Biscuit Mudslides to Shutdown Rogue Fishery
Cascadia's Ecosystem Advocates, 28.08.2006 22:45
Existing major Mudslides adjacent to and below Blackberry sale clear-cut units in the lower Rogue River watershed could lead to the shutdown of Rogue River sport fishing and damage salmon fishery again.
Debris flow before Biscuit fire and salvage logging.
Mudslides adjacant and below planned Blackberry roadless areas clear-cuts will only aggrevate and cause larger mudslides and likley shutdown lower Illinois and Rogue River sportfishing.
These many mudslides (upwards of a dozen documented thus far in the relatively small North Indigo Creek drainage) and the one pictured likely shutdown the Rogue River sportfishing in 1995 and 1996. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Siskiyou National Forest have these mudlside events documented but seem to be claiming some sort of amnesia letting these clear-cut units above and adjacent to these huge mudslides move forward.
One such mudslide is pictured. This mudslide may have been chiefly responsible for the shutdown of the lower Rogue River back in '95 and '96. The picture is from USGS.
The Blackberry salvage sale units could be clear-cut any day now.
THE TIME TO ACT ON THIS NEW INFORMATION IS NOW!
ESPECIALLY, If you are a fisher person or make your living on the Rogue River you need to call your Senator and Congressam Peter DeFazio, the Governor and the Forest Service at Region 6 headquarters and demand that the Blackberry sale be canceled because the lower Rogue and Illinois River salmon fishery is too important to sacrifice for the profits of one Oregon timber baron and his servants.
MORE PICTURES OF LARGE DEBRIS FLOWS (MUDSLIDES) ON THE WAY.
e-mail:: tsuga@efn.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 >> |
|
Mudslide at 55 acre Blackberry clear-cut 29.08.2006 - 10:04 
How many debris flows (huge mudslides) does it take to shutdown this ill advised and illegal salvage sale? Unit 30 below is the largest Unit at 55 acres which doesn't take into account the actual surface area of the clearcut planned. Based on the 50-70% slope it would likely be closer to more than a 100 acre clear-cut when the Siskiyou National Forest/John West is done. Perhaps this is just an example of what is in store for all areas to be salvaged on our National Forests and BLM lands. "No laws shall apply to the Agencies, planners or the timber companies implementing salvage logging." ecosystem advocate> e-mail:: tsuga@efn.org
By 29.08.2006 - 20:54 your post and pictures, this landslide was prior to mngt activities and not caused by harvest.....? This is a question. Why are you assuming/alluding that harvest is planned in such a way as to increase landslides? A recent ODF study indicated that harvest did not equate to greater likelyhood of landslides. It is just that they are easier to see when there is no canopy to hide them from the air. Curious> Little white lie?!? 30.08.2006 - 05:19 And, they always seem to want to use the word clearcut to describe salvage, which is an out-and-out lie. Again, no green trees will be cut and large snags WILL be left for wildlife. The aim is to get fine slash on the ground to combat erosion, while recovering value and sequestering carbon for the long term. Hotfeet> In addition.... 30.08.2006 - 12:43 ....to the fact that the slides have occurred prior to management harvest, there is also a push to ad rules to the FPA to locate wildlife trees in locations that are prone to landslides in order to deliver these trees into type F streams. I.E. slides are a part of the process and will occur regardles. To corelate the supposed shutdown of a fishery with the occurance of landslides that resulted from fires, would be to correlate the need to manage the forests to prevent these fires from occurring. Somehow this doesn't compute with the preservationist stance that management is the reason for the problems with fish, the air, and the price of rice in China. But I wonder how good does rotten wood resulting from thousands of burned trees entering into the system instead of green trees work? Over the next ten years as the roots of these dead trees continue to rot there will be more and larger slides, regardless of any salvage operations. In a managed stand the roots from the planted trees would begin to stabilize the soil in 4-5 years and if you review the data on the 96' slides you will find that the occurance of slides does correlate to the time since harvest. Also the science shows that harvest hastens the occurance but the slides will occur eventually regardless. To what degree is acceptable? When was the last time you saw a 200,000 acre clear cut that was done in less than 3 months? What are the benefits to the basin and the wildlife, from basin destruction by mother nature vs. planned harvest from managed forests? Chane Sau> Clearcut is what clearcut is 30.08.2006 - 15:03 Why are they marking the boundary of the Units with little yellow Clear-cut Signs if they aren't clearcuts? Whose trying to fool whom? There is green trees in Unit 30 that will be cut. They aren't marked orange to save? Not that orange paint means shit these days when no laws or rules apply. advocate> Response to By 30.08.2006 - 15:20 To By. Many of these slides have occured since the Biscuit fire. In fact the one pictured literally below Unit 30 did not exist in July 2003 but was visible in July 2005. What I am stating is why should we allow the agencies to aggrevate these slides by clearcuting above and adjacent to them to the point that these mass wasting sites become a 10 to 30 year problem to the entire lower Illinois and Rogue River fisheries. What about the precautionary principle? I don't think that ODF stated that. If they did they were not considering roads in their interpretation or clearcuting above or adjacent to existing debris flows (mudslides). advocate> The facts are in 30.08.2006 - 16:03 Well I'm glad to know that advocate is a geo tech, so now you can explain why the harvest activity will cause a 15-30 year problem that is not created by the burn it's self. Are you telling us that the roots of the dead trees won't rot if there is no harvest? Will the reduction in dead weight create more slope instability? Are you telling us that the roots from the planted trees won't stabilize the soil faster than letting mother nature take her course? Or are you saying that the harvest area won't be replanted? The truth is that by nature slopes flow down hill, the steeper the slope the more often this happens, the more moisture in the soil either from subterrainian flow or from storm events, the more often slopes fail. Yes, improper road construction will also cause failures, but not all roads, nor is it likely that a properly constructed and maintained road will fail. Add to this the accummulation of dead organic material without the stability added by live root systems and the additional subterrainian moisture due to the entire basin being burned (the few green trees contribute little to this problem)combined with the soil types and yes you have a problem. This is the problem created by the lack of management (fire control, in this case) not by the harvest activities. The harvest areas are planted back and the disturbed soil sprouts existing seed more so than the undisturbed burned areas. But I'm sure that Advocate can set me straight on these items. Chane Sau> Almost Forgot 30.08.2006 - 16:10 How should we relate the precautionary principles to the advocation of no management? Shouldn't we take the precautionary steps to prevent catastophic fire events? Chane Sau> Common sense and science should be rule 30.08.2006 - 16:30 
Do these areas look like they need to be replanted? So, clear-cutting above a mass wasting (mudslide) site is good land management? Would you like to have you house at the bottom of one of these debris flow slopes after they (FS,etc) clear-cut it? I would think a salmon-steelhead fishing guide who depends on the lower Rogue River for his livelihood might look at this situation differently than you. advocate> great work Cascadia's Ecosystem Advocates, 30.08.2006 - 17:25 It's sad to hear from the pathetic logging apologists hotfeet and Chane Sau> of such a bullshit excuse for the catastraphe that is occuring. I would love to make them eat their words by showing them, but they are probably too scarred to go out in the forest without a timber company escort. Oh well. There are more landslides in this area than anywhere else and there is hardly any forest left, go figure! Can you name any other unstable area that has shut the rogue river fishing down for a week? The FS can't. EPA can't. The state of Oregon can't. But I am sure hotfeet and Chane Sau> can, since they are so full of shit they could probably shut the river down themselves, with just the sheer mass of shit coming out of their months. There will definately be major slides on the North Fork Indigo Creek again, the only question is when, where, and under which clearcut? thanks for the good work, responsible people. smokem> Clearcut is written over 40 times in FEIS 30.08.2006 - 17:35 Here is the truth regarding clearcutting of Biscuit roadless units. “The salvage harvest of the conifer mortality will result in the area looking similar to a clearcut harvest of live timber…” (Biscuit Fire Salvage Silvicultural Prescription Mikes Gulch Salvage). Actually the word clearcut is used over 40 times within the Biscuit FEIS, mostly to describe how the areas will look following logging. The district ranger describes it as clearcutting. So does Scott Conroy. 1.5 snags per acre is a clearcut and is the prescription for Blackberry as well. BISCUIT FEIS> Corrections and ideas 30.08.2006 - 17:40 First of all, snags are designated by description (as taught in Biscuit Activism 101). Any snag not marked with orange is designated for cutting. Trees with green limbs are NOT designated for cutting, except for safety reasons, marked with blue by the Forest Service. While I didn't work in the Blackberry project, I do have to question why we would be even cutting snags in a slide prone area. Maybe they have reasons associated with forest restoration but, erosion on that scale can't be good for the ecosystem. However, a slide with lots of dead trees mixed in is much more destructive of a fishery than just dirt and stumps. Not that I'm justifying possibly adding to an unstable series of slopes, though. I DO stand by the statement that Biscuit cutting units aren't "clearcuts", though. This is just a sad example of preservationist lies, used because they're desperate, ignorant and losers in court. Ya might wanna squelch "smokem's" mouth. He only reduces your effectiveness and credibility. Hotfeet> Green Trees Cut is Violation of Biscuit FEIS 30.08.2006 - 19:18 
At least a dozen green trees in Unit 30. Also,note yellow CC sign. There are also several large green trees above the nearby mass wasting site in Unit 30 (not pictured). Like I stated before, no Laws or Guidelines seem to apply here. advocate> Too funny! 30.08.2006 - 19:43 Hmmmmm, I don't see any stumps from those cut green trees. Seems you've been duped by the phony CC signs (if they really are CC signs). Hilarious! Did it ever occur to ya that they may just be using old CC signs as "Unit Boundary" signs? It DOES happen (but I wouldn't use em, if I were in charge, or, at least, scribble out the "Clearcut" part). Did it ever occur to ya that those cutting units just might be exactly like all the other Biscuit cutting units (leave tree marked with orange wildlife trees and green trees left standing)? It's impossible to layout a cutting unit with no green trees in it. Hotfeet> Another Partial Truth 31.08.2006 - 08:21 The pictures from advocate are great....Really. They show the natural regeneration that occurs(ed) from the few remaining green trees. Now if Advocate could get a little bit bigger picture of the area and the ground cover from the rest of the units we might get the whole picture....dead not green trees with brush not conifer seedlings for the ground cover. Also, note that the seedlings are 20" or less and would have a root system of minimal value, had the area been promptly salvaged and replanted immediately following the fire the planted trees would have been 3-4 feet tall with valuable root systems in place. Those who doubt this can look at the managed stands and units in the southern area. The Coastal Side of the burn would have trees bordering 6 feet by this time. If the few, that believe louder or fouler is more right, would actually read the above post I identified the lack of management in this case as the "lack of fire suppression". Had the fire been managed and suppressed there would have been less denuded soil, less basin wide destruction and as a result less catastrophic landslides, but it wasn't. Advocate still didn't bother to answer the questions posed and I doubt he/she will. The bottom line for now is that there will be slides, now they will be larger than had the area not been burned, and larger than had the area been actively managed for harvest. (Note I did not say clear cut, as not all ground needs to be managed to that degree as I have stated previously). So the question remains. If you are so concerned with damage from the slides, How can we minimize the actual damage? Answer - Mitigate the problem area caused by the fire (i.e. lack of management)using planned harvest and soil stabilization options available. To do nothing is to allow the short term damage to continue for the next 10-30 years. Short term because in the long term the fishery and river eco systems do prevail, as evidenced on the Tutle and other ecosystems in the St. Helens area. Chane Sau> one more thing 31.08.2006 - 09:15 The subject of houses being built below steep slopes has been dicussed in depth, but since you probably haven't read the studies or don't understand them, this is a wasted point. The fact is that if you are foolish enough to build on a aluvial plain, then common sense would tell you that you have put yourself and your family at risk, regardless of harvest activities above you. The jury has already been out on this and the consensus stands, like it or not. Also, note that ODF has established rules governing these sites on private and BLM ground. Chane Sau> Green Trees...Oops, I left out the ? mark 31.08.2006 - 16:15 So, you say that if those green trees are not marked to save then we should just count on those honest folks with John West to leave them standing because they are supposed to? I didn't think that the Federal Governement still operated on the honor system? advocate> Honesty is Scarce 31.08.2006 - 17:15 I'd consider John West to be about as honest as you are, Advocate ... not very. And no, the FS doesn't use the honor system. That's why they have sale administrators. If a sale administrator finds that good 'ol John has cut trees that he wasn't entitled to under the sale contract (such as green trees), he'll be fined for 2 times the market price of those trees. If he did it on purpose, he'll be fined 3 times the market price and could face other criminal action. I seem to recall a news article about one of John's fellers cutting some green trees last year. John reported the matter to the FS, and was promptly shut-down for a while and fined. So ... not exactly in his best interest, is it? John isn't gonna do what isn't in John's best interest ... Moon Muffin> Also ... 31.08.2006 - 17:19 A knowledgeable friend in Ashland relayed to me that KS Wild hired an outside consultant to photograph and monitor the Biscuit salvage. A major part of his duties was to look for evidence of green tree harvest. He found none (this was before the incident described above). He also reported back to KS Wild that salvage operations were quite modest, and that it was hard to even see where salvage logging had taken place in most units. Apparently, KS Wild let him go. Apparently he wasn't as good at sensationalism as they wanted him to be. So much for trying to get at the truth! Moon Muffin> Feelings being hurt 31.08.2006 - 21:07 Advocate, I had hopes that you could carry on a conversation without ignoring the repeated questions, but alas you truly don't have the ability to defend a position by answering the questions posed. Advice..Don't testify in court, as the others before you, without the ability to answer as well as you ask, a deaf ear turned will be. Chane Sau> Honest or rationalization to the public 01.09.2006 - 22:22 
Here is some Conifer Regen for you in 100% mortality stand. every place i've walked in the Biscuit there is abundant natural regeneration of conifer. The only place where I don't see abundant seedlings is in old burned plantations, newly harvested (clear-cut) areas, and mudslides. So, whose being honest here and who is trying to rationalize to the world that it OK to clear-cut on the lowest productivity soil types and most extreme macroclimates in Oregon? Have you chane sau or hot feet or moon muffin walked through a lot of the biscuit burn? advocate> like, "allot" a lot? 02.09.2006 - 00:06 No, I haven't walked through "a lot" of the Biscuit burn ... it spans over nearly half a million acres!!! That's a significant area to cover! Some of us have jobs to attend, classes to go to, etc. What I can say is that I have visited and hiked through the burn area on several occasions. While there is natural regeneration in some areas, there is not regeneration in all areas. In fact, most of the high mortality areas are filling back in with madrone sprouts that are now 6 to 10 feet tall. Any of the small conifer sprouts that are still in the area will soon be crouded out. Of course, I'm not speaking for all of the burn areas. Speaking in absolutes, as 'preservationists' often do, adds nothing to the conversation. There are many areas where conifers are coming back fine and no action is needed. The FS hasn't proposed to plant trees over the entire burn area, nor could they afford to. I think it's interesting that you guys are completely ignoring Hotfeet's question, "What is wrong with harvesting SOME of the dead trees in a burned forest?" He keeps asking, and you keep ignoring or changing the subject. I'd be interested to hear what your response is. Moon Muffin> Well again Thank You 02.09.2006 - 18:21 I really appreciate the new pictures..You might also identify the area that you are standing....This is a not the area in question previously. There are areas that have been replanted in the Biscuit and yes we already established that there are areas a natural regen. The seedlings in the last picture are Pine yet the trees that are merely 15" in the pictures before are Doug Fir. Also do the math (and forestry) the pines are at least 7 years old, this indicates that they were nursery stock, probably 1-1's that were planted. The area is also flat, not the steep slope that you were previously discussing. I doubt that this area will be on the move any time soon. The previous area could really benefit from these planted trees also, but the funds to plant generally come from the harvest of timber, hence the rub. Had there been proper management of the fire the area that was originally discussed would not have been impacted and hence the fisheries would not have been damaged. This type of damage can be mitigated and prevented with proper management. I have not said there is not regen and you are obviously aware that there are replanted areas. But look at the bright side the weather looks wonderful if not alittle on the warm side. You might also point out to the viewers that pine is often planted to help allow Doug fir to be established, generally in areas of total mortality. In addition if people look carefully there are few if any other conifer established, there is plenty of madrone, manzanita and other brush in the background, all of which will give even the planted pine a run for thier money without good veg management. Just for fun revisit this site in 5 years and show the success of any of the conifer. Chane Sau> Planted before logging 02.09.2006 - 19:49 
Planted trees on Flat Top before logging Yes, some of the cutting units were indeed planted before the logging began. Hotfeet> Up is Down, Black is White 02.09.2006 - 20:19 Thanks for bringing that up, Chain, I almost missed that! It's hard to count the whorls on those pine trees, advocate, but I see at least 4 and 7 at most. That means that the trees were on their 5th or 8th season of growth when the picture was taken. In all likeliness, they're on their 8th season given the harsh conditions of the site, the spacing of the clearly visible whorls, and the height of the trees. The Biscuit burned in the summer of 2002. Seedlings wouldn't have sprouted untill the spring of 2003. This means that natural seedlings which sprouted following the fire would only have 4 growth seasons on them at the very most. Those trees in the pictures were definately planted!!! Advocate, you accuse the FS and pro-management people of distorting the facts to promote logging on public lands. Yet, here you are trying to pass off pictures of planted nursery stock as natural seedlings! Have you no morals, or are you just completely naive? Thanks also to Hotfeet for the pic of pre-harvest planting. Moon Muffin> No Lie. Trees are germinated 2002. 05.09.2006 - 09:56 This is are site with relatively poor soils but this pine seems to love the soils here. It is in the North kalmiopsis. It is with the Biscuit fire area. Some or most conifers can have double growth cycles per year during warmer months, Spring and late summer. I would surmise with a lot of late spring rain or heavier than normal snowfall that would be especially true. Regarding the hardwoods taking over the landscape. They are opportunist or pioneer species if you will. They have evolved to sprout quickly after a fire. They are vital part of the ecosystem. Most animals and birds depend on these hardwoods for their survival in one form or another. Their root systems anchor the soil years after the fire when the conifer trees roots maybe completed rotted away. They produce litter and duff much quicker than conifers. They will make the area more fit for the conifer forest when it comes later in the natural cycle of things. That is what they do. The only management I would suggest would be to prune them a little into one or two stem trees near roads or inside already altered managed areas. Let them do what they have evolved to do, protect the ecosystem, and make it hospitable for later succession of plants and animals. advocate> Nice try...with another partial truth 05.09.2006 - 11:41 While you bring up a valid point for some conifer, if you look at the pines and the shoots on the limbs you can see that at most there may have been one season that a second flushing occurred. Since you seem to get out quit a bit, you are well aware of the regen that didn't occur in the kalmiopsis after the Silver Fire. The area was a giant brush feild 15 years after the Silver Fire and was a chief contributor to the increased fire activity of the Biscuit. You more than most should understand first hand the success of mother nature in relationship to fires in that area, unless you have turned a blind eye to actual history in order to push forth rhetoric. But what is even more interesting is the idea that it is OK to allow mother nature to evolve into the Old Growth Forest from a hardwood brush field. What would you estimate the time line for this succession into "old growth" might be? Are you saying that it is acceptable to displace "old growth" dependent species (by your own definition)for no less than 150 years? What is the impact of the loss of 500,000 acres of contiguous habitat? Is this loss a better alternative to manageing our resources for the benefit of all? how do you quantify the temporary loss of fisheries as a result of the "massive" landslides resulting from fire vs. the preceived increase or actual landslides caused soley by harvest activities? Chane Sau> the ecosystem benefits, not timber production 05.09.2006 - 14:08 The problem has been and will continue to be as long as we clear-cut or regen. harvest or try to turn everything in fire prone areas into a tree farm the fires will burn hotter and cause more damage, not less. What I have seen from the management and salvage of the Silver fire area is the same continuance of making things worse not better. These old salvaged areas turned into tree farms vaporized. Nothing left. No big logs left to replenish the soils, to retain moisture, or provide structural diversity to the slopes, and the hardwoods as well as other pioneer species which may or may not be left, try to reclaim and rehab the area. If you leave the big logs there onsite to maintain lower soil temperatures, shade, and higher moisture levels in the soil as well as moisture inside the logs themselves, one might surmise that a fire, if it did come through again, might not burn as hot the next time. The lighter the management the better it will be for the land, the ecosystem, and community. advocate> Look at the stats... 05.09.2006 - 22:02 Advocate, while your case sounds solid, all it takes is a look at the fire statistics for the State of Oregon or California. Note that the fires on private "tree farms" have 90% rate of containment at less than 10 acres. The containment rate for USFS lands on the West Side and BLM/USFS on the east side is not nearly so good. The private and public tree farms have been harvested and are now going on the second rotation of harvest and yet they have not been destroyed by fire. Compare the acres of "Old growth" that have burned in the last 10 years to the acres of "tree farms" that have burned. As for the leaving of large wood, this is already required on both private and public lands as a result of harvest stipulations. The assumption though that these logs will result in a cooler fire show your utter lack of knowledge regarding fire science. A simple walk through with a moisture meter after 63 days without measureable precip will show you how moist the logs really are...try 7-10% currently in many locations, given these conditions a "natural" fire will fully consume these large logs and most of the organic material in the soil. Either you are truely a misled puppet or you should really study up on these things for yourself and learn, with real knowledge you may actually understand, and I believe that if you understood half of what you profess that you will tout half as much of what you're told. Chane Sau> Isn't 75% of private forest lands enough 06.09.2006 - 12:07 So, I don't have those figures or reports at my fingertips. If you want to tell me what website or researcher published that, that would help. To answer one of your questions, fire suppression, industrial forestry, and the yuppification of the forest edge which you folks promote is what has gotten most communities in the fire hazard mess that we are currently in, so why keep perpetuating it? Regarding Private forest lands and tree farms: Isn't 75% or more of the Forest lands in the lower 48 in private ownership enough for you folks to practice your so called industrial forestry? Why do some of you insist that you have to have every single acre of public land too? I know the timber barons of Oregon want it all for their own personal profit but why do you side with them? Or maybe you are them. I know a old logger in southern Oregon whose been a logger and roadbuilder for at least 40-50 years and he is not promoting your type of industrial forestry at all. In fact he has stated that Forestry has been so corrupted by industrialist that he has created a new term called "Ecostry" of which he practices on his own lands. Him and his wife make a good living on their 140 acre of forest. They aren't going to get rich but they can make a good living and state that the forest has become more ecological productive every year since they purchased as a clear-cut it in the late 1960's. His name is Orville Camp. He's written a few books too. There is the cruxt of it, NO ONE WOULD BECOME A MILLIONAIRE OR BILLIONAIRE practicing this form of "Ecostry" or Forestry. advocate> The Harvest in Selma 06.09.2006 - 17:56 Advocate, First, THANK YOU for trying to make a substantive argument rather than just resorting to bigotry, hate, and name calling as many on this site have! I'm not sure about the entire lower 48, but I do know that approximately 60% of the forest land in Oregon is publicly owned. Of the remaining 40% that is private, much is owned by individuals who manage it for a variety of values and not necessarily exclusively for timber production. And remember, even land that is managed 'exclusively' for timber production provides valuable habitat for a wide diversity of wildlife (including those often associated with late-successional forests). Consider that, in spite of being one of the best spots in the world for the practice of sustainable forestry, we in the NW have to import wood from countries with less stringent environmental regulations. Our production is out of proportion with our consumption. To me, this says that we need to both reduce our consumption and increase our local production. We can increase our production without degrading the environment by harvesting a sustainable supply of timber off of the 60% of publicly owned lands that currently go mostly unmanaged. You whine and cry about what you term 'tree farms', 'monoculture plantations', or 'fiber farms'. While it may be true that the plantations that the BLM and FS planted in the 50's lacked in the structure found in 'native' stands, this is no longer the case. Federal land managers plant with multiple species and at spacings that promote structural diversity. Even when trees are initially planted close together, they are later thinned either commercially or non-commercially to promote stand structure. Through your previous posts on this thread you have demonstrated that even you are unable to differentiate between areas that regenerated naturally and areas that were planted. I am well aware of the story of Orville Camp. As critical as he is of even moderate management, the fact remains that he's made most of his money from intensive logging of native forests. Any revenues that he's generated from his 140 acres represents a return on his initial investment, rather than money earned from horse logging 8" trees. Don't get me wrong, though. Thinning out small under-story trees is great. But thinning 8" trees alone isn't going to meet our resource needs or provide the forest with the full benefit that it could receive from more moderately intensive levels of management. I also don't believe that Orville is making his living off of harvesting trees (in the traditional sense of the word at least), but I won't go there ... Moon Muffin> Give me a break 06.09.2006 - 21:26 "even when trees are initially planted close together, they are later thinned either commercially or non-commercially to promote stand structure." Huh? Did you mean to say "usually when trees are initially planted close together, they are NOT THINNED in a TIMELY MANNER to promote stand structure and reduce fire danger because the USFS/BLM chooses to concentrate their efforts on more lucrative timber contracts that line the pockets of their corporate buddies at a level they are accustomed to?" Chainsaw culture is death culture> You're Right! 06.09.2006 - 22:05 It's a fucking conspiracy. Black helicopters and everything! Moon Muffin> Bingo 07.09.2006 - 00:34 Conspiracy-correct. Any chance you could provide statistics on the USFS/BLM's pre-commercial thinning programs and roughly how closely they stick to their projected calendar on plantation thinning? I'd be interested in knowing if they do thin most of the reprod on schedule-from driving thousands of miles through Oregon's forests in the course of monitoring their massacres of old forests my impression is they are WAY behind. I see vast seas of closely packed pencil forests, miles and miles of them in every national forest in the region, tightly packed together and waiting for the first cigarette butt to ignite them. Educate us.......................... Chainsaw culture is death culture> Think! 07.09.2006 - 07:53 The FS and BLM are behind in thinning stands? Think that might have anything to do with the fact that most of their thinning projects get appealed and litigated? Think it might have something to do with the fact that they have to write 3 planning documents and then 2+ drafts of a 100+ page environmental analysis (or environmental impact statement) before they can even begin to lay stuff out on the ground? Think it might have to do with the fact that they have to do fine scale surveys for numerous species on every acre of a thinning area before they can move forward? Think it might have to do with the fact that many of the species that they are surveying for can only be surveyed for a few months out of the year? Think it might have to do with the fact that they're finding these 'late-successional' species in the young stands that they're trying to thin, and thus having to buffer them out of the thinning units? Think it might have something to do with the fact that, every time they offer a commercial thinning project, ONRC and the like label it as 'wholesale logging in disguise' and launch a massive and well-funded PR campaign against it. Think about it. Moon Muffin> OK 07.09.2006 - 10:21 Sure would be nice if someone could provide some stats. By the way according to an ALA report very few pre-commercial thinning projects are contested by enviro groups. Controversial "thins", that's another story. I'm sure your ilk wishes for zero environmental surveys because you have this forest eco-science so figured out who needs surveys. We could accelerate managment greatly without them.........right? Chainsaw culture is death culture> Alittle more info 07.09.2006 - 10:26 The info on fires, size, average etc. can be found by looking at ODF's annual stats, PNW Fire Stats from the USFS and Boise Interagency Stats. Also, if you drive around so much, try getting out and walking through those plantations, just because they have crown closure doesn't mean they haven't been thinned. Additionally, if you get around so much and see such a vast landscape, how in the world can you make blanket statements about private land, the vast aray of management styles and end results is as varied as the land and people themselves. I am at a loss as to how you could get around so much and not see the things that are just the opposite of what you profess, even if you don't like them the facts are out there. As for the Public versus Private issue. One of the major hang ups in western Oregon is the fact that Public and private are checker boarded across the land scape as part of the O&C lands. This mean that the manner of management or lack of management on public land has direct impact on private ground, especially with fire. Even where is isn't checker boarded the ODF fire crews are continuously having to stop fires at the boundaries to keep private land from being destroyed by unmanaged/mismanaged federal fires. Why should the tax payers and land owners be subject to something that is so totally avoidable? Chane Sau> Exactly! 07.09.2006 - 13:15 "By the way according to an ALA report very few pre-commercial thinning projects are contested by enviro groups." Exactly! Exactly, exactly, exactly!!! Non-commercial thinning is EXPENSIVE! Prohibitively expensive! As in hundreds to thousands per acre! As in often exceeding $13,000 or more per acre! As in, the US taxpayers (and thus the FS) can't afford to thin the millions of overcrowded acres at that cost! Preservationists insist on objecting to commercial thinning projects, while they usually don't object to non-commercial projects or projects that aren't commercially viable. This just goes to show that IT'S NOT ABOUT SAVING THE FOREST, IT'S ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT NOBODY MAKES A BUCK OFF OF SAVING THE FOREST! It's not about environmentalism, it's about anti-capitalist ideology! Moon Muffin> Not to mention 07.09.2006 - 16:36 The additional risk from "unnatural" fuel loading that lasts for 7-10 years after PCT (pre-commercial thinning)and the fact that you restrict travel of animals and attract an unbalanced number of rodents to the area and cause further problems trying to establish and maintain surrounding plantations. You also restrict the growth of other species of plants. Further add the fact that this type of work has been greatly reduced in the past decade and the crews aren't available. The insurance mod has increased for this work and the rates have also gone through the roof. This amounts to higher prices per acre and no income to offset the expense. Wow now we can have the preservationist argue even more how the Federal lands cost too much to manage and that only leaves the obvious. ... Let it rot and burn for the minority and quit trying to manage it for the majority. Isn't this kind of thinking what got quota's established for women in the last century? Chane Sau> Clarification 07.09.2006 - 18:26 I was referring to the tremendous amounts of unthinned, clogged up plantations I see in all national forests in Oregon. I do not have statistics on how closely the FS/BLM sticks to schedule on these young plantation thins but I surely see multitudes of them in my travels. Private lands seem to be thinned more regularly from what I've seen. They of course don't have the resources of old trees in abundance that the remaining 5% of intact federal lands do do they? Of course we know pre-commercial thinning is expensive and does not provide the windfall profits the harvest of older trees does, hence the work doesn't get done eh? All the more reason to flat out end the federal commercial timber sale program. So little of our lumber comes off federal lands what sense does it make to continue the madness? Back to the subject of the Biscuit though-I've walked some areas down there and I've seen the seedlings popping up. Looks like it's doing fine without the managing you guys say it needs so badly. I say let it restore itself. Chainsaw culture is death culture> Reply:Orville and practices 08.09.2006 - 09:10 I believe Orville Camp made his living building roads on private and federal lands mostly. Sometimes he bulldozed fire lines as well, but I can't speak for him. He has changed his management practices constantly through the years. Perhaps he tried thinning of 8" trees many years ago and realized that it wasn't getting the ecological benefits that he desired. Now, and for quite some time he has practiced what he calls the Natural Selection type ecoforestry. This is where he only takes the dead or dying trees, minus a desired amount of snags to be left. The hardwoods are his most valuable lumber because the tree has already been dried on the stump so to speak. The hardwoods are usually for high end finished products. It is somewhat the same with softwoods, the tree is already dried before it is cut and milled. The growth rings are tighter the last few years of the trees life and therefore you have higher quality lumber. He has his own small mill and mills up the hardwoods and softwoods to orders he recieves in advance. He states that he has so much demand that he can't keep up. The only downside is that he needs to have a maze or 7.5 feet wide roads ( wider roads invite to much sunlight and undergrowth) throughout to access all areas of his property. Some sort of cable and tower yarding system would be more desirable thus perhpas avoiding so much road. Like I said before it would likely be hard to become a millionaire at this, although I am sure it could be done nonetheless if you had enough land to manage this way. It would all depend on the scale at which it was practiced. If you are open minded enough to accept what he is doing and would suggest you go on one of his tours and see it for your self. eco advocate> Continue to ignore the facts 08.09.2006 - 23:14 While I believe that it is wonderful that Orville can manage his ground as he sees fit, just as David Parker, George Finn and others do also, you are ignoring the fact that this type of management cannot satisfy the world or even the local demand for wood products. In addition to the inability to manufacture enough wood in this manner, expand the amount of land used to produce this wood to the amount needed to satify even half of the demand in North America. This is rocket science and is exactly why row crops exist in farming, supply and demand. The fact also remains that if we in North America using some of the most ecologically sound forest practices especially in comparison to most of the remaining timber producing Countries, do not provide the wood, it will come from third world countries that do actually destroy the forest's that they harvest and are impacting the environment far more then even the worst practices in the PNW. If you folks are truely concerned for the environment and do actually think globaly, then what is a realistic solution? The farce of hemp, cob, and rice will never materialize since they are impractical and have proven themselves unrealistic, remember the supply and demand. We as a Country do have the resources to provide for more than ourselves and still "manage" for the environment, but the apparent short sightedness of a few preservationist led astray result in the destruction of much more of the environment then you'll ever see. Chane Sau> Just maybe................ 09.09.2006 - 06:35 Maybe just maybe we should all be living in shacks, yurts and other small dwellings instead of 1200-5,000 square ft dwellings. Bottom line-the rug will be pulled out from underneath the overconsumers eventually, probobly sooner that later. You can't argue with that, the current system of unbridled overconsumption will not last long. Give up on the illusion that you can supply the fools that live in huge homes and burn excess energy keeping their climate controlled realities afloat while driving oversized fuel guzzlers. Or just go on living the lie. Your vision of providing unending supply of dimensional lumber is a farce destined to failure. Notice I'm not calling you idiots for thinking you can do so, just providing some food for thought that you will have to digest eventually. Bushman> And who would pay the taxes??? 09.09.2006 - 11:10 Bushman brings up good points let's all live in huts and live off the ground. The best part is no matter how hard you work you will get only what everyone else has. These are great ideas...Let's start with everyone on welfare or public assistance having to work at the jobs given them regardless of whether they feel it is beneath them, they will eat the food given to them and live where they are directed, they will not be allowed to reproduce until they are fully self sufficient. Hey you know what>>>>This is already happening in Africa and has been going on for thousands of years...Go live with the bushmen and enjoy the third or fourth world life style...We the ones who provide and overconsume will make sure that when the call for assistance comes, due to famine, epidemics, etc. that we turn a deaf ear. We can start with the elimination of welfare and public assistance to any person not completely disabled. Also, as with those who live off the land and huddle in huts, if you speak out against the elders or don't pull your own weight, you will be banished, to die in the brush.....Do you need a plane ticket? Chane Sau> Last comment gets the gong 10.09.2006 - 23:22 I don't think overconsuming Americans coming to their senses and building dwellings of a more earth friendly nature means they are going to end up living like impoverished Africans. Actually NOT coming to their senses would be a more likey cause of them eventually living is desperate conditions. Personally I have no desire to give up this state's natural resources to fuel the clueless people's desire to live 2 to a 5000 sq ft house, the short term gain is simply not worth it. Those are the people who are going to cause eventual severe restrictions on the size of dwellings, not us enviros. Meanwhile the wise-use movement will fight tooth and nail to preserve the "right" to live in excess. Why? Because you guys are lining your pockets while masquerading as "the real enviros". Talking confidently about knowing the truth while you encroach on the areas left that have so far escaped being trashed by the chainsaw and bulldozer. We're not fooled. Bushman> e-mail:: leaveA messageunderthe3rdfirupthetrail@you'llneverfindme.com
Missed it again 11.09.2006 - 07:28 It is the desire to live like a third world nation that is the problem. The fact that socialism doesn't work in the manner that you continue to tout has already been proven, time and time again. Come up with realistic and feasible ideas that work in large scale or numbers and then we can talk again, so far you have come up with ideas that lead no where except to the bottom of a long pointless debate that actually started with false statements (what's new) and pictures coupled with lies, but who wants to deal in facts.............. Chane Sau> Missed? 11.09.2006 - 10:05 It is the desire to live like a third world nation that is the problem. The fact that socialism doesn't work in the manner that you continue to tout has already been proven, time and time again. Come up with realistic and feasible ideas that work in large scale or numbers and then we can talk again, so far you have come up with ideas that lead no where except to the bottom of a long pointless debate that actually started with false statements (what's new) and pictures coupled with lies, but who wants to deal in facts.............. Attempting to play the socialist card won't work here, what does reduction in consumption by choice have to do with socialism? I'm sure you can grasp the concept that excess consumption is causing overharvesting of both private and public lands and resulting in cutting in some areas that should not be entered. Who needs statistics, you know damned well that every board ft that is saved results in less harvest needed. Can you grasp that Mr. Sau? Bushman> Dear Mr. Bushman 11.09.2006 - 15:58 What I can grasp is that you nor I have the ability to control "world consumption", regardless of what either of us thinks is necessary or prudent, as I'm sure that we differ to some degree. I can also grasp the fact that every time the preservationist prevent salvage of already dead timber that somewhere else in the world, usually in a third world country that is more concerned with providing $2 /day jobs, more trees are cut to substitute for the dead trees left standing here. This is simple supply and demand, since the demand hasn't diminished, the supply will be provided from elsewhere, and the fact that most other countries don't give a rip about reforestation or even environmental concerns means that the damage to the planet is even greater than what you perceive is being done here. The fact is that here in the PNW there is more federal timber being burned and rotting each year than is being harvested, and instead of utilizing the natural resource in a renewable way, the resource is now being harvested else where and the local resource is still being destroyed, but now most prudent people would say it is wasted. The fact is also that if you go stand in front of a bulldozer in many of these countries you will be buried by the very same dozer, since the freedoms and civil rights don't exist as they do here where you continue to tell lies and yes, tout socialism in the guise of preservation. Those are the facts that I grasp, is there some facts I have wrong or just the theory that you chase. Sometime the reality of the moment and the results of those actions should enter in to your theory of the future and the results of those actions that really happen today. Chane Sau> So tell me 11.09.2006 - 20:35 In what "3rd world country" will Doug Fir be cut as a subsitute for the timber not cut within salvage sales like Biscuit and B&B? It would seem to me the more you make the product available the more consumers know it is available to use, they feel it's an unlimited resource and you end up with 5000 sq ft homes with 2 people living in them. So yeah, go ahead and cut those salvage sales, send the message out industry will provide dimensional lumber for absolutely whatever people desire to build even it it means harvesting within precious unroaded areas, nothing is sacred. Provide for the warped dreams of gluttonous Americans, it's all good. Who needs to hike and explore roadless areas anyway? Disneyland provides a much better vacation when you get right down to it. Bushman> pictures and stumps don't lie 12.09.2006 - 16:10 None of my posts are false or contain misinformation. I can not speak for you industrial forestry protagonists however. Those pictures of 2 and half feet tall pine trees are not planted trees. I will give exact legal locations if you so choose to ask so you can out to see them for yourself or a Forest Service employee can take you. Stop calling me a liar and I'll probably refrain from calling you one too Chane sau or Curious or whomever. eco advocate> OK.....So 12.09.2006 - 16:59 give us the legals. Either they were planted or they were a couple of random survivors of the fire. They are too old to have regenerated after the fire. How hard would it be to find two seedlings in 500 thousand acres of burnt real estate that survived. You might even be able to find two more. The point is, SO WHAT. Your picture doesn't depict what conditions are as a whole. Your portraying it as such is either, igonorance or an attempt at deception. My bitch is I am sick of people trying to make or force others to make policy on either or both (deception or ignorance)as a foundation. If you are twisting or not understanding the facts I am going to say something. Get used to it. Yep Curious> Sitting in my Bamboo hut wondering 12.09.2006 - 21:59 Still waiting to find out just particular 3rd world country would be losing fir trees if the Biscuit salvage wasn't cut. Canada a 3rd world country to you guys? I think you should hike into the area Mr. Advocate is claiming has natural regen and verify. First promise to eat your hats first if he's providing correct information. Those foam cat power hats you guys wear would make a good meal if he's right. He can probobly provide coordinates so you can find the exact spot for your tasty lunch. Bushman> Put 12.09.2006 - 22:13 up or shut up. Either would be good. Location please? Curious> * 13.09.2006 - 10:38 what do you think caused these horrible conditions in "3rd world" countries? the out of control greed for resource extraction,oil or drugs, monsanto and nafta key players in the cause of famine and poverty. how dare you mock people who live simply with reverance to the earth!big corporations who have stolen the rights of the people by corrupting the 14th amendment to the constitution have messed these people up and then big brother scoffs at the responsability to give anything back. If everyone lived more simply with gratitude the world would have a chance to heal, otherwise hang on cuz nature bats last !!!!!! *> Location Legals for 2.5 foot seedlings 13.09.2006 - 10:41 Township 35 S R 11 W Sec 33 NE 1/4 Along ridges mostly. Follow fireline beyond recently logged Berry Unit at the end of the 3577 road. Several groups of people have seen it first hand. I am sure some FS personnel have also seen similar natural regen here and elsewhere in the burn but if they open their mouth they would likely get canned like Rich Fairbanks and other Forest Service personnel who tried to do their job while keeping their professional ethics. Oh yeah, if you want to go look at the new and old mudslides adjacent and below new Blackberry Units I can give the legals for those too. eco advocate> Thanks 13.09.2006 - 20:29 for the legals. When time allows I'll have a look. As for any government employee getting fired for trying to do thier job, thats a crock. No offense to my friends that work for the agencies, because most of you do a great job, but do you realize how hard it is to get rid of a Federal employee. Quite frankly anything short of a felony and maybe even a felony commited on the job is not grounds to fire someone. Sorry Cuz I'm not buying that story either. Curious> Sorry for the delay 13.09.2006 - 21:29 Been busy killing trees and see plays, I must like the extremes. 3rd world countries that are harvesting far more than the PNW ....to start with the many countries that make up the former Soviet Union, you know that great socialist state that had the government provide for it, How did that work out? I would love to see the preservationist go stop the thousands of acres being clear cut with minimal reforestation, in fact they have to dig the seedlings out of the banks to replant elsewhere. This wood is being exported to places like Japan and Korea as a substitute for the conifer that use to come from the PNW. Are these Countries living in too much luxury? Then there is the hardwood being imported to make clear faces for plywood and OSB, whic his coming from Chile and the Amazon rain forests, this is being substituted for the Doug Fir that used to be used. How are the Forestry practices in South America? Then we have the change in building codes for hurricane areas that require Doug Fir plywood for sub-roofs and walls instead of pine or OSB, regardless of the size of your house, I believe it had something to do with personal safety, but go ahead and check it out for yourself. As for the firing of Government employees, ain't gonna happen, I personally have witnessed felony actions and watched as there were repermands and hand slaps, even rat holed, but firing, only time was an arsonist. I prefer merit pay and less politics in the job place so I went to private industry. As for the 2 foot tall trees I will try to make the time to visit, but until then I still call Bullshit. I hope that this cleared your questions Mr. "Bush" man Chane Sau> Huh? 13.09.2006 - 23:17 We all know forests in Siberia are being liquidated and most of us are aware of rainforests in central/south america being cut at an alarming rate. That is no justification for cutting salvage sales in roadless areas though. You claim environmental regulations are so much better in the US but what message is cutting in roadless areas sending to the rest of the world? We should be sending a message of leaving intact unroaded areas as they are, burned or not burned. I will never buy that federal timber harvests are neccessary, such a small percentage of wood products comes off federal land that reduction in consumption and smart designs where entire pieces of dimensional lumber are used instead of cutting them could easily eliminate the need for the federal commercial timber sale program. Why don't you tell us what corporations are operating in Chile and other countries down there and what their countries of origin are? Bushman> It will never end.. 14.09.2006 - 14:38 Let's see if this is correct Mr Bush. 1) It's OK to log else where in the world, killing green trees and not replanting, just as long as we don't log dead burned trees on Federal lands here in the US. 2) Until we and the rest of the world learn to build in ways that don't require the cutting of dimensional lumber or we live in mud huts, it's better to log off the rain forests and conifer forests of Siberia, than to harvest at sustainable levels here in the US. Please let me know which of these two statements is wrong. Maybe you don't understand supply and demand, which is what I summized earlier. Or do you really believe that just because you have drawn a line in the sand the world will stop? Do us all a favor and stay out of the harvest areas, while some may like the idea, I don't believe we need another martar who thought the tree would stop in mid-fall just because he stood his ground...........The problem with unreasonable stances is that no reasonable person see the validity and as a result a deaf ear is turned. Chane Sau> global warning 14.09.2006 - 22:20 why don't you stay out of the forest "chain saw"? why do you feel the need to profit off of the future of every other living being? Sustainability is the only means of survival at this point, old growth eco-systems are necessary to mammals that breathe oxygen! Are you willing to face your death for what you believe in ? because it seems to me that you were mocking someone who put their life on the line for what they believed in...as I mentioned before..this thread will not end unless certain people are gratified with the last word...this is a test only a test... is not a myth> simply .... 14.09.2006 - 23:32 ...put I go in the woods and the fields on a daily basis to enjoy and make a living, while watching the trees grow and grow and grow. I am priviledged enough to watch as the elk disappear into stands that I helped to plant. I am also fortunate enough to watch as the tide finally changes and the sustainability of our forests is recognized, as well as the economic benefits of harvesting. There are hundreds of thousands of acres set aside as wilderness and national parks, the mamals that you speak of are also thriving even as the earth warms, as part of the cycle that no one will stop, again as it has before, followed by a cooling trend called an ice age. Regardless of what you preach the earth will continue it's cycles and you won't be here long enough to worry about. As for putting my life on the line, I do that almost every day and enjoy the heck out of it, but I don't do it to be a martar or because I'm not smart enough to see the hazards. In regards to the "mocking" call it what you want, I call it stupidity, just as I call a knowingly false statement a lie, and a person who thinks that the whole world reasons the same as you a fool. If you want to succeed, then you have to make progress, so far you are just digging the same hole, avoiding answers, ignoring answers to your own questions, and refusing to understand that which you say you want to protect. I believe this should fail your test, but it was only a test, had it been a real discussion you would have used facts and reality. Chane Sau> Answers 15.09.2006 - 08:28 "We all know forests in Siberia are being liquidated and most of us are aware of rainforests in central/south america being cut at an alarming rate. That is no justification for cutting salvage sales in roadless areas though. You claim environmental regulations are so much better in the US but what message is cutting in roadless areas sending to the rest of the world? We should be sending a message of leaving intact unroaded areas as they are, burned or not burned. I will never buy that federal timber harvests are neccessary, such a small percentage of wood products comes off federal land that reduction in consumption and smart designs where entire pieces of dimensional lumber are used instead of cutting them could easily eliminate the need for the federal commercial timber sale program. Why don't you tell us what corporations are operating in Chile and other countries down there and what their countries of origin are? " Still waiting for you to answer my questions. Maybe it's too painful for you? I see advocate answered all of your's honestly. I've seen the natural reprod too, you will NEVER admit it's reality. Bushman> Answers... 16.09.2006 - 21:23 I wouldn't want to be rude, so here is what I know regarding the activities. The Chilean Government has supported quite a bit of activity, I believe that Wey Co has some strings attached also. There has been some consulting work done by some of us foresters and loggers in regards to how to rig and set up yarding equipment and how to plan harvest areas. It's really interesting work. There have been a number of yarders sold to operators in South America since there was no work for them up here. The operations in Siberia have been evolving since the break up of the Soviet Union, there have been consortiums from both the West Coast and South put together and attempts made to build mills over there also, the biggest problem is the fact that you have to tip to get your equipment off loaded at the dock and tip to get it loaded on the train and tip...well you get the idea. Anyway, the way it works over there is if you cross the wrong folks or you get in the way, you have a heart attack or they just shoot you, the maps aren't even accurate, makes for fun times when it's 200 miles on a mud road to the nearest little town. Who is still working over there? I really don't know, but alot of wood is going into Asian markets from the area, as a replacement to our "K" & "J" sorts that no longer are being harvested. I hope that this answers your Questions, let me know if I can be of futher assistance, since I'm busy cutting up dimesional wood this week I may be alittle tardy on response. Chane Sau> |