The spin doctors are at it already, claiming that the wildfires of last
summer weren't so bad after all, since some areas were left unburned.
They particularly point to the Biscuit Fire, the nation's largest of the
summer at 500,000 acres. The feel it is a triumph of the environment
that large acreages escaped completely unburned, and other areas
experienced a smoldering fire that left many trees unburned.

So let's look at the damage. A total of 191,000 acres burned at medium
to high intensity. Medium intensity kills most of the trees, and high
intensity leaves nothing but smoldering stumps. Of these 191,000 acres,
most were on steep slopes where the fire updraft and slope of the ground
assisted the movement of the fire into the crown. The erosion off these
steep slopes will choke rivers and streams with sediment, and seriously
harm fish runs for years.

Many of the areas spared by the fire are so rocky and infertile that not
many trees grow there anyway. The fire dropped to low intensity in those
areas because there wasn't much to burn.

It's quite a stretch to claim that the Biscuit Fire was beneficial in any
way. It did reduce the fuel load in the area, but that's about it.

--
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can
bribe the people with their own money."
-- Alexis de Tocquevile

Larry Caldwell wrote in message t...
The spin doctors are at it already, claiming that the wildfires of last
summer weren't so bad after all, since some areas were left unburned.
They particularly point to the Biscuit Fire, the nation's largest of the
summer at 500,000 acres. The feel it is a triumph of the environment
that large acreages escaped completely unburned, and other areas
experienced a smoldering fire that left many trees unburned.

So let's look at the damage. A total of 191,000 acres burned at medium
to high intensity. Medium intensity kills most of the trees, and high
intensity leaves nothing but smoldering stumps. Of these 191,000 acres,
most were on steep slopes where the fire updraft and slope of the ground
assisted the movement of the fire into the crown. The erosion off these
steep slopes will choke rivers and streams with sediment, and seriously
harm fish runs for years.

Many of the areas spared by the fire are so rocky and infertile that not
many trees grow there anyway. The fire dropped to low intensity in those
areas because there wasn't much to burn.

It's quite a stretch to claim that the Biscuit Fire was beneficial in any
way. It did reduce the fuel load in the area, but that's about it.

Good post, Larry! "Only" 191,000 acres burned at medium to high
intensity! Wooo hoo!! Many wildweness areas are set aside because
they had little in the way of resources to extract. Much of that area
will now take a hundred years or more to recover, as long as another
fire doesn't come in and re-burn the rest of the unburned fuels. (Not
that I would want to salvage any of it. It's a wilderness, after all)
Of course, no reforestation can occur, either. Fires are "natural",
right? G

Larry

In article ,
writes:

Good post, Larry! "Only" 191,000 acres burned at medium to high
intensity! Wooo hoo!! Many wildweness areas are set aside because
they had little in the way of resources to extract. Much of that area
will now take a hundred years or more to recover, as long as another
fire doesn't come in and re-burn the rest of the unburned fuels. (Not
that I would want to salvage any of it. It's a wilderness, after all)
Of course, no reforestation can occur, either. Fires are "natural",
right? G

While the Biscuit fire did start in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area, much
of the acreage burned was resource land in the Siskiyou National Forest.

--
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can
bribe the people with their own money."
-- Alexis de Tocquevile

In article ,
Larry Caldwell at says...

The spin doctors are at it already, claiming that the wildfires of last
summer weren't so bad after all, since some areas were left unburned.
They particularly point to the Biscuit Fire, the nation's largest of the
summer at 500,000 acres. The feel it is a triumph of the environment
that large acreages escaped completely unburned, and other areas
experienced a smoldering fire that left many trees unburned.

So let's look at the damage. A total of 191,000 acres burned at medium
to high intensity. Medium intensity kills most of the trees, and high
intensity leaves nothing but smoldering stumps. Of these 191,000 acres,
most were on steep slopes where the fire updraft and slope of the ground
assisted the movement of the fire into the crown. The erosion off these
steep slopes will choke rivers and streams with sediment, and seriously
harm fish runs for years.

Spin is right. Actually 78,870 acres burned at high
intensity (mortality approaching 100%). Mortality in
Moderate intensity is 40-80% for trees (old growth usually
less than young growth.)

Erosion from high intensity fire areas can be significant.
Road building for salvage logging on these same steep slopes
is a much larger danger for erosion and sedimentation.


Many of the areas spared by the fire are so rocky and infertile that not
many trees grow there anyway. The fire dropped to low intensity in those
areas because there wasn't much to burn.

It's quite a stretch to claim that the Biscuit Fire was beneficial in any
way. It did reduce the fuel load in the area, but that's about it.


Forest fires are a natural part of the Siskiyou region and
recur every 20-100 years. The Biscuit fire was simply larger
than average.

Fire can be beneficial for many species, some even require
it. The patchwork mosaic of rock types and fire history in
the Siskiyou and Kalmiopsis areas is the very reason why
there is such a wonderful diversity of plants and animals
there.

Without recurring fires some of the species would go extinct
in the area, and others would be highly reduced in extent.
Therefore, natural fires are beneficial over the long run.

Don't believe the "spin" of Larry Caldwell and others. They
only see money in trees. Because they didn't make a profit,
the area is "ruined."


For some facts, try...


http://www.biscuitfire.com/baer_summary.htm


Remember, only you can prevent ignorance.

In article ,
writes:

Although I didn't see the article(s) to which you refer, Larry, I can
imagine, based upon your saltiness, that there must have been some off the
wall statements made by the sources quoted.

Thinning of national forests to minimize high intensity forest fires has
been much in the news since last summer. Thanks to virulent attacks by
environmentalist lobbyists in congress, any effort to better manage
federal lands is dead, at least until after the November election.

The more virulent preservationists are claiming that, since only 38% of
the nation's largest fire was totally destroyed, it was really
beneficial.

At the moment, approximately 193 million acres of federal forests in the
west are in need of thinning to prevent catastrophic forest fires.
Perservationists want to reserve fire prevention efforts for areas around
their urban sprawl mountain cabins, and let the rest of it burn. With
our best fire suppression efforts, we lost 8 million acres in 2000 and
approximately the same this year.

--
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can
bribe the people with their own money."
-- Alexis de Tocquevile

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

Good post, Larry! "Only" 191,000 acres burned at medium to high
intensity! Wooo hoo!! Many wildweness areas are set aside because
they had little in the way of resources to extract. Much of that area
will now take a hundred years or more to recover, as long as another
fire doesn't come in and re-burn the rest of the unburned fuels. (Not
that I would want to salvage any of it. It's a wilderness, after all)
Of course, no reforestation can occur, either. Fires are "natural",
right? G

While the Biscuit fire did start in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area, much
of the acreage burned was resource land in the Siskiyou National Forest.

Thanks Larry for your post. It really supports the 'Burning Questions'
article in the Nov, 2002 issue of scientific american that natural fires of
the low intensity sort tend to form natural 'thinning' and 'brush clearing'
which allow the move from a forest of spindly 'doghair' trees to a mature
forest with well spaced and large diameter trees in stately columns (the
surviving trees, grown to maturity)

Dwain Goforth wrote in message m...

Spin is right. Actually 78,870 acres burned at high
intensity (mortality approaching 100%). Mortality in
Moderate intensity is 40-80% for trees (old growth usually
less than young growth.)

Erosion from high intensity fire areas can be significant.
Road building for salvage logging on these same steep slopes
is a much larger danger for erosion and sedimentation.


You don't figure in the accompanying insect attacks that always come
after a fire. Sgnificant timber volume is harvested when the beetles
kill those "borderline" trees that are so common in areas of medium to
high intensity fire. Most salvage on steep slopes is harvested by
helicopter. When helicopters are used, roadbuilding is kept to a
minimum. (Though landings are large)


Many of the areas spared by the fire are so rocky and infertile that not
many trees grow there anyway. The fire dropped to low intensity in those
areas because there wasn't much to burn.

It's quite a stretch to claim that the Biscuit Fire was beneficial in any
way. It did reduce the fuel load in the area, but that's about it.


Forest fires are a natural part of the Siskiyou region and
recur every 20-100 years. The Biscuit fire was simply larger
than average.


Tell me then, just what size IS the average fire there? Yes, I know
that catastrophic fire IS a part of the ecosystem but, what is the
"normal" frequency of fires that size?

Fire can be beneficial for many species, some even require
it. The patchwork mosaic of rock types and fire history in
the Siskiyou and Kalmiopsis areas is the very reason why
there is such a wonderful diversity of plants and animals
there.


Catastrophic fire can't be good for the poster animals used by
"preservationists", the marbled murrelet and the northern spotted owl.
Salmon runs will be impacted, as well.

Without recurring fires some of the species would go extinct
in the area, and others would be highly reduced in extent.
Therefore, natural fires are beneficial over the long run.

Don't believe the "spin" of Larry Caldwell and others. They
only see money in trees. Because they didn't make a profit,
the area is "ruined."


And, when logging occurs on forestland, areas are "destroyed" in the
minds of "preservationists". I've seen the word "pristene" used by
them as well when there are stumps in the area, too.


For some facts, try...


http://www.biscuitfire.com/baer_summary.htm


Remember, only you can prevent ignorance.

That road is a four lane highway going in both directions. I've worked
on many burn salvage projects and have seen for myself what happens
out there. Today's fires are RARELY beneficial, and only in small
areas do they benefit forests.

I'm not saying that we should harvest all acres of all fires or thin
every acre. The Siskiyous ARE wonderfully diverse and man should take
precautions to reduce the amount of catastrophic fire in every forest.

Larry eco-forestry rules!

In article ,
writes:

Spin is right. Actually 78,870 acres burned at high
intensity (mortality approaching 100%). Mortality in
Moderate intensity is 40-80% for trees (old growth usually
less than young growth.)

And you see this as a good thing?

Erosion from high intensity fire areas can be significant.
Road building for salvage logging on these same steep slopes
is a much larger danger for erosion and sedimentation.

Who supposedly builds these roads? You evidently are not aware that road
building on steep slopes no longer happens. Loggers don't even run
equipment on steep slopes, and will set up high line yarding to minimize
slope impact.

You are criticizing something you know less than nothing about. What you
think you know is wrong.

Forest fires are a natural part of the Siskiyou region and
recur every 20-100 years. The Biscuit fire was simply larger
than average.

Fires that large put a big hurt on threatened and endangered species.
Think 78,870 acres of clear cut in a single month, with no living thing
left behind, the soil sterilized and left in a condition prone to
landslides and mud flows. That is not natural or beneficial.

Fire can be beneficial for many species, some even require
it. The patchwork mosaic of rock types and fire history in
the Siskiyou and Kalmiopsis areas is the very reason why
there is such a wonderful diversity of plants and animals
there.

It can be, in small areas. I notice you get awfully abstract as soon as
your theories bump up against reality.

Without recurring fires some of the species would go extinct
in the area, and others would be highly reduced in extent.
Therefore, natural fires are beneficial over the long run.

With huge, destructive fires, some species WILL go extinct. This last
summer was so destructive there will be no long run for many rare
species. Perhaps we should make you file an environmental impact
statement and an ESA survey before you can have a fire?


http://www.biscuitfire.com/baer_summary.htm

How would you feel if that web page described the aftermath of a logging
operation? Would you be happy about losing 53,000 acres of spotted owl
habitat? Did you read the part about sensitive species losing whole
populations? Did you notice that less than 1% of the fire burned on
private forest land, where land owners are free to thin their timber?

Preservationists don't want to manage federal forests because they are
scared to death somebody might make a buck off of it. How can you
advocate destruction of the environment on this scale? Don't you feel
even a twinge of shame?

--
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can
bribe the people with their own money."
-- Alexis de Tocquevile

--
To reply by mail, nuke the 'bago.
Larry Caldwell wrote in message
...
In article ,
writes:

Although I didn't see the article(s) to which you refer, Larry, I can
imagine, based upon your saltiness, that there must have been some off
the
wall statements made by the sources quoted.

Thinning of national forests to minimize high intensity forest fires has
been much in the news since last summer. Thanks to virulent attacks by
environmentalist lobbyists in congress, any effort to better manage
federal lands is dead, at least until after the November election.

The more virulent preservationists are claiming that, since only 38% of
the nation's largest fire was totally destroyed, it was really
beneficial.


That's an exaggeration. The majority of that figure fell into the
"moderate severity" range, where tree mortality is expected to
range from 40-80 percent. If the areas that burned with
moderate intensity are as overstocked as has been claimed,
then a 40-80 percent reduction in the number of trees may
not be all that much of a disaster.

16 percent was subjected to severe fire intensity; the forests
there were almost certainly destroyed. Unfortunately, 16
percent of 500,000 is still a *lot* of acreage. The Biscuit
fire almost certainly did do a lot of damage, but given the
weather conditions -- nasty dry-lightning storms + drought
+ extreme summer heat (pushing 110F in Medford) + strong
winds -- the conflaguration was unavoidable. Blaming that fire
on USFS policy is rather less than honest, IMO.

It should be noted that for the wetter, west-side of the Kalmiopsis,
the mean fire return interval is on the order of 70 years. For the east
side, it's more like 40-50 years. So it's possible that the Biscuit fire
is not totally out of the natural range of fire activity there. And given
that much of the land burned in the Biscuit fire has been actively logged
for many years, it is disingenuous to claim that environmental red tape
had much to do with the outcome of this fire.

At the moment, approximately 193 million acres of federal forests in the
west are in need of thinning to prevent catastrophic forest fires.
Perservationists want to reserve fire prevention efforts for areas around
their urban sprawl mountain cabins, and let the rest of it burn. With
our best fire suppression efforts, we lost 8 million acres in 2000 and
approximately the same this year.


Here's a breakdown of the land ownership status of all the
land that burned in 2000.

BLM 1.6 million
BIA 511,000
FWS 349,000
NPS 151,000
USFS 2.14 million
State/private 3.7 million

And here's a breakdown of the land-cover types burned
in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming for the period July 4 - Aug 22,
2000:

Dry Conifer Forest: 190,000 acres (8%)
Montane Conifer Forest: 680,000 acres (28%)
Subalpine Forest: 698,000 acres (29%)
Non-forest: 870,000 (36%)


So it's misleading to say that we "lost" 8 million acres in 2000. Much of
the
land burned was non-forested, or was subalpine/montane forest where
the mean fire return interval is on the order of a century or more. Mean
fire
return intervals for the montane forest lands in the northern Rockies range
from
25 to over 200 years. Mean fire-return intervals for subalpine forests can
most often be measured in small numbers of centuries. The montane forest
forests with short fire return intervals would benefit from mechanical
thinning;
those with long fire return intervals would not. Thinning of subalpine
forest
lands would be a complete waste of taxpayer money. Those forests have
evolved with infrequent, high-intensity fires.

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.

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.



(detailed info can be found at:
http://www.pacificbio.org/Projects/F.../fire_pubs.htm)

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

snip


That's an exaggeration. The majority of that figure fell into the
"moderate severity" range, where tree mortality is expected to
range from 40-80 percent. If the areas that burned with
moderate intensity are as overstocked as has been claimed,
then a 40-80 percent reduction in the number of trees may
not be all that much of a disaster.

16 percent was subjected to severe fire intensity; the forests
there were almost certainly destroyed. Unfortunately, 16
percent of 500,000 is still a *lot* of acreage. The Biscuit
fire almost certainly did do a lot of damage, but given the
weather conditions -- nasty dry-lightning storms + drought
+ extreme summer heat (pushing 110F in Medford) + strong
winds -- the conflaguration was unavoidable. Blaming that fire
on USFS policy is rather less than honest, IMO.


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).

It should be noted that for the wetter, west-side of the Kalmiopsis,
the mean fire return interval is on the order of 70 years. For the east
side, it's more like 40-50 years. So it's possible that the Biscuit fire
is not totally out of the natural range of fire activity there. And given
that much of the land burned in the Biscuit fire has been actively logged
for many years, it is disingenuous to claim that environmental red tape
had much to do with the outcome of this fire.


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

At the moment, approximately 193 million acres of federal forests in the
west are in need of thinning to prevent catastrophic forest fires.
Perservationists want to reserve fire prevention efforts for areas around
their urban sprawl mountain cabins, and let the rest of it burn. With
our best fire suppression efforts, we lost 8 million acres in 2000 and
approximately the same this year.


Here's a breakdown of the land ownership status of all the
land that burned in 2000.

BLM 1.6 million
BIA 511,000
FWS 349,000
NPS 151,000
USFS 2.14 million
State/private 3.7 million

And here's a breakdown of the land-cover types burned
in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming for the period July 4 - Aug 22,
2000:

Dry Conifer Forest: 190,000 acres (8%)
Montane Conifer Forest: 680,000 acres (28%)
Subalpine Forest: 698,000 acres (29%)
Non-forest: 870,000 (36%)


So it's misleading to say that we "lost" 8 million acres in 2000. Much of
the
land burned was non-forested, or was subalpine/montane forest where
the mean fire return interval is on the order of a century or more. Mean
fire
return intervals for the montane forest lands in the northern Rockies range
from
25 to over 200 years. Mean fire-return intervals for subalpine forests can
most often be measured in small numbers of centuries. The montane forest
forests with short fire return intervals would benefit from mechanical
thinning;
those with long fire return intervals would not. Thinning of subalpine
forest
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?

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.

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"!

Larry eco-forestry rules!

In article , writes:

Well, to be fair, it's been the recent past abuses of federal land
management in the name of "salvage" that resulted in a huge growth of
environmental activism. Steep-slope logging and road building does
exist, and existed during the Clinton administration. Hull Oakes had roads
built at taxpayer expense into the Tobe West area, which had very steep
slopes right over a coho salmon spawning area, and the logging operation was
shut down as soon as OSU and the government got around to inspecting the
area, wherein they discovered what the enviros were telling them all along:
steep slopes over streambeds and the presence of endangered species within
the forest.

Which makes you wonder why the environmentalists are opposing the new
plans that would ban cutting of old growth entirely. DeFazio opposed
Clinton's Northwest Forest Plan for precisely that reason. Even back
then, he was saying it is time to move to quit mining legacy forests and
move to sustainable management of the federal lands that have already
been cut.

The fact is, the big urban environmental groups oppose any sensible land
management, because a successful management plan on public lands would
cut into their fund raising efforts.

Exactly as the enviros had said. But, the operation wasn't stopped until
dozens of people had been arrested and a two million tax dollars were spent
on a road that would have benefitted only the logging operation because the
road was otherwise off limits to the public. Yarder lines went right over
Tobe creek, and I provided aerial footage showing that their "selective
clearcut" razed the land right down to the dirt. By the time the
officials stepped in, the area had been 70% cut. That one made 60 Minutes.

I wasn't aware of that one. It was going on at the same time as the
China Left protests in the Siskiyou National Forest, which was, BTW, a
model thinning operation. It would be interesting to see how the China
Left came through the Biscuit fire. Wouldn't it be entertaining if the
loggers saved the China Left forest and the ones where the enviros
stopped operations are gone?

I did some web sleuthing on Tobe West, but couldn't find any sites that
had any actual information. I did find one fish survey at

http://www.midcoas****ershedcouncil..../pdf/50116.pdf

that indicates Tobe Creek isn't much for fish. It has less than 1 smolt
per square mile for sections, and no smolts at all for the rest of the
creek.

Of course, what Hull-Oakes did is try to get their turn-of-the century
steam-powered plant, which required large-girth timber to operate, turned
into some sort of living museum which meant that the taxpayers of the state
of Oregon would provide them with a certain amount of board feet of old
growth timber per year by law--profits and price of public admission, of
course, going to the company.

Is that mill still open? If it is, it would be the last large log mill
in the PNW. Nowadays, if you deliver a log larger than 24" to a mill,
they dock you because they can't saw it. I think a few veneer plants can
still handle large peelers, but they are peeling small logs now and
facing clear plywood with cottonwood instead of fir because populus
species grow so fast and clear.

Another example is, of course, Warner Creek which was a timber salvage
auction of an old growth stand that went to a local company with prior
felony documentation of timber theft and auction-rigging. The "salvage"
fire was blatant arson; the arsonist didn't even bother to take his gasoline
can out with him. Since there were no roads to the site, somebody actually
had to lug the gasoline can out into the woods and deliberately start a fire
in an old growth forest where there was virtually no reason to burn
whatsoever except for salvage sale under the timber salvage rider on the
"Oklahoma City Bombing Victim Relief Act."

The salvage rider expired. Two million acres of pine burned in Montana
in 2000, and not a bit of it was salvaged. It is unlikely there will
ever be fire salvage operations on federal land again. Burned trees
deteriorate far too rapidly to make it through the approval process. If
you don't get them logged and milled within two years, they are
worthless.

Clinton was such a spineless piece of crap that, rather than take the head
for refusing to sign the OKC relief act and having the balls to tell the
public exactly why, he signed it including the timber salvage rider that
industry shills managed to attach to the end of the bill. In case anybody
was wondering why the environmentalists in Oregon prefered to vote for Nader
even if it meant sabotaging the Democrats, that's why. The Democrats in
this case were absolute cowards.

So, what does Clinton have to do with thinning forests? Thinning is a
win-win process for everybody involved. Over time, thinning produces
higher quantities of higher value lumber, and it also helps forests
recover old growth characteristics. It opens up the understory and
improves habitat for endangered species like spotted owls, and prevents
the destruction of forests by runaway wildfires and insect infestation.

Face it, organizations like the Sierra Club have become fund raising
machines that don't give a shit about the environment. All they care
about is the money coming in.

Well, "we" didn't lose anything because it wasn't ours in the first place
except by manifest destiny and the idea that just because it's there means
it's there for us to exploit.

"We" import 40% of the world's wood fiber production for our own use.
"We" are clear cutting the Phillipines, Brazil, Indonesia and S.E. Asia
so we can wipe our ass with Charmin. "We" could produce our own wood
fiber, except the enviros would rather hold a bonfire than manage timber
lands sensibly.

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

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?

-c


"Larry Harrell"
"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message

Thinning of national forests to minimize high intensity forest fires
has
been much in the news since last summer. Thanks to virulent attacks
by
environmentalist lobbyists in congress, any effort to better manage
federal lands is dead, at least until after the November election.

Well, to be fair, it's been the recent past abuses of federal land
management in the name of "salvage" that resulted in a huge growth of
environmental activism. Steep-slope logging and road building does
exist, and existed during the Clinton administration. Hull Oakes had
roads
built at taxpayer expense into the Tobe West area, which had very steep
slopes right over a coho salmon spawning area, and the logging operation
was
shut down as soon as OSU and the government got around to inspecting the
area, wherein they discovered what the enviros were telling them all
along:
steep slopes over streambeds and the presence of endangered species
within
the forest.

Exactly as the enviros had said. But, the operation wasn't stopped
until
dozens of people had been arrested and a two million tax dollars were
spent
on a road that would have benefitted only the logging operation because
the
road was otherwise off limits to the public. Yarder lines went right
over
Tobe creek, and I provided aerial footage showing that their "selective
clearcut" razed the land right down to the dirt. By the time the
officials stepped in, the area had been 70% cut. That one made 60
Minutes.

Of course, what Hull-Oakes did is try to get their turn-of-the century
steam-powered plant, which required large-girth timber to operate,
turned
into some sort of living museum which meant that the taxpayers of the
state
of Oregon would provide them with a certain amount of board feet of old
growth timber per year by law--profits and price of public admission, of
course, going to the company.

Another example is, of course, Warner Creek which was a timber salvage
auction of an old growth stand that went to a local company with prior
felony documentation of timber theft and auction-rigging. The
"salvage"
fire was blatant arson; the arsonist didn't even bother to take his
gasoline
can out with him. Since there were no roads to the site, somebody
actually
had to lug the gasoline can out into the woods and deliberately start a
fire
in an old growth forest where there was virtually no reason to burn
whatsoever except for salvage sale under the timber salvage rider on the
"Oklahoma City Bombing Victim Relief Act."

Clinton was such a spineless piece of crap that, rather than take the
head
for refusing to sign the OKC relief act and having the balls to tell the
public exactly why, he signed it including the timber salvage rider that
industry shills managed to attach to the end of the bill. In case
anybody
was wondering why the environmentalists in Oregon prefered to vote for
Nader
even if it meant sabotaging the Democrats, that's why. The Democrats
in
this case were absolute cowards.

With our best fire suppression efforts, we lost 8 million acres in
2000
and
approximately the same this year.

Well, "we" didn't lose anything because it wasn't ours in the first
place
except by manifest destiny and the idea that just because it's there
means
it's there for us to exploit.

-c

In 1995, thinning was wrongly termed as "salvage". True salvage is the
harvesting of dead and dying trees. There is still plenty of potential
for abuse and corruption of salvage operations, though. For example;
any old growth "ugly" tree could be wrongly "judged" as dying by less
than experienced personnel. We seem to be stuck in a cycle of "crisis
logging" where trees die because of fire and drought, forcing agencies
into harvesting "salvage" trees and training new, inexperienced people
to learn about forest management practices.

Would Nader have been any better at managing today's forests? I really
don't think so. Currently, it remains unclear if Bush will be
effective in doing what is right for the land, instead of what is
right for the (corporate) humans. His track record so far has been not
so good in trying to do "end runs" around existing laws. The true test
will be whether he can come together in a bipartisan compromise that
will allow forests to be managed in an ecologically sound manner, that
will avoid court battles and will address and implement projects that
will restore our forests back to health without breaking the bank.
(Yes, economics IS a part of the equation and has to be balanced with
all the other forest issues)

Currently there is gridlock in Washington, Oregon and California.
Changes, big and small, have to be made in order to bring health and
balance back to these eco-systems. IMHO, the logging of old growth in
the Pacific Northwest has to go. Enhancing those remaining stands and
encouraging other stands is the true way to go.

Forget about the crap of whether the lands is ours or whose. Loss of
forest is a loss for everyone. With our consuption not decreasing, we
have to get those forest products from SOMEWHERE. If logging ceases
here, we WILL get logs from somewhere else that doesn't have rules and
good practices when planning and logging trees. We don't need to
exploit our forests to supply our wood products appetite, just proper
management.

Larry eco-forestry rules!

"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message

I wasn't aware of that one. It was going on at the same time as the
China Left protests in the Siskiyou National Forest, which was, BTW, a
model thinning operation.

I remember China Left. Don't think I saw it firsthand, but it sounds
similar to Sphinx, which brought the mayor of Salem out to protest because
of steep slope logging over Salem's watershed.

While the protest was going on and the goons were running around filming
everybody, a friend of mine and I slipped over the line and hiked right up
to the operation. Ran smack into a USFS cop, who ended up giving us a
tour, showing us the operation (goons following us with cameras like
paparazzi.) We counted the pieces of heavy equipment, checked out the
cutting area and even got a tour of a "selective clearcut" under the Clinton
plan. Most notably, there wasn't a single yarder or piece of unassembled
yarding equipment. It simply wasn't a steep slope operation.

On the way out, the goons offered us a ride down in their pickup. They
knew that if we showed up in the back of their truck we'd have no
credibility with the people down at the protest, which was counterproductive
because what we told the CFA guys and I think even the mayor of Salem is,
"it's not as bad as people are saying."

At the base the goon pulled me aside and said "I worked in the FBI for 15
years. I know what you're up to." The asswipe seemed a little concerned
when we told him the name of the company (a front) that leased his truck,
and told him his name.

I did some web sleuthing on Tobe West, but couldn't find any sites that
had any actual information. I did find one fish survey at

http://www.midcoas****ershedcouncil..../pdf/50116.pdf

I'll have to dig out my aerial photos. I circled overhead while my friend
in the passenger seat photographed the entire operation. What a rush!
That was a nasty one but it didn't have nearly as many arrests involved as
Enola Hill and places like that.

that indicates Tobe Creek isn't much for fish. It has less than 1 smolt
per square mile for sections, and no smolts at all for the rest of the
creek.

I wonder how that compares to before the operation.

Of course, what Hull-Oakes did is ...

Is that mill still open? If it is, it would be the last large log mill
in the PNW.

I'm pretty sure it still is. It's near Alpine or one of those little towns
south of Corvallis. Private company, not a major corporation or anything,
and not nearly as big as Freres Brothers (I tried to order their court
documentation for felony timber theft one time, and at about a dollar a
sheet for duplication, I couldn't afford to photocopy all of the documents.
Boxes and boxes.)

The salvage rider expired. Two million acres of pine burned in Montana
in 2000, and not a bit of it was salvaged. It is unlikely there will
ever be fire salvage operations on federal land again.

I think if it hadn't been for the amount of publicity that abuse of the
rider generated, it wouldn't be that way. Basically, the BLM and USFS
completely mishandled it and allowed local companies to exploit it in such a
way that it ruined what was probably a good thing.

Clinton was such a spineless piece of crap that, rather than take the
head
for refusing to sign the OKC relief act and having the balls to tell the
public exactly why, he signed it including the timber salvage rider that
industry shills managed to attach to the end of the bill.

So, what does Clinton have to do with thinning forests?

He signed the salvage rider rather than insist upon more specific and
rational wording. Had he had an actual spine, he might have gotten a
better salvage policy into place which might still be workable today.
The salvage rider completely denied public right to appeal even though it
was public land.

Face it, organizations like the Sierra Club have become fund raising
machines that don't give a shit about the environment. All they care
about is the money coming in.

Not necessarily arguing with you there. But, just because McDonald's is
the largest hamburger seller doesn't mean they have real hamburgers.
Sierra Club is to environmentalism what McDonald's is to hamburgers.

"We" import 40% of the world's wood fiber production for our own use.
"We" are clear cutting the Phillipines, Brazil, Indonesia and S.E. Asia
so we can wipe our ass with Charmin.

Toilet paper is a recent (and western) luxury. I love it when people ask
"Wull...if you ban logging how you gonna wipe your ass, dumbass?" People
use to use corn husks and even corn cobs. Other parts of the world use
water, and over a billion people use their left hand. And, recycled toilet
paper is cheap. But, your point is probably valid.

-c

There are mills that do cut metric, but I believe that they are few and far
between. I've seen an occasional story on companies that specifically target
the Japanese market and have tea rooms(?) and the like for conducting business
with their Japanese customers, so this company seemed to have gone the extra
mile. It was actually not a large company, and I seem to recall that it was in
Molalla or Estacada, but that's sifting through 5-10 years of bad memory. Oww,
Oww, Oww, my head hurts.

As of right now, the Japanese economy is so far into the toilet that I wonder
how that particular company is faring. One also has to wonder if a metric size
common to one company is also a metric size common to another.

A friend of mine used to work on the lasers used for sawmills to cut down on
waste on their cutting. I don't know if retooling for something like that also
means they retool so that they can cut metric as well as to US standards. I
have to think that sticking to gallons and feet and pounds while the rest of the
world goes metric will eventually bite American businesses in the ass. We can
continue to get away with it for now because our market is so big, but I'm still
uneasy about it.

gatt wrote:

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?

-c

"Larry Harrell"
"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message

Thinning of national forests to minimize high intensity forest fires
has
been much in the news since last summer. Thanks to virulent attacks
by
environmentalist lobbyists in congress, any effort to better manage
federal lands is dead, at least until after the November election.

Well, to be fair, it's been the recent past abuses of federal land
management in the name of "salvage" that resulted in a huge growth of
environmental activism. Steep-slope logging and road building does
exist, and existed during the Clinton administration. Hull Oakes had
roads
built at taxpayer expense into the Tobe West area, which had very steep
slopes right over a coho salmon spawning area, and the logging operation
was
shut down as soon as OSU and the government got around to inspecting the
area, wherein they discovered what the enviros were telling them all
along:
steep slopes over streambeds and the presence of endangered species
within
the forest.

Exactly as the enviros had said. But, the operation wasn't stopped
until
dozens of people had been arrested and a two million tax dollars were
spent
on a road that would have benefitted only the logging operation because
the
road was otherwise off limits to the public. Yarder lines went right
over
Tobe creek, and I provided aerial footage showing that their "selective
clearcut" razed the land right down to the dirt. By the time the
officials stepped in, the area had been 70% cut. That one made 60
Minutes.

Of course, what Hull-Oakes did is try to get their turn-of-the century
steam-powered plant, which required large-girth timber to operate,
turned
into some sort of living museum which meant that the taxpayers of the
state
of Oregon would provide them with a certain amount of board feet of old
growth timber per year by law--profits and price of public admission, of
course, going to the company.

Another example is, of course, Warner Creek which was a timber salvage
auction of an old growth stand that went to a local company with prior
felony documentation of timber theft and auction-rigging. The
"salvage"
fire was blatant arson; the arsonist didn't even bother to take his
gasoline
can out with him. Since there were no roads to the site, somebody
actually
had to lug the gasoline can out into the woods and deliberately start a
fire
in an old growth forest where there was virtually no reason to burn
whatsoever except for salvage sale under the timber salvage rider on the
"Oklahoma City Bombing Victim Relief Act."

Clinton was such a spineless piece of crap that, rather than take the
head
for refusing to sign the OKC relief act and having the balls to tell the
public exactly why, he signed it including the timber salvage rider that
industry shills managed to attach to the end of the bill. In case
anybody
was wondering why the environmentalists in Oregon prefered to vote for
Nader
even if it meant sabotaging the Democrats, that's why. The Democrats
in
this case were absolute cowards.

With our best fire suppression efforts, we lost 8 million acres in
2000
and
approximately the same this year.

Well, "we" didn't lose anything because it wasn't ours in the first
place
except by manifest destiny and the idea that just because it's there
means
it's there for us to exploit.

-c

In 1995, thinning was wrongly termed as "salvage". True salvage is the
harvesting of dead and dying trees. There is still plenty of potential
for abuse and corruption of salvage operations, though. For example;
any old growth "ugly" tree could be wrongly "judged" as dying by less
than experienced personnel. We seem to be stuck in a cycle of "crisis
logging" where trees die because of fire and drought, forcing agencies
into harvesting "salvage" trees and training new, inexperienced people
to learn about forest management practices.

Would Nader have been any better at managing today's forests? I really
don't think so. Currently, it remains unclear if Bush will be
effective in doing what is right for the land, instead of what is
right for the (corporate) humans. His track record so far has been not
so good in trying to do "end runs" around existing laws. The true test
will be whether he can come together in a bipartisan compromise that
will allow forests to be managed in an ecologically sound manner, that
will avoid court battles and will address and implement projects that
will restore our forests back to health without breaking the bank.
(Yes, economics IS a part of the equation and has to be balanced with
all the other forest issues)

Currently there is gridlock in Washington, Oregon and California.
Changes, big and small, have to be made in order to bring health and
balance back to these eco-systems. IMHO, the logging of old growth in
the Pacific Northwest has to go. Enhancing those remaining stands and
encouraging other stands is the true way to go.

Forget about the crap of whether the lands is ours or whose. Loss of
forest is a loss for everyone. With our consuption not decreasing, we
have to get those forest products from SOMEWHERE. If logging ceases
here, we WILL get logs from somewhere else that doesn't have rules and
good practices when planning and logging trees. We don't need to
exploit our forests to supply our wood products appetite, just proper
management.

Larry eco-forestry rules!

"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.








-----= 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! =-----