forest plans), and of course the usual EA or EIS that has become mandatory for any harvesting on FS lands.
The red tape is in place for a reason its to protect the health of the land for the greatest good for the greatest number for the longest time.
Forest Service timber sales will likely never be anything but below cost. Theres basically two ways to manage...to maximize profit and to maximize proper management. The two rarely intersect one another.
For what its worth, I'd much rather see proper management happen at below cost than crappy management happen at a profit (on my PUBLIC land anyway). People need to understand that the FS is not a timber company, its a public land management agency.
Paul, to answer your question:
If the cut is within the guidelines of the forest plan, has passed scrutiny under a proper EA, and is beneficial to the landscape, local community, etc. sure, why not.
If its to pacify some whiners at a church camp because they CHOSE to build there or is just a clear cut being passed off as a victory for the HFI...NO.
You are partially correct in that there are other methods than just clearcutting...many of them are ultimately just another form of clearcutting but at a slower rate. For instance shelterwood cuts are just a staggered clearcut...you just enter the stand a time or two more to remove the entire overstory. Seed tree cuts are clearcuts with a tree or two per acre left for regeneration. After regeneration has happened, many times the seed trees are removed. Also, some species like spruce and lodgepole are not going to be cut with any method other than clearcutting (which by the way makes total sense and is the best way to handle harvesting those species).
Also, BMP's (best management practices) are in place in Montana, but those are pretty basic in regard to how private land is harvested. Its not law, its voluntary but most companies are pretty good about adhereing to them. But, about all they do is put 150 foot buffers around perennial streams, standing water sources, springs, etc. Roads are typically put in further away from streams and some other worthwhile stuff.
The FS is in fact bound under pretty tight guidelines to adhere to landscape ecology and landscape management. I assume you've read forest plans and understand the MA's? In many places where industry extracts resources the FS simply cannot under the forest plans and the adopted MA schemes do the same thing. Many tracts of FS land are simply off-limits to harvest under the definitions of the particular MA plan. The Forest Plans are revised every ten years or so to allow change in MA's as the forests change. Typically a good portion of that involves public comments, public meetings, open houses, etc. etc.
At the point of adopting a forest plan, the fs is pretty much bound to manage under the current forest plan. Of course there is then the adopted ASQ's that they are bound by as well (again through the forest plans), and of course the usual EA or EIS that has become mandatory for any harvesting on FS lands.
The red tape is in place for a reason its to protect the health of the land for the greatest good for the greatest number for the longest time.
Forest Service timber sales will likely never be anything but below cost. Theres basically two ways to manage...to maximize profit and to maximize proper management. The two rarely intersect one another.
For what its worth, I'd much rather see proper management happen at below cost than crappy management happen at a profit (on my PUBLIC land anyway). People need to understand that the FS is not a timber company, its a public land management agency.
Paul, to answer your question:
If the cut is within the guidelines of the forest plan, has passed scrutiny under a proper EA, and is beneficial to the landscape, local community, etc. sure, why not.
If its to pacify some whiners at a church camp because they CHOSE to build there or is just a clear cut being passed off as a victory for the HFI...NO.
Ithaca 37
New member
Thanks for the great information, Buzz.
MarvB
Well-known member
Matt and Buzz,
I appreciate the info and fully understand the different harvest methods available (that’s why I posted them) but my original questions was in regards to MattK’s statement about not allowing harvest on FS land BECAUSE there was improper harvest done on adjacent private holdings. That was the thing of interest to me as, since my forester days are now a few years behind me, I was wondering if that was now ACTUAL FS policy or may be just included in public comment or open session period.
Though its now been years, I have actually been there and done that…my degree Buzz is likely (I'm guessing here) very similar to yours, Forest Resource Mgt. BS with emphasis in Silviculture and Entomology (circa 1981). Worked for both the FS and BLM before becoming a self-employed Forester working in primarily CA, OR, and WA. Again, I was just wondering about current policy.
I do fully understand that the FS is not a timber company nor the BLM a real-estate firm, both are public land management agencies that operate under multiple use objectives. Both agencies are ensured with the trust of our public lands and as such have to keep multiple balls in the air. Sometimes thats good….sometimes its bad. I, insert MY OPINION here, think that by trying to be all things to all people you can often end up being nothing to no one.
I appreciate the info and fully understand the different harvest methods available (that’s why I posted them) but my original questions was in regards to MattK’s statement about not allowing harvest on FS land BECAUSE there was improper harvest done on adjacent private holdings. That was the thing of interest to me as, since my forester days are now a few years behind me, I was wondering if that was now ACTUAL FS policy or may be just included in public comment or open session period.
Though its now been years, I have actually been there and done that…my degree Buzz is likely (I'm guessing here) very similar to yours, Forest Resource Mgt. BS with emphasis in Silviculture and Entomology (circa 1981). Worked for both the FS and BLM before becoming a self-employed Forester working in primarily CA, OR, and WA. Again, I was just wondering about current policy.
I do fully understand that the FS is not a timber company nor the BLM a real-estate firm, both are public land management agencies that operate under multiple use objectives. Both agencies are ensured with the trust of our public lands and as such have to keep multiple balls in the air. Sometimes thats good….sometimes its bad. I, insert MY OPINION here, think that by trying to be all things to all people you can often end up being nothing to no one.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Buzz,
Thank you for your response that was informative and actually answered my questions without a personal attack.
Matt,
Opposing a thinning project on one side of the state on public land because a private land owner raped his land on the other side of the state, makes about as much sense as closing elk hunting in Montana because Colorado has over harvested their bull elk. See my point? I am also aware that the final desicion will be made in April. My money says it will go forward. Just because I do not have a degree in forestry, does not mean that my common sense knowledge of this topic is not acurate.
Thank you for your response that was informative and actually answered my questions without a personal attack.
Matt,
Opposing a thinning project on one side of the state on public land because a private land owner raped his land on the other side of the state, makes about as much sense as closing elk hunting in Montana because Colorado has over harvested their bull elk. See my point? I am also aware that the final desicion will be made in April. My money says it will go forward. Just because I do not have a degree in forestry, does not mean that my common sense knowledge of this topic is not acurate.
I have found in my years of working around trees in Western Washington that what Matt is doing is a knee jerk reaction to things they see and don't understand, but let their emotions get in the way of good common sense management of our resources.
I have seen very bad extraction processes and have seen very good ones. In certain circumstances, clear cutting is the only decent way to go, when others should only be thinned, and some should just be left alone entirely.
But it should be up to the managers of the area that is in question to deal with the best ways to handle the issue, not the news papers or television.
That is what we pay these people to do, they shouldn't be handcuffed by the media or non-interested, self-interest.
I should say that even areas that have been devastated by clear cutting and bad practices eventually come out of it and become productive again (I have to put a disclaimer in here, some small areas never come back the same depending on the type of damage, those are the areas that should be dealt with in an appropriate manor). Maybe not in our life time, but with time these areas come back and are full of life again.
I will put up a little of what I have seen. When Mt St Helens went up, I worked on some of the extraction of downed trees, the scientists of the time said it would be 200 years before things would even start to come back in any decent manor (200 Years was touted all over the news media at that time).
I went hunting in the area some seven or eight years after the mountain blew it's top, and you couldn't hardly walk in the area because of all the new growth that had popped up in every corner of the damaged area.
I have seen very bad extraction processes and have seen very good ones. In certain circumstances, clear cutting is the only decent way to go, when others should only be thinned, and some should just be left alone entirely.
But it should be up to the managers of the area that is in question to deal with the best ways to handle the issue, not the news papers or television.
That is what we pay these people to do, they shouldn't be handcuffed by the media or non-interested, self-interest.
I should say that even areas that have been devastated by clear cutting and bad practices eventually come out of it and become productive again (I have to put a disclaimer in here, some small areas never come back the same depending on the type of damage, those are the areas that should be dealt with in an appropriate manor). Maybe not in our life time, but with time these areas come back and are full of life again.
I will put up a little of what I have seen. When Mt St Helens went up, I worked on some of the extraction of downed trees, the scientists of the time said it would be 200 years before things would even start to come back in any decent manor (200 Years was touted all over the news media at that time).
I went hunting in the area some seven or eight years after the mountain blew it's top, and you couldn't hardly walk in the area because of all the new growth that had popped up in every corner of the damaged area.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Matt,
I think I answered most all of Buzz's questions in post 28 except one.
In reguards to whether or not the Forest Service makes a profit or not on a timber sale, does not bother me. I realize they are a government agencey and expecting them to do so is unreasonable. I would prefere that they did a good job managing the forest and lose money than do a crappy job and make money. The only point I make is that obstuctionists use the fact that the Forest Service loses money on their sales as a reason not to harvest trees. Gunner is trying to play that game on this thread, and I don't see anyone calling him on it. To top it off he is using past averages to calculate his cost estimate. He is comparing apples to oranges and again none of the forestry experts here called him on it.
Does that answer your questions Matt?
I think I answered most all of Buzz's questions in post 28 except one.
In reguards to whether or not the Forest Service makes a profit or not on a timber sale, does not bother me. I realize they are a government agencey and expecting them to do so is unreasonable. I would prefere that they did a good job managing the forest and lose money than do a crappy job and make money. The only point I make is that obstuctionists use the fact that the Forest Service loses money on their sales as a reason not to harvest trees. Gunner is trying to play that game on this thread, and I don't see anyone calling him on it. To top it off he is using past averages to calculate his cost estimate. He is comparing apples to oranges and again none of the forestry experts here called him on it.
Does that answer your questions Matt?
MarvB
Well-known member
I think that Paul hit on something that is all too often lost in consideration of long term land management practices- both public and private - and that is
Marginal timber on steep south facing slopes, thin soils, etc....they harvested it and then tried to go back with Doug fir that couldn't handle the site.
Year after year monies spent for reprod of the area, shade carding, moisture mats, brush disposal contrats, etc., only to end up with a "nice" even aged stand of tan oak and manzanita.
On the other side of the coin they got firestrikes in high fuel load areas that had a "don't harvest" philosophy because they wanted to assure athetics above the Rogue River corridor! Fire goes through basically unchecked, dead and downed trees left to rot, beetles and diease come in and kills whats left....looks worse than most of the logging shows in the same general area.
Again...
I rememeber many units on the district I was on that were clearcut and never should have been more than thinned.
Marginal timber on steep south facing slopes, thin soils, etc....they harvested it and then tried to go back with Doug fir that couldn't handle the site.
Year after year monies spent for reprod of the area, shade carding, moisture mats, brush disposal contrats, etc., only to end up with a "nice" even aged stand of tan oak and manzanita.
On the other side of the coin they got firestrikes in high fuel load areas that had a "don't harvest" philosophy because they wanted to assure athetics above the Rogue River corridor! Fire goes through basically unchecked, dead and downed trees left to rot, beetles and diease come in and kills whats left....looks worse than most of the logging shows in the same general area.
Again...
missing from the equation |oo
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Another Point for Matt,
You catogoricly oppose a timber sale in an area that you have never visited and have zero first hand knowledge of what the Forest Service has proposed. You just oppose it because it is logging on "my" public land. The obstructionist groups in this article operate the same way. The Ecology Center is expecially known for this practice. Never visit the site, even when invited to do so, and then file suit to stop the harvest.
Any Comments?
You catogoricly oppose a timber sale in an area that you have never visited and have zero first hand knowledge of what the Forest Service has proposed. You just oppose it because it is logging on "my" public land. The obstructionist groups in this article operate the same way. The Ecology Center is expecially known for this practice. Never visit the site, even when invited to do so, and then file suit to stop the harvest.
Any Comments?
Ten Bears
New member
Well said BHR.
BHR- Please let me know where I categorically opposed this timber cutting/ sale. The only thing I categorically opposed is the timber sale if it was done to appease a bunch of people in a church camp. Again if I build in the forest, I better know the risks and provide myself with an escape route.
I also stated if it is done properly within the management plan for the fs, I would have no problem with it (categorically). If not, I am opposed to it. You are trying to argue something I have not been opposed to. If the "obstructionists" can stop this sale, evidently their arguments have some merit wether they have seen the land or not. As a side note, It is the duty of individuals/groups to question and scrutinize the government. It is the only way our government stays within the guidelines.
I also stated if it is done properly within the management plan for the fs, I would have no problem with it (categorically). If not, I am opposed to it. You are trying to argue something I have not been opposed to. If the "obstructionists" can stop this sale, evidently their arguments have some merit wether they have seen the land or not. As a side note, It is the duty of individuals/groups to question and scrutinize the government. It is the only way our government stays within the guidelines.
Similar threads
