Growing up with Redwood's. Truely God's country.

[Eccentric]

Where the hell did that come from? Nobody here in this discussion has advocated a "let's cut all the redwoods down" stance....

 

[Gologit]

Yeah, your right...let's just cut all the redwoods down so that all the filthy rich people in Portola Valley can have their redwood decking.

Yeah, that makes more sense...:bang:

Nobody is advocating cutting down all the Redwoods. Broc Luno and I don't agree on a lot of things but neither one of us want to see all the old growth gone.

Broc Luno has the experience to present a logical argument from his point of view. So do I.



He and I are having a civil discussion and airing different points of view. You need to take a deep breath, go back and read both of our posts, and if you can't add anything useful you need to rethink your facts and S T F U.

 

[carym2a]

opcorn:

 

[Jon1212]

You make some good points and in a perfect world maybe some of your ideas might possibly work. I wish I had time to wait for that perfect world to appear. Those of us who work in the woods and don't just use them to play in usually have a pretty full plate.

You can talk about a "liability shift" all you want but the truth is something different...and a lot less pleasant. Every recreational group, hunters, 4 wheelers, woodcutters, or whatever has been more than willing to sign waivers or hold-harmless agreements or anything else we asked them to sign to gain access to our ground. Our lawyer laughs when he reads them. He calls them well intended but worthless in a court of law...especially in front of a jury. Regardless of what they sign there will still be lawsuits when someone is hurt or killed on our property. If nothing else, their insurance company will sue us. We've been through this before and we're not going to go through it again. The last time we dealt with a lawsuit it cost a chunk of money to defend ourselves even though the suit was frivolous and the person suing us was trespassing.


Our insurance company gets very nervous when we bring up the idea of alternate uses for our ground. What little money we'd derive from leases would barely offset the increase in premiums.

All that being said, the main reason we don't open up our land is a very simple one. We don't want to be bothered. We have neither the time nor the resources to keep track of every city person with a Jeremiah Johnson complex, or all the four wheelers who wouldn't really care if they rutted our ground and negated our efforts at erosion control, or the legions of firewood cutters who are well meaning but frightening in their lack of knowledge and technique.

I don't know what you do for a living but, whatever it is, I doubt if I know very much about it and certainly wouldn't be able to perform the job functions at the same level you do. With that thought in mind I probably wouldn't run my mouth and tell you how to run your job. That would be a little foolish.

And you're right about my home being in Grass Valley. We have a little ground in that area. We have more on the coast, though. :msp_wink:

Edit to add...I'm writing this in Tucumcari, New Mexico. We don't have any ground here. Thank goodness.

Nobody is advocating cutting down all the Redwoods. Broc Luno and I don't agree on a lot of things but neither one of us want to see all the old growth gone.

Broc Luno has the experience to present a logical argument from his point of view. So do I.



He and I are having a civil discussion and airing different points of view. You need to take a deep breath, go back and read both of our posts, and if you can't add anything useful you need to rethink your facts and S T F U.

Subscribed to the "Gologit is my Hero" fanclub.

 

[Eccentric]

My .$.02

Subscribed to the "Gologit is my Hero" fanclub.

I've been a member of that club for years Jonathan. Bruce (BrocLuno) brings some good insight too. Bruce can correct me if I'm wrong here (as this is my interpretation of his posts and I'm NOT speaking for him)...................but it looks to me like Bob and Bruce are having 'parallel arguements' in this discussion. From what I read from Bruce's posts, he's talking more about changing the management of existing 'protected' forest lands..........and possibly involving private lands owned by those that'd like to participate in the recreation uses. I don't believe Bruce is talking about forcing folks (like Bob) who own private lands to participate in the management strategy that he's proposing. I'd certainly like to see some existing public lands managed in this fashion. The wilderness/roadless thing has gone WAY out of hand. Seen that in several areas of Ca already.

I believe Bob (again, this is how I'm reading his posts............I'm NOT speaking for him) is speaking from the perspective of property owner's rights, and the view that property owners ARE managing their lands responsibly and effectively.......and more than likely MORE effectively than what could/would be done by the public sector (because of the red tape, and the influence that an ignorant/emotional public has on the decissions of the public sector). I agree with Bob. Only those landowners that are agreeable to participate in something like what Bruce is proposing (and Bob's obviously NOT in this group) should do so.

I respect both of these men and their opinions/wisdom. I do NOT respect the knee-jerk emotional/irrational crap that gets injected into an intelligent, civilized adult discussion such as this. These discussions are RARE, and should not be poisoned by the 'left field' crapola......:bang:

 

[Jon1212]

I've been a member of that club for years Jonathan. Bruce (BrocLuno) brings some good insight too. Bruce can correct me if I'm wrong here (as this is my interpretation of his posts and I'm NOT speaking for him)...................but it looks to me like Bob and Bruce are having 'parallel arguements' in this discussion. From what I read from Bruce's posts, he's talking more about changing the management of existing 'protected' forest lands..........and possibly involving private lands owned by those that'd like to participate in the recreation uses. I don't believe Bruce is talking about forcing folks (like Bob) who own private lands to participate in the management strategy that he's proposing. I'd certainly like to see some existing public lands managed in this fashion. The wilderness/roadless thing has gone WAY out of hand. Seen that in several areas of Ca already.

I believe Bob (again, this is how I'm reading his posts............I'm NOT speaking for him) is speaking from the perspective of property owner's rights, and the view that property owners ARE managing their lands responsibly and effectively.......and more than likely MORE effectively than what could/would be done by the public sector (because of the red tape, and the influence that an ignorant/emotional public has on the decissions of the public sector). I agree with Bob. Only those landowners that are agreeable to participate in something like what Bruce is proposing (and Bob's obviously NOT in this group) should do so.

I respect both of these men and their opinions/wisdom. I do NOT respect the knee-jerk emotional/irrational crap that gets injected into an intelligent, civilized adult discussion such as this. These discussions are RARE, and should not be poisoned by the 'left field' crapola......:bang:

Aaron,
Yep. Bruce, and Bob sure are level headed when it comes to social discourse. I suppose it only fair that I admit my membership in the BrocLuno fanclub as well.
Now on the topic of contrarians for the sake of controversy I most sincerely suggest TraditionalTool add the word "Bag" at the end of his username, all in favor say "Aye".

 

[Eccentric]

Aaron,
Yep. Bruce, and Bob sure are level headed when it comes to social discourse. I suppose it only fair that I admit my membership in the BrocLuno fanclub as well.
Now on the topic of contrarians for the sake of controversy I most sincerely suggest TraditionalTool add the word "Bag" at the end of his username, all in favor say "Aye".

You know my answer Jonathan..........but I refrain from publicly voting in order to try to preserve Norm's Redwoods thread and the civil discussions within....

 

[Jon1212]

You know my answer Jonathan..........but I refrain from publicly voting in order to try to preserve Norm's Redwoods thread and the civil discussions within....

Fair enough my friend.

Speaking of Redwood's, driving up 101 for vacation, or taking a kid to Eureka for a Rugby match I always slow down, and take my time driving through all of those beautiful creations growing along the roadside.

 

[Gologit]

Yup...time for this thread to get back to the Love the Redwoods theme that Norm intended. That's the way it should be.

There are things that Broc Luno and I will never agree on and I think we've established that. But...he argues his case like a gentleman and he gets props for that.

And Jon, you're right...the Redwoods are worth slowing down for. I always do. Bull Creek is my cathedral.

 

[NORMZILLA44]

Hell, it's all good feller's! I am proud of ya, in here we agree to disagree, and it did not turn inot a blowout, nothing wrong with that, and I respect you all, and all the opinions. Guess I am growing up finally at 38:msp_tongue:Yep I stop every time I see a good tree, especially a Redwood, can't help myself. I carry my camera even at work, and been known to turn my ten wheeler around, with a trailer, and backhoe on the back, jut to get a shot of a good tree. Funny thing got my friends and crew at work, on my team they get into the hunt just as much as mee now:msp_thumbup:

 

[RandyMac]

They do have most of what is left locked up in parks, a fair amount of that is representative of what Redwoods are. One thing about the parks, they actively discourage exploration, only about 20-25% of all parklands are accessible. Sure you can go off on foot and see some great stuff, but for the most part they want you on the established trails. Some of what they don't want you to know, is that vast areas of State or Federal held land, has been logged. Research Redwood Creek aka the "worm" near Orick.
As far as regret, well not isn't exactly how I felt. That one tree was wasted, not much to celebrate there. It probably would have been left, but it was in the way of the road. Yeah it was good sized, but a rotten, multiple topped half snag and still a shame to have spread it all over. It did make a gloriously loud mess.
One of my favorite groves is at High Rock on the Eel, another good spot is about halfway through Bull Creek Flat, across the creek, there is a "leftover" from ages ago, it's broke off top is nearly as tall as the the younger Old Growth. Yes I have scoped out the lay of it.

 

[BrocLuno]

To answer a question or two: I currently work in storm water engineering for CA State Parks (mostly) and manage hazard timber some of the time. I've seen the good and bad of both hikers and 4 wheelers. I know a fair number of them - some are good and some are bad.

The ones that make me feel bad are the Title 24 kids (handicapped) that need help to get out of their rooms and into the "world". Some jeep clubs will make a special outing to help transport these less fortunate kids, but they have less ground they are allowed on all the time.

Just to clarify, if there were a "recreation lease" - the lessee would assume the liability and their insurance would cover incidents involving the recreation types specified in the lease. That's not all liability, but most. And I really do want to find a way to help timber owners make it between harvest cycles. This way, or some other ...

These trees are magnificent and I'm just trying to find ways to get folks into them. Yes I'm concerned about yahoo's and stupid ... But, I know there are benefits to getting out into the big trees. Just looking for a way to do it that does not involve the greenies/lefties calling the shots. Parks and the Fed lands are riddled with greenie folks

OBTW - if anyone wants to know why the State is broke, it's because the Feds own 53% of Calif and don't pay property tax. Since we auto-vote left, they don't have to kick back to buy votes so they take from us and do not give back a fair share. Calif is both massively owned by the Feds, but we are also a net tax revenue exporter to Washington DC. That's Loose/Loose

But, at least they can't take the trees

 

[slowp]

Okay Broc, time for a lesson.

Back in da old days, it was realized that property taxes were not to be had from federal lands. So, it was put into law that 25% of the timber sale revenue off the federal lands with forests would go to the counties to kind of make up for that.

Enter the almost cessation of timber sales on federal lands. Timbered counties lost a lot of revenue.

Congress has since passed budgets making payments to counties to make up for that loss, but it looks as if it will stop.

I actually wish it would. Maybe some folks might change their minds and start hollering to start putting up more timber for sale. We have the trees and the ground. Our forest used to harvest just under a half BILLION board feet per year. It now struggles to get out 30 million. Not because it isn't there, but because of the appeals and lawsuits.

The half billion was not sustainable, but the 30 million is laughable. We grow trees here. Not redwoods, but Doug-fir and hemlock. We grow them well, and we have the size and quality that buyers want.

View attachment 245613

 

[NORMZILLA44]

Your heart is definately in the right place Broc that is way cool. And I agree CA turned far to left. Hope we straighten that out. Seeing more trees would be awesome some day.

 

[NORMZILLA44]

Nice pic Slow p, and I enjoyed my lesson LOL! Always loved history. :cool2: Good info.

 

[slowp]

An example.

Timber payments to counties extended for one year - The News Guard: Regional News

 

[NORMZILLA44]

Good deal Slow P anything that can be gained back from the fed's is good!

 

[BrocLuno]

I don't disagree with what you said, and I mis-stated the situation - 53% of Calif is in public sector hands (that includes local, federal, state and special districts, all not paying property taxes). The biggest percentage is federal hands. The timber counties can lobby for payments, but they don't come easily, or regularly. What about the non-timber counties that have military bases and shipyards (shut down), or BLM in the desert, etc.

I want the public that can't get out much or does not have the means or wherewithal to get equipped for primitive land travel to be able to see and experience these magnificent trees. And I want Gov't to partner with private industry, not control it through regulation, condemnation and take-aways. How do we get there (?), assuming anyone see's merit in what I'm writing about...

In some ways this latest budget crisis in Sacto was good as a few of the Parks got partnerships and are trying alternative business plans. But Lordy, we have a long way to go

I'd like about half of the public lands to be sold, or at least to have a managing interest sold, so they could become productive again. I think we are out of balance and society is suffering. I know some of the trees are.

As public funds have become scarcer, forest practices and good maintenance have gone by the way-side on public lands. Bottom line is that redwoods in the Park where my office is are suffering, some are dying and a few have fallen. They are not OG, but they are still gettin big and they are majestic as they grow (if they grow).

Now, how to keep this forest and others in good shape? I suspect that private/public partnerships may be one way to get to the desired goals. But how to get there? That seems almost as tough a journey and putting the Title 24 Kids in a Jeep and going to the trees ...

The situation needs intervention. Good, or man, needs to step in and fix some of wrongs done to the forest. The people needs to have an interest in their forest. Not have it locked away by a minority manipulating the politics. If more folks could get out and enjoy the woods, maybe they would look at it differently?

Those of us who live and work around forest have good sense of what a balanced approach could be. How to convey that to those who work in a cubicle and live in tract house or apartment? They get bombarded by anti-commercialization rhetoric so they vote in favor of closure and confiscation - loss of productivity and access. How to reverse that so more folks can experience the reason this thread got started?

 

[slowp]

Aren't there handicapped accessible trails?

 

[paccity]

plenty of sustainable timber here. but yet this is the reality of our little county.