Roadless

[Ron Scott]

Is everyone keeping up on the Roadless Initiative
on National Forest system lands and its impacts on forest land and resource management?

[Forester Frank]

Have not heard much about roadless issue lately. What is happpening?

Frank Laurence

[Ron Scott]

Not much in public news at present.USFS is to make decision in December, but with current national election "snafu" going on there may not be a formal decision for awhile.  The local HMNF  seems to be going roadless at the whim of the local District Ranger. We need to be aware of this. Its very difficult to get any road use permits or any roads repaired, even when the user desires to do it for collaborative management with the USDA-FS.    

[Forester Frank]

Ron:

Thanks for the reply. Could be an issue for us on the Huron and the Hiawatha.

Frank

[Ron Scott]

I just received a copy of the USDA-Forest Service Final Environmental Impact Satatement on its Roadless Area Conservation Initiative. I understand that the decision is out along with the new Planning Regulations.A lot to digest here.

[Ron Scott]

On Monday, November 13, the Forest Service released the Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS) and preferred alternative for protecting nearly 60 million acres of roadless areas in National Forests. A final rule will be issued after December 18,2000 based on information in the FEIS.
On Thursday, November 9, USDA Dan Glickman announced the release of the new forest planning regulations. The new rule was published in the Federal Register on November 9.

[Forester Frank]

I'll keep an eye on the Forest Service web site below for current news. This is an important one.

http://www.fs.fed.us/

[Jeff]

The forest service offers this site for Roadless

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/

[Ron Scott]

The USDA-Forest Service is expected to make its final decision after December 18.16,000 acres are included in Michigan's 3 National Forests; nearly 60 million acres nationally. Timber harvesting on National Forest system land has decreased from 12 to 3 billion board feet, about 1/4 of what was harvested 5 years ago.If approved, the roadless proposal would reduce timber harvesting another 5 to 6 per cent. Local information can be obtained from Jim DiMaio Forest Planner; Huron Manistee National Forests (231)775-5023 ext.8759.  

[Ron Scott]

President Clinton's Executive Order now makes 1/3 of the National Forests Roadless as a minimum. I hear that the local Huron-Manistee National Forest is asking for 35 new positions primarily in fire control.  

[L. Wakefield]

   You hit on a very sensitive note. I feel 'roadless' or not, access for fire control is pivotal for the health and survival of a forest. This begs the question of how much clearing and grooming vs how much 'natural' burn is optimum. I'd love to see a thread here where people sound off on their experiences in fire control. (Remind me, did we get into that? I think I've seen it on several other forestry websites.) I am certain that we could tap several points of view, all equally valid. Woodland owners will not feel the same as woodland commercial harvesters, who in turn will have differences of opinion from those setting policy (especially long-term policy) for national forests.      LW

[BCCrouch]

Has anyone heard anything out of Washington, D.C. now that we have an administration that's unlikely to coddle the left-wing, pot-headed, ponytailed preservationists that might suggest a scaling back of the roadless policy to a more reasonable level?;)

I'd be willing to accept 25% of every national and state forest as some combination of roadless/old growth, but that's about my limit.  The remainder needs to be kept in active production of one sort or another.

[Ron Wenrich]

I think I heard a blurb on the radio that Bush is going to allow more cutting on the national forests.  I don't know why, considering the current market conditions.  Timbermen were said to be very happy.

Reagan sold a lot of the national forest.  It didn't turn out to be such a great deal for the forest.

All national lands should be depoliticized.  Our state doesn't play politics with their forests.  As a result, they have some of the better managed forests in the state.  Timber that needs to be cut is cut, timber that needs to grow is left to grow and areas that need to be preserved are preserved.

[Ron Scott]

The Bush Administration has delayed the Roadless Regulations implementation date from March 13 to May 12 for more time to possibly address it.

The Huron-Manistee National Forests Public Information Meeting on its Forests Plan Revision for "Old Growth" is March 14; 0900AM-3:00PM at Bill Oliver's; Cadillac, Michigan. Contact Jim DiMaio at (231) 775-5023 ext.8759 if you need additional information.

[timberbeast]

Personally,  I believe that those wishing to "preserve" forests should buy them.  State and federal land is a different issue,  as we elect those who make decisions on that,  but we must know that there is more forest now than in 1900.  The Hollywood types should stop spouting off about it and just buy it,  if they want it preserved.  They have the dough.  Put up or......ya know???????

[Ron Wenrich]

I have to take issue with a few of your statements.

If you believe the "hollywood types" should have to buy the lands they want to preserve, why shouldn't the forest industry buy the lands they want to harvest?  

Of course, it is much easier to use your money to control whoever's in control.  The liberals have their pets, as do the conservatives.  I would like to see public lands taken out of the political process.  Let it be managed for whatever is the best use, be it preservation or timber production.  Whatever happened to the multiple use concept?

The reason there is more forested area now than in 1900 is the demise of the family farm.  More acreage has reverted back to forest from farmland.  It has little to do with timber harvesting.  Besides, development now poses more of a threat to the forest than harvesting activities.

[Ron Scott]

Well said! Forest fragmentation from development is a primary loss of forest lands and their availability for multiple use. A study done in Michigan indicated that "schools" was one of the largest causes of forest fragmentation. Many school districts need new schools and rather than renovation of existing sites and buildings, they go off into nearby forested areas to relocate their new buildings. Then all the other home developments, roads, highways, etc. follow.

The USDA-Forest Servcie also had the idea to let the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, etc bid on their advertised timber sales along with the timber producers. If they were the high bidder, they could then hold the timber sale contract in a "no cut" status for the proposed harvest area. I'm not sure how contract extensions, if any, would be handled. Anyway, this hasn't been implemented. Not yet anyway.  

[timberbeast]

Ron,  you may have misunderstood my point.  What I was getting at is the types who believe harvesting timber is evil,  and protest,  and chain themselves to trees,  etc.  All backed by the "hollywood types"  who could easily buy thousands upon thousands of acres to protect the spotted owl or their latest crusade.  I'm a capitalist,  but not at the expense of decimating the forests.  Sound practices are followed,  and the forests flourish.  My property has been in the family (central U.P.) since the 30's,  and has been logged and re-logged,  and I'm presently harvesting some terrific lumber.  I have no objection to multi-use,  in fact the state land across the couunty road was clear-cut,  about 200 acres,  maybe ten years ago,  and has helped the deer herd and the partridge and turkey populations.  As far as farms,  in Wisconsin,  where I live,  the family farms around populated areas have become "retirement accounts",  being subdivided into lots for houses.  I can't blame them,  it's their property,  and its disposal is their perogative.  What I'm driving at is that private ownership will always yield better results in any endeavor than will government ownership.  Where I'm located,  timber companies own massive amounts of land,  leave it open for hunting and recreational use.  This land is managed far better than government owned land.  Why?  Because it affects their livelihood.

[BCCrouch]

Just to play Devil's Advocate for the moment, how can you say that private management is ALWAYS superior to government management when private entities may always sell off their forestland to real estate rapists, oops, developers?  Look at S.D. Warren/Sappi--they used to have sizeable tracts of land in New England but disposed of it all to generate cash to recoup some of the costs associated with the buyout?  Is all of that land going to stay in production?  Not a chance!

Baby boomers will be snapping up little 10 or 20 acre blocks for their retirement property just as they are doing in Michigan even as we speak.  Take a look at a plat book from the 1980s and the change is both dramatic and more than a little worrysome to those who rely on 40+ acre thinnings to make ends meet.  I don't anticipate the situation getting any better as time goes on, do you?

[Ron Wenrich]

My observations on state owned vs private owned lands indicate that the state is doing far better management than the privates.

I live in PA, and there is no licensing of foresters, loggers, or anyone else involved with the industry.  Loggers have been high grading for years.  We have one large mill that cuts all red oak at 14" and up.  That's not management, that's mining.

When you look at stocking levels, state and federal lands are much better stocked.  They also have a higher percentage of good quality timber.  Publics don't go in fear and greed cycles like the privates.  The publics can afford to sell poor quality timber and retain good growing stock.  They also look at the forests for getting other goods from, besides timber.

I've never seen a shelterwood cut on private lands, with the exception of those managed by paper companies.  Most timber sales are diameter limit high grades.  The poorer quality is left to stand.  I've seen too much of it to think it will ever change.

[timberbeast]

To both responses,  perhaps I'm spoiled by owning land where the timber regenerates so quickly and am naive in the situations in your areas.  A lot of the cutting done where my land is,  in the U.P. of Michigan is taking the pulp logs,  and selective cuts of the older timber.  Since I have not cut on state lands,  perhaps I'm premature in my judgement,  and apologize if so.  I work in a Cedar Swamp,  and take the old dying trees first.  Much of the cutting on private lands around me is done for wildlife habitat enhancement,  leaving thermal cover areas for the deer,  and much of it is conducted with the help of state foresters.  Perhaps I shouldn't say private is "always" better.  I have some white pines that two big men can't reach around,  and I leave them unless they get lightning struck or begin to die.  Then again,  who can tell another what to do with their own property?  I would not presume to do that,  nor do I think the government should.  The way that I cut,  and the way I've taught my kids to cut,  will ensure many lifetimes of cedar,  pine,  balsam,  spruce and the maples on the high land.  I personally do not want the government telling me to leave that one rotting cedar for the carpenter ants.  No animosity intended,  but I have been doing this for a long time.

[Gordon]

For those of you that are following this heated issue. This is the release on May 4
USDA UPHOLDS ROADLESS PROTECTIONS RULE
Secretary Veneman announces additional actions to address reasonable concerns to ensure responsible implementation

      WASHINGTON, May 4, 2001 -- Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman today announced the U.S. Department of Agriculture will implement the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, restricting logging and road building activities in 58.5 million acres of national forest lands. The Secretary also announced additional actions to address reasonable concerns raised about the rule that will ensure implementation in a responsible, common sense manner.

For the full story go here
http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2001/05/0075.htm

Now it really gets heated. Here is the news release about the court decision. Now I'm confused from what the court decision was as to what this says.
http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2001/05/0079.htm

Relating to the real story.
Expanses of national forest land that would have been spared from logging and road building this weekend won't receive that protection after a federal judge blocked the Clinton administration policy.
The road ban would have prevented logging, road construction and other activities on 58.5 million acres of federal forests, except in rare circumstances. It was one of President Clinton's key environmental legacies.

U.S. District Judge Edward J. Lodge in Boise, Idaho, blocked the rule Thursday, saying it would cause "irreparable harm" to federal forest lands and those that neighbor it

Here is the full story.
http://enn.com/news/wire-stories/2001/05/05112001/ap_road_43485.asp

Gordon

[Ron Scott]

In a June 7 memo issued by the USDA-Forest Service, Chief Dale Bosworth, the Chief announced that he will have authority over all timber harvests and road construction in roadless areas until local officials overseeing National Forests have mapped existing roads and have their proposed changes to the exiting Forest Plan approved.

Contact your local National Forest District Ranger for further information.

[L. Wakefield]

   While on the subject of northern Maine forest land- there was an article in the paper sometime in the past 2 weeks about those very 'Hollywood types' to which you refer, buying up parcels (NOT little parcels). The article referred to them as 'kingdoms'. The article suggested that the general trend was to buy up enough to ensure a desireable isolation and buffering- then to build the palatial estate on the most desireable part- and then I don't remember what they thought would happen to the rest of it. Moneymaking ventures, one might suspect. At any rate, it did not sound to ME as if multi-use was in the cards. Not for 'the common man- or woman', eh? Exclusive hunting and fishing club? Maybe.
  
   I dunno. Any time you get someone with financial resources who has on their agenda to buy up land, you have to face the fact that first and foremost they will have in mind improving their own quality of life on this land. That's as true for me as for anyone. What quality indicators they value is not at all determined. Maybe they like timber. Maybe they like water (almost everyone likes water). Maybe they like bare manicured lawn. Maybe they like fish and game.
  
   Will they like commercial use and management as a 'renewable resource'? In the real world, they may not be able to afford NOT to like that.

   I might suggest a retrospective look at the parcels bought up by previous 'land barons' as well as beginning a prospective look at what is happening right now.

   I suspect there is sometimes a difference between purchase of a 'hideaway' and purchase as an investment. I have seen some examples of each . I find it difficult (as an outsider) to see a truly insightful, holistic agenda employed on any of the examples I have seen. But then again, I AM an outsider.
  
   I like parks. I like to see the land produce. I like the ideals put forth by the forestry stewardship incentive program. What I PERSONALLY envision as optimum is to look at the land first with a landscaper's eye- because I'm a sucker for beauty (hey, that's why they call it 'beauty' and not 'ugly', right?..)- and then with an eye to harvesting now and later- but the harvesting needs to be linked to the beauty. That, I swear, is not that hard to do. There are some lots here in town that you can fall right in love with because of how they look barely a year after selective cutting. And then add in the people. What's the beauty if there's no one to see it? And the animals have to benefit.

   Enough- wish I had the money to do it right. : : :  lw

[timberbeast]

Well-made points,  L.    Like I said,  maybe I'm just spoiled by owning enough land and being lucky to manage it the way I choose.  I am a firm believer in a free market,  however.  I may not like what someone else does with their property,  but it is theirs.  Kudos for your recognition as humans being able to appreciate beauty.  I have trees which are old friends because of their beauty.  Many will outlive me.  I'm land-rich but cash poor.  But I'm happy!