Forest Service Wrongfully Logs Botanical Reserve
Rolf Skar, 24.08.2005 21:40
Parts of the Babyfoot Lake Botanical Area, a protected reserve in southwestern Oregon's Siskiyou National Forest, have been discovered logged. The violation occurred as part of the Fiddler Old-Growth Reserve logging sale, which the Forest Service closed to the public for months in an attempt to squelch the protests and controversy that surrounded the logging.
The Babyfoot Lake Botanical Area was established by the Forest Service in 1963 to protect Brewer spruce (Picea breweriana), a rare, ancient conifer tree that have existed in the area since before the last Ice Age. Brewer's spruce are among the rarest conifers in North America, and were the last to be discovered and described by western science on the continent. The Babyfoot Lake Botanical Area was also created to protect other sensitive endemic plants such as the Tracy's desert parsley (Lupinus tracyi) and Purdy's Lewisia (Lewisia cotyledon ssp. purdyi). Botanists come from around the world to visit the Botanical Area.
The logging was discovered by long-time southern Oregon resident Barbara Ullian, after the Fiddler timber sale was opened to the public on August 1st. "I've been coming to the Babyfoot area for decades and have met people from half way around the world there," states Ullian. "The clearcuts in the Fiddler timber sale are bad enough without finding the Babyfoot Lake Botanical Area logged also."
The Siskiyou Project estimates that about fifteen to seventeen acres of the small, fragile high elevation Botanical Area has been heavily impacted by clearcut logging, road and landing construction and piling of logging debris. The Forest Service stated in writing that there would be no Biscuit project logging in Botanical Areas.
"There is no excuse for this kind of abuse," said Rolf Skar, campaign director of the Cave Junction based Siskiyou Project. "The cause of this violation can only be either gross incompetence or callousness - and neither is acceptable. This sort of logging free-for-all shows why the government needs more public oversight and accountability, not less."
"The Babyfoot Lake Botanical Area is loved by local folks and is important to our growing tourism economy" said Greg Walter, a local historian and tourism advocate. "This violation has damaged a very special place and damaged the government's relationship with locals. It just breeds distrust."
The Forest Service has admitted that this logging was "a serious error."
More information about Babyfoot Lake Botanical Area logging and photos can be found at:
http://www.siskiyou.org/swrc/timbersales/babyfoot.cfm
| 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 >> |
|
Gee, 25.08.2005 - 08:24 The biggest stump I see in that picture still has a tree attached to it! This doesn't really support the notion that those evil loggers are cutting ALL of the snags. I guess you "activists" will have to frame your shots more carefully next time. Thinktivist> Questions? 25.08.2005 - 14:22 Now I wouldn't be considered an expert by most on this site, but I would like to know the survival rate of the brewer's in this area, since they are a thin barked spruce and generally are very prone to fire mortality. In fact there has been some thought that the main reason they are rare is the fact that they generally live in a region prone to fires. Many say they only grow in the SisQ and Klamath, but I can show you quite a few in the Cascades near Baily and Crater. I would also like to know what the fire resiliency of the desert parsley and lewisia is? Is the concern that part of the botanical area was actually damaged or is it just the fact that there was logging in the area? What was the real resource damage? Could the whole thing been avoided if there had been agressive fire suppression in the first place? How abour an intelligent discussion about the facts leading up to the act instead of a non-stop resonation of whinning after the fact. Chane Sau> Former Forest Supervisor Re: Babyfoot 25.08.2005 - 14:23 Jack Williams, who supervised the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest from 1999 to 2001- says it wasn't just an intrusion by loggers that troubled him. It was an especially poor form of logging, he said. The loggers tore up the forest floor, and the rains will run off instead of staying in the spongy forest soil for plant use. The loggers left slash piles with large chunks of raw wood alongside the road, he said. "When you start at the trail head for the botanical area, you're in the middle of what looks like a clear-cut from the 1970s," he said. It's likely the forest will have a tougher time recovering from the salvage logging than from the fire that swept through three years ago, he said. Botanist> Quick to decide, slow to learn 25.08.2005 - 14:35 Now I don't want to be critical here, but Botonist you should get the facts in line. Aren't the slash piles of "raw" wood to be burnt this fall? The poor logging? Can you tell me what the PSI of the equipment was that has caused the ground to be compacted so the the rains will runs off instead of soaking in until they reach saturation, which then causes run off? And will this run off be more then was caused by the conglomeration of the soil during the fire? Generally the slash on the ground acts as check dams for the surface flow especially when compared to the surface flow when the ground has been burned over. Keep in mind you should always plow before you plant! Chane Sau> so many smucks so little time 25.08.2005 - 14:55 HA HA HA HA, YOU right wingers are pathetic getting paid to spam the IMC. I am laughing at you right now hahahahahaha. We won you lost, ha ha. You can write your dumbass replies to everything but it doen's cover up the fact that your strategies all fail. Did ya see the news stories today, they are all speaking to you right now dumbass. Truth is we don't give a fuck what you sat, we can see right through you sucker. ha ha ha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha laughing at you right now!> Thanks 25.08.2005 - 16:47 The thing about "laughing......"is that with people like that it's no wonder that a logging company up in Myrtle Creek and the Sheriff are getting restitution for similar attitudes.(the last laugh is always the best)As for right winger???? I doubt that many of my beliefs would be considered to the right. All that is on the radio is a quick blitz by the media to capitilize on a insignificant moment, which will pass oh so quickly. As for the IMC... Is there a problem with opposing view points? or is it only when it opposes your view? Jump quick the sky is falling.... Chane Sau> Jack Williams 25.08.2005 - 17:15 Is that the same no good two bit SOB (your discriptions) that you wanted to run out of town on a rail when China Left was hitting the ground? Is he really that proffessional that he would say " we did a lot better job when I was in charge"? Lets just stab your ex co workers in the back why dont we? Thats my idea of somebody who's opinion I'd really value. he gets no opinion in my book. Hit the road Jack. Curious> No 26.08.2005 - 08:09 No. Jack Williams was not around during China Left. Please use facts, not fiction when trying to make your point. P. Robertson> Thanks 26.08.2005 - 08:10 Thanks for this excellent coverage on this sad disaster. Weird Scenes> No 26.08.2005 - 08:11 Jack Williams was not Supervisor during China Left. Please use facts, rather than fiction, to make your point. P Robertson> Concerned 26.08.2005 - 08:25 I am very concerned about the right wing bloggers. They seem to be getting more and more out of touch with reality. I can picture them twiching in front of the computer screen right now. The world as they know it - the fantasy of the "logging cure" is crumbling before thier very eyes. I hope you seek help before you do yourselves any harm. Dr. Ranger> My favorite troll 26.08.2005 - 09:03 When this story first popped up in another thread, our favorite logging appologist actually tried to blame the illegal mark at Babyfoot on the Green Bridge Protesters. Seriously. The brave anonomous hippie-hater contended that the USFS was soooo shaken by grandmas on the bridge that they couldn't read maps. Great story. But fictional. The illegal mark at Babyfoot occured long before the Bridge Protests. As did the illegal mark in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness that was also logging by John West last year. Indeed, the FS wouldn't have bothered to mark AT ALL if Judge Hogan (!?!?!) hadn't found them to be violating the law by attempting to allow the loggers to mark the sales for themselves. Spare that snag- Botanist> I stand corrected 26.08.2005 - 10:38 Jack wasn't around for the sale I mentioned. I made a mistake and I admit it. Bad information does nothing to further the conversation and I have been very criticle of that sort of behavior intentional or not in the past and will continue to do so in the future. That said... it is very unproffesional to come back and say "we would have done it better when I was in charge". It sounds alot like sour grapes. Why didn't he stick around if he was so concerned about how things were done? Curious> My polotics 26.08.2005 - 10:59 have not been mentioned by me. I am pro mgt. but am no sense a "right wing hippie hater". I dissagree with your simple minded no touch lack of vision regarding foresty. I have no idea whether any of you were a child of the sixties or not. As our number one goal then was to promote a tolerance of differing ideas my guess is very few of you are. Curious > I like wine 26.08.2005 - 11:02 Jack would have done it better. He never pursued the same reckless logging that Conroy does. Jack put out timber sales that I did not like, but he was not advocating for clearcutting, logging ancient forest or other nefarious deeds. He left, becuase the Bushies were pushing him to do things that he did not feel comfortable with - much like the kind of logging that the pro-clearcut bloggers on this site advocate for. It does not matter what he thinks. What matters is, left to thier own devices, the pro-logging monied interests and thier allies will turn all public lands into logging farms if the good people of this great country don't stand up and protect these public treasures. P. Robertson> Dealing with grief 26.08.2005 - 13:45 I am a hippie from the sixties, a tree hugger, and a professional, credentialed forest scientist with decades of experience in SW Oregon forests. I am also a Republican. I am not affiliated with any timber interests. So you political types can try to sort that out. The Biscuit fire destroyed a forest that was historical. The signs of human habitation, human use, and human impact were evident to those who understand, and who look for such in our forests. The former Kalmiopsis Forest was ancient, sacred, and a priceless treasure of history. Now it is a ravaged landscape, set back to early successional conditions at best, or permanent fire-type brush at worst. The historical evidence and connections have been annihilated. The loss is horrendous and unfathomable. Regardless of political affiliation or exigencies, every American suffered a grievous tragedy and loss when the Kalmiopsis Forest was destroyed. Yet there has never been a memorial service. There is no monument, or plans to erect one. There are no museums with pictures and evidence of our shared heritage, now destroyed. There has been no public grieving process that might allow for healing of human beings. I submit to you all that the angry give-and-takes on this site are signs of the absence of a public grieving process. Until the wiser among us recognize that fact, and instigate such a process, there will be no healing. Our future will be bitterness, acrimony, accusations, and anger unless and until our shared grief is given its necessary due. Older and wiser> Grief 26.08.2005 - 14:01 I appreciate older and wiser's thoughts. A lot of us are going through a lot of grief lately. But I think our grief comes from a different place than does the grief of the professional forester. Our grief comes not from fire, which has been excluded from this landscape for far too long, but from the decisions to turn late-successional reserves, botanical areas, and even wilderness into plantations, and from the decisions to arrest and intimidate those who would try to protect naturally recovering LSRs. And most of all, many people are grieving the loss of Joan Norman, who was so inspirational to so many. Many of us are finding solidarity and strength in our grief, and attempting to turn our grief, and anger, into strong resistance to the Forest Service's policy of continued fire exclusion (in a fire evolved landscape), inevitable salvage logging (regardless of the underlying land use allocation) while continually logging green old-growth forests in the matrix. My anger is a gift- young whippersnapper> Some one I respect 26.08.2005 - 14:32 and who was older and wiser than I, once described fire in SW Oregon as being like a pair of snakes. If the first one doesn't get you the second one will. Now there in lies the fundamental difference between pro and anti mgt folks. We believe in reburn. They don't or don't want to. We believe that if we are are to avoid the brush patch scenario we need to remove some (SOME) of the full load. It isn't about being a lackey or worshipping the all mighty dollar. It's about whether or not you think reburn is real. We share your grief. We just feel an urgency to avoid the second phase of the complete destruction of this forest. Curious> No that isn't right 26.08.2005 - 14:58 The fight for Biscuit is over. It's too late. There has been no attempt, in any real sense, to remove any significant fuel load. I believe in my heart (yes I have one) that what was prevented was wrong but I truely hope, that for the our children, I am wrong. I fear that I'm not and what is brown will burn again consuming the soil and what little is green will become brown. The inmates truely are in charge... Curious> Together 26.08.2005 - 15:15 Kubler-Ross described the grief process as denial, anger (blame), bargaining, depression, and finally acceptance. But it is not a process one can navigate alone. We are a family, like it or not. The future will be bleak and filled with strife until we acknowledge each other’s grief, and our intimate ties to one another. It’s not easy. It’s not instant. It does not solve the problems of the future. But it is necessary to get us, each one of us, out of this hole we are in. The responsibility lies with each one of us individually, yet the process must be communal. We are not going to get there soon, but if we begin to move in that direction, we will get there eventually. The first step is to reach out with brotherhood. Quell the anger and threats, for now, if you can. Reach out. We are all human. We are all in this together. I hear you. I feel your pain. I share your pain. I care for you, despite your petulance. We can work the human part out. We must. Older and wiser> Reburn 26.08.2005 - 15:37 Both the Biscuit and the Timbered Rock EIS's are explicit that (in the opinion of the agency) the logging of large-diamter snags will not reduce the risk of reburn and that the purpose and need for the salvage logging was purely economic. Hence the sales were drawn up to meet economic, rather than fire behavior objectives. Thems the facts Curious- Botanist> Rip em a new one 26.08.2005 - 18:13 Way to rip, Botanist. Nice zinger. I like the way you personalized it, too. You the Man! Inflict as much pain as you can. That's the way to win. Don't settle for anything else than total victory. Mow everybody who disagrees with you down. Show your hatred and anger to the world. To Hell with the Economy. What is important is that the old forest is gone, and you proudly don't give a damn. Older and wiser> Grief will continue, thanks to both sides 26.08.2005 - 18:58 Since the chance to harvest the smaller dead trees has come and gone, the damage and grief WILL continue on into future generations. Selfishness on both sides will reap what they have sown. Add to that, continuing dieback from bark beetle "brood trees" and you have a slow motion disaster that people will look back on and wonder why science couldn't protect the forest from short-sighted people only caring about their own flawed views. Yes, I do see that the Forest Service had their hands tied from political meddling. Yes, I see that science has been ignored and damage is being done to the forest. AND, yes, we do need to finish grieving and move on with restoring the forest back as well as we can, learning from our mistakes instead of repeating them. Hotfeet>  Homepage:: http://www.foreststewardsguild.org
A Call for a Memorial Service 26.08.2005 - 21:24 One way people have traditionally dealt with our mutual grief is through ceremony and ritual. This may seem old-fashioned in our post-modern era, but it still works. When tragedies strike, especially large-scale tragedies, communities gather together for joint mourning. We have seen community ceremony often in our lifetimes: following 9/11, upon the death of a former president or Pope, on Memorial Day, and on many other sad occasions. Ceremony provides for mutual expression of loss, of remembrance and appreciation, and of a renewed sense of community, Eulogies, somber music, communal prayer, and expressions of mutual goodwill help all of us to deal with deep feelings that are uniquely personal and yet commonly shared. I propose that such a ceremony be held to memorialize our lost forest. I propose that each reader of this site resolve to make such a ceremony happen. If each of you would approach your elected and appointed officials, and ask them personally to help plan and hold a Memorial Ceremony for the Kalmiopsis Forest, the symphony of voices will be compelling. Be polite. Be sincere. Ask that such a ceremony be communal, public, inclusive, respectful, and free of rancor. There will be plenty of opportunity afterwards to debate the future. This should be one opportunity to set aside differences, albeit temporarily, in mutual expressions of condolence. If each of you assumes some small measure of responsibility, then it will happen. I beg you to accept this individual mission, undertaken by each of you separately, with love in your hearts. Together we can accomplish this small but important step towards healing. Older and wiser> Dance in ashes and raise heck 26.08.2005 - 22:26 Older may be wiser, and I share his/her grief over the backburns that nuked the Upper Chetco and Illinois tribs. Too bad the same thing happened above the Rogue in the last couple weeks. been there> Botantist & Reburn 27.08.2005 - 10:47 Wiser, What was it about Botanist pointing out that the salvage sales in old-growth reserves were not designed to prevent reburn that strikes you as so aggressive and hateful? Please clarify. Also, what is your advice for younger folks (like myself) who sincerely believe that high severity fire is a crucial part of forest ecology and that the Forest Service used the Biscuit Fire as a political football in order to log formerly protected old-growth reserves (and botantical areas and the Wilderness)? Many forest-loving people legitimately beleive that they've been cut of the planning process for their federal forests by an agency that seems tone deaf to public desires for protection of roadless areas and late successional reserves. "Tell them to come with fire in their bellies." -Joan Norman Snag Hugger> A different perspective 27.08.2005 - 14:25 I hope the excellent article below that was just recently published in the Missoulian helps to clarify what we are learning about post-fire forests and some ways that we can think about them ( http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2005/08/11/outdoors/od01.txt). Honestly, scientifically the breakthrough is complete. We know logging in post-fire ecosystems is far more damaging than green-tree logging.
PS. The logging in the botanical area (as it was in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness) is so avoidable that it hints to the way that the F.S. and logging companies are rushing, to the point of not being sure of basic things. Then consider how much the prefeffed alternative propsed to log and you get a sense of the breakdown between people in D.C. who want forests logged, and those on the ground that understand the limitations and time needed to carry out professional forestry with care. The Forest Service personnel who make false promises are particularly responsible. The best description I've heard was from the lady that discovered the screw up. She said she felt sick to her stomach. Now that I can relate too. Birds in the black: Through following avian wildlife, a UM scientist has discovered that burned forests play a critical role in the health and diversity of the Western landscape By MICHAEL JAMISON of the Missoulian University of Montana professor of ornithology and research scientist Richard Hutto began studying fire's effect on birds soon after the 1988 fires blackened thousands of acres in Montana and Yellowstone National Park. Of particular interest was the black-backed woodpecker's reliance on hotly burned forests. Photographed by MICHAEL GALLACHER of the Missoulian WEST GLACIER - Back in the summer of 1988, when research scientist Richard Hutto started asking questions about the possible benefits of wildfires, the time wasn't exactly ripe for a reasoned discussion. Yellowstone National Park was going up in smoke, national forests looked like war zones, and the public was clamoring for more wildland firefighters, more firefighting dollars and more protection from blazes. Headlines nationwide screamed out adjectives such as "torched," "blackened" and "destroyed." "What I wanted to know," Hutto said, "was what in the world is a burned forest worth? Is there any value at all in all that destruction?" With support from the National Geographic Society, Hutto set off on his search for answers, a search that would follow the unlikely path of the black-backed woodpecker. After visiting some three dozen sites burned in 1988, "one of the most interesting things that popped up right away was the fact that there was a whole lot of life out there," he said. "It wasn't the biological desert we were told it would be." Hutto, like most of America, "was raised to believe all fires are bad." The problem, he said, is that science and society never made the distinction between a fire that claims lives and property and a fire that burns across the West's wild landscapes. "We use the same language for both," he said, and generally it's the language of the negative - fire as foe, not friend. But it didn't take long for Hutto to find 100 separate species booming the year after the burn. Surprisingly, many of those were found only in severely burned forests - the blacker the better. He focused his work on black-backed woodpeckers, birds that seemed to flock to fire like moths to the flame. "I'd never seen them anywhere else, essentially," said Hutto, a professor of fire ecology and ornithology at the University of Montana. And so for the next 15 years, he tracked the birds through forests - and through the scientific literature. He pored over studies of vegetation types, looking for lists of birds that appeared frequently in certain sorts of habitats. In all, he found 15 avian species that seemed to prefer recent burns to all other forest types. But again, the most extreme was the black-backed woodpecker, "which actually seemed to require burned areas," Hutto said. All the studies were anecdotal, though. What he needed was hard evidence. For a decade and then some, Hutto helped craft and conduct systematic bird surveys on Forest Service lands, "in every kind of vegetative type out there." The results supported his suspicions: Black-backed woodpeckers only gather in substantial numbers in areas hit hard by wildfire. The next step, he said, was to figure out what sort of burn the birds need. He considered what sort of forest was on the ground before the burn, computed the severity of the fire, crunched data on whether the land was logged or left to nature after the burn. Again, he was surprised. "We found the severity issue is really interesting," Hutto said. "Severity is a big, big deal. A fire is not a fire is not a fire. There are species that are very particular about what kind of fire they like." Western tanagers, for instance, thrive in low-severity fires. Juncos prefer medium-severity burns. Black-backed woodpeckers, mountain bluebirds and olive-sided flycatchers like their forests well done. And the woodpeckers generally prefer thick-barked trees, ponderosa pine and Douglas fir, trees that withstand all but the hottest fires. Perhaps not surprisingly, the species that really like severely burned forests tend to be species that are tough to find, species whose populations are not what you'd call robust. Hutto suspects that might have something to do with national wildfire policy, beginning with the big burns of 1910. Some three million acres went up in smoke that year throughout Montana and Idaho, prompting an aggressive firefighting policy aimed at snuffing every blaze. Species that for millennia had evolved with fire, were actually dependent upon fire, did not fare so well under the post-1910 policy, Hutto suspects. It's tough enough to live in a narrow niche. It's even tougher when forest management eliminates that niche. It wasn't until about the time that Hutto first started asking questions about fire and ecology that the scientific community was willing to give fire its due. It was, they concluded, a natural force that could be used as a tool for managing forests on the landscape level. In 1983, the first fire was quietly left to burn in the Bob Marshall Wilderness, a lightning strike that grew finally to 230 acres. "It was a huge moment for people who had been taught for decades that all fires are bad and should be put out immediately," Dale Luhman told the Missoulian last year. Luhman is resource assistant for the Forest Service. "But it came as part of a professional recognition that sometimes fire is good, that it's a necessary and natural process in healthy forests." Most folk know about lodgepole pine and their serotinous cones that open only under the heat of wildfire. But beyond the lodgepole, almost all Western landscapes are fire-adapted to some degree, from the soil beneath to the plants and animals above. Western larch, for instance, hate the shade. They need a fire to create a clearing, and then they have about three to five years to take root before the window of opportunity is shaded over by competitors. Fire is also critical for red-stemmed ceanothus, a plant whose seeds can lay dormant for centuries while waiting for the flames. It's a favorite of deer and elk and moose, popular big-game species that gobble it down like so much leafy ice cream. Spirea loves fire, as does fireweed and arnica and dragontail mint and pine grass. Bicknell's geranium, like ceanothus, only appears in burns. Then there's the mysterious boreal toad, which some scientists believe might be another in the growing list of known fire-dependent species. Turns out, the toads like to bask in the sun and tend to produce bumper crops of tadpoles once the canopy is burned away. Researchers studying the toads think that fire suppression might be a major cause of the toad's decline in recent decades. It is an argument not lost on Hutto, who believes his woodpeckers and other species might be few and far between in part because their blackened habitat has been greatly diminished by way of fire suppression. For the black-backed woodpecker, Hutto figures it all comes down to beetles, particularly beetles that specialize in burned areas. "Their biology is amazing," he said. Some bugs have infrared detectors built into their thorax, detecting the heat of a wildfire from 100 miles away. Others have antennae that can sniff out smoke. "They evolved that way because fire has been a natural part of the process for so long," he said. "The world is built around these big fires. The diversity of life needs wildfire." The beetles generally move into trees killed or weakened by the blaze, and the birds move in to eat the beetles. Some bugs, like some birds, prefer low-intensity fires. Others want a more charred wood. It means all the fire types are important, Hutto said, including the red-hot, high-intensity burns that run fast across the forest, scorching everything in their path. "The birds," he said, "that's just scratching the surface. If the public knew how special these burned areas are, our perception might change. We might change the way we think about fire." Hutto's been convinced by the "big mixed flocks of woodpeckers you see in the winter. You only see that after a fire. We still have no idea how important these areas are for supporting the wintering population." He figures they're migrating to the wildland fires even as the flames create their future habitat, drawn by the towering columns of smoke that can spiral 30,000 feet into the sky. They work the bugs for a few years, until another smoke column appears on the horizon, following the flames like so many morel mushroom pickers. To help pin down where they live when fire is absent, other scientists are sampling blood from black-backed woodpeckers, hoping to map the birds' genetic distribution by way of DNA analysis. "We know they're semi-nomadic, in a sense," Hutto said, "but we don't really know how far they range or how much overlap there is between populations." The more he understands the woodpeckers, he said, the more science will understand the role of fire. His woodpeckers are a tool, he said, a way to tease out the mysteries of habitat and life cycles. Hutto hopes the answers to his questions might someday inform the way we log burned areas after a fire - the way we value a burned landscape. It is no less fragile a habitat type than is a wetland, he said. "Personally, I've come to think we need to change our thinking on salvage logging," he said. "There are other values in the forest. In fact, a burned area is probably the most sensitive place you could be working in." And yet current forest policies often exempt fire salvage logging from rigorous environmental review. "The public really hasn't caught on to this yet," Hutto said. "People still want to get the cut, get the trees they see as wasting away. They want the economic value." But there are values, he said, far older and more fundamental that are too often ignored. "We talk about forest restoration after a fire," he said, "but it just got restored. That's what fire does. We know that, but we can't seem to get the message out. "Until you start thinking like a black-backed woodpecker, you just ain't going to get it." David> How to effect real change 27.08.2005 - 17:37 Dear Snag Hugger, My perfunctory and negative reaction to Botanist was because I felt he/she utterly blew off my heart-felt plea for recognition of the overwhelming grief that pervades SW Oregon today. Curious had just copped to that grief. Botanist responded with an in-your-face personal slap. Young Whippersnapper had also expressed his/her grief, but concluded that anger was a gift. That was such foolish comment. Anger is an acid that corrodes the vessel that contains it. Young Whippersnapper will never make it to Old Whippersnapper harboring anger in his heart. Nor does anger move the discussion forward. I gave YW a pass based on youthful ignorance, and his/her expression of feelings of personal tragedy. I think Botanist is older, and should know better. I reacted with anger to the one I felt deserved it. I expressed that anger to demonstrate how painful it is to receive. You correctly perceived the hypocrisy and worthlessness of that anger. You express frustration that giant federal bureaucracy seems deaf to your point of view. I feel your pain. I have no doubt such is the case. It might surprise you that many USFS employees feel the same way. Even the Chief has trouble moving the USFS. The President and Congress share the same frustration. Giant bureaucracies have myriad laws and regulations that limit the effectiveness of anyone or any group, in or out of power, to effect sudden change. Such is the nature of bureaucracy. Change does occur, however. The USFS is not the same as it was 20 years ago. It is still changing. The USFS does not do everything wrong. There is serious and wide-ranging discussion within and without the agency that moves it, albeit slowly. If you spend your life working for change in that agency, you will achieve some success eventually. My point is that there is something else we need to worry about, too. We need to figure out how to live in a minimal level of harmony with each other. David’s long discussion also deliberately avoids that issue. He feels sure of his science, and that his citations prove something. Maybe they do. I don’t think so, but again, what’s the point of arguing with him? Has he changed anybody’s mind? I doubt it, because minds are hardened by anger and frustration. At this point, the pain and grief drown out any and all scientific debates. If you, or David, or Botanist, or YW, or Curious, or me, any other poster wants to effect real change, we are going to have to acknowledge each other’s humanity. We need to join hands, for at least one day, in respect for each other, in remembrance of our mutual loss, to heal ourselves and each other. Then and only then we can sit down together in a forum of mutual respect, and work out the details of future forest stewardship. Do you know how powerful that might be? Many of your dreams might be realized a lot sooner than you might think. Keep up the acrimony, the confrontation, the discord, the distain, the distrust, the disregard, and we all will sink slowly into an acid bath of corrosion. Older and wiser> Will you help me? 27.08.2005 - 22:29 You do not understand, Snag Hugger, the depth of my rage. I have given my life to forests, to forests that have been lately destroyed. But if I give free rein to that rage, if I let my demons loose, my rage will overwhelm us all. You have no idea how vicious and heartless I can be, what insults, what threats, what dark actions I am capable of. Maybe if you devoted your adult life to forests and after 35 years saw your life work annihilated, if you waited that long for a voice and realized you will never have one, if you were beset by infantile and ignorant savages, then maybe you would understand. But I do not want to loose my demons. I do not want to harbor all that venom in my heart. I do not want to shock, awe, and slaughter you. I do not want to scare you so badly that you retire in fear to your cave of solitude. I do not wish to wage war and wreak my vengence upon you. Anger is not a gift; it is an unbearable burden. I want to live the short rest of my life in peace and goodwill. Curious and Hotfeet are right: nothing is going to bring my forests back. That understanding does not satisfy me, however. I need relief from my grief. They do, too. We all do. I am just looking for a way to accomplish that. Will you help me? Or do you desire a war of vengence and all the violence that attends war? If you did understand the depth of my pain and rage, you would choose the peace process. Youth is full of fire and desire. Old age is not. Pray that when and if old age finds you, you will achieve peace and goodwill, harmony and understanding. Please help me, realizing that thereby you will be helping yourself immeasurably. Older and wiser> Regarding Black-backed woodpeckers 28.08.2005 - 08:15 Now, I know next to nothing about these birds so, bear with me. If these woodpeckers depend so heavily on high intensity fires, how come they didn't go extinct when, before the white man came and started putting fires out, the most common type of fires were ones set by American Indians, which burned at low intensity. Even natural lightning fires rarely burned at a moderate intensity. Of course, this is very generally applied over the forest types of the West. Certainly, the Biscuit is way different than most ponderosa pine stands but, this is about what are supposed to be rare and endangered birds. Sure, in the distant past, there were more acres burned (most at low intensity). We're now seeing steadily increasing burned acres over the years, as this years totals are running at a record pace, AGAIN! Seven MILLION acres burned this year, so far. With a big lightning bust like in '87, that total could balloon to over ten MILLION acres burned. My own burn salvage project, down here in California, was enjoined with a Temporary Restraining Order. On Thursday, the judge returned a ruling allowing us to continue our salvage/fuel reduction projects. This is a true fuels reduction project with a salvage sale embedded into it. The biggest issues were water quality, new fire mortality marking guidelines and wildlife habitat. The biggest one of all was that we're not "treating" even half the acres that burned. The judge personally responded, saying that was a huge concession by the Forest Service. Chad Hanson and his "entourage" were taken by surprise at the speed in which these "sales" got to "market". They don't even mention the project on their own website but, they intend to take their pleas to a higher court. Hotfeet> Homepage:: http://www.foreststewardsguild.org
Rage 28.08.2005 - 10:28 I think I do understand the depth of your rage Wiser. I myself am pretty friggin' angry that the Forest Service has used the Biscuit Burn as an excuse to log old-growth reserves, roadless areas, wilderness and botanical areas. Enough so that I've been willing to peacefully act on my principles and sit on the Green Bridge to be arrested by the Forest Service and Josephine County and charged with 3 pretty serious misdemenors. I think you do yourself a disservice by implying that you have more rage, or a more legitimate form of rage, than others on the thread. I sincerely think that your rage, and grief, are misplaced. And I'm sure that you sincerely believe the same of me. In my OPINION, severe wildland fire does not destroy forests. Now I know foresters who say the same thing about clearcutting...So how one defines a "healthy" forest is a pretty big deal here. I'm convinced that Spotted Owls and Salmon are using habitat in the Biscuit burn, thats what the agency documents and surveys seem to suggest. I'm also convinced that snag removal, and the yarding that accompanies it, harm Spotted Owls and Salmon while attempting to short-circuit plant succession and soil building in lieu of short-term profit. Earlier you charaterized Botanist's observation that preventing re-burn was not part of the silvicultural prescription for Biscuit as saying "to hell with the economy." Well, thats your interpretation, but I haven't heard any protesters at Biscuit say that. I think you're putting words in people's mouths. Many Oregonians believe that if the timber industry can't make a living off of the 5 million acres in SW Oregon that have already been turned into plantations, that its not the fault of the remaining wildlands (which also have economic values). And many IV locals believe that their communities are getting steamrolled by politically connected mills in Douglas County. In any case, you seem to have a great deal of anger at protesters, while sugar-coating horrendous mistakes by the Forest Service. At the same time that the Forest Service is arresting those who stand in the way of their logging botanical resevers and old-growth reserves, the agency is continuing to suppress/exclude fires from wild lands that NEED fire. Don't you think the Blossom fire area needs to burn? Don't plantations burn more severely than old-growth forests? So why do we keep suppressing ALL fires and creating MORE plantations? My suggestion regarding your grief over the fire is to spend more time in the burn with fresh eyes. The more time I spend in the Biscuit, the more life I see. It is a healthy, vibrant, recovering, wild landscape. And I hope you'll join us in keeping it from becoming just one more plantation. Best Wishes, Snag Hugger> "Infantile Savages" 28.08.2005 - 10:58 If folks who stand up against the logging of old-growth reserves and botanical areas in a fire evolved ecosystem are "infantile savages" than count me as a savage... And count Jack Williams, Dr. Jerry Franklin, Mr. Rich Fairbanks, and Joan Norman as infantile savages. What a load of pompus crap. I had hoped for better dialog. Savagely, Snag Hugger> Good luck 28.08.2005 - 20:15 I am sorry. I admit to rage, but understand the source is grief and wish to heal it. You also have rage, but wish to justify it and not heal it. Some of the people you mention are friends of mine, and I am sure do not ascribe to your point of view. They, like me, would like the anger to cease. They, like me, understand grief. But we have reached an impass here. Peace can only occur when all parties in conflict desire it. I cannot inspire you to want peace. You evidently must find that desire on your own. Or not, as your case might be. So be it. The war will continue. The accusations, the lawbreaking, the slander, the foul imprecations, the white heat of righteous anger, the ill-will, the endless confict will persist. Such is your legacy. My work is done here. I have much better methods of getting my way than bantering with you. Maybe you will learn those secrets some day, or maybe not. Good luck with your blind indignation approach. Wear it proudly. I suspect you haven't seen the last of the inside of a jail cell. Older and wiser> Peace, Comprimise? 29.08.2005 - 11:08 It is really amusing to read the postings which for the most part either ovoid the real issue or twist the facts to fit the posters own agenda, and yes I can see it on both sides. The thing that is missed is that there are 2 basic sides. 1) The preserevationist - Stop all clear cutting and in many cases a flat out zero cut agenda. The facts of science are only used if it can be twisted to fit this agenda. The fact that we are humans and also are here on the planet seems to matter little, although I don't hear of too many of these folks taking the death with dignity option. 2) The others - I will lump the rest into one group, since this includes loggers, non-preservationists, just about everyone who doesn't have a zero cut agenda and (the key point) is informed about the issues and not blindly just following the first group. The fact that we humans really have only a minor impact on mother nature and infact she squashes us when ever she feels like it. Don't get too wrapped up in our ability to either do long term harm or for that matter have any long term impact on her. What does matter is that we are here and should take the responsibility to manage our world for the best all-around benefits to all. I want you idiots that think fires are OK to travel over to Selma and visit with the people who just lost their homes, ask them which is more important, the preservation of nature and hands off approach to fire suppression. These homes were destroyed by a fire that was being attacked not let burn and there were still homes destroyed. Just think if we took the approach of many of the above postings and did a no touch, let mother nature take her course, approach. There is much opportunity out there to manage our resources, protect species and have a prosperus society, if we can move forward instead of being locked in the 60's mentality. Chane Sau> Re: black backed woodpeckers 01.09.2005 - 15:44 Hotfeet: Real good questions about landscape fire regimes and avian biology. IMC can be a knowledge sharing tool and not just a rant machine. Let's learn together, friend. Low-intensity fire use by indigenous people didn't exterminate wildlife that prefer very severely burned forests because its effects were spatially limited compared to lightning fires that left all ranges of severity patterns dictated by prevailing weather and topography. In other words, indigenous burning occurred in specific areas for particular objectives at relatively small spatial scales like meadows and drainages. Lightning fire regimes, by contrast, are inherently mixed-severity (even in ponderosa forests - see Tom Veblen's work at U. Colorado) and their chaotic effects operate at landscape scales. Black-backed woodpeckers and other fire-dependent specialists thrive in a climate-driven landscape fire regime such as characterized the interior Siskiyou Mountains before 1850. It's not the acres burned from year-to-year that matters to wildlife per se, it's the quality of burn effects and their distribution over time and space that restores habitat and forage bases to sustain populations. Clear as mud? Hutto student> Title's suck 01.09.2005 - 20:29 Older and wiser, Yes you are right about us getting together. My question is how? Many loggers are disempowered because they work for owners who don’t give a crap what the Forest Service proposes. What if a logging company CEO said, “Hell no, we won’t log the Fiddler LSR. Do you know how many people love that area? What are you trying to do, ruin are reputation? Call me when your timber sale planners can come up with something that doesn’t destroy the local peoples’ lifestyle and something that my workers can feel good about working on!” Is that a pipe dream or what. My point is, the enviro folks don’t work for people who take horribly corrupt jobs and then tell you to go do it. So how are we supposed to meet these folks when they are really just being abused themselves? Their bosses are the ones running the show, and they truly don’t seem to give a Fu--. Peace, Compromise We have moved past zero-cut long ago. That’s one of the great parts of the enviro movement, we adapt. And much of it has to do with realizing that older and wiser’s incredible loss now presents awesome restoration opportunities. Nowhere are these opportunities greater than in Oregon and Washington. Enviro groups all over the country are engaging in pushing for thinning of plantations on public lands, recognizing that there is enough to provide for a generation or more. And the folks who work in these forests will actually have the chance to learn. Logging native forest leaves a logger little chance to learn because the forest is all ready in a state of maximum complexity and cannot be improved upon. But logging a plantation gives an obvious chance for improvement (understory increase, multiple canopy layers etc). Is zero-cut really still such a big deal out there? That’s ancient history in the intermountain west. Regarding Black Backed woodpeckers, Yes, I understand you, having grown up in West Cascadia myself. Forest fire is confusing and complex. You might think all those forests east of the Cascade crest (60% of Oregon’s forests) are Ponderosa Pine, but let me assure you, you are wrong. Just go up a little elevation in the Ochocos and holy Doug-fir, Grand fir, Spruce, Larch and more. The same in the Blues. These are called mixed forest types and burned with a lot of variation when it comes to fire intensity. They often have high fuel accumulations. Have you ever drove highway 12 through Idaho? It’s the inland rainforest, not a dry Ponderosa Pine forest ( http://www.nativeforest.org/press_room/lewis_clark_logging.htm). Pure Ponderosa Pine stands existed at relatively low elevations, less than 4G’s ft ( http://www.nativeforest.org/middle_east_fork.htm, note this area is mostly Doug-fir and above 4000ft). and as such, were mostly heavily logged. This has led to confusion regarding the impacts of fire suppression when so much of the research was done in logged over areas. Research coming out of U of Montana is now showing that areas that naturally missed fires deep in Wilderness, like the Frank Church and Selway Bitterroot, do not show the “doug-fir thickets” classically associated with fire suppression. In other words my friend, until you log the old Ponderosa Pines out, Doug-firs don’t have a chance to come in like that.
Your suggestion that fires burned low intensity during Native American Times in inaccurate. Certainly, more low intensity fires burned, because that is what we are effective at suppressing. Just imagine all of the Lodgepole Pine and Larch forest in the intermountain west. These forest don’t do low intensity. Further, many think the woodpeckers may survive in older forest during periods of low fire, feeding on the insects in decadent trees. But it is not certain whether the population could persist without high intensity fire in the long-run. Don’t forget also, climate change is changing fire frequency and area burned all over the world. Last Thing, Older and Wiser David’s long discussion also deliberately avoids that issue. He feels sure of his science, and that his citations prove something. Maybe they do. I don’t think so, but again, what’s the point of arguing with him? Has he changed anybody’s mind? I doubt it, because minds are hardened by anger and frustration. At this point, the pain and grief drown out any and all scientific debates. Older, you lost the Wiser part here to me. We are in a time when science is not appreciated by our Federal Govt. But the general public is thirsty for it. The decision of agencies must reflect the current scientific understanding. Now this takes hard work, don’t get me wrong. But it can be brought out through public panels exploring current projects (like Biscuit) and involving the scientific community. People turn out in huge numbers for these events, and the agency dislikes it. Mostly because I think there intimidated. How many P.hD.’s planned the Bisucit project? Older and Wiser, we need you to engage. Go Bro! Could I remind you of the feeling of incredible hope, growing in one's chest, and inspiring beyond belief, to action, never to tire, to dream, strong achievement already behind young shoes, deep, deep hope for children not even born. Remember! We may not feel your grief, but that is for good reason! I say, Mother Nature, that is one heck of a natural defense mechanism and I dig it. We may not know your loss, but you may not know our gain. And if your response is, they’ll never know what they lost. Let’s stop and remember that the State of Idaho has approximately 5 Yellowstone Parks of unprotected Roadless lands, and Oregon is connected to it. These wars will not continue as such for much longer. We are running out of gas!! Sorry for length, but I hope it reflects how much I love ya'all! Peace, and unity. David> Total Denial 02.09.2005 - 18:47 That some of you "environmentalists" absolutely refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Biscuit fire was a utterly devastating force on the Kalmiopsis region only affirms the notion that you are completely out of touch with both the people of Oregon and with scientists who study such things as fire ecology and late successional wildlife. I don't hear ANY fire ecologists claiming that the Biscuit fire was beneficial to wildlife on the whole. Unless, of course, their name happens to be Dennis Odion or Jay Lininger ... but then, those guys are only pseudo scientists with an agenda. That some of you are actually suggesting the Biscuit was a beneficial fire, only shows how flawed your "management bad, hands-off good" ideology is. You're letting your hatred for those who work in the woods and manage our forests get in the way of your seeing the obvious. Sure, the Biscuit fire might lead to an increase in certain woodpecker populations. On the whole, though, nothing good has or will come from this fire. Moon Muffin> David, David, David ,,,,time to wake up 06.09.2005 - 12:22 First off David, ol' buddy ol' pal, the idea that the zero cut mentality is ancient history is to say either you are still being led by liars or you yourself are a dishonest person. There are several of the more outspoken folks around here that have both privately and publicly(with their own kind) declared that the only way to protect our forests is to stop all commercial logging. Now I know that that leads one to believe that there can still be non-commercial logging, but in reality that means zero cut on public land. This is only ancient history if your subscribe to the fact that ancient forests are made of 80 year old trees. Now as for the fire aspect. Moon has some good points above and maybe if taken out of context or only quoteing a sentence or two, you can find "science" that says that the Biscuit was a good thing for the forest, but really anyone who understands the environment, not just is "in touch" with it, knows that what happened in the biscuit is not a good thing on a whole for the envoronment. As for the native americans and thier burning, the only reason it was spacial was that it was a regular occurance, the initial burn when they moved into a new area was not necessarily low severity, the low severity was the result of years of vegitation control. The are several documented incidents of these "controlled" burns destroying settlers cabins and out buildings during the early settlement days in the Umpqua and Rogue valleys. The other thing about the native american burns, these were done for the enhancement of large game and certain plants such as camas bulbs, there was no thought given to birds and slugs. With such insensitive human intervention it is amazing that there are any forests or eco systems intact today. But be that as it may the eco systems survived and the forests grew and just as today there is more wood growing everyday than is being harvested. In fact there are acres of public forests burned every year and wasted then are logged. Don't ya just feel that love and unity ol' buddy? Chane Sau> Moon Muffin is agency 18.09.2005 - 21:32 I don't know of ANYONE outside of the federal land management bureaucracy who has such commanding knowledge of facts as Moon Muffin. Moon's employment profile fits her/his consistent ignorance of cumulative effect and scale. Habitat destruction by logging and roading over decades at a landscape scale made a natural disturbance like Biscuit such a threat to wildlife. Anyone so concerned for threatened wildlife as Moon Muffin would take a stand against timber sales like Home Page and Bald Lick. But don't mention facts or recite context to Moon Muffin. All fire is bad. All logging is good. Better that we get paid destroying habitat rather than let firefighters' backburns do it. God is a SAF-accredited forester working in an industry-bought bureaucracy, Satan is a pseudo-scientist. hal salwasser> CIA 19.09.2005 - 13:57 and I be he's got one of them black choppers in his carport. Max Smart> Actually ... 22.09.2005 - 09:21 ... I drive a flying saucer. It's on lease from Area 51. Moon Muffin> |