Biscuit Fire Old Growth Reserves Face Imminent Logging

imc volunteer, 27.01.2005 18:19

The Forest Service is rushing to log thousands of acres of old-growth reserves affected by the Biscuit fire before a court can determine if the logging is illegal. Logging may start any day.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently lifted an injunction that prevented logging in seven timber sales in the Biscuit Fire area. As a result, sensitive old-growth reserves are now imminently threatened by the Fiddler, Steed, Berry, Wafer, Hobson, Lazy, and Briggs Six logging sales. The Forest Service is attempting to log these sales before a court case on the legality of the logging can be heard by a judge on March 22nd. If logging proceeds, it could be completed before the court decides whether the logging is legal or not.

The Forest Service is plowing snow-covered roads to these sales to facilitate the logging of old-growth reserves.

Old Growth on Fiddler Mountain

In addition, old-growth trees are falling at the Briggs Cedar timber sale on Squaw Mountain in the wild Siskiyou. Logging began at Briggs Cedar on January 25. Field monitors photographed "leave trees" remarked for logging in the units at Briggs Cedar. Photos are available for viewing at  http://www.kswild.org/KSNews/briggsphotos

A call has been put out to bear witness to the logging of these old-growth reserves.

The Siskiyou Project is organizing an outing to Fiddler Mountain on Saturday, January 30. Meet at the Selma Center in Selma, Oregon at 11:00 am.

Additionally, there is a call for a massive rally to protect the wild Siskiyou, on Saturday, February 5. Meet at the Selma Center in Selma, Oregon at 10:00 am.

If logging begins at the Fiddler Mountain / Babyfoot lake area, a vigil and information sharing site will be located at the botanical area on the Eight Dollar Mountain Road (about a mile up Forest Road 4201 just before the first cattle guard) starting at noon the day logging begins.

Directions to the Selma Center:
From I-5, take the Grants Pass Redwood Highway (Hwy 199) south exit. Follow signs for the Redwood Highway and Cave Junction. Merge onto Hwy 199 south and drive for about 20 miles to Selma. The Selma Center is located on the east side of Highway 199 (on the left side if you're traveling south) just before the Selma Market. For more detailed directions, or info on carpools, call the Siskiyou Project: (541) 592-4459 or (503) 222-6101.

Download this article in pdf format >>

Add this article to your pdf newsletter selection >>

Checkout and Download your PDF-newsletter selection >>

Email this article to someone >>

Make a quick comment on this article >>

96% 28.01.2005 - 16:51 The Forest Service isn't rushing to log anything. The Forest service sells contracts. It is up to the contract holder to either preform the logging or subcontract it out. And yes there is a time factor. The logging costs are fixed the value of the material diminishes every day. But hey we know you know that. If you drag out the process you don't have to win on the merits of your case. No value...no harvest. How come if the 9th circuit says these sales are not illegal you say they are? The Forest does not plow the roads, again the contract holder sometimes has the option of plowing the roads. Once again Chicken Little tells us the sky is falling. "Thousands of acres"....What about the 96.2% of the Biscuit that was never ever slated to be salvaged? Before you run out and protest something, you might at least be clear on what it is your'e protesting. Curious> Curious In Name Only 31.01.2005 - 09:19 The 9th didn't say the sale was legal. Rather they ruled that Judge Hogan did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion for a PI. Please remember Hogan is the fella who de-listed the Coho because he thinks the second coming is at hand at that hatchery fish are the same as wild fish. Anywho, as for the portion of the burn not being logged...great. Are you suggesting logging the wilderness area? Cause thats in the figure yer using. Want to log the low severity portions of the burn? Well, thats in your figure too. The point is that 23,000 public comments were ignorred, the roadless area policy was gutted, and thousands of acres of wilderness-eligible forests are about to be turned into yet more even-age fiber plantations. My question for Curious is what about the 2 million plus acres in SW Oregon that are already fiber farms? Since you want the public forests to be managed soley for fiber production (rather than natural plant succession) it seems only fair that we should start managing some of Boise and Swanson's land as wilderness. Turnabout is fair play. Piliated Woodpecker> Let's keep it fair. 31.01.2005 - 15:03 > The 9th didn't say the sale was legal. Rather they ruled that Judge Hogan > did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion for a PI. Please > remember Hogan is the fella who de-listed the Coho because he thinks the > second coming is at hand at that hatchery fish are the same as wild fish. You're splitting hairs again. Judge hogan denied your request for an injunction based on the fact that your claims have no merit. The 9th circuit found that he used proper discretion in denying your request. I don't know where you came up with that "second coming" BS. You must be a very creative person. First off, Coho NEVER lost their listed status and protection because of Hogan's ruling. Hogan ruled (correctly) that hatchery-born fish are genetically identical to wild-born fish. Because of this, the wording of the ESA requires that hatchery-born fish be analyzed in any determination of the Coho's viability. And rightfully so ... a carefully implemented (emphasis on carefully) hatchery program is an essential component for the further recovery and protection of native salmonid populations. > Anywho, as for the portion of the burn not being logged...great. Are you > suggesting logging the wilderness area? Cause thats in the figure yer > using. Want to log the low severity portions of the burn? Well, thats in > your figure too. That's exactly the point. I haven't heard anyone advocating logging in the wilderness area. On the other hand, preservationists such as yourself are advocating treating matrix and LSR lands as wilderness. > My question for Curious is what about the 2 million plus acres in SW > Oregon that are already fiber farms? Keep in mind that those 2 million acres of "fiber farms" (your words, not mine) that you refer to support a diversity of flora and fauna, including late-successional associated species. > Since you want the public forests to be managed soley for fiber > production (rather than natural plant succession) Did I say that? No. The greatest thing about forestry is that it's the only land use that ALLOWS for the production of a commodity without replacing or significantly modifying pre-settlement plant (and animal) successions. > ... it seems only fair that we should start managing some of > Boise and Swanson's land as wilderness. Turnabout is fair play. Keep in mind that 60% of Oregon's land base is publicly owned. The national Forest System was created in part to provide a source of raw materials for small lumber mills that don't have enough of a land base to support themselves. It was thought that, without such a forest system, forest land in the US would eventually fall under the ownership of only a few private industrial owners. This would lead to a much simplified marketplace for wood products, hurting consumers as well as the environment. Thinktivist> dead trees = future soil & food 31.01.2005 - 17:57 Dead trees are organic matter that becomes the topsoil humus 4 future forest uptake into growing tree roots. The minerals and nutrients locked away in the dead wood tissue are decomposed by a diversity of fauna/fungi and eventually perculate down into the lower soil horizons and are recycled into young living tree tissue.. Interfering in this cycle 4 the purpose of short term gain only effects long term prosperity of the forests. Yeah, many people are living in poverty and the promise of jobs sounds good, but is it worth it at the expense of the future forest health and future generation's jobs.. To me and most other people, the answer is no. To GW Bush/Cheney and their timber corporation CEO henchmen the answer is a deafening YES!! Short term profit of corporations will not solve poverty by providing a seasons worth of jobs and leaving the forest a dustbowl after the removed trees aren't there to decompose into topsoil. The future will see more poverty as only spindly plantation forestry exists or ravaged clay baked clear cuts that lack the character and biodiversity of a healthy, functional forest.. Selective harvest was an idea never put into practice because the short term profit motive didn't think about long term sustainability. Selective harvest takes a few trees at a time, leaving the remaining forest intact. Clear cut logging is cheaper for the corporation but far worse in the long term. Salvage logging is similar to the clear cut, it worsens an already large scale fire destruction by removing the substrate (dead trees) from the sensitive area. After the substrate is removed, recovery for fresh seedlings is even more difficult. Guess your grandchildren won't be able to log either, thank the timber CEOs, the Bush cabal and their ravenous appetite for money.. luna moth> and in regards to that other 96.2% ... 31.01.2005 - 23:43 The Forest Service has PROPOSED harvest on up to 19,465 acres within the Biscuit fire perimeter. This amounts to approximately ... 5.1% of the 383,700 acres burned within the fire perimeter 8.8% of the 220,900 acres burned with greater than 75% canopy mortality Does it really matter whether it's 96.2%, 94.9%?, or 91.2%? Which ever way you may choose to crunch the numbers, it's obvious that most of the Biscuit burn will go untouched. In actuality, the final harvest acreage will be much smaller than that proposed in the FEIS. As for the wilderness area, I would never advocate harvest there. I am advocating that we include wilderness areas in our look at the big picture. You have looked at the big picture, haven't you? Thinktivist> Woody 01.02.2005 - 09:35 Typically a PI is granted if the judge determines a likelihood of the plaintive prevailing on the merits. What does the denial of the injunction tell you about the strength of your argument? You can trash Hogan all you want…the 9th upheld him. We can save Hogan’s Coho discussion for another day, when time allows. In the meantime try and come up with a way other than fin clipping to differentiate between hatchery and native born Coho. Some way that you can scientifically draw a line and say this fish came from a hatchery and this one did not. Let’s be clear, I’m not saying they are or are not, the same but you tell me. How can you tell? The agency isn’t advocating salvage anywhere beyond the 3.8% of the burn area and you know it. Bringing up the specter of logging wilderness areas is a crock. I am saying that with all the congressional set a sides and all other administrative set a sides that is what we are left with. This is what the Forest Service feels they can touch in any manner. 3.8% of 500,000 acres. Twenty Three Thousand people can think the earth is flat. Heck Twenty Three Million people can think the earth is flat. It doesn’t make it so. The comment period of NEPA isn’t an election. The comments are supposed to be weighted by their content not their volume. You might want to work on the quality of your arguments and not the quantity. Comparing the management regime of private timberlands to public lands is comparing apples to oranges. It does nothing to promote the dialog. Your suggestion deserves no more comment than that. The point is that with all the considerations the Agency must take into account, they came up with an area of 3.8% that they felt could be salvaged in a manner that met all laws and was in the best interest of both the environment and the neighboring communities. This sets aside the other Four hundred and eighty thousand acres to come back in whatever way nature determines. 96.2% whether it is wilderness, Matrix, LSR, or whatever that isn’t going to be touched. We’re not fighting over the 96.2%. We’re fighting over that tiny fraction that is slated for active management. For whatever reason you folks can’t accept that, so you distort, distract, disparage, and generally blow things completely out of proportion. The same way your photos shift and limit your field of focus, to show only a narrow view of things, you focus your arguments away from the real issue and generally without any perspective. Three point eight percent needs to be put in perspective and considered as a part of the whole. Curious> curious 01.02.2005 - 21:35 Just curious are we filtering our posts for content. I've made two identicle posts in the last twenty four hours and they seem to have fallen into a black hole. curious> from your IMC editorial collective 02.02.2005 - 12:44 Please understand that sometimes it takes a little while for your posts to show up. There is NO filtering of messages, other than those that are in conflict with our editorial policies. In these instances, posts are "hidden", not deleted or removed from the site. The following is a list of reasons why a post may be "hidden": - Posts the author has requested hidden. - Posts which are obviously incorrect or misleading. This includes attempts to spread dis-information or to impersonate another individual. - Posts that incite violence against members of the community. - Posts which publish identifying information without the individual's knowledge or consent. - Posts which use language, imagery, or other forms of communication whose sole purpose is to promote racism, fascism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, able-ism, ageism or any other form of discrimination. - Persistent nuisance posts to the newswire or comments sections. - Posts that are deemed to be devoid of content or analysis and appear to be published with the sole purpose of disruption. - Posts that are simply internal or personal matters which lead to further conflict. - Verbatim posts of other media without added content - Unreadable formats (ie. photos posted as text). - Posts titled "test." - Duplicate posts. - Advertising of products or for-profit services. - Pornography, excepting sexually explicit satire. We will continue to maintain this site, using the guidelines of our editorial policies and international IMC principles. If this does not fit your idea of what we should be doing, start your own website. And remember, this site is run and maintained exclusively by volunteers. volunteer> Thanks to the Volunteers ... 02.02.2005 - 13:01 ... and thanks for clarifying your posting policy. As for "Posts which publish identifying information without the individual's knowledge or consent," the following post comes to mind:  http://rogueimc.org/en/2004/08/3054.shtml And as for "Posts which are obviously incorrect or misleading. This includes attempts to spread dis-information or to impersonate another individual," there are quite a few posts on this site posted under the handle of 'Mary Smelcer' that would seem to meet this criteria. Criterion> just another observation... 02.02.2005 - 13:42 certainly Moon Muffin, Curious and Thinktivist (are they one and the same?) could be considered meeting this criteria for posts being removed...... - Persistent nuisance posts to the newswire or comments sections. observer> you're joking, right? 02.02.2005 - 15:58 In what way are we a nuisance? Is it because we question your rhetoric? Is it because we promote discussion of these important issues? I put a lot of time and thought into my posts, as appears to be the case with Think and Curious. I don't intend to be a "nuisance." I only intend to present the other side of the argument, so that readers of this website might develope more informed opinions. If you are really so opposed to the free expression of ideas, consider moving to China. Moon Muffin> No Filtering? 02.02.2005 - 17:18 You just edited your own post which included a list of criteria for "hiding" posts, and "hid" all of the posts that were below it? What's the deal? Moon Muffin> Disregard Last Post 02.02.2005 - 17:22 Sorry ... your server must have been having problems again ... made it look like you had just removed a bunch of posts. Seriously, though ... what's the deal the the RIMC site? It's down like 50% of the time. Bad server? Moon Muffin> the big picture 04.02.2005 - 03:19 Both Curious and Thinktivist say 91-96% of the Biscuit fire will remain "untouched" by "active management," and they ask us to look at the big picture. Let's do that. Right after the Biscuit fire, the USFS spent $5 million on Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) projects such as: * Tossing straw bales and barley seed from helicopters over 8,390 acres. * Rehabing road drainage on 213 miles of road (Oregon border to Eugene). * Fallling killer trees along roadsides spanning 82 miles. The number ya'll use deducts timber sale acreage from the total burn area. It falsely implies that BAER and other non-logging activities are not "active management." I get annoyed when people resort to ad hominem rhetoric ("timber corporation CEO henchmen," Hogan is a christian fundamentalist waiting for rapture, etc.). I get pissed when people lie to advance their agenda. Curious may not advocate logging in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness (which did happen), but Curious DOES advocate logging in roadless areas that can be added to the Kalmiopsis whenever Congress chooses. Somebody observed that God is not making any more wilderness. Snag forests in many Biscuit timber sales are contiguous with the Wilderness Area, meaning there is no road between logging units and the wilderness boundary. So, in reality, we are talking about logging wilderness. It is a shame because, as luna moth notes, salvage logging mines the substrate out of forests. Thinktivist's statement about forestry allowing "for the production of a commodity without replacing or significantly modifying pre-settlement plant (and animal) successions," is hard to square with reality. Post-fire tree extraction (forestry) irrevocably alters plant and animal successions because it 1) removes huge amounts of organic matter and long-term soil nutrient sources, 2) suppresses hardwood and shrub regeneration with creation of logging slash and later conifer planting and herbicide treatments, and 3) removes coarse woody habitat of specialist avifauna (eg, Picoides spp.) and their prey (wood boring insects) that colonize severely burned forests. Fire-created snag forests are the rarest of all forest habitats in the Pacific West due to historical fire suppression and post-fire logging. Don't forestry schools teach ecology? big fat LSR Douglas fir> Theology 04.02.2005 - 12:26 I'm late for school, but ... Your argument for not salvaging in any of the "wilderness" (lower-case 'W') adjacent to the Kalmiopsis Wilderness (uper-case 'W') seems to be one of fundamental religion belief rather than of science. You seem to believe that areas which have not been DIRECTLY altered by human activity are sacred, and should never be touched by a human hand. You're more than welcome to have your own ideology, but ideology isn't going to help us solve our environmental problems. Your comments do raise the bigger question of what wilderness really is. We may not actively manage wilderness areas such as the Kalmiopsis, but our actions sure do have an indirect influence on them. For example, our fire supression activities of the last century have inderectly resulted in more intense wildfires due to increased fuel loading. We can choose to make the best of our interaction with the forest through active science-based management, or we can turn a blind eye and suffer the consequences of our indirect effects on the environment. I'm not advocating that we do away with our wilderness areas. I like to spend time away from "the human touch" just as much as the next guy. I am saying that the creation of more wilderness is by no means the best solutions to the environmental problems that we face. Let's not turn our heads and ignore the problem. Let do the right thing and actively participate in ecological processes. Moon Muffin> we always know best 07.02.2005 - 20:23 We cannot separate ourselves from the Earth and choose to participate or not participate in ecological processes. The word 'ecology' literally means the relationships existing between organisms and their environment. So we can't choose to turn our heads or decide to "do the right thing" and actively participate. Our current situation is the result of tens of thousands of years of human-environment interaction. Reciprocity is an interesting concept to chew on. Modern human culture has developed a very imbalanced fabric on the planet. We take a lot - minerals, precious metals, clean air, un-polluted water, oil, gas, plant fiber, wetlands, coral reefs, etc., and we give back landfills and toxic waste (cultural contributions, while interesting, creative and entertaining, don't fit here because we can't eat or drink Broadway or the Super Bowl). The earth can't keep giving clean, healthy resources at our current rate consumption (even with half-hearted attempts and great greenwashing PR campaigns). We are pumping emissions into the atmosphere that may ultimately kill us (and take many others along for the ride), we are sucking fresh water sources dry with abuse of use and distribution, and we are still basing forestry practices on profit models rather than long-term sustainability. We thought DDT was the cure-all insecticide. We thought nuclear capability was the cat's meow until we realized its true costs. Decades ago, we thought suppressing fires was the absolute best thing to do for people and the forest. Now we see differently. But profit models still drive management, and what was once considered a reserve for old-growth (reserve=to save) is now 'fair' game for a quick fix to a much deeper problem. sam> "active management" 07.02.2005 - 22:19 Exactly true, Moon Muffin, capital-W Wilderness Areas are NOT "hands off" zones untouched by people. The government routinely suppresses fire, often with mechanized tools and equipment. So let's get past the false dichotomy of "active management" versus "no management." It doesn't exist. There certainly is ground for more fire use (management-ignited Rx and naturally-ignited wildland fire) in both Wilderness Areas and little-w wilderness areas to restore suppressed biomass decomposition processes and reduce landscape-scale fire hazards. I believe that is a core purpose of the FMZ (fire management zone) proposals in the Biscuit Project Records of Decision. "Active management" can mean lots of things besides mining old-growth snags out of the forest, many of which ideological cranks like myself can get behind. big fat Doug fir> Censored Posts 09.02.2005 - 12:27 I logged onto this thread last night to find a post from "Tick Bob" that literally had me doubled over in laughter. "Bob" had some good points to make as well. When I logged on this morning, it had been removed. Why was this post removed? Why is it that you don't censor sarcastic and name-calling posts from George Sexton and friends, but you censor Tick Bob? Censorship adds nothing to the dialogue. Tick Bob: If you're reading this, please repost! Moon Muffin> explanation from editorial collective 09.02.2005 - 13:18 straight from our editorial policy.....describing reasons why the editorial collective can hide posts..... - Posts that are deemed to be devoid of content or analysis and appear to be published with the sole purpose of disruption. remember, this site is run and maintained by volunteers. we are not responsible to please each and every reader. we retain the right to interpret our policies. if you don't like it, start your own damn website. volunteer> Censorship is Censorship 09.02.2005 - 14:43 Posters to this site have called me all sorts of names. They have chided my remarks, and they have attacked my character. In spite of all this, I have yet to see a single anti-management post censored. Tick Bob, on the other hand, refers to one of these anti-management folk as "Sponge Bob", and his post is removed within 24 hours. If you truly think that Tick Bob's post is "devoid of content or analysis," then why don't you leave it up on this forum so that the readers can decide for themselves? Moon Muffin>