NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/environm/5215

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 12.8 KB

Xref: sparky talk.environment:5215 alt.activism.d:4352 alt.rush-limbaugh:12175
Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!pmafire!cdm
From: [e-mail] (Dale Cook)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 01:32:52 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: The Douglas Fir forests of the Pacific North West
Summary:
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Followup-To:
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: old growth forest
Lines: 270

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>(Dale Cook) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>>On the subject of fire:
>>
>>Fires are a vital part of the forest ecosystem, not an enemy.
>
>I didn't say it was.  Fire is not a friend or an enemy, it simply is.  This
>is the kind of anthropomorphism that in part earns the environmental
>extreme the term, "wacko".

Wait a minute - I said it was a vital part of the forest ecosystem, not
a friend.

> I'm not saying you are Dale; I'm just whining
>about a pet peeve.  You have been kind, thoughtful and reasonable, and I
>thank you for it.  I hope this discussion stays that way.

Thanks.  I would say the same of you.
>
> [Much interesting and enlightening data about Doug Firs deleted]
>
>>It is a natural part of the ecosystem, providing the stresses needed
>>for the forest to evolve and maintain biodiversity.
>
>What the fires did here was not so much maintain biodiversity, but limit
>it.

Good point.  Hadn't thought of that angle.
>

>>Comparing clearcuts to fires is an inaccurate portrayal.
>
>What the clear-cuts (often followed by intentional fires) do is allow
>the Douglas Fir to compete without the terrible fires, which would not
>otherwise be possible, long term.  In other words, clear-cuts allow us
>to maintain what is natural here, which could not be done otherwise,
>without allowing huge destructive fires.

I know that in some types of forest, clearcutting can be part of sound
forest management practice.  I'm not so much against clearcutting because
of it's ugliness, but because as it has been applied, it is not
sustainable.  That's all I really want to see: sustainability and
multiple use.

>>On clearcuts:
>>
>>You have neglected the effects of clearcutting on the single most important
>>component of any forest: the soil.  Clearcutting does immense damage to the
>>soil.  In some areas, reforestation attempts in these areas have failed
>>miserably.
>
>This is also true of fires.  Moreover, forestry practices have changed a
>lot over the years and they are now more conscious of erosion and
>other soil damage.  I wonder if your information is up to date.

I agree, leading edge practices are coming up to speed.  I wrote to
someone else about the Clackamas District and the program John Berry
implemented with a combination of good sense and fortunate conditions.
If you're interested, I'll send you a copy.  My point is that just
because we know the right way to do things does not mean that it is
universally practiced.
>
>Road construction often is what does the most damage, causes the most
>erosion and costs the most money when logging a new area.  When you
>hear that it is uneconomical to log some areas, this is almost always
>because the value of the timber isn't enough to pay for the roads.
>Often now -- I don't know what the criteria is, but I understand the law
>sometimes requires it -- they destroy and plant the roads after a unit
>is logged.  I haven't heard the pro and con on this, but from what I
>know, this seems mind-numbingly stupid to me.  I would think it would
>make more sense, save money, and do less damage to the environment to
>save the roads for the next time, but I could be wrong.

Except you'd have to build better (read:costlier) roads in the first
place, and then maintain them in order to reap the advantage of reuse.
>
>>Fires have the effect of sealing the surface of the burned over forest
>>floor, so that mud and silt are not as big a problem as with clearcuts.
>
>Not here.

I have nothing here to dispute this, so OK.  I will try to verify this,
though.
>
>>Additionally, the system has evolved to cope with fires over millions of
>>years; nothing in nature compares with clearcuts.
>
>Agreed.  But that in itself doesn't make clear-cuts bad, any more than
>mountain-range wide forest fires are good, just because they were
>natural.

Not good or bad, granted.  But do we fully understand the ramifications
of eliminating the periodic large fires?  Perhaps these fires have the
effect of preventing the evolution and buildup of some harmful soil
organism which would eventually seriously impact the Doug Fir's
survivability?  Clearcuts and low intensity burns may not accomplish
this.

>
>>The trees in a forest recover much more rapidly than the soils.  Forests
>>can mature in a century while soil may take a millenia to reach optimum
>>productivity.
>
>True.  And this is a good reason to avoid the huge fire I've been
>talking about.

Except if you do this, by your own logic you are making the soils more
amenable to other more competitive species, to the eventual (perhaps)
detriment of the Doug Fir.

>
>>Traditional clearcutting has ignored the "dirt".  If you screw it up,
>>you've desertified the area for a long time, and there are numerous
>>examples of failed reforestation in your area.
>
>Which is why they don't practice "traditional" clear-cutting any more.
>Yes, they clear-cut, but they do things to save the dirt.

Again, leading edge forestry has come a long way.  However, I believe
clearcutting is still practiced in traditional ways in many forests.
You are also talking about a high-visibility area, where it pays
public relations dividends to do things better.  Some of the "whackos"
you refer to are at least in part responsible for the implementation
of many of these ideas, by simply bringing past practices up before
the public.
>
>>On blowdowns:
>>
>>Yes, trees do get blown down by windstorms.  But guess what?  These rotting
>>trees return nutrients to the soil, provide mulch, and are also a natural
>>process.  To say that such trees are "wasted" is inaccurate.  These fallen
>>trees are good for the soils.
>
>True, but it is easy to make too much of this point.  It doesn't
>necessarily follow that wind-throw (as it is called) shouldn't be
>removed.  Even if it is, not everything is removed, i.e. the branches,
>needles, broken parts of the trunk and the stump are left behind.

Very true, nor should it all be removed.  A severe wind-throw (see, I
learned something :-) was one of the fortuitous events that allowed
John Berry the latitude to implement his ideas in the Clackamas.
>
>>>It is often said that we have over-cut and that we are running out of
>>>trees, but that is a matter of opinion.  Half of the land area of
>>>Oregon is owned by the federal government.  Between 20 and 25 percent
>>
>>True, but the federal government virtually gives away timber on much of
>>this land.  Again, timber that is retailed for $50 bd/ft is sold for
>>$5 bd/ft by the forest service.  This is before any discounts (which are
>>substantial) are applied for "defects" in the wood.
>
>This is nonsense.

I don't think so.  I think it's from the GAO.

> Standing timber is sold at public auction, so it is
>sold at market value by definition.  There have been cases of

Ah, but you conveniently ignore the fact that only the largest of
timber companies can afford to bid the sale.
>corruption, particularly involving inspection of the wood, but there
>have also be prosecutions.  There is a tendency to blame timber
>companies for this -- and I'm not saying this isn't and should be a
>crime -- but there shouldn't be discounts for defects at all.  The
>standing timber should be sold as is, which would eliminate the need to
>inspect the cut logs.  That it isn't this way is really our fault for
>not insisting the government look out for our interests better in this
>regard.

As are so many other things the government does.
>
>I often see it said that the government is logging areas it doesn't pay
>to log (usually the cost of building roads, which the forest service
>does).  I don't find that hard to believe given the perverse incentives
>typically found in government endeavors of all types, but it isn't true
>around here.  The Forest Service makes a lot of money off the Willamette
>National Forest.

100% agreement here.  The PNW forests are big moneymakers for the FS.
One of the reasons is that up until recently, not much in the way of
roadbuilding (by comparison with other areas) was required, access was
fairly good.  Most of the easy access timber is now cut.  The big reason,
though, is the properties of the Doug Fir you mentioned.
>
>>>Willamette Industries and many of the other large holders are on a
>>>sustained yield and have been for a long time.  Willamette Industries
>>>has cut much of it's land three times now and is growing trees for a
>>>fourth cut.
>>
>>So why can't these companies treat the national forests on public land
>>the same way they do on their own land?
>
>Because it isn't their land.  They are told what to do on the public
>land.  Why is this hard to figure out?

Point taken.  The real question is why aren't the public lands managed
by the government for sustainability?  However, if you don't think the
timber industry has not been a prime player in shaping government policy
on forest management, you're wrong.
>
>>They also manage their land for single use - silviculture.
>
>While this is true, it isn't as significant as you might think.  Much of
>the private land is not easily distinguishable from the National Forest,
>and is home to a multitude of wildlife, including Spotted Owls.

But in the final analysis, if they decide it's time to cut, it's cut
with highest regard given for timber production.  It's nice when the
needs of the system coincide with the production of timber, but it
doesn't always work that way.
>
>>The public lands need to be managed for
>>multiple use.  This implies that different techniques are called for.
>>When a forest is clearcut, it has been committed to single use for at least
>>the life of a human being, around 75 years.  I don't call this multiple
>>use, do you?
>
>That's why I was arguing for longer rotations on the public lands (or at
>least some of it).

That's all I want.  Longer rotations imply sustainable rates of harvest,
something that you must admit is not happening now.
>
>Lodgepole is of low value, but not useless as is sometimes said (not by
>you, Dale).  It is of low value because demand exceeds supply.

Not just that.  It does not attain the diameters of Doug Fir, and does
not have the structural strength of it either.

>>I'm not saying that a modified form of cutting isn't workable, but as
>>it's practiced now, it stinks.  Sure, wise forest management practices
>>cost more, but there are other things besides wood at stake here.
>
>No one debates that.  Exactly what about current practices "stinks"?

The fact that the program loses public money.  The fact that it's "cut
is as fast as we can now".  You yourself have said longer rotations
are needed.  The timber industry and government have made many
improvements, but it certainly hasn't been out of the goodness of their
hearts.

>Moreover, clear-cuts, or burns are important for other reasons besides
>just re-establishing Douglas Fir.  The open space is important habitat
>for both plants and animals too.  And as I've said, there are reasons to
>prefer a clear-cut to a burn besides just the loss of timber, both
>esthetic and practical.  This isn't just a simple case of "clear-cuts
>bad, fire good" or "nature good, man bad", as some would like to paint
>it.  It isn't that clear-cut (sorry! :-).

Agreed.  Again, if clearcuts are the best management practice we have,
it should be used.  You still have not convinced me that the practices
that have led us to the situation we're in today are "best".
>
>If you want to know what these fires were like, read about the Tillamook
>Burn, which as actually three fires, in different years over approximately
>the same area.  The first was in 1933.  This was all old growth in a forest
>that typically gets more than 100 inches of rain a year.*  They were logging
>burnt timber out of parts of that for twenty years after the fire.  And my
>dad and his crew were still replanting parts of it into the 60's.

As a friend of mine says, in many parts of the Cascades, you *can't* stop
the trees from growing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "I don't much care how a man prays -- there's plenty of
                 room in hell for all of us."  --- "Mad Jack" Duncan
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------