Forest Service Dismantles Blockade at Hobson Salvage Sale

imc volunteer, 18.07.2005 21:22

Reports from the field indicate that Forest Service law enforcement officers, with the help of a logging crew, dismantled the road blockade in the Hobson old growth reserve timber sale in the Biscuit Fire area on Sunday. One arrest was made.

Using bulldozers and skidders, the log cabin structure was pushed out of the way, clearing access for logging crews set to begin this week. Activists remain in the area, supporting a tree-sit in one of the units.

Stay tuned for further updates.

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 >>

A quick look 19.07.2005 - 09:17 and I can find nothing in the Forest Plan regarding no touch "old Growth reserves" as in the Hobson old growth reserve. Is that a land allocation or are we making it up as we go? Curious> Late Successional Reserves 19.07.2005 - 10:54 Northwest Forest Plan C-9: "The objective of Late-Successional Reserves is to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for late-successional and old-growth related species including the northern spotted owl." C-13: "Tree mortality is a natural process in a forest ecosystem. Diseased and damaged trees are key structural components of late-successional forests. Accordingly, management planning for Late-Successional Reserves must acknowledge the considerable value of retaining dead and dying trees in the forest as well as any benefits from salvage activites." But enough of actual quotes, as if Mooney is interested in what the Forest Plan says. Lets have some fun. For the kids! Spare that Snag...Check it out: www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/animalinn/goodtree.htm Coho> Yes, AND ... 19.07.2005 - 11:45 A couple quotes from the NW Forest Plan S&G's (Standards and Guidelines) regarding LSR's in the Klamath Mountains: "East of the Cascades and in the Oregon and California Klamath Provinces - Given the increased risk of fire in these areas due to lower moisture conditions and the rapid accumulation of fuels in the aftermath of insect outbreaks and drought, additional management activities are allowed in Late-Successional Reserves." "Salvage activities should focus on the reduction of catastrophic insect, disease, and fire threats. Treatments should be designed to provide effective fuel breaks wherever possible. However, the scale of salvage and other treatments should not generally result in degeneration of currently suitable owl habitat or other late successional conditions." Yes, the Biscuit is in full compliance with the NWFP. And, as we all know, multiple courts have already confirmed this. The argument that the Biscuit project is inconsistent with the guidelines for managing LSR's is getting really old. I guess some people's ideology just won't allow them to give up on an obviously flawed argument. Salmonid> what court case 19.07.2005 - 13:09 Can you site a final (i.e. Appeals) court ruling that said "the logging in LSRs is legal"? My understanding is only that the injunction against logging wasn't renewed, and that the verdict was still out so to speak. me> Clear-cut LSR's 19.07.2005 - 14:26 In the Mt. Hood National Forest, a lot of LSR's were clear cut before designation. I was shocked to learn this. But the deForest Circus's logic was that they would never cut this area hereafter. So with clearcut LSR's needing hundreds of years to reach a potential that can serve the spotted owl and other creatures, and now commercial logging in these LSR's, what will we have left in these reserves? A question, given the ultramafic soils of the Siskiyuou's, can the LSR's once harvested ever return to an old growth forest? How important are the dead trees to the eventual recovery of an old growth forest? DAvid> Pay attention 19.07.2005 - 15:17 if you are going to make fun of the person making the post at least make fun of the right one. Your post..."protect and enhance" especially enhance allows/calls for/dictates management activities. Salvage can be used. Further And again your quote..."considerable value of retaining dead and dying....as well as salvage." No dissagreement on either here. Deja vu all over again...(see repeated postings over the last couple of years on this one) As there has been no final ruling, and this is beautiful in its simplicity, I cannot site a final ruling. I guess that is why I'm "Curious" as to why folks are ranting and raving that it is breaking the law. There have been laws broken, many, but not by the land mgrs or purchasers, but by the anti management folks. I do know that TRO's (a temporary order to halt activity) are granted on the basis of the likelyhood of prevailing on the merits of the case. As there have been no TRO's granted other than the one regarding the minor one regarding tree marking, which has been lifted, then there seems to be no merit and certainly no basis to call these sales contrary to the law. Look up HYPERBOLE in your Websters. CURIOUS> Breakin' The Law 19.07.2005 - 16:18 As much as I like breakin' the law, I'm an amature compared to the Forest Service. Q: Where did the Forest Plan come from? A: Deal brokered to get the USFS out from under the ESA (after willfully violating it for years). Now the Plan is toothless 'cuz LSRs in a fire dependant ecosystem are being logged. Q: Where did the survey and manage injunctions come from? A: USFS refused to do Northwest Forest Plan old-growth surveys until sued. Now the USFS has simply done away with pre-disturbance surveys. Q: How about the Rothstein injunctions? USFS refused to follow the aquatic conservation strategy. Lost in Court. Rewrote the rules. Q: Kalmiopsis Wilderness Logging? A: USFS marked trees IN the Wilderness. Silver Creek Timber Co. logged em. Q: Tree Marking? USFS wanted the loggers to choose the leave trees. Even Hogan said no. 4 strikes and yer out. Judas Priest> No Harm, No Foul 19.07.2005 - 18:14 Q: Where did the Forest Plan come from? Myth: Deal brokered to get the USFS out from under the ESA (after willfully violating it for years). Now the Plan is toothless 'cuz LSRs in a fire dependant ecosystem are being logged. Reality: The NWFP is very much a UNDER the ESA. Owl cores, late successional reserves, seasonal harvest restrictions, etc ... these are all parts of the NWFP that were developed to meet specific requirements of the ESA. Also, LSR's were never intented to be exempt from harvest. From the NWFP Surveys and Guidelines: "East of the Cascades and in the Oregon and California Klamath Provinces - Given the increased risk of fire in these areas due to lower moisture conditions and the rapid accumulation of fuels in the aftermath of insect outbreaks and drought, additional management activities are allowed in Late-Successional Reserves." "Salvage activities should focus on the reduction of catastrophic insect, disease, and fire threats. Treatments should be designed to provide effective fuel breaks wherever possible. However, the scale of salvage and other treatments should not generally result in degeneration of currently suitable owl habitat or other late-successional conditions." Q: Where did the survey and manage injunctions come from? Myth: USFS refused to do Northwest Forest Plan old-growth surveys until sued. Now the USFS has simply done away with pre-disturbance surveys. Reality: The FS wasted millions doing surveys. The NWFP was never intended to be a "fine filter" for individual members of larger populations, but was instead supposed to protect whole populations by managing large chunks of land as late-successional forests. S&M wasn't part of the NWFP as originally worded, but was added later to give you guys something to sue over (and sue you did). The framers of the NWFP (including Thompson whom you so readily quote) supported the removal of Survey & Manage. Q: How about the Rothstein injunctions? Myth: USFS refused to follow the aquatic conservation strategy. Lost in Court. Rewrote the rules. Reality: A sentence in the Aquatic Conservation Strategy was vague as to the spatial scale upon which disturbances should be measured. It needed to be clarified. The scientists who drafted the NWFP (including Thompson) supported the change. Q: Kalmiopsis Wilderness Logging? A: USFS marked trees IN the Wilderness. Silver Creek Timber Co. logged em. Reality: Good answer. It's unfortunate that this happened. You did forget to mention, though, that Silver Creek payed a huge fine. People were fired. The only people that benefited from this even are those people that are running the smear campaign against the timber industry and the FS. Q: Tree Marking? A: USFS wanted the loggers to choose the leave trees. Even Hogan said no. Reality: Yes. And Hogan blocked all logging untill the FS went out and marked the trees themselves, which they did. Problem solved. Thinktivist> Welcome back 19.07.2005 - 21:24 Think! Curious> a different story 20.07.2005 - 14:18 These very relevant excerpts from an interview with Dr. Jerry Franklin can be found at  http://certificationwatch.org/article.php3?id_article=3559&recalcul=oui#Part2 From your perspective, what are the highest priority locations for forest biodiversity conservation in the United States? What do you think about the challenge of biodiversity conservation on private lands, particularly in the Southeastern US? Another really important challenge, especially on the public lands at this point, is to change attitudes with regards to salvage logging - salvage of burned areas, salvage of areas that have undergone some kind of major disturbance. Salvage logging seems to be the last refuge of old forestry thinking, “Well, the trees are dead, the stand is dead. Now we can just go in and take all that wood.” I think there’s still not adequate appreciation that this has tremendous negative impacts on ecological recovery. Are you concerned about what’s going on with the US Forest Service in Oregon right now? Jerry Franklin: I’m very concerned about what’s going on in the Pacific Northwest with regards to salvage. I worry tremendously that the Forest Service, which has really in the last decade undergone a significant rebirth and re-establishment of the stewardship perspective, is putting that perception of an advanced perspective on stewardship at risk. They may be perceived as sliding back into the same old economically-driven timber orientation, only with dead trees instead of live ones. What would be your recommendations to the US Forest Service? Jerry Franklin: My recommendation would be that they need to very carefully assess salvage in the context of their land use objectives. Particularly where they’re dealing with land allocations that are focused on ecological objectives, they probably need to back off from traditional salvage, and possibly traditional reforestation practices. David> Don't Forget to Quote Jerry 20.07.2005 - 15:12 "Now we can just go in and take all that wood." -J. Franklin Who is taking all the wood, Jerry? Certainly not the Forest Service! They have slated only 4% of the burn area for salvage, and have reserved a more than ample number of large leave snags within the cut units. In reality, much less that 4% of the burn area will be harvested. And he says that the Biscuit is economically driven? Give me a friggin' break, dude. If it were economically driven, ALL of those snags would have gone to the mill LONG ago. The Biscuit project is ENVIRONMENTALLY and RESTORATION driven. Of course, economics is a big part of solving environmental problems. If you don't have the money, you just can't do the expensive restoration. Salvage on the Biscuit will: 1) Reduce the risk of catastrophic fire in the future. 2) Pay for restoration activites. 3) Stimulate the local economy. If J. Franklin wants to be vocal about his ideology, that is fine. We all know how he feels about the timber industry and commercial management. But please, let's try to differentiate between the ideology and the science. "You really cannot specialize the work of conservation. You cannot save the land apart from the people or the people apart from the land. To save either, you must save both ... To save both the land and the people, you need a strong rural economy" - Wendell Berry Thinktivist> The old day's 20.07.2005 - 18:42 - O - what happend to the old day's back when Earth first first ment some thing , well those were the old day's , just drive along 101 through Oregon Look out your window no matter left or right and what do you see , yep thats it nothing , I was say out of Gold Beach going north I look out my driver side window and saw nothing but clear cut's , so I decided to stop and take a little hike just a few min- in And to the west far as my eye could see ... it was all gone nothing right from the road just nothing as I stood there I ask my self what is really being done of course besides the tree's being cut down ... as far as I could see so very sad so little so late . So I got back in my ( oil driven ) car put some Nick Drake on the tape player and sadly whent down the raod trying not to look but forward ... thinking about when we back in the day did what it took and then some what ever that means ? . So long old friends back in the day> Uhhh, It's Called the Ocean 20.07.2005 - 19:34 "I was say out of Gold Beach going north I look out my driver side window and saw nothing but clear cut's" Going north, looking out the driver's side window, you say? Hmmmm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you may have been looking at was something that we Oregonians call "the ocean". The Pacific Ocean to be precise. It might not look like much, but it's teaming with life. Really. Check it out sometime. Thinktivist>