Siskiyou ancient forest threatened

Threatened Red Tree Voles, 06.09.2005 15:53

*Home Page Timber Sale Targets Siskiyou Crest Old-Growth
Huge Trees Scheduled For Logging*

Hot of the heels of illegally logging the Babyfoot Botanical Area in the Biscuit burn, the timber planners in Illinois Valley Ranger District of the Siskiyou National Forest have turned their sights on centuries-old green ancient forests on the Siskiyou Crest. This sale is a throw back to the infamous Sugarloaf and China Left Timber sales, public comment was in 1996.

Forest in Home Page

giant cedar in Home Page

*Home Page Timber Sale Targets Siskiyou Crest Old-Growth
Unit 4, Homepage
Huge Trees Scheduled For Logging*
Hot of the heels of illegally logging the Babyfoot Botanical Area in the
Biscuit burn, the timber planners in Illinois Valley Ranger District of
the Siskiyou National Forest have turned their sights on centuries-old
green ancient forests on the Siskiyou Crest.

* A Recreation Paradise*
The Home Page timber sale calls for logging old-growth along scenic
highway 48, that runs from Takilma/Cave Junction to Happy Camp. The
"Siskiyou Highway" is famed for its beauty and biological diversity. Ten
old-growth logging units are located near the summit of Page Mountain
and French Peak in the headwaters of Althouse Creek, the East Fork of
the Illinois River and Sucker Creek.

* Illegal Timber Sale Resurrected*
Long time residents may remember the long hot summer of 1996 in which
the Forest Service exploited the "logging without laws" salvage rider in
order to illegally log massive old-growth trees at the Sugarloaf timber
sale and harm the delicate salmon runs of Sucker Creek through the China
Left old-growth timber sale. Both of those sales were met by large-scale
peaceful local civil disobedience.

The Home Page timber sale is a throwback to the dark days of 1996. The
"Environmental Assessment" for this old-growth logging was written in
1996, and twice found to be illegal by federal courts; once because of
likely harm to watershed values, and once because the Forest Service
refused to do required wildlife surveys prior to logging. Now, in 2005,
the Bush administration has eliminated the forest protection regulations
that had kept this old-growth forests from being logged.

* Please Write a Letter*
District Ranger Pam Bode contends that years of planning would be
"wasted" if the Forest Service decided to leave these ancient forests
intact. Please take a moment to write a letter to both District Ranger
Pam Bode, and Forest Supervisor Scott Conroy, letting them know that our
communities need clean water and intact ancient forests, not more
clearcuts. The Forest Service should be focusing on thinning the
thousands of acres of previously logged stands in Southwest Oregon,
rather than logging trees that have stood for centuries along a major
recreation corridor. Senator Ron Wyden also needs to hear that you value
these ancient forests and the salmon and owls that depend on them.

*Time Is Short*
The Forest Service is rushing to auction Home Page before the end of the
fiscal year. Currently a timber sale auction is planned for September
15th. Please write a letter and make a phone call today.
Unit 5, Homepage
*Pam Bode*
Illinois Valley District Ranger, Rogue River/Siskiyou National Forest
26568 Redwood Hwy
Cave Junction, OR 97523
(541) 592-4000

*Scott Conroy*
Forest Supervisor, Rogue River/Siskiyou National Forest
333 W. 8th St. / PO Box 520
Medford, OR 97501
(541) 858-2200
Unit 6, Homepage
*Senator Ron Wyden*
Federal Courthouse
310 West 6th St, Room 118
Medford, OR 97501
(541) 858-5122


--
Lesley Adams
Outreach Coordinator
Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center
PO Box 102
Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5789
www.kswild.org

e-mail:: southsiskiyou@riseup.net
Homepage:: http://kswild.org

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 >>

Tree Vole is Right 06.09.2005 - 17:31 I've been up to Home Page and its straight-up old-growth logging. You'd think that the Siskiyou NF would have just a little humility... and you'd think wrong. They despise green old-growth just as much as they despise post-fire ecosystems. I'm not going to hold my breathe waiting for the timber industry trolls on this site to propose a "greiving session" for the ancient forests and rare critters about to bite the dust at Home Page. I remember China Left and Sugar Loaf, and Fiddler. And its way past time for the Siskiyou NF to stop being the handmaiden of the timber industry. We must transition from old-growth logging to small diameter thinning, our forests and communties need to heal. China Left Defender> Another Photo 06.09.2005 - 17:33 Home Page Unit 5 Here is a typical mark at Home Page. China Left Defender> Not one fat stick Pam 06.09.2005 - 19:31 The north face of French Peak startles the visitor with its hugeness and its aliveness. Let the IVRD planners' time go wasted. Viva Home Page! To Pam, I dedicate these lines from my favorite Soul to Soul song: "Never gonna get it never gonna get it, Never gonna get it Never gonna get it" Pam's polygraph> Wow 07.09.2005 - 09:49 The FS still has a pulse, apparently. "We must transition from old-growth logging to small diameter thinning, our forests and communties need to heal." In other words, "we must phase out sustainable harvest on federal lands." Moon Muffin> Muffin Needs Help 07.09.2005 - 10:12 Mooney, You're absolutely right. Why thin the 770,000 acres of 12 inch diameter and smaller material that contain 6 billion board feet of volume on SW Oregon federal lands when we can harm ecosystems and increase social discord by going after 500 year old trees? I'm with you. Old growth logging is great! Plantation thinning is for losers, hippies and communists. The more social conflict and the less standing old-growth the better. Log it all. Plantations Everywhere...Forever- Scott Conroy> If All Else Fails, Quote Jack 07.09.2005 - 11:42 Though I'd beat you guys to it this time: "Forest managers face a paradox in carrying out the mandates of the ESA (and the FSÂ’s regulations “diversity clause”) related to old growth and associated species. No stand of trees, forest, or ecosystem (and the associated species of plants and animals) can be frozen in time nor will they persist forever in an old-growth state. Ecosystems are dynamic and ever changing; vegetation sprouts, grows, and dies. The emergence of new life, and its growing and dying, are ongoing. Some individual trees die young and some live for centuries. Sometimes, death is sudden and widespread due to stand-replacing fire or dramatic blow-down or some other factor, including chain saws. As a wag said, 'Stuff happens. Trees die and trees grow. Live with it.'" -Jack Ward Thomas Forester> a few quickies ... 07.09.2005 - 11:44 1) About 90% of remaining 'old-growth' in the NW is protected. 2) Much old-growth exists ... much more than the 5% that you always hear quoted. 3) Approximately 86% of fedal lands in the NW are designated to be managed for old-growth habitat. 4) THINNING IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 5) To have a variety of structure and age classes in our federal forests in the future, we need to have management in a variety of age classes. Thinktivist> More Jack 07.09.2005 - 11:47 In case anyone actually thinks Jack supports old-growth logging... By MIKE DOMBECK and JACK WARD THOMAS Guest Columnists We write as former chiefs of the U.S. Forest Service with combined experience of more than a half-century dealing with national forest issues. For three decades, an increasingly acrimonious debate over old-growth forests has raged. It is time to declare old growth off-limits to logging and move on. Why? First, although no one knows exactly how much old growth remains, what's left is but a small fraction of what once was and will ever be again. And what remains did not survive by accident. Most remaining old-growth stands occur in rugged terrain where the economic and environmental costs are simply too high. Second, scientists increasingly appreciate old-growth forests as reservoirs of biodiversity with associated "banks" of genetic material. Most stands are protected as habitat for threatened or endangered (and associated) species -- to meet the purpose of the Endangered Species Act "... to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved. ..." It's time to stop fighting over what little old growth remains unprotected. Third, a large and growing number of people want old-growth forests preserved for posterity. Values associated with "beauty," "spirituality" or "connection with the past" are expressed in other terms applied to old growth such as "ancient" or "cathedral" forests. These values are as real as those determined for commodities in the marketplace and clearly exceed the values as timber. Fourth, if the past is prologue, harvest of old growth will be publicly resisted in sequential and predictable steps -- appeals, legal actions, protests and, in the end, civil disobedience. In the Pacific Northwest, where most old growth remains, costs of making old-growth timber sales are disproportionately high with very low chance of ultimate success given environmental constraints and process requirements. Ten-year-old plans that envisioned some old-growth harvest have been overcome by events -- legal, political, social, scientific and economic. Fifth, few sawmills remain in business that can process large old-growth logs. The mills that have survived are geared to efficiently process smaller second-growth trees. Sixth, and most important, the never-ending fight is draining time, money, energy and political capital needed to address more pressing problems. Forest management should focus on restoring forest health and reducing fire risk, initially in areas where risk to human life and property are greatest -- the so-called wildland/urban interface. Then, appropriate management practices should be strategically targeted in the right places and at the right scales across the landscape. The knowledge gained in the wildland/urban interface should then set the course for any expanded management actions. That's a prescription that draws on pragmatic combinations of economic need, political reality and the application of adaptive management based on research and experience. China Left> Another "Radical" For Old Growth 07.09.2005 - 12:02 When Jackson County Commissioners start calling for the end of old-growth logging, its gotta start to feel real lonely for the few dinasors who can't let go... Dr. David Gilmour, Jackson County Commissioner Writes: Last week the Bush administration's effort to promote more logging in old-growth forests suffered a major defeat. Their effort to repeal "survey and manage" safeguards for rare wildlife was overturned in court. But while conservationists cheered and the logging industry fumed over the court ruling, most Oregonians were asking themselves a simple question."Why are we still logging old-growth forests?" When it comes to logging and rural communities in Oregon, the buzzword is supposed to be "conflict." Logging vs. conservation, jobs vs. the environment, and science vs. politics. As rural county commissioners we often find ourselves at the center of these fights. The adoption of the Northwest Forest Plan in the 1990's was supposed to end the timber wars, but the Bush administration's drive to promote logging in old-growth forests and roadless back country has reopened old wounds. It doesn't have to be that way. All across Oregon, and the entire Pacific Northwest, fore ward-thinking forest managers are experimenting with a new way of doing things-conservation thinning. By focusing on thinning lands that have already been logged in the past, and which have made overly dense by aggressive fire suppression practices, these managers are improving the health of the forest. And, by producing a reliable supply of timber to feed mills that have been retooled to process small diameter logs, they have preserved jobs in our rural communities. A decade ago, forest managers in the Siuslaw National Forest in were fed up with conflicts over old growth and roadless areas. They decided to try something new. They designed a conservation thinning program that focused on managing forests where logging had occurred in the past. They stayed out of old-growth and roadless areas, and focused on thinning the dense stands that are the legacy of past clear cuts and overly aggressive fire suppression. Today the forest is one of the top five timber producers in the Pacific Northwest, providing jobs for rural communities and a healthier forest for fish and wildlife. During the past year, a similar process has begun in Southern Oregon. A coalition of mill owners, private woodland owners, environmentalists, federal agencies and local government officials have joined together in the Southern Oregon Small Diameter Collaborative Stewardship Project. Reflecting the ever evolving view of forest management, the group proclaimed: "We believe that a predictable supply of small diameter harvest and utilization must be fully integrated; that is, it must meet social, economic, and ecological goals. The social goal is to conduct a process that builds trust, (and) goodwill,...The economic goal is to foster a dependable supply of small diameter trees to stimulate business and job development. The ecological goal is to work towards the restoration of fire resilient forests using ecologically- based management strategies" The lessons of both the Siuslaw and of the Southern Oregon coalition is that by focusing on our areas of agreement, we can get things done. There is agreement that we need to thin dense stands that have resulted from clear cuts and poor fire management practices. There is agreement that we should thin near homes and communities to reduce the risk of fire. There is agreement that not protecting roadless areas and old growth stands can only lead to unnecessary conflict. During the past quarter century, Oregon West of the Cascades has undergone profound demographic changes. In the Rogue Valley, jobs lost in forest products have been replaced with jobs in the medical sector. An economy that once was dominated by agriculture and forestry is now driven by home construction, financial services, tourism, and recreation. For many of us, the remaining roadless wild lands provide a home for threatened fish and wildlife. They are the first filters for our best drinking water. They provide opportunities for hiking, hunting, fishing, and camping. They are the heart of the scenic attractions that drive our recreation and tourism industries. And most importantly, they are a living legacy for our children and grandchildren. Why refight the timber wars? It's time to move foreward. It's time to get the job done. Sue Kapillus> RIMC Policy 07.09.2005 - 13:16 I thought it was against RIMC policy to reprint things straign out of newspapers. CENCORED> Dear "Cencored" 07.09.2005 - 13:42 If I were you I wouldn't want people to read Jack, Mike or Dr. Gilmour's thoughts either. Just keep pretending that old growth logging is sustainable and popular. You're getting stomped on this thread... Remember Babyfoot, Sugar Loaf and China Left. Take a stand- China Left> Dear Leftist 07.09.2005 - 14:23 No, actually you're wrong. I DO want people to read what Jack Ward Thomas and David Gilmour have to say. I also want people to be able to read opposing viewpoints. I have repeatedly been censored on this website, as have others with pro-management viewpoints. When questioned as to why they are censoring posts, RIMC staff points to their posting policies. Unfortunately, RIMC only seems to follow these guidelines when they apply to posts with a pro-management lean. I almost never see 'anti-management' posts removed. If RIMC wants to portray itself as a free media outlet, where opposing viewpoints can be heard, then it should allow people to freely express exposing viewpoints. If on the other hand, it is going to continue to act as a propaganda machine and censor posts that do not fit its ideology, then I will continue to point out that RIMC staff are censoring posts. Just trying to keep things fair. CENSORED> Well, 07.09.2005 - 14:55 We all know that Jack Ward Thomas is an egotistical hippocrit, who panders to whichever side of the issue will get him the most political attention, and who has repeated changed his stance on these issues based on the current direction that the wind is blowing. I think that the descrepancy between Forester's quote and China Left's quote from Jack points this out quite well. We can also assume, based on his editorial, that David Gilmour doesn't possess even the most basic understanding of economic principals. Nor does he have any idea as to how important the timber industry is to the economic base of the region that he represents. Nor does he have a clue as to what sort of infrastructure currently exists in his neck of the woods. Anyways ... the above quotes bring up some very common myths, which I would like to address: Myth: Very little old growth remains; it is inaccessible. Reality: Depending on how you describe old-growth forests, you can come up with any number you want to with regards to how much remains. Hence the age-old question of, "What do you WANT the answer to be?" What is a fact is that much more old-growth remains than most "environmental" organizations would want you to believe, and much (MUCH) more forest is maturing into old-growth conditions than is being harvested. Myth: Old-growth forests are worth more as scenery than as lumber. Reality: Forests can provide recreational and spiritual values AS WELL AS commodities such as lumber and clean water. John Muir was a hug proponent of this idea. Unfortunately, his legacy has been butchered to death by (ironically) the Sierra Club. Myth: People want old-growth preserved. We should therefore not log old-growth trees. Reality: Preservation is a myth. Forests are dynamic. They grow, they die, they regenerate. I, too want to see our forest managed so that we have old-growth forests for perpetuity; however, this is an argument FOR managing older forests, not against it. Just like a forest that is old now will inevitably become a new forest some day, a new forest now can become an old forest in the future. Myth: We need to "preserve" old-growth to preserve the species that depends on it. Reality: Again, preservation is a myth as it relates to forests. Yes, we need to have old forests to sustain a healthy ecosystem. In fact, we need a healthy and dynamic mix of young AND old forests to sustain a healthy ecosystem. Again, this is a better argument FOR management of all age classes rather than against it. Myth: Old-growth sales cost too much. Reality: They only cost too much because the Forest Service has become increasingly inneficient, and is plagued by litigation from "environmental" organizations. State and local governments regularly offer timber sales that contain large/mature trees, and yet they actually make money on these sales rather than suffer a loss. In Montana, they make money offering timber sales in the same forest types as the local Forest Service office. Both the state of Montana and the FS have to comply with the Endangered Species Act and NEPA. Local watershed groups even rate Montana State as doing a better job of protecting water quality. And yet, Montana makes money on theirtimber sales while the FS looses money on theirs. That the FS looses money on timber sales is only an indicator of how inefficient they have become, and an argument in making them more efficient. Myth: We can get our wood products and support the economy through thinning "plantations." Reality: We SHOULD be thinning plantations. And the Forest Service and BLM ARE DOING SO. But ... There is a VERY limited range of products that you can make from small diameter material from thinning operations. There is also a very small percentage of the mills that are suited to handle small diameter materials. Finally, with the absence of management in mature forests, thinning of plantations will only last for 10 years at best. It simply isn't sustainable. Myth: All but a few mills in Oregon have retooled to accept small diameter material. Reality: Simply false. Most of the Oregon mills can accept large logs, and a majority NEED large logs to continue to operate. Don't make me start listing off names of mills that depend on large logs ... There's plenty more myths out there for me to tackle, but that will have to wait for another day. Thinktivist> The Thomas and Gilmour Quotes 07.09.2005 - 15:01 The T&G statements above speak directly to contentions made by Forester and Thinktivist. BTW, almost everybody is "pro-managent." Find me the treehugger who doesn't support prescribed fire, road decommissioning, watershed restoration, and plantation thinning. I suggest that "management" is being used as a synoym for "old-growth logging," which most Oregonians, Cascadians, Americans, and humans oppose. Good luck finding the Thomas and Gilmour statements on the Forest Service, BLM or ASF web sites. If you want to cry "censorship" try posting anything at all on a Forest Service site. China Left> Not that you care but 08.09.2005 - 09:30 those are not 500 year old trees. Maybe half that. 500 sounds more impressive I guess. Also those trees ARE NOT representative of the project as a whole. If you have a problem with cutting those trees...fine, but why do you have to misrepresent the facts? Curious> 500 years old 08.09.2005 - 10:28 The Forest Service said the same bullshit about Sugar Loaf, and low and behold, when the trees were on the ground, and the rings were counted, many of the trees were over 500 years old. China Left> 500 years old 08.09.2005 - 10:29 Older than you The Forest Service said the same bullshit about Sugar Loaf, and low and behold, when the trees were on the ground, and the rings were counted, many of the trees were over 500 years old. China Left> Face the facts...oops 08.09.2005 - 11:01 First of all everyone will have to agree on what is "old-growth". I was on a protest(yes it is true, I hang my head)where the line was to protect "old-growth", the majority (90%+)of these trees were less than 120 years old. During some discussions it was said that "old-growth" was anything over 80 years old. Reality - the preservationist use whatever term fits the moment. Reality - Most coastal area stands don't even "mature" until they are 120-150 and without mans help the stand doesn't get that old growth "feel" until one of two things happen, first a low to moderate intensity fire comes through and adds mortality, cleans out the understory and begins the next generation*, or the stand is protected and matures for a century leaving snag topped 200-250 year old tres with the mortality coming from storms etc., that leave holes in the stand for the next generation to begin, this usually being true fir species, since Doug fir is shade intoleratent. These replacement stands add enough fuel that the entire stand is now ready for .... a high intensity stand replacement fire. hence the fact that even though hemlock is the climax specie for the coastal stands there are very few mature stands of hemlock, and old sugar pine trees are dying off due to overcrowding in the interior stands. Thinning to a minor degree mimicks these events with mans help, but the trees still aren't mature (kinda like a 13 year old going on 21, just ain't there yet)and don't have the openings that nature would have made for the next generation. Now on the other hand clear-cuts, or at least the federal version of them, with the reserve set asides that are put next to the units, usually of the same age, do accomplish the same as mother nature, but for some the just don't "feel" good. Fact - No stand is stagnant and preserving a stand is not possible it will die one way or another. Fact - The fuel loadings in older stands has increased above the level of allowing low intensity fires to burn free. This occurred over the past 120 years and is not reasonable to think that it can be undone and is by most considered irresponsible. Fact - The species that are coming in for the next generation are not your "natural" replacement stands that would be there had mother nature not been interupted 2 centuries ago and in case people haven't noticed there isn't a real desire to reduce the current population by 90% and drive horse & buggies around. Fact - There is more volume of trees dying of natural causes each year then are being logged on public property, further adding to the fuel loadings. Myth - Management is the decommissioning of roads, needless burning of entire stands, and preservation of "old-growth". Chane Sau> 8 ft. diameter, 500 year old trees? 08.09.2005 - 13:30 Where's the picutre? Let's see these 8 ft. diameter trees! Let's see these 500 year old specimens! Skeptical Citizen> 8 Foot Diameter Tree Photos 08.09.2005 - 13:52 I've tried to upload photos of (some of the) 8 footers to this thread... but it ain't happening. Probably my own luddite fault. There's a couple of good shots here:  http://kswild.org/homepage But hey, the pro old-growth logging crew has been pretty clear that there could be 1,000 year old trees and they wouldn't give a damn. In their world view, the biological and social values of old-growth are just not as important as an extra million or two for John West and the Herbert mill. Now that old-growth has been finished off on most private lands, industral forest lands, county lands, and state lands, they want whats left on the federal lands. Ask yourself, why doesn't Swason grow old-growth trees on their own land? Why do they feel entitled to the old-growth that remains our public lands? Will the trolls on this site ever admit that bulldozing local communities in sales like Sugar Loaf, China Left, Fiddler and Home Page does not help supply a sustainable source of wood fiber, nor does it help the credibility of the Forest Service. I'll get off my stump now- China Left> hey China get a new stump 08.09.2005 - 14:55 Obviously, your stump isn't high enough for you to see the truth nor does it seem that the truth really matters to you. But just for giggles try these; 1) Most private land owners don't grow old growth for the same reason a farmer doesn't leave the corn in his feild for the next season. It is a waste of a good resource and the benefits of harvest out weigh the benefit of letting it rot. There are some private owners that do however have a 80-90 year rotation, but for most owners getting a good return on their investment means a 40-50 year rotation with a sustainable harvest. This also happens to be the time when the growth slows to around 5-6%, an indication of just how much a 200 year old tree is actually "growing". 2)When comparing private to federal keep in mind who owns the property, are you now suggesting that we should ignore private property rights? or should we only be concerned about freedom and rights when it's yours that are being violated? 3) There are more acres of federal forests being burnt each year than are being clear cut. Now how about instead of burning it up we agree that a certaiin number of acres will be "regenerated" each year, go back to manageing the forest by controlling fire and logging the agreed to acres which will generate jobs, resources, and still regenerate the forest, while not reduceing the total number of acres that mother nature would have left or destroyed however you want to look at it. Would this be agreeable? I'm willing to bet that the answer is NO!!!! The bottom line is you fools would rather see the forest burn up, peoples lives and livelihoods destroyed, and the ecosystem slowly decline (just not in your lifetime). There are ways that work and accomplish the same as mother nature, but it doesn't fit your propaganda so the truth be damned...... Chane Sau> Fish Tales 08.09.2005 - 16:05 If that's an 8 foot diameter tree, then George Sexton must be 10 feet tall! Citizen> butchering reality 08.09.2005 - 16:25 That you have actually claimed that there are 8 ft. diameter trees in Homepage, which you claim are shown in pictures on the KS Wild homepage, shows how quick you are to tell lies in order to support your cause. Those are not 8 ft. diameter trees! 5 ft., maybe. And you're talking about 1,000 year old trees? In the Siskiyous? Outrageous! I challenge you to find a 500 year old tree anywhere in the Siskiyous, let alone a 1,000 year old tree in Homepage. Finally, I have to say that many private land owners ARE growing "old-growth" on their property. It is true that many of the larger land-owning mills (Weyerhauser, Boise, etc.) are managing their timber lands on short harvest intervals. Back in the day when the Forest Service actually had timber sales, most of these mills were supplimenting logs from their own lands with logs from Federal lands. It was their intention to manage their own lands on fairly long rotations. When the Federal timber program was shut down in the 90's, some of these large land-owning mills were forced to start cutting immature timber on their lands in order to stay in business. Many of the smaller mills that were dependant on Federal wood weren't so lucky, and were forced to shut down. The many mills who continue to process mature timber are hanging on by a threat. They are relying on wood from private owners, Indian lands, county and state lands, and Canada. Their continued survival depents on the Forest Service's and BLM's ability to produce a sustainable supply of timber in the future. They sure aren't doing so now. According to Muir, Pinchot, etc., the purpose of the Forest Service is to provide a SUSTAINABLE supply of timber while managing the forest in away that allows for the realization of other values (wildlife, recreation, etc.). You can't do that with thinning alone (although thinning definately is a part of sustainable forestry). You can't do that by managing the forest with short harvest rotations. The only way that you can do that is to allow forests to reach maturity and exist in their mature state before they are harvested. Moon Muffin> Get a Life 08.09.2005 - 19:48 I see five lare trees in the foreground of the picture that "China Left Defender" posted. Only one of them is marked to be cut. Give me a break! Don't you guys have anything better to be doing than disseminating lies in an attempt beat up the Forest Service for their attempts to offer these meager little timber sales? Salmonid> Rethinking it 09.09.2005 - 08:59 When we appraised this sale we thought Home Page as a timber sale was full of small and low value material. Seeing these pictures I have to rethink our companies position. The pictures displayed certainly don't look like the sale we looked at! How could we be so wrong? We'll be there on bid day. Thanks for the help George! Purchaser> Bid Price 09.09.2005 - 09:53 Be sure to include the costs of certain litigation and civil disobiedience into your bid. We're going to help you overcome your old-growth logging addition. Think of it as an intervention... Joan Norman's Friend> Very progressive! 09.09.2005 - 11:17 Those are very real costs that any prudent bidder must take into account. Just another cost to the tax payer, thanks to the unbending and the unseeing extreme. I have no doubt you will act on your threats. You should have no doubt that I could care less about any childish fit you might throw and if the sale pencils out...we will bid. High Bidder> Don't schedule... 09.09.2005 - 20:05 ... your supply on HP. I and about 100 other dirty, crusty, dirt worshipping watermelons will go to the mat for those 5-foot diameter, 200 year old trees any and every day. Josephine Co. provides you a cheap, armed security service, but no amount of jail time or fines will keep us from stopping you in your tracks. You have guns - we have determination. Pencil that. purchaser's addiction counselor> Good for you 10.09.2005 - 16:31 8 foot to 5 foot...500 year old to 200...we're making some progress now kids. Ask the FS what the mortality has been on this sale since the last time it went up for sale. High Bidder> Old growth definition 11.09.2005 - 07:41 Why doesn't everyone settle on a definition for old growth, first?? All too often, eco's on one hand say that there's so precious little old growth left. On the other hand, they claim that 80 year old trees ARE old growth. Some people are closer to the truth when they point out that STANDS of trees must be grouped together in order to be considered old growth and that stand characteristics more accurately describe old growth. We all must agree upon what is to be considered "old growth". It's a tough call but, for the sake of debate and management, individual trees must be able to be determined as old growth or not. Now, I never liked diameter limits, as young trees can growth very, very large in a short period of time under certain conditions. And, vice versa, very old trees can be quite small under certain conditions. Personally, I'm against wholesale logging of old growth stands. Those certain sensitive species that depend upon old growth lose precious habitat. On the other hand, I am for cutting individual trees that can be cut without harming the old growth characteristics of the stand. AND, the cutting of these trees should only happen when the Forest Service gets TOP DOLLAR for these and puts the money back into the impacted area. For example, use the money generated from cutting scattered individual trees to thin plantations of sub-merchantable (less than 10" dbh) trees. Again, there MUST be some good reasons to cut these individual trees. For example, a 40" pine loaded with misletoe would be a great candidate to cut and the existing stand would definitely benefit from cutting it. There ARE other examples of how a stand COULD benefit from the cutting of excess larger trees but, I see no emergency situation that forces the Forest Service's hand. Fuel loading is a big issue and forest health is also a problem that can be remedied with a gentle commercial thinning. (Yes, even smaller trees ARE commercially valuable, in numbers). Logger types should be posting images of smaller marked trees out in the cutting units. We certainly can't expect the American public to just take our word that these actions MUST be done. The more we all learn about the sciences of forestry and ecology, the better off our forests will be. C'mon, folks, wave your science flag high (grin). Hotfeet> Homepage:: http://www.foreststewardsguild.org There is no definition of Old Growth 11.09.2005 - 14:31 nor can there be, as soon as you come up with an arbitrary discription of what it is aomebody will decide they don't like what you left out and form a group to save that too. Thats what happened with the Northwest Forest Plan. The plan was to cut harvest by over 75% and create vast reserves where harvest was not the primary purpose. Eight percent wasn't enough for some. Come on surely by now you have figured out that it isn't about saving anything. It's about the addiction to conflict. We are the evil enemy! You haven't been able to figure out that anyone who is pro-mgt(including prudent logging) be they Forest Service, BLM, Industry, or Joe voter actually belong to a lessor race of beings than the anti-mgt folks who look down on and despise us as unenlightened sub-humans? I have to admit they have pissed me off, more than once, with their blind hate and stupidity but I cannot hate them in return. I do feel sorry for them being consumed by thier hatred. Hatred isn't fun. The posts I have made here for over a year have not been with the intention of making any impact on these folks. These posts are for the other people who may stop in for a visit and actually hope to get a couple sides to the issue. There are many sides to these issues and your out screaming me isn't going make me or them go away.... Curious> nothing remains the same... 13.09.2005 - 19:46 In case you folks haven't figured it out, there is nothing that will stay the same, it is born, grows, and dies. There is no preserving mother nature since she doesn't let things be preserved. If the forest isn't logged then it will be destroyed by a natural catastrophe, be it fire, wind, or snow. Now I am not suggesting that we clear cut every last tree, but a little common sense would be a nice change. Can any preservationist or "protestors explain how we got these "old-growth" stands made up of primarily Douglas fir???? It isn't rocket science nor is it propaganda, it is simple facts that can be deduced by anyone that actually knows forestry and can honestly explain how trees grow. These stands originated from stand replacement catastrophes. In the Northwest these stands usually got thier start from large severe fires, since fire was not an uncommon occurance, the stand replacement fire was probably a crown fire. The "ancient forest" was replaced with a new stand of trees that most likely were generated from a few trees that were spared during the fire. We can safely say this since we know that Douglas fir is not a shade tolerant specie like true firs and hemlock. We can also say that they were most likely generated by the few trees spared by the fire since 1) there are very few 400+ year old trees and they are generaly scattered across the landscape and 2) Last time I checked humans weren't into reforestation 200 years ago. So now here's the kicker - What the heck is the difference, on a large landscape perspective, between mother nature replacing the stand or the stand being replaced by good management? Another question for the brains of this group, if we thin all the stands how is the natural progression to proceed unless we let the resource go up in smoke? The answers to these questions also isn't rocket science, it again is common sense. 1)The only difference between replaceing a stand using good management is that some capitalist will profit and some blue collar workers will have a job.2) Sooner or later you have to replace the stand, Thinning is only a step in the process, it is not the end of the process. Chane Sau> Rockies to Siskiyou's 14.09.2005 - 10:27 Rock on Forest Defenders. Let's stop this one in it's tracks. I'd really like to see this forest in person standing some day. Some inspiration from Sula to Missoula....... We got to bring the truth, bring it to the light. Then everybody can see the reason for the fight. There goes the Forest Service again and again. Driving in the wedge between members of our community. It’s time we rise up in unity. But first we need respect, respect for one another. Like loving everyone like they are your brother. Or caring for every person regardless of color. Enviros and loggers have both been strong as a rock. Their both going to last like the tick on the clock. So we have to stop steppin on eachothers’ toes. And lettin’ the Forest Service give us so many woes. And now the Middle East Fork Project drives in the wedge. Cutting out growth in watersheds all ready on the edge. Disgracing the wildlife that thousands hunt. If I was the Forest Service I would punt. And drop this project like a slow bass beat. Otherwise they drop a 50-pound weight on their feet. So this is how it goes......... (We roll) Missoula to Sula. Back off or we’ll sue ya’. Not trying to be scary, just need to let you know Your chainsaws shall no longer flow. Through our old growth trees. Alive or dead, now you heard it said Sure as a cut leave our blood flowin red. Were affiliated with the Pileated Were causing a stir for the doug-fir. Doug-fir like a burr in your saddle Go after them, you got yourself a battle It’s coming to you, but not financed by Seattle Don’t be a home wrecker. Think about the Woodpecker. Peck Pecka-D peck, come from all around Woodpecker in the tree is the only sound. These dead OG Doug-firs have created woodpecker heaven. Hairy, Downy, Pileated, count them-five, six, seven. Set your mind free and just let it be. Down woody debris ain’t nothin but a very old tree. All this old growth becomes the soil. So forget about the green oil. You think you have a clue about the forest, do ya. Robbin public land, stealin for the man. What’s that I see ahead of me? Is it the Wapati? Scat and tracks and I’m on its trail. This must be the Jake’s Draw Game Trail. We hunt here, every single year. Thousands of people so this you better hear. Don’t mess with the elk and don’t mess with the deer. The axes of evil, following the beetle, with a greasy chainsaw upheld like a steeple. Take a natural forest and turn it into upheaval. Razing natural cathedrals. The HFI, just another slice of pie, from our all ready low supply.... of old growth. Causing ruin and slaughter. District Rangers, that are complete strangers, to the trees and wildlife that are endangered. Given us anger, when we are roots. And their to lazy to strap on the boots. The Bitteroot Fork, called the Middle East It’s an unneeded war created by the timber beast. A forest feast, gobble up the old growth until it’s deceased. Planning a corporate feast, better call the Police. Noooo, not that kind. Cause were affiliated with the Pileated Were causing a stir for the doug-fir. Doug-fir like a burr in your saddle Go after them, you got yourself a battle It’s coming to you, but not financed by Seattle It’s Sula to Missoula. Back off or we’ll sue ya You got up in our face so now we say Buya. Justice> Don't give up your day job 14.09.2005 - 16:04 That is, if you HAVE one. Maybe you could try rappin' Goober McNertney> threads of continuity 15.09.2005 - 13:46 Hey chane sau, the difference is that climatic disturbances (fire, wind) leave biological legacies of the pre-disturbance forest stand, whereas technological disturbances (thinning, clear-cutting) remove those legacies and impoverish ecosystem resilience to further disturbance. That's not science, that's common sense. Let it rot. rot> Sure, dude. 15.09.2005 - 16:08 Mr. Wilson regen unit, post-harvest Mr. Wilson regen unit, post-harvest Mr. Wilson, post harvest Yeah, right. When the federal government has a timber sale/salvage/thinning, it's nothing but total destruction. Uh-huh. Slash and burn. Not a green tree or snag left. Just take a look at these pictures from the Mr. Wilson timber sale, a sale that KS Wild described as a "clear-cut." Look at that destruction! Not a green tree left! Not a snag, anywhere to be seen! Boy, rot ... your comments sure are well grounded in reality. Moon Muffin> Sure, dude continued 15.09.2005 - 16:20 Here's that first picture ... yup, definately no legacy elements here. Not sure what all those trees are doing there in that "clear-cut", though. Moon Muffin> Sure, dude ... take 3 15.09.2005 - 16:23 Here's that first picture ... yup, definately no legacy elements here. Not sure what all those trees are doing there in that "clear-cut", though. Moon Muffin> Gee Rot you are to be admired 16.09.2005 - 10:20 Well let's remove the science and apply some common sense....If you burn the forest in a severe fire to regenerate the stand, you remove most of the organic material, add sediment, burn across streams often boiling the water, put excessive amounts of pollutants in the air and damage the soil. OR... If you start with a wind storm, you have laid massive amounts of fuel, when the fire does come and it will on the ground causing a slower but more intense fire which burns hotter and does more damage to the soils and streams, puts up the same amount of pollutants, inhibits the escape of most wildlife due to large amounts of down logs...OR...If you log the area you break down alot of new organic material and help increase the soil health, you protect the streams with buffers further enhanceing future aquatic habitat, you leave scattered residual trees since there really isn't a true clear cut on public lands anymore, these trees are now much more likely to survive a wildfire, the landing piles are generally the only thing that gets burned now days and this is in the winter when soil moisture is up and the amount of pollutants is minimized due to the selection of burn days based on mixing and wind direction, wildlife is not destroyed since this is a gradual removal over several weeks or months not a few hours......... You know after thinking about it I have to agree with Rot it doesn't take science, just some common sense, but I have to wonder will the preservationist ever get any and if they actually get some will they ever use just a little common sense???? Chane Sau> Did Rush Lose a Puppy? 18.09.2005 - 08:10 Who's the guy with the pro-logging of old-growth diatribes? He's using different names, but it's the same guy. I've met this guy at every party I've ever been to. He's the guy who talks and thinks everyone else needs to listen? He's sure he's knows something you don't. You see him and you try to get away before he sees you. Women turn their back or feign headaches. Men form impenetrable circles amongst themselves trying to repel him. Censorship? Maybe it's not always a bad thing. The guy is clogging this site with his "facts." He veils himself in a logical and rational cloak, but just the legnth of these rants reeks of desperation. Neediness. He's a wayward puppy in need of a home. Can someone call Rush Limbaugh and have him pick up his poor lost ditto head? And let the rest of us get back to the business of saving old growth. Silent Type> e-mail:: silent_type_productions@yahoo.com I scoff in thy general direction! 18.09.2005 - 09:59 LOL! Listen to yourself! Moon Muffin> Moon Muffin 19.09.2005 - 11:58 I'm just suggesting that you might be happier visiting another site. Instead of talking to us enviromental whackos, you could be having a rational and less ridiculous conversation with a Limbaugh fan. They'll appreciate you in a way we can't. Silent Type> Thanks, 19.09.2005 - 12:10 ... but I think I stay. I do find it very appropriate, though, that you're equating the "environmental whackos" who post on this site to Rush Limbaugh fans. Both are fundamentalist zealots who won't let facts or common sense get in the way of their extremist agenda. Moon Muffin> Words Speak for themselves.. 19.09.2005 - 16:20 Gee Silent Type, it seems typical that while you can label Moon or maybe it was me as "ditto heads", you didn't have any thing constructive to say in your post. I personally don't think that being extreme in either direction on every topic serves justice to anyone. What does make sense is that people actually understand what they are talking about and can apply some common sense to the situation at hand. Hence, this is where I have a real problem with most of the "wackos" on this site that generally won't even state their true intentions. Anyone with common sense and a little knowlege of the environment and forestry would have a tough time making a good arguement against managing our public forest for both the recreational aspect and the resource production. Letting the forest burn and rot under the guise of preservation is both misleading and showing true ignorance of mother nature and the natural progression of life, all of which we humans are a part of, not bystanders too. Should I assume that what you are truly saying is that you want to use this site as a soap box to mis-inform and mis-lead the unsuspecting along with being able to repeat the same lies and rhetoric among like minded fools enough to keep yourself convinced that 1)your really not as stupid as everyone thinks or 2)If you say it enough it will come true. Suggestion - change your name to dorothy and click your heels together, maybe just maybe you might wake up and enter the real world. "Now go do the right thing" Chane Sau> yup, it's the same person under dif names 21.09.2005 - 21:21 Thanks for your insight, Silent Type. I looked closer, and sure enuf. Too many first person awnsers to the other guy's defense, em. And those grammatic and syntax simularities, em, em. And all this puking forth such lengthly volumes upon us. "Me thinks thou doth protest too much"! How you "Log it" types can go on and on and on about an old growth definition, or some point to try and justify. Lordy, lordy. The big trees are way older than you, jackass. Have a little respect! All the lifeforms up there, in there, inside the forest, under the forest, or flying through the forest and trying to make a living in a shrinking world. Go lightly is the only way. NO ONE has the right to kill so much. Gently thin the small diamter valley floor stuff around homes for awhile, go do it yourself. It would be good therapy for what ails you. beetle boy> yup, it's the same person under dif names 21.09.2005 - 21:21 Thanks for your insight, Silent Type. I looked closer, and sure enuf. Too many first person awnsers to the other guy's defense, em. And those grammatic and syntax simularities, em, em. And all this puking forth such lengthly volumes upon us. "Me thinks thou doth protest too much"! How you "Log it" types can go on and on and on about an old growth definition, or some point to try and justify. Lordy, lordy. The big trees are way older than you, jackass. Have a little respect! All the lifeforms up there, in there, inside the forest, under the forest, or flying through the forest and trying to make a living in a shrinking world. Go lightly is the only way. NO ONE has the right to kill so much. Gently thin the small diamter valley floor stuff around homes for awhile, go do it yourself. It would be good therapy for what ails you. beetle boy> A couple more times and we can have a chant 22.09.2005 - 07:44 Hey Beetle Boy, AKA Beetle Baily....If ya al work at it ya might sound like a red neck, but they usually work for a living.. Sorry wouldn't fit your profile....Try understanding what thou is protesting..... Any one for an actual on the ground truthing of the facts...This was tried on the Umpqua some years back with members of Umpqua Watersheds and the fact stated so clearly at a public forum, just couldn't be found...Fact- the 700 year old trees were only at best 400 years old.....Light speed to the present....SEE PICTURES OF CLEAR CUTS....read accounts of 1000 year old tree... So far I haven't found many facts stated by your group that can be found to be a FACT.......AKA Chane Sau...... Chane Sau> Beetle boy is right 05.10.2005 - 10:26 Only 400 years old? only 400 years old!? You spoiled rotten brat. Go live almost anywhere in the world where none of these trees are left. You don't even know to preserve the remnant forest that makes the bioregion your live in unique. Cut down those only 400 year old trees, and you won't have shit to make you region attractive to anyone. How old are you man? "The big trees are way older than you, jackass. Have a little respect! All the lifeforms up there, in there, inside the forest, under the forest, or flying through the forest and trying to make a living in a shrinking world." Yea beetle, droppin in > Old Trees 06.10.2005 - 13:52 40-year-old plantations are older than I am, too. Does that mean that they shouldn't be thinned? Todays harvest levels on public lands are nearly nonexistant. Many, many more trees are left to grow old than are cut down. For every 400 year-old tree that is harvested, there's no less than a few thousand 399 year-old trees that are left to grow into 400 year-old trees. Old growth forests in the NW are growing, not shrinking. Even if the 1.1 billion board feet harvest level of Clinton's Northwest Forest Plan were fully implemented (we're currently not even close to that), old growth forests would still be growing in extent. Forests are not static. Trees grow, trees die. Most of today's 'old-growth' forests were young forests when this area was first settled by Europeans. You simply can't 'preserve' old-growth forests in a static state. Moon Muffin> In addition.... 10.10.2005 - 16:41 to the comments from Moon Muffin, I would like to point out that many of the "opposing" view, specifically around the Rogue Valley don't seem to have a problem with the fact that the scrub oaks are being destroyed to allow for housing, housing that many of them live in. There are documented scrub oak trees over 700 years old, (yes that is right). Visit your local BLM office to verify the facts or better yet go count the rings on the stumps. Many of these trees are being cleared for fire protection of houses that were built in the rural interface areas, by folks who want to get back to nature, which in itself is ironic for those folks. The Applegate area, is a fine example, many of the "green" supporters for the local groups live here and they are very selective on what they use for promoting their agenda. Why not denounce all cutting of trees over 100 years old, including the ones cut for their home sites? The answer is two fold, first and most important, is it doesn't make them feel good. Second, it isn't what the true agenda is, a zero cut for commercial logging. The biggest difference between the 2 sides of this debate is not whether to cut "old growth" or not, the difference is that one side, "pro-management" is up-front, honest, and fact based in the debate, while the "environmentalist" hide their true agenda, hide behind lies, and try to influence the uninformed through deception. For those in dispute of this, I merely ask you to review the postings on this topic. Let me remind you that the topic actually was where do you stand and what group do you fall into. To Luna, Silent, etc who wear this shoe, I'm sure there are other places that would welcome your civil disobedience and listen to your factless rhetoric. RANT....WHY yes I do, but only occassionally Chane Sau>