"Dave & Marcia" wrote in message
...

"gatt" wrote in message
...

Good stuff, Larry! I guess I agree with your statement that if we don't
harvest timber domestically, we'll buy it from somewhere with even more
destructive practices. Out of sight, out of mind and all that.

Nothing else to add, but, I was told once that one reason the sawmill
industry is hurting is because they don't cut to metric measurements,
which
renders are lumber useless most other places in the world. So, the
timber
is shipped offshore and cut to metric standards there. Do any of you
know
how accurate that is?

My hubby worked in a mill in down in Riddle for nearly 15 years. They did
nothing but special cuts. That included metric cuts. Shipped many loads
over
seas. That wasn't their reason for problems. Your more extreme
environmentalists (like Andy Kerr) made the diameter of harvestable
timber
resemble the size of a toothpick (used to call them poles). Can't go in
and
salvage good timbers in burned areas anymore either.

One of the points brought out in this thread is the natural 'thinning' of
low and moderate intensity fires by removing 40-80% of the 'doghair' spindly
poles and allowing the remaining trees to grow to large diameter in the more
open spaces remaining. If you just go in and 'salvage' the remaining trees,
you might as well just clearcut. This may explain why you get so much
resistance to 'salvage' of the remaining standing trees. It is really
clearcutting of the remaining ( and usually larger ) trees after a fire,
rather than letting them grow to maturity.

"Dave & Marcia" wrote in message

Can't go in and salvage good timbers in burned areas anymore either.


If it's good timber, why would it be salvage? Isn't that sort of a
contradiction?

-c

In article , writes:

If it's good timber, why would it be salvage? Isn't that sort of a
contradiction?

Nope. A tree doesn't have to be alive to be good timber, if you are
quick. After a fire you have about a year before the wood really starts
to deteriorate. In those 120,000 acres or so of moderate fire, only the
outer inch or so of the tree is charred. The rest of the wood is just
fine.

The same is true of bug killed trees. I have some pines that are dead
from bark beetle. Some of the dead trees are still green in the crown,
they just don't know they are dead yet. They won't recover. The bugs
have killed them. There is nothing wrong with the wood, this year. If I
salvage the trees next spring, they will make fine saw logs. If I wait
until the year after, I would expect substantial dock for rot. Plus,
that year means all those bark beetles are infesting surrounding trees
and killing them too.

Salvage operations require you to be nimble, or there is no point.
That's why I don't think it is worth talking about salvage operations on
federal land. By the time a salvage operation makes it through the
review process, there is no wood left worth taking.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

In article ,
writes:

My hubby worked in a mill in down in Riddle for nearly 15 years. They did
nothing but special cuts. That included metric cuts. Shipped many loads over
seas. That wasn't their reason for problems. Your more extreme
environmentalists (like Andy Kerr) made the diameter of harvestable timber
resemble the size of a toothpick (used to call them poles). Can't go in and
salvage good timbers in burned areas anymore either.

Don't blame Andy Kerr for the toothpicks. The USFS and BLM didn't start
replanting their land after logging until the mid 70s. The oldest reprod
they have are 30 year old trees, when we could have been looking at 50
year old trees. The federal government has never managed their land
better than the average drunken moron. The ceaseless abuse of federal
forests is the single most compelling argument for privatizing federal
timber lands. Now, instead of logging the land and ignoring it, they
have moved on to burning it down and ignoring it.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Dave & Marcia" wrote in message

Can't go in and salvage good timbers in burned areas anymore either.


If it's good timber, why would it be salvage? Isn't that sort of a
contradiction?

-c

Just because it's salvageable doesn't mean that it is good timber. Trees
can be so damaged that they are no more then bug food. But if caught really
enough some good timber can be retreived. The trees might also be damaged so
much that they will simply die slowly. But again good lumber can be
salvaged. Like salvaging good metal from a wrecked auto.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Andy Kerr was at a rally in Roseburg several years back when Jim Hunt of
KRNR radio asked him what timber could be harvested his answer was "Not one
damn stick". He was for completely blocking logging from all land.

Many companies have a policy of replanting two trees for every one cut.
Nobody logs and ignores the land or burns and ignores it. That is a
narrowminded and and uninformed viewpoint. Many timber companies want in to
replant after a burn but are generally blocked by the radical
environmentalists (the Andy Kerr crowd).

"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
writes:

My hubby worked in a mill in down in Riddle for nearly 15 years. They
did
nothing but special cuts. That included metric cuts. Shipped many loads
over
seas. That wasn't their reason for problems. Your more extreme
environmentalists (like Andy Kerr) made the diameter of harvestable
timber
resemble the size of a toothpick (used to call them poles). Can't go in
and
salvage good timbers in burned areas anymore either.

Don't blame Andy Kerr for the toothpicks. The USFS and BLM didn't start
replanting their land after logging until the mid 70s. The oldest reprod
they have are 30 year old trees, when we could have been looking at 50
year old trees. The federal government has never managed their land
better than the average drunken moron. The ceaseless abuse of federal
forests is the single most compelling argument for privatizing federal
timber lands. Now, instead of logging the land and ignoring it, they
have moved on to burning it down and ignoring it.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Larry Caldwell wrote:

In article ,
writes:

My hubby worked in a mill in down in Riddle for nearly 15 years. They did
nothing but special cuts. That included metric cuts. Shipped many loads over
seas. That wasn't their reason for problems. Your more extreme
environmentalists (like Andy Kerr) made the diameter of harvestable timber
resemble the size of a toothpick (used to call them poles). Can't go in and
salvage good timbers in burned areas anymore either.

Don't blame Andy Kerr for the toothpicks. The USFS and BLM didn't start
replanting their land after logging until the mid 70s.

Then what the hell was I doing in the late sixties and early seventies working on
USFS replanting? Bad dream?

In article , writes:

Then what the hell was I doing in the late sixties and early seventies working on
USFS replanting? Bad dream?

They may have bought some seedlings from private nurseries or the State
of Oregon, but I built the cone cleaning mill at the first federal
seedling nursery outside Estecada in 1976. They had some plug
greenhouses in operation at the time, but were just clearing land for
seedling production.

In the late 60s they were still tossing seeds out of airplanes or leaving
a few seed trees on ridge lines, and failing miserably at reestablishing
timber land. It sounds like you were part of their "experimental"
reforestation, based on stuff that private timber companies had been
doing for decades and the state had been doing for a few years.

The state of Oregon didn't even mandate reforestation on state lands
until 1963, and the feds were a decade behind that.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
...
They may have bought some seedlings from private nurseries or the State
of Oregon, but I built the cone cleaning mill at the first federal
seedling nursery outside Estecada in 1976. They had some plug
greenhouses in operation at the time, but were just clearing land for
seedling production.

In the late 60s they were still tossing seeds out of airplanes or leaving
a few seed trees on ridge lines, and failing miserably at reestablishing
timber land. It sounds like you were part of their "experimental"
reforestation, based on stuff that private timber companies had been
doing for decades and the state had been doing for a few years.

The state of Oregon didn't even mandate reforestation on state lands
until 1963, and the feds were a decade behind that.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

That may have been true for some USFS Forests in Region 6, but it certainly was not the case on all
federal lands or even all USFS lands. In 1962 I worked in research in controlling vegetative
competition in plantations on the Plumas, Lassen, & Six Rivers National Forests in N. Cal.. I visited
and worked in thousands of acres of plantations, many of which were up to 10 yrs old at that time. In
1963-64 while working for the BLM on Eugene Dist., I supervised several planting contracts. I can't
remember the seedling source, but think it was either Dorena or Wind River Nursery.

Bob Weinberger

--
To reply by mail, nuke the 'bago.
Larry Harrell wrote in message
om...
"Caerbannog" wrote in message
...
--
To reply by mail, nuke the 'bago.

snip
.....

Past USFS policy has had a lot to do with the fire conditions.
Over-cutting and then a lack of fuels treatments leads to certain
disaster. I also hear that the USFS didn't take steps to put out the
fire in its early stages (because it was in the wilderness).


That would be incorrect -- the USFS folks didn't attack that fire more
aggressively because they had no reserve manpower to throw at
it in the early stages. In fact, a crucial, locally-based, fire-fighting
crew
was off fighting a fire in Colorado at the time.

From the Biscuit Fire chronology at
http://www.biscuitfire.com/pdf/chronology.htm :

"Boothe and Del Monte decided not to staff these two fires at this time
due to limited access, lack of safety zones, and current wind and fire
behavior.
These conditions compromised three of the Ten Standard Fire Orders"
1) Fight fire aggressively but provide for safety first.
2) Initiate all action based on current and expected fire behavior.
3) Determine safety zones and escape routes."

Safety and manpower issues, not wilderness management policy,
shaped the initial response to these fires.

................

(finishing a response that got truncated)

Larry Harrell wrote in message
om...
"Caerbannog" wrote in message
...

I can't claim to be an expert on Oregon ecology but, thinning usually
has good results everywhere.


Thinning would be a good idea in forests that have missed fire-cycles due
to 20th-century fire-suppression. But not all forests fall in to that
category.


... lands would be a complete waste of taxpayer money. Those forests
have
evolved with infrequent, high-intensity fires.


So, those forests wouldn't "benefit" from thinning, assuming you could
pay loggers to go in and do the work?


No. Forests that have evolved with very long fire-return intervals
would *not* benefit from thinning. A subalpine fir/lodgepole-pine
forest is *not* the same animal as a ponderosa pine forest.

Mechanically thinning subalpine forests to protect them from fire makes
about as much sense as mechaniclly thinning chaparral to protect it
from fire.


Unfortunately, the politicians who have advocated "streamlining" USFS
logging policies have dishonestly lumped in range (grassland,
sage-steppe,
and chaparral) fires in with forest fires to exaggerate the scope of the
problem.
Furthermore, pro-logging politicians have not made any attempt to
distinguish
the forest-types where mechanical intervention would be beneficial
(low-elevation
ponderosa forests) from those where mechanical thinning would be a waste
of
resources. Much of the forest land burned in 2000 did not miss a fire
cycle due to 20th-century suppression efforts.


I forsee a sensible bi-partisan plan that still includes the public's
input (though revamping the appeals process), keeps (true) old growth
and fire resistant species and prepares our forests for a regular
program of burning flashy fuels.


That would be terrific. But I have yet to see such a plan debated in
Congress. Nobody is talking about a long-term fire-reintroduction
plan for the forests that need it. All we hear about is the need to
expedite commercial thinning timber sales (which is a very good idea
if properly done), but nobody has put forth a long-term "followup plan".
Unless there is a proper followup plan in place, that thinning investment
will go right down the drain (or up in smoke).

If a forest has been commercially thinned and the natural fire-regime
is not re-introduced, the forest will be right back where it started in just
a few decades. Then what? If we need to sell enough large trees to pay
for the first round of thinning, how do we pay for the next round? Will
there
be enough large trees to pay for thinning rounds 2, 3, ... ?

A sensible fire plan will include not only mechanical thinning and
prescribed
fires, but restrictions on where homes can be built. With yuppies building
their
urban-wildland dream log-castles all over the place, the cost of managing
wildland
fire is exploding. And that cost is being born mostly by urban taxpayers
who do
not have the financial means to acquire a dream vacation home in the woods.

Fire-proofing our forests will require thinning, burning, and ZONING. Too
much of the money spent fighting fires is spent protecting isolated
structures. That
is one reason the Biscuit fire got so big. So much manpower was diverted
to structure protection in other wildfires ** including fires in other
states** that
qualified local firefighters were in short supply.

Congress should *not* pass a bill that gives timber companies greater
access to our forests without addressing these other critical issues.

If Larry Craig and other politicians representing rural states want urban
taxpayers to pony up the money to thin the forests in their states, then
they should be prepared to accept restrictions on how and where
development can occur in naturally fire-prone areas.

Ask a typical Republican politician to tell you the difference between a
ponderosa
pine and a subalpine fir, and most likely all you'll get is a dumb look.


I'll bet Larry Craig knows the difference (and has a high disdain for
the those firs G). I think they're pretty but they ARE a bear to
measure. They also make spectacular "Roman candles"!


Subalpine forests have evolved with infrequent, intense wildfires.
But to the extent that subalpine firs have invaded low-elevation
forests, they should be thinned/removed. But it makes no sense to
go up into the subalpine zone to thin there. The forests there simply
don't need it. Subalpine firs have gone up like "roman candles" for
millenia.

I strongly suspect that Larry Craig hasn't a clue regarding the ecology
of the high-elevation subalpine forests in the Northern Rockies. But
if he does, he's certainly not letting on....

Larry eco-forestry rules!

"Dave & Marcia" wrote in message ...

My hubby worked in a mill in down in Riddle for nearly 15 years. They did
nothing but special cuts. That included metric cuts. Shipped many loads over
seas. That wasn't their reason for problems. Your more extreme
environmentalists (like Andy Kerr) made the diameter of harvestable timber
resemble the size of a toothpick (used to call them poles). Can't go in and
salvage good timbers in burned areas anymore either.


And, don't forget THE latest trend in burn salvage. The USFS has
started what maybe a new policy. You can't cut ANY tree with ANY green
still left on it! Yep, throw the science out the window and "hope"
that those trees don't die (the ones you would've judged to be "brain
dead": dead cambium).

Actually, it wasn't too long ago that the USFS COULD put together a
burn salvage plan that would stand up in court AND was put together in
less than one year. Amazing but true! The Rabbit Creek Fire on the
Boise National Forest burned until the fall snows came and it ran into
the Sawtooths. The USFS didn't put it out. It just burned for weeks
and weeks. From October '94 to May '95 was all it took to put up
80,000 acres of fire salvage together (out of a total of 200,000
burned acres and several "roadless areas". The Idaho City Ranger
District put all that together and it DID hold up in court when it was
appealed. Logging began in June and went on into the winter. One sale
didn't sell because of scattered volume on helicopter ground. Another
appeal was filed by one of the logging outfits, contesting the lack of
any "conventional" sales that didn't require a helicopter (he sure had
ALL the other equipment though, and did finally buy a helicopter with
partners G ). So, we "magically" took the only helicopter unit in a
sale and made it a cable unit. No one knew HOW we were going to get
the logs out of the bottom, where cable yarders couldn't reach.
Anyway, that's another story. The sales were a great success and
everyone on the RD got a "Group Honor Award" from the then Secretary
of Agriculture, Dan Glickman. (It sure does look good in my resume G
)

Now, it's rare when an Environmental Assessment can be done in two
full years, right about when the timber's no good anymore.

Larry

Larry Caldwell wrote in message t...
In article , writes:

If it's good timber, why would it be salvage? Isn't that sort of a
contradiction?

Nope. A tree doesn't have to be alive to be good timber, if you are
quick. After a fire you have about a year before the wood really starts
to deteriorate. In those 120,000 acres or so of moderate fire, only the
outer inch or so of the tree is charred. The rest of the wood is just
fine.

The same is true of bug killed trees. I have some pines that are dead
from bark beetle. Some of the dead trees are still green in the crown,
they just don't know they are dead yet. They won't recover. The bugs
have killed them. There is nothing wrong with the wood, this year. If I
salvage the trees next spring, they will make fine saw logs. If I wait
until the year after, I would expect substantial dock for rot. Plus,
that year means all those bark beetles are infesting surrounding trees
and killing them too.

Salvage operations require you to be nimble, or there is no point.
That's why I don't think it is worth talking about salvage operations on
federal land. By the time a salvage operation makes it through the
review process, there is no wood left worth taking.

Quite correct, Larry. This is where NEPA needs to be re-vamped.
Salvage sales should have different staus than a green sale. This is
an emergency situation and the wood has a shelf-life.
"Preservationists" know this and use the system to make the wood
unusable. We can't (though I'd like to, if I could guarantee the work)
eliminate them from appeals but we should, at least, minimize the
timeline.
Also, "preservationists" don't want the inevitable (and significant!)
bug salvage in the remaining green trees to be cut.

Larry

Baloo Ursidae wrote in message ...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In alt.culture.oregon Caerbannog wrote:
Thinning would be a good idea in forests that have missed fire-cycles due
to 20th-century fire-suppression. But not all forests fall in to that
category.

The problem, though, is burning leaves the trees to rot in the woods
and return nutrients to the soil, logging does not. I realise a need
for logging, however, thinking that logging is a replacement for
natural fire cycles is rediculous at best, and I don't think anybody's
really put a lot of thought into what happens when you deplete the soil.

If a forest has been commercially thinned and the natural fire-regime
is not re-introduced, the forest will be right back where it started in just
a few decades. Then what? If we need to sell enough large trees to pay
for the first round of thinning, how do we pay for the next round? Will
there
be enough large trees to pay for thinning rounds 2, 3, ... ?

Not only that, but forests needs the big timber to survive, as the
trees hold the soil in place and provide protection from the wind to
younger trees. And as previously mentioned in multiple places, big
trees sear and live through it, whereas little trees result in
something more like Sour Biscuit.


Forests are constantly returning nutrients to the soil. After thinning
to the proper density, natural fire would then be returned to the
eco-system, supplying plentiful macro and micronutrients. Plus, there
would be fewer trees sucking up those nutrients, providing a perfect
environment for trees to grown big and fat.

Logging is a temporary replacement for "natural" fire. Fire that
clears the understory but leaves the big trees. When fuels have been
reduced to safe levels, then prescribed burning can take over in
simulating "natural" fire. Some areas may even be able to be
designated as "let-burn" areas. Wouldn't that be a slap in the face to
Smokey Bear? gigantic G

Larry

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In alt.culture.oregon Larry Harrell wrote:
Forests are constantly returning nutrients to the soil. After thinning
to the proper density, natural fire would then be returned to the
eco-system, supplying plentiful macro and micronutrients. Plus, there
would be fewer trees sucking up those nutrients, providing a perfect
environment for trees to grown big and fat.

I realise that's how it's supposed to work in theory, but I'm also
concerned what two to six more years of the lumber cabal running the
show will do to forests in our state and throughout the northwest.

Logging is a temporary replacement for "natural" fire. Fire that
clears the understory but leaves the big trees. When fuels have been
reduced to safe levels, then prescribed burning can take over in
simulating "natural" fire. Some areas may even be able to be
designated as "let-burn" areas.

Hopefully without too much tie up on salvage logging and protection
for the big trees and enough of the littler ones left behind for compost.

Wouldn't that be a slap in the face to
Smokey Bear? gigantic G

Not really.

- --
Baloo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9u2juNtWkM9Ny9xURAj0lAJsGVwlcyXp8ApLyWJ2duq lYroqYyACgnYpH
M9CKpurH+NksH08OOj3xlmE=
=9lh2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----