Forestry's Future

[Wildland_Firefighter]

Outlook on forest in America
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...37abf4-7e4b-11e4-81fd-8c4814dfa9d7_story.html

How many acres is your area losing its forest due to agriculture or housing development?
I know in my area we have lost a good chunk of acreage of forest for mostly agricultural purposes. These past couple of months were dry and allowed many places to get logged and cleared up for fields. Ive seen so many places which stunned me that farmers are clearing up for fields. These places were usually swampy or generally wet in the regular season. They are ditching like crazy too.

Now it's wet and lots of these places they cleared are wet. But im wondering about forestry's future. I work in the Forestry industry and we own timberland.

I know lots of people say timber isn't a yearly income (could be if you have the acreage or pine straw production) thus is why they clear their timber. Then on top of that uncle Sam taxes you nearly all of the money that you receive to where it's not worth having timber.

Another thing is forest owners can't afford forest insurance thus if they lose the timber to a wildfire or bugs then it is on them. Farmers on the other hand can afford insurance on their crops (some just insurance farm) but people will use the "we can't eat trees"....but you sure can't breathe or have clean water without them either.

What do yall think? Some folks say it's a cycle between people switching farm land to woods then woods back to farm land but I think it's gotten way out of hand.

 

[Odog]

I know we are in different areas, but out here we are not losing our forest land to development, all of our timber is in the mountains. We have a bunch of it, north of me. All our development is happening in the desert sagebrush areas. You will laugh and think we are crazy, but we actually blast areas for farming. We have lava blowouts everywhere and we blast the tops off the rock blowouts and put dirt over and farm. Sagebrush is tilled up and corn and potatoes are planted. Lack of water is our problem.

 

[Wildland_Firefighter]

I know we are in different areas, but out here we are not losing our forest land to development, all of our timber is in the mountains. We have a bunch of it, north of me. All our development is happening in the desert sagebrush areas. You will laugh and think we are crazy, but we actually blast areas for farming. We have lava blowouts everywhere and we blast the tops off the rock blowouts and put dirt over and farm. Sagebrush is tilled up and corn and potatoes are planted. Lack of water is our problem.

Yeah I've been to Idaho. Pretty mountainous. Been just to Malad City to a fire.

Yeah its different up there. Lots of Govt owned land in those areas too which help out with conservation.

 

[Odog]

Yep. Lots of fire at times too.

 

[joesawer]

I have seen countless more acres lost to wild fire and beetles than to any development or agriculture. To the point of being insignificant.
The waste is just stunning.

 

[joesawer]

Since WWII the amount of land that has gone out of cultivation and grown up in timber across the nation is huge.

 

[joesawer]

To me the biggest threats to the industry is environmental induced mismanagement and declining market.

 

[Wildland_Firefighter]

To me the biggest threats to the industry is environmental induced mismanagement and declining market.

What do you mean by the environmental induced mismanagement?

 

[slowp]

What do you mean by the environmental induced mismanagement?

I haven't had coffee yet, but, out here we have millions of acres of non-designated wilderness locked up because of what "may" happen. A book that explains it well is
In Timber Country, by Beverly A. Brown. That book is based on the area around Medford, OR which is drier than the forests where I live. Another good read and I don't know if it is still in print because I found it at a yard sale, is Timber Country Revisited by Earl Roberge.

We basically have stands of plantations. Those are areas that were logged in the past. The roads or at least a road bed are still there but the areas will not be logged. Read up on The Northwest Forest Plan. Then read up on endangered species. The latter law is abused and used to stop management/harvest.

We can grow big, wonderful, fast growing trees here. Think of it as our corn. The Gifford Pinchot NF went from an annual cut of around a half billion board feet to 30 million. All that is done on it is thinning. Once the thinning is done, the enviro groups say that logging is done and they pretty much run things on the NF. Unless things change, we'll have no more timber coming from where it should, our National Forest plantations, and the future is for the area to burn up, as it does every 300 years or so.
Except not many people lived here during the last conflagration.

On the drier east side, everybody agrees that there are areas that need thinning and fuels treatment because it is an area that has frequent fires. But, the enviros and many residents don't want a timber sale, which is one way to pay for that. They want it done with no big trees cut. That requires funding from taxpayers, and we all know how well that goes over. So the forests get fried. Lawsuits are now being filed by folks affected by the Carlton fires.

That's what manages our public forests now--not foresters but judges and lawyers. They also have private timber lands in their sights. It'll take something big to open eyes up to the mismanagement.

We also have less huckleberries, Christmas trees, and boughs coming off the NF. The elk have come off and now hang out in the valleys year round, including next to the highway. They used to have new browse in the forest from freshly cut clearcuts. Those areas have grown back and the crowns of the trees closed up blocking sunlight to the brush.

That's the short version. Yeah, we were overcutting in the past, although those areas, including one I thought would not grow back are flourishing tree plantations. Despite what the enviros say, there is old growth left. It just isn't everywhere and it wasn't everywhere around here prior to logging because the native people burned forest for game management and berry management.

That's the abbreviated version. Forestry schools are no Environmental Studies schools. The Forest Service is heavy into planning, without much work making it through planning. Meanwhile the trees grow and burn.

 

[Gologit]

Well said.

 

[BeatCJ]

I agree with almost everything you said slowp, but the Carlton lawsuits have nothing to do with timber harvest vs. preservation.

 

[Wildland_Firefighter]

I haven't had coffee yet, but, out here we have millions of acres of non-designated wilderness locked up because of what "may" happen. A book that explains it well is
In Timber Country, by Beverly A. Brown. That book is based on the area around Medford, OR which is drier than the forests where I live. Another good read and I don't know if it is still in print because I found it at a yard sale, is Timber Country Revisited by Earl Roberge.

We basically have stands of plantations. Those are areas that were logged in the past. The roads or at least a road bed are still there but the areas will not be logged. Read up on The Northwest Forest Plan. Then read up on endangered species. The latter law is abused and used to stop management/harvest.

We can grow big, wonderful, fast growing trees here. Think of it as our corn. The Gifford Pinchot NF went from an annual cut of around a half billion board feet to 30 million. All that is done on it is thinning. Once the thinning is done, the enviro groups say that logging is done and they pretty much run things on the NF. Unless things change, we'll have no more timber coming from where it should, our National Forest plantations, and the future is for the area to burn up, as it does every 300 years or so.
Except not many people lived here during the last conflagration.

On the drier east side, everybody agrees that there are areas that need thinning and fuels treatment because it is an area that has frequent fires. But, the enviros and many residents don't want a timber sale, which is one way to pay for that. They want it done with no big trees cut. That requires funding from taxpayers, and we all know how well that goes over. So the forests get fried. Lawsuits are now being filed by folks affected by the Carlton fires.

That's what manages our public forests now--not foresters but judges and lawyers. They also have private timber lands in their sights. It'll take something big to open eyes up to the mismanagement.

We also have less huckleberries, Christmas trees, and boughs coming off the NF. The elk have come off and now hang out in the valleys year round, including next to the highway. They used to have new browse in the forest from freshly cut clearcuts. Those areas have grown back and the crowns of the trees closed up blocking sunlight to the brush.

That's the short version. Yeah, we were overcutting in the past, although those areas, including one I thought would not grow back are flourishing tree plantations. Despite what the enviros say, there is old growth left. It just isn't everywhere and it wasn't everywhere around here prior to logging because the native people burned forest for game management and berry management.

That's the abbreviated version. Forestry schools are no Environmental Studies schools. The Forest Service is heavy into planning, without much work making it through planning. Meanwhile the trees grow and burn.

Ive been out west to fires in Oregon, Utah, and Idaho. They usually don't do prescribed burns for several reasons that I've seen. One, it's either to dry (heat will automatically get to the roots with no soIL moisture and kill the tree thus inviting bugs in). Plus dry conditions will allow control fires to easily escape. Two, smoke is another issue even where I live but it's mostly rural too. The public complains and threaten to sue if the smoke causes issues. Three, western winters are usually snow thus no burns unlike us in the south in which we do control burns because most areas don't have snow and it's usually wet some or conditions are favorable.

Yes, some environment groups do have a hand out west with the timber. But the Govt usually allows timber harvesting...and yes again some of these groups might slow the harvesting down but I see it as as long as they replant that's fone BUT of you want no harvesting done on a tract....you must keep it RX burn or mowed.

I have no problem with national forest because the land is usually not bothered by human destruction (clearing for field or housing/business). I'd imagine if majority of these national forest wasn't owned by the Govt and owned by a private individual then majority of the area would be destroyed by urban development or farming. Because people today want a quick dollar...they don't want to wait years and years for money. Teddy Roosevelt contributed the national parks for conservation because he saw how humans were but he also screwed up declaring extermination for wolves too.

I had an old 78 yr old man tell me yesterday that we were burning for...he said he would replant for his children because he looked at it as this...someone planted them trees that he harvested for him and those people that planted them trees knew they wouldn't see a dollar from it but knew somewhere down the road someone would benefit from it and enjoy the woods there. He benefited from the trees..and once he harvest the timber he will replant for his future generation of kin who will benefit from it.

Lots of people aren't like that. They want a quick dollar. They don't enjoy the woods no more.

My area is facing forest being cleared up and not replaced because majority are private landowners who are looking for a quick dollar. And a lot of them don't care if they hurt a wetland. They talk about how stupid it is that the Govt controls it even when it's their own land. But those people are stupid to me. The Govt does make stupid rules sometimes even with environmental stuff but when it comes down to wetlands rules need to be placed because stupid people don't learn from the past. Our wetlands here contribute alot to our water capacity. But majority of farmers see it as wasted acreage in which should be cleared up and farmed.

 

[Wildland_Firefighter]

And also thinning does help a little with fires. It prevents running crown fires which are hard to control but still bad wildfires can exist in thinned timber if the area isn't burned. Thinning will allow more forest floor plants to grow more and larger due to more available sunlight.

The main thing is to keep RX (PRESCRIBED) Burning. But as I mentioned in the other comment. Smoke is more of an issue than the fire itself. Fire is bad but the smoke can impact people hundreds of miles away. Many crashes have occurred on highways which resulted to deaths as in florida
http://wildfiretoday.com/2012/01/29/fog-and-wildfire-smoke-cause-crashes-in-florida-9-dead/

people will sue you in a heartbeat for smoke issues.

I recommend people to burn their timber more down here but lots don't do the the cost sometimes but mostly due to they are afraid of the fire jumping into the next landowners land and getting sued. People will sue like crazy.

 

[slowp]

Here on the wetside of the Cascades, we don't thin because of fires, we thin to get better growth. We do have fires, but the area is called an asbestos forest. I do think that the fires get bigger because there are fewer roads to access them--road decommissioning is a "good thing" right now in the enviro movement, there are fewer bodies and eyes in the woods, and after the Thirty Mile incident and lawsuits, crew leaders are not going to do any risky actions with their crews. We've had smokejumpers walk off of slopes they said were too steep to work on here. Yet, back in the day we lowly timber folks worked on those same slopes, they were logged, and we even broadcast burned on them. Times have changed and it might be good to not get slammed by a rolling rock or have to try to outrun a flaming cull log.

 

[treeslayer2003]

we have alot of non tidal wet lands here protected from clearing by law. you can harvest timber, but it must remain in timber production. i wish they'd do that some on the high ground that grows good hardwood as well.

 

[joesawer]

Just go on Google earth or satellite maps and look at Chetco river drainage, Kern river drainage, zoom in real close.
Then zoom out and look at all the simular areas.
These areas have been brought to you by environMENTal mismanagement.

 

[Wildland_Firefighter]

Just go on Google earth or satellite maps and look at Chetco river drainage, Kern river drainage, zoom in real close.
Then zoom out and look at all the simular areas.
These areas have been brought to you by environMENTal mismanagement.

Coordinates please

 

[Wildland_Firefighter]

we have alot of non tidal wet lands here protected from clearing by law. you can harvest timber, but it must remain in timber production. i wish they'd do that some on the high ground that grows good hardwood as well.

Yeah hardwood areas on hills or dry ground are beginning to be hard to find in our area. Either cleared up or cut then put in pine plantations. Most hardwoods (water oak, swamp chestnut, yellow poplar, etc) are mostly found in our wet areas

 

[slowp]

Sights seen yesterday. A small stab at patches of root rot in an area that supplied folks with firewood from blowdowns and could create "challenging" commuting in the dark hours of the morning.





This is not in a unit.

Another part of the logged unit. This was done last year.


The Used Dog and I are trying to get our legs back in shape. I'm at about 95% lung power after having the flu. We were walking on a trail that goes quite a ways but has many places that you can hop on it at. It is used mostly by motorcycles but nobody is on it this time of year. The boundary of the timber sale unit came up to the trail but no damage was done.

 

[madhatte]

From my perspective, the big divide is between private and public land. Environmental law protects streams and wetlands on both, but the private landowners don't have to fight a lawsuit for every timber sale they propose. The result is that private land is thick with vigorous young trees in a growing rotation where public land is stuck somewhere between seedling and old-growth with no hope for timely management. "Timely" is the issue here, too, since there's always a rush to "fire-proof" after conflagrations, or to stabilize slopes after a slide, or whatever -- it's always a reactive action rather than a proactive one. My hope is that the ESA will lose its "blank check" power and that forest management will return to public lands, updated to meet current environmental laws and best management practices.