The Forestry Forum

I'm currently reading Bill Bryson's A Walk in the Woods, his story of hiking the Appalachian Trail, and in it he mentions the doings of the Forest Service...I was wanting to hear your opinions on the matter:


"In fact, mostly what the Forest Service does is build roads.  I am not kidding. There are 378,000 miles of roads in America's national forests.  The Forest Service has the 2nd highest number of road engineers of any government institution on the planet. To say that these guys like to build roads barely hints at their level of dedication. It is the avowed aim of the U.S. Forest Service to construct 580,000 miles of additional forests road by the middle of the next century.
The reason the Forest Serivce builds these roads, is to allow timber compaines to get to previously inaccessible stands of trees. Of the Forest Service's 150 million acres of loggable land, about two-thirds is held in store for the future. The remaining one third-49million acres is available for logging.  It allows huge swathes to be clear-cut, including(to take one recent but heartbreaking example) 209 acres of thousand-year-old redwoods in Oregon's Umpqua National Forest.
In 1987 it casually annoucned that it would allow private timber interests to remove hundereds of acres of wood a year from the venerable and verdant Pisgah National Forest, next door to the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, and that 80 percent of that would be through what it delicately calls "scientific forestry"--clear-cutting to you and me--which is not only a brutal visual affront to any landscape but brings huge, reclkless washoffs that gully the soil, robbing it of nutrients and disrupting ecologies farther downstream, sometimes for miles.  This isn't science. It's rape."




Is Bryson making this stuff up, or is the Forest Service really this wasteful??

Sounds like environmental rhetoric to me just from the way it is written.  Why do I say that? By using the term "clearcut" as a firebrand to stir emotion for starters. Anyone that has an inkling of science and forestry knows that clear cutting is a valuable tool used for certain circumstance. The term in the hands of the environmental extremist is just a synonym for rape. He says so himself. Stirring emotion is what that paragraph was designed to do. It wasn't written to inform, if it was it would include the reference to fact. It works though. Like gas works for the arsonist.

I agree with Jeff 100%

I was wondering about term used, "clear-cut"....I know next to nothing about forestry techniques, but clear-cutting sounded bad.  I'm glad to hear it's not always "bad."

Not only is it "not always bad", it is a viable management tool. 
Here is an example.

I grow pines in a plantation.  Pines do best in what is called "even management stands"  that means that you plant them all at once and then harvest them through thinnings to get different products throughout the life of the stand.   You might do a thinning and get nothing but sticks, then the next time pulpwood, then chip and saw, then saw logs, then veneer and poles.  Along about pulpwood time you may start harvesting needles.

After the last harvest, you prepare the ground and start over again.  Just like growing corn.

If something happens to the stand to harm it, like fire, insects or disease, you can't take out the bad trees and interplant young seedlings.  The youngsters won't grow and the the trees that are left may not be populated densely enough to support the farm through the rest of the rotation.  So the entire stand may be "clear-cut" and replanted.

The problem I had with my stand was an ignorant cable television company that drove their trucks all over my hybrid seedlings.  Because I thought I could prop up the damaged trees, I let volunteers take over the empty spots.  Now I have a stand that is too dense and one that will be difficult to thin.  I'm going to try but I may have to clear-cut and start over.  Ten years wasted.

 I'm with Jeff too- Sounds like lots of accusations without anything to back it up.  I don't know first hand how the Forest Service operates in other parts of the country, but around here they are cautious to a fault. The Chippewa National Forest, where I live, is supposed to be a "working forest". That is in the forests original charter, it was a forest designed to be used for sustainable harvest. However, over the last few decades the Chippewa has seen fewer and fewer cords of wood coming out. A lot of people blame this for the high stumpage prices we had, there wasn't enough wood coming out. As for the Forest Service "having the second highest number of road engineers of any government institution on the planet"- well that statement is just ridiculous. What "government institution on the planet" comes in first place.  I can tell you they are not building any new roads around here, they don't even maintain the ones they have.  One road I travel often has not been graded for at least 2 years.  It is mostly potholes, you can average about 10 mph on it. I know of timber sales that no one will bid on because the F S will not let you put in a road to get to it. So anyways, maybe other places the F S rapes the land and builds roads at a feverish pace, but it doesn't sound like the Forest Service I know.

Brandon, here is a post I wrote on an environmental board when addressing someone who used the term clear cut as this man has in the passage above. I was as accurate as possible, but as I recall It was one of those losing battles with the typical extremist. when confronted with fact and honesty, they resort to personal attacks rather then facts of their own. This was back when I thought I could make a difference talking to them. It wont happen because they are idiots. The difference is made when intelligent people see the attempt at conversing with them and obviously see the difference between fact and farce.

Anyhow, here is my little essay to him on clearcut. I forget now his original question. :D



There is no clear cut answer to that. Yes some clear cuts are certainly bad. Done without conscience or regard to effects on the environment.

You also have many instances where clearcuts are a necessary management tool. I can state two examples. One for reproduction of a desirable timber species and the other is used to create the habitat for an endangered bird species.

Clear cuts for aspen.

In Michigan we clear-cut aspen because it is necessary in order for regeneration. If you simply try to thin or selectively harvest mature trees it will not grow back.  You must open the area to the sun where the roots of the pre existing trees send up 10s of thousands of shoots per acre. In the very first year, that new aspen forest will have trees 3 to 5 feet tall! These young aspen are also a favorite browse food and will be naturally thinned in the first year or two, still being so thick that you can't walk through. Within 10 years you won't tell there was ever a logging disturbance and within 30 to 40 years the cycle can start anew. Aspen trees have a very short live span compared to say oak or maple or pines. So in this instance its a wise thing to clear cut and make use of this fiber or timber.

Clear-cutting Jackpine

In a small area of Michigan lives The kirtland warbler. It was first described in Ohio in 1851.  It is commonly referred to as the jack pine warbler.  This song bird is one of 56 species of wood warblers found in North America. Its nests habitat is jack pine stands from 5-20 years old. It nests no other place in the world and under no other conditions.

Due to situations such as fire supression in the last hundred years the Kirkland warbler habitat shrunk to the point where the bird was near extinction. Less then 200 pair were left. The birds are located during spring mating and nesting by counting the singing males. This is the only time the birds vocalize. all other times of the year they are silent. It spends the fall and winter seasons in the Bahamas.  The warblers other big threat is from the cowbird. A paratistic bird that lays its eggs in the nest of the warbler which hatches first and crowds out  the Kirtland's young resulting in thier death.


Adult Kirtland's warblers are lightweight birds, weighing 1/2 oz. ts life expectancy is two years. Breeding males have plumage of blue-gray with black streaks.

We now have thousands and thousands of acres of jackpine areas set aside for this small bird. These lands are clearcut on a rotating basis to create the right age class of jackpines for the warbler. A pair of Kirtland's warblers requires at least eight acres of young jack pine forest to nest, but usually needs 30 to 40 acres to raise a nest of young. Once a forest reaches a certain age, it will no longer be used for nesting.

Fire can still be a management tool for these areas which was how habitat was naturally created in the past, but for many areas it simply makes more sense to harvest and replant and utilize the resource rather then burning it away.

You can learn more about the warbler here:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/hmnf/pdf_files/warbler.pdf

So, my answer to you is I would not use the term clear-cut as an all encompassing term of good or bad. Sometimes it can be the end of a forest but sometimes it can be the birth.
Jeff Brokaw

Man, I cant believe I found the original stuff from clear back when. I see some of the really nasty stuff that was written has been deleted, but its still an interesting read.  We generally stay on our own side of the fence any more. :D

Link to clear cut discussion on an environmental forum (http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-environment&tid=1415)

It was a while ago.  If anyone is interested in the adventure, here is the link to the thread:
Tom and Jeff walk on the Green side. (https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php?topic=2108.msg26552#msg26552)

It's a 4 page thread that leads you to an Environmental forum where you should be prepared for some lengthy posts.  Don't take the easy way out and brief them.  You must read all of the posts, both pro and con to understand what types of arguements the Wackos present.  It is good information to have in case you find yourself in the same position.  Logic doesn't work. :)

I had to go look too, Jeff.  :D

I've read several of Bryson's books.  I remember the passage quoted and remember thinking this is some of Bill's exageration.  He is very prone to that.  I think it makes for good reading. Bill's background is writing, not environmentalism.  He lives in England now.  Might be a good idea to write him a letter with some real facts.  Might be you know what in the wind too. 

What is the real truth?  How many miles of road does the forest service build each year?  Education is our only hope.  Who would have thought they would allow deer hunting in state parks in Indiana?  The biologists set up plots and educated the public the problems the deer caused.  Kaboom.

  When they clear cut around here it does look bad for a few years.  But then the deer population gets larger because there is more for them to eat.  As well turkeys and rabbits do well in the areas.
  But as the bumper sticker on the back of my truck says:

                        IF YOU OBJECT TO LOGGING,
                        TRY USING PLASTIC TOILET PAPER!

  How many people have you heard ever say that they love the warmth of their concrete floor?   You know that with computers we could do away with paper.   We could build our homes from dirt and rock.

  Here in Arkansas they raped the land in the 1920 so starting in the 50's they stopped alot of logging in the forest and now all the stands are the same age and dying from red oak borers because there have been no fires in 30 years.   Seems after many hours of study and millions of dollars wasted they have learned that axe and fire are really good for a healty forest. 
  Me I do my part to help. ;D

Yelling clearcut in a crowd of uniformed , or should i say misinformed american people is like yelling fire in a theater.I started logging in 72 and have seen quite an evolution in clearcutting practices. It used to be that the FS clearcut for economic resons. A big square on the side of a mountain where you take everything that will make a log is very efficient and maximizes profit. The "runoff" that the enviros scream about was overblown and far less than occurs from catastrophic fires.Wildlife like elk and mule deer loved clearcuts and now that they are rarely if ever used ,idaho's elk and mule deer population has plummeted. That being said, I tend to agree with selective logging, it makes for a more steady crop and looks better which keeps the masses of city people flooding into rural america from freaking out.Of course all regions are different though and the cookie cutter approach doesn't always work.In idaho we have mostly uneven age stands of timber where select cuts work well. On the coast of oregon and washington they have mostly even age stands and when they are ripe to harvest theres really nothing worth leaving.I know i'm preaching to the choir here but i can't help myself, this enviro BS always sets me off.

Way to break out the worms, Brandon--I bet everybody who's posted so far has gotten warmed up enough to save something on their winter heating  :D

Like everything related to logging and environmentalism, I don't think it's really a simple matter of "this or that". Clearcutting is a loaded term--to a forester it's a legitimate prescription of a silvacultural tool, to an environmentalist it's a description of the depoiling of a natural habitat.

Sure, Aspen only comes back if you clearcut it--it regenerates from it's roots--but what about the White Pine that follows the Aspen if it's not clearcut?

As for FS roads as related to stumpage, it's one of my peeves. The FS does build alot of roads so that industry can get access to remote stands. This effectively subsidizes the harvesting of those trees. Is that fair to the private landowner who has to pay for his own roads out of his stumpage?

The FS builds new roads to get to uncut timber but as others have mentioned, they have a poor track record for maintaining the rods they already have. There's probably as much, if not more water quality problems associated with poorly maintained roads as there is from erosion on harvest sites.

What is really needed is for industry, enviros, congress and the general public to seriously rethink the purpose and desired management of our National Forests and if necessary, write new legislation--real stand-alone legislation, not the perrenial riders on funding bills we see every year. The National Forest management Act of 1975 was the last time this was seriously attempted and the resulting stalemate is hardly producing any desired results.

Not to mention that every thing east of the Mississippi has be cut at least twice, if not three times, so they are not cutting the "the venerable and verdant Pisgah National Forest", they are cutting forests created by foresters and workers (usually the same). 
And I am highly suspect of the "1000 year old redwoods". redwoods coprice so well that they come back in a vengence after logging.

Highly suspect.

If the problem was all the National Forests then the Forest Service may be a legitimate Target.  The Forest Service is caught between a rock and hard spot.

The panacea is for everyone to come together and smile and hug one another and agree that the forest should be left alone.

If you could have read the posts from the Enviro's on the linked thread, you would realize the frustration one has talking to people who just want to call you names.  Posts were removed that did nothing but create new names for foresters, politicians and the President.  The cleaned up thread appears to be an, almost, civilized argument.  That Genneman Character is nothing but an antagonist anywhere he goes.  That is the jest of the Environmental movement and the wackos.

My dealings with them, which includes the sierra club locally has proven to me that they are generally a misinformed group of joiners with a need to control their surroundings like a junkyard dog.  Whatever they see is theirs, private ownership, economics, logistics or jobs be Dammmed.

If you could see these people lined up along the road next to a private Tree Farm, calling the owner names and slashing tires at night, the plight of the Forestry Service makes more sense.

Too many people attack their perceived problems with finger pointing and "you have to clean up your act",  "We are right and you are wrong because we say so", inflammatory actions.  The bottom line is that they think the world would be a better place without Humans.

I still harbor ill feelings toward the draft card burners, flag burners, rioters, J.fonda's, of the 60's, Environmentalists of 70's and 80's, and the Revolution thinking of the left wing today.  An example is the late uproar of Chavez in NY with Danny Glover and his entourage hugging the dictator on stage.  These people aren't out to fix anything.  They are out to bring down the "establishment" by revolution.  

Quote from: Tom on December 07, 2006, 11:37:28 AM
I still harbor ill feelings toward the draft card burners, flag burners, rioters, J.fonda's, of the 60's, Environmentalists of 70's and 80's, and the Revolution thinking of the left wing today.  An example is the late uproar of Chavez in NY with Danny Glover and his entourage hugging the dictator on stage.  These people aren't out to fix anything.  They are out to bring down the "establishment" by revolution. 

RIGHT ON, BROTHER..........I thought I was probably the most conservative member, but maybe not.  Can you say LIBERTARIAN?   smiley_furious

Some of those guys should go for a walk with me (or any other forester) and see a healthy forest with many intervening cuts, especially on mixed wood sites of the Acadian forest. Then look at one of these woodlots where the guy says 'no one has cut wood on this lot since grand dad did in 1948'.

When you grow mixed aspen and softwood in very dense conditions until maturity, 75 % or more of the softwood is usually rotten in the middle, small diameter wood, and short because the aspen whips the tops off the softwood giving them a flat-topped appearance. A lot of those softwood that do find an opening in the canopy are usually in bad shape with just a few live limbs on the top 20 % of the tree or less. When you do find a spruce that is large diameter (especially true on abandoned farms) the tree was open grown much of it's life with great big limbs that no mill wants. If you want to make pulpwood from them the mills want the limbs trimmed flush to the bole so it can be debarked properly. A stand in these conditions is best clearcut because leave trees are stressed and weak and extremely prone to wind fall and breakage. Many stands with mature fir and aspen are nearing decadence and often have a carpet of new fir seedlings that need to be released and aspen will regenerate with suckering. Ground skidding during good seed years and when seed is ripe will increase spruce regen. Spruce will not regenerate well (if at all) in dense stands with no ground disturbance. You should walk a woodlot that had a good component of spruce standing before a harvest and see where the spruce are coming in, skidding trails, yards and road side mainly. Take a GPS and plot a few positions of spruce regen. Get a digital aerial photo that shows the skidding pattern and bring it into a GIS program with the plotted regenerating spruce trees and see where they lie.  ;)

Here is an example of large tooth aspen establishing in a hardwood stand along heavier traveled machine trails. We thinned this 40 acres this fall.

(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/SD_Aspentrail.jpg)

Where machine traffic was light we had hard maple and yellow birch as well as red spruce. Some of the established fir wasn't in good shape because of the skidding of whole tree hardwood that often scraped the bark off the established fir.

There is a certain population of folks who just do not want to be bothered with the facts....  Their minds are like a steel trap. Once it snaps shut on their way of thinking, there is no way you will pry it open for them to see a different view point.  The facts are irrelevant.

Same condition when discussing  Second Amendment and hunting.  I always get a chuckle out of the folks who deride hunters for killing "bambi", but have no issue with buying steak at the local super market...  Somehow they are better because they didn't "kill it" themselves....

Warren

Not that it matters............
I just took a look online.
Forest Service road system:
1996        380,218 miles
1997        378,996 miles
1998        383,000 miles

Yep, and thousands and thousands of them miles are used by individuals who are interested in driving out to nowhere, grilling veggie burgers over charcoal that they use a whole can of starter fluid to get going, drink their wine squeezed from the vineyards that displaced a forest (true deforestation) then they dance around and play huggie games with the largest most majestic tree in the forest for the last time in so many years that they have now compacted the soil over its roots which is leading to its eventual demise. They dump out their briquettes as they leave for the santa anna winds to fan into flames and blame the forest service when the whole *DanG thing burns down. Actually burned down because the Forest Service was not allowed to do fuel reduction harvests on these same roads. One of the reason they were built to begin with.

Just my humble unsolicited opinion. :)

Bryson is a gifted writer, but ignorant when it comes to timber harvest, forest policy, and forestry in general. He obviously beleives everything he reads; and we should not beleive everything he writes. I also read "A Walk in the Woods" and the statement he made, which you quote - "It allows [USFS] huge swathes to be clear-cut, including (to take one recent but heartbreaking example) 209 acres of thousand-year-old redwoods in Oregon's Umpqua National Forest". This statement is utter nonsense...and what is most laughable is that there are no redwoods in the Umpqua National Forest at all, period (their range stops far to the south of the Unpqua).

Yeah, because they already clear cut them all! >:(

Did you miss the part where it says their range is farther south then that Furby? DanG bet thats why we aint got any date palms. DanG clear cutters.

Ya know me well enough to know I was being sarcastic........... right ???

Ya need to use the sarcastic smiley instead of the angry enviro smiley ;)

 :D :D :D
Yeah, I know......... but I had to see who would respond first!
:D :D :D

 I loved it when Bryson and Katz were hiking the trail and a big snow came and those 2 loud mouthed drunk couples from town forced them to leave the shelter and they had to pitch a tent.  In the middle of the night Katz snuck back and took the shoe strings out of the drunk's boots is just hilarious.  I think there is hope for Bryson.  He just needs educated.  He had to have been severely influenced by other hikers on the AT.

A step in educating the public is to have media days where reporters are invited to see clear cuts as time goes by.  Most are absolutely amazed at what takes place over several years and reported accurately the changes that took place.  Indiana is establishing experimental sections of its state forest to show the public what happens over time when different silva culture practices are used on the woods.

One of my most enjoyable walks through the woods happened just a few months ago.  My neighbors accross the road have acquired 400+ acres of forested properties.  When they first moved in some years ago we had a conversation about forest management.  At the time they were of the opinion that no tree should be cut intentionally and gathered all there firewood from storm damage.  I listened politely and told them that I respected their right to manage their property as they saw fit and I suggested that they think about enrolling in our state's classified forest program to mitigate their property taxes.  They thanked me for the suggestion and also said that even though they disageeed with my managed forest philosophy that what I did with my woods should not be subject to unreasonable regulation.  Over the years we have visited each others woodlots, I have felled and milled a few of their trees for timber used to restore an old home on their property, They have helped pour concrete for my saw barn as well as helped put the tracks back on my crawler in a precarious position.  We have become good friends.
Anywhoo, a few months ago they decided to relocate north for a spell and invited a friend of theirs to stay at their place and watch over it.  The friend is from the west coast and even though he is what most would call an 'environmentalist' he has worked on fire crews and has some knowledge of forests.  By way of introductions we all spent an entire day walking both properties.  While we walked we discussed various management methods ranging from the do nothing approach to large group selections intended to encourage oak reproduciton.  The discussions were very good as everyone was interested in how each had developed their point of view and all were open to understanding and learning.  The thing that really made this so enjoyable was that as we walked their property and talked about the results of various harvest that had occured before they purchased the property the lack of any management was apparent as evidenced by the mishapen stems of the trees left and the overall low quality of the woods.  We then proceeded to walk my woodlot that has seen various management techniques applied over the past thirty or so years. I did not have to say much.  The friend went on and on about the difference in the properties and how my woods was much healthier looking and obviously had more evidence of wildlife and quality trees.  As we ended the walk he turned to me and said that he now had a much better understanding of what was possible through targeted management.  My neighbors vowed to rethink their management philosophy so that they might be able to reinvigorate their woods albeit with a less vigorous approach.  No problem there.
I relay this story not to pat myself on the back but to illustrate the principle Cedarman referred to about educating people through tactile demonstrations.  When I find someone who is misinformed about forestry practices but does not close themselves off to exploring the other side, I invite them out to my woods.  I rarely convert them but I do get them thinking and that is a start.  I will also be truthful and state that there are some people that I will not let close to my woods because they have ceased learning and cannot see a forest for the trees.

Wouldn't it be great if we could give them all a 'walk in the woods' for a look as you've been able to do.
Have had similar responses, as well.

Thanks for the insight.

I worked a summer job for the Forest Service in Oregon during college and the employees I met were generally friendly, honest, and concerned about doing the right thing for the environment. The employees themselves were not greedy or reckless.

That said, the Forest Service in the past attempted a one size fits all approach to forest management in many parts of the USA. Clearcutting was the main approach from the Doug-fir/hemlock forests in Oregon to the oak/hickory forests in S. Indiana.  The general idea was grow the most valuable trees (at that point in time) possible using the most effective silvicultural process and most efficient harvesting process. There was backlash by vocal segments of the public and timber harvesting stopped almost altogether in many National Forests. This is analogous to the way many large corporations operate with regards to producing a product. Today we are also seeing backlash against low cost/most efficient transnational product sourcing due to negative consequences.

No don't get me wrong, I think clearcutting should always be a viable management option for many stands of trees. I use it myself with clients that have severely degraded woods (cattle and fire history) or have bottomland hardwood forests that have poor regeneration and stem rot due to seasonal flooding. But I also use selection and group selection silviculture because that is what most of my clients want for their land.  The fact that the oak/hickory stands are slowly converting to more of a mixed composition is not a big concern for many private landowners here. It may be a larger concern for wildlife populations over a broad area though.

As far as efficiency, the Forest Service is probably no different than most government agencies. Is their waste? Yes indeed. Does the Forest Service get the highest possible return to the taxpayer for every board foot sold compared to privately sold timber? Definitely not. In their defense, the Forest Service is required to have many different  professionals do their work prior to ever selling a tract of timber. This is a cost that the environmental lobby wants, but then complains about it when tracts are sold below cost. 

Finally, I have used old logging roads on Forest Service lands for hiking, so I am somewhat divided on the whole issue of whether this should be a timber sale expense or ignored  because the road has multiple uses. If timber buyers had to shoulder all the expense of high standard access roads, then many Forest Service timber sales would not sell. This would help the private landowners in the region achieve more and/or higher bids for their timber sales.

The Forest Service should definitely maintain the roads they look after before building any new roads. If this means that less timber is put up for sale because there won't be enough money available for road maintenance, then so be it!

Unfortunately, very few people in government positions look at their organizaton from a frugal or no deficit standpoint. And worse are those in government who like to hide tax increases under the guise of privatization (Indiana's Major Moves).

Okay - as the token environmentalist here, (just kidding folks) I would like to chime in. As some of you know, my business is reforestation. Not plantations, but bringing back forest. I do it various ways but, it is what I am doing in Costa Rica. So far, we are getting close to 2 square kilometers that we have brought back with Finca Leola S.A. We do have plantations - but those are a means to an end. I don't have problems with pure plantations, but it isn't what we are doing.

I say that as my qualifications. Our small group (two families) has achieved a lot more than all the yelling and screaming that goes on - we figure out how to fund some of it ourselves, and how to build a business around it. We are not governmently subsidized.

First of all - Jeff is right, clear cutting is NOT deforestation. Logging is NOT deforestation. Changing the land usage from forest to something else IS deforestation. I hate to say it, but if you have a lawn and mow it in most parts of the world, you are practicing deforestation. Stop mowing your lawn and you will soon have a forest. (Please guys, if you stop mowing your lawn, don't use me as an excuse with your wives...  ::) )

Clear cutting in my opinion is often better than high grading. Sometimes you actually have to clearcut to bring back a true forest, especially if the so called forest is full of leftovers from years of high grading. (high grading - remove the best, leave the worst)

Unfortunately often people use words like clearcutting because there have been very bad abuses of the technique. For example, I don't want to live below a hill that has been clearcut - it is liable to come loose and end up in my house! Too often, people have clearcut in areas that should never be clearcut because of danger from mudslides and destruction of creeks, etc.

I learned a lot when i was in costa rica. I saw lots and lots of deforestation. We are not talking about logging off to sell high value timber. That dont count because it grows back. What you do see is miles and miles and miles of bananas and other fruit and exotic plant nurseries that grow those plants you love to by at the home depot.  The forests are removed and will no longer be forest.  I had my reservations about Fred right up until he brought me down to see whatthey were doing, and I can tell you that Fred is flat out growing trees and putting misused land back into forests. Were going to do some closer visitation on this subject after the first of the year so you can really see that, via the work Fred and Hector are doing, that positive things to do with Forestry happen all the time. Things that we can even get involved in.  I too became a believer not from being told, but being shown.

Thanks Jeff - it was good to have your observations while you were down here too.

I think one of the things that we really need is to understand that forestry people (like us) are not the problem with deforestation. Yeah, I know that doesn't sound like it makes sense, but it is true.

Saying forestry people wipeout forest is like saying vegetable farmers wipeout vegetables. It isn't the truth. Or that Bro. Noble endangers cows... (okay, if one kicks him I assume it is endangered).

Poachers endanger forest - but worse - housing devepments, ranches, cities, hotels, i.e. development endanger forest.

What Bryan doesn't realize is that he is the cause of deforestation more so than the Forestry Service. The Forestry Service is just an easier target than going after the homeowners.

My personal feeling on yards is that if you have to have something bigger than a power push mower, your yard is too big.  (Maybe, I'm just too cheap to buy a riding mower)

Now, I am going to duck for cover.  I think it would be a good idea to have an escalating yard tax.  The bigger the yard the more tax you should pay.  Legally you could have as big a yard as you wanted to pay the big bucks for. 

Development is the biggest cause of deforestation.  Once paved always paved.

Onewithwood, you have set a great example.  Seeing is believing.

CR, another good example.

How do we get more members in the congregation?

I like my big yard (about 100 acres), landscaped with native shrubs and trees. Part of it was clear cut and planted in pines. The rest supplies me with firewood and logs from storm damage and culls. I hope I don't get any extra tax on it. Oh yes, I do have a small area right next to the house maintained with a push mower.

I have a big yard maintained by forum members.  :D Every year it gits trampled so bad at the pig roast that it doesnt come back until the following spring, so I dont have to mow any of it late summer and fall. 8)  8) Love it!

OneWithWood...nice story. Much appreciated; I'd actually like to walk on your neighbor's then yours to see the difference for myself. 

Thanks, CRTreeDude....I think I now understand why clear-cutting can be important..it just sounded reckless.  And thanks for the high-grading defintion:  take the best, leave the worst.  gotcha!

Thanks everyone!  I'm enjoying the responses I'm getting here.  I used to be pure "environmentalist"......until I came to the Forestry Forum.  :P  What little I've learned is enough to let me know that cutting down a tree isn't always destructive for the forest. 

I love forests, and I think being knowledgable of forestry science and logging is the pathway to being a true enviornmentalist...not the ignorant, fanatical kind.  It seems that foresters and loggers are the quiet heros behind the woods...unthanked by the mob.  Keep up the good work, I say!

I've been wanting to answer this thread for some time.  I"m a little more skeptical of clearcutting than a lot of the other members. 

Clearcutting can be a useful tool, if handled properly.  But, to watch large areas be put down and replanted really isn't much more than tree farming.  I think this is the aversion most people have to clearcuts.

The road issue is that when they build a road, it brings on clearcuts.  Something similar to putting in public sewers and watch how quickly houses spring up.  The thinking is if you stop road building you will stop clearcutting.  In a sense, they're right.

Now, when I talk of using clearcutting as a useful tool, I'm not talking about large expanses.  Small clearcutting is useful to opening up areas in a forest and adding different age structures in a stand.  As stated, it can be useful for regeneration of certain species.

But, the largest problem is that of monoculture and the even aged structure that accompanies the practice.  It manages a forest as a commodity and not a resource.  Trees are not the only product coming from the forest. 

We have a large monoculture in our state.  When the gypsy moth invaded, it walked across the ridges of oak, their preferred species.  They bypassed the mixed stands but wiped out entire stands of oak.  Why was it a monoculture?

Well, the previous predominant species was also a monoculture - chestnut.  When the chestnut blight hit, it walked from one side of the state to the other.  Seems that history repeated itself.  So, why was the chestnut stand a monoculture?

Well, we had a rather mixed stand of species that ranged from tulip poplar, beech, white oak, red oak, white pine and hemlock.  There were other species as well.  We cut them down to put in farms.  When the farms were depleted, they were abandoned and we developed our monoculture.

As for high-grading, just think of it as an economic clearcut.  Its the same as a regular clearcut, but it leaves behind a forest that is in many respects worse than a total clearcut.  In some other aspects, its not quite as bad.

Quote from: BrandonTN on December 08, 2006, 10:15:51 PM


I love forests, and I think being knowledgable of forestry science and logging is the pathway to being a true enviornmentalist...not the ignorant, fanatical kind. 

That's it in a nutshell, Brandon.  The key is education...not the kind where you listen to some professor, then pass a test, but the kind where you actually seek out the truth.

Bryson is spewing the usual drivel, not single a fact in it.  To start to understand environmentalists you have to understand that their views are faith based.  Facts and articles are cherry picked to support the cause and are presented without context. You have to understand that most folks like Bryson get virtually all their environmental knowledge from magazine and news paper articles written by people that got their information the same way.  I doubt the authors of these articles have managed a resource bigger than their back yard or perhaps maybe just a few house plants.

We have a local enviro that is heavily involved in sport fishing industry, he is fishing guide and on various governmental and industry boards, and he is becoming quite influential.  He happens to be a very good writer so he is able to convey misinformation with a certain panache.  The uninformed urban mass eats it up.  He really turns down the rhetoric when he knows the audience has experts that can make a mockery of him if he tries his usual stuff.  He will also insulate himself from any position where his beliefs will be proven wrong.  He will not tour our forest with any of our foresters although he writes about what we are doing on the forest without actually visiting it.  The other day he was trying to tell the city folks that the reason that we flooded here last month was due to timber harvesting in the upland areas of the watersheds.  He implied that the forests water up take is enough to prevent this.  The forest would have to up take over 13" of precipitation in a single day, in November no less,   ::) ??? to have prevented the flood.

I read Bryson's book and thoroughly enjoyed it, laughed until tears came in my eyes when he described his stay in a town off the trail for a few days when his hiking partner tried to hit on a married woman.  But he is certainly misinformed when it comes to foresty in general and clearcutting in particular.  "Idiot" would be an appropriate description..... 

Interesting that people like him profess a great love of forests, but know nothing about how trees grow, how a forest develops and changes over time, have no knowledge of basic plant and animal biology.

I've had people walk away from me when discussing clearcutting in the woods. They already had their mind made up, didn't want to hear the good side of clearcutting. Standing underneath 30 foot tall trees in a clearcut forest 20 years after the clearcut, after wading through knee high brush to get to that spot. (I avoided the thicker areas of all that biodiversity that came back in after the clearcut..., just too hard to walk through)

I've had discussions with people who decry clearcutting in National Forests, but say it's okay in private forests.  No clue as to why clearcutting is used by Foresters.  (If it's okay in a private forest, how can it be bad in a National one?)

I frequent the Environmental Board that Tom linked to.  Had several discussions on forestry there.  Practically all dissenters to my viewpoint immediately started attacking me personally, some with pretty vile comments.  Treated Tom the same way.  A true example that if you can't attack the message, then attack the messenger. They love the woods but know nothing about trees and refuse to go in the woods to learn. The worst kind of environmentalist.

Bryson's claims make no sense at all. If there is any road building going on, it is to allow the fire crews access as there is very little logging going on in the national forests at the present time.

If you want to read the facts, go to Evergreen Magazine (http://evergreenmagazine.org). Jim Peterson can back up his writings with the facts. You can find transcripts of two excellent speeches titled "Don't Shoot, I'm Not a Lawyer" and "The American Revolution Is Still Going On."

Jim Peterson and his Evergreen Foundation deserve our support. This is a good reminder to me to renew my membership.

One other thing related to the Forest Service and timber harvesting in general. As harvesting levels have declined on the National Forests, the demand for 2x4 lumber has not gone away. Production has shifted to our neighbor Canada, who gladly supplies app. 1/3 of our softwood lumber needs. So really, we have become a nation with the philosophy of "not in my backyard."

Wouldn't it be interesting if we had to supply all of our softwood needs domestically? That would require a major increase in intensive forest management (clearcutting included) and also some prices increases in 2x4 lumber for the consumer. It would make forestry and logging a growth area for employment. But, I don't ever see this happening because consumers and Home Depot want cheap lumber and there are not enough foresters and loggers in the USA to do the work.

Foresters aren't interested in Private land anymore and the loggers have been run out of business.  They are the new Walmart door greeters and can't even sell their equipment.  The mills have either closed down here, or are running at reduced capacity. There are a handful of mills that are holding up most of the production and they have the remaining loggers on a "will call" basis.

The trees are still here.  The land is being sold for development, but there is still a lot of private timber.   The competition is really the press and the environmentalists, not Canada or offshore.  The liberal society cries foul every time a tree is cut.  There are still a lot of landowners with trees though.  If we want a viable wood industry something will have to change, because it's going downhill.

There's another 6 or 7 thousand acres of land sold next to me and destined for 3500 homes withing the next 3 years.  New roads are being put in, the planning for the sewage and water is underway and existing 2 lane, county roads are scheduled for 4 laneing.  The county to the north as well as the first county in Georgia are on the bandwagon to become bedroom communities.  The Mayor of Jacksonville has said that his studies show there to be no open land in the county in ten years.

The local governments don't want Agriculture.  It is not as productive a tax base as single family homes.  Density is growth.  There will be no room for trees if the current attitude toward tree farmers, and agriculture in general, persists.

It's a catch22. People are drawn to open land, small towns and slower living to get away from the rat race.  Then they build their own legacy by turning the thing they ran to into another rat race.  In the meantime they condemn those they replaced as being slow, ignorant, behind the times, unaware, and against "progress".  They ultimately get rid of those that they feel are subordinate and fill the emptiness with more urban sprawl, fighting street gangs, less interest in education, failing retail businesses and ghettos.

The trees are ultimately lost and so is the ground to grow them.  The knowledge it takes to produce fiber moves on to greener pastures and there is left a wake of ultimate destruction behind.

If agriculture in this country is to survive, it will take the backing of all of the governments from city to Federal.  Forsaking it is killing off the golden goose that created and developed this country.  What will be left is a society of "users" who make nothing.

"The local governments don't want Agriculture.  It is not as productive a tax base as single family homes. "

Governments think the only way to make money is to increase income, instead of reducing expenses.  So they favor residential and industrial development.  But these require government services costing more than the tax revenue they generate. More schools, sewer, water, trash disposal, etc., etc.

Governments never want to save money by keeping land in farms or forests.  These require little government services and actually return more money to the local governments than they use.

But governments don't want to save money.  They only want to generate income.

Quote from: jrdwyer on December 10, 2006, 04:30:30 PM
One other thing related to the Forest Service and timber harvesting in general. As harvesting levels have declined on the National Forests, the demand for 2x4 lumber has not gone away. Production has shifted to our neighbor Canada, who gladly supplies app. 1/3 of our softwood lumber needs. So really, we have become a nation with the philosophy of "not in my backyard."

You can see a big difference around some of the townships in Maine. They don't seem to clearcut much in some parts of Maine, then you come over to NB and you see a lot more clearcuts.  Even the general public has commented on that. I know that there are large tract in Maine that have been clearcut though, just go up in a plane and leave the townships where roads are mainly forest roads. You'd think it would be just the opposite, because we saw and grind up way more than Canada consumes. But, it goes back to "not in my backyard" and we are willing to cut it.

I've always said that governments don't make money, they take money.

Some people have the mistaken idea that a government is just a big business.  It isn't. It's not even supposed to be.  It's there to provide safety and infrastructure for the citizens.  Somewhere along the line of "growth", the idea that people are "citizens" goes to the wayside and the priority becomes the recruiting of business.  It's counter productive when these businesses don't produce, but rather take the money from the citizens and send it to other corners of the world.

...Or out of state or province to another (within one's country). Seen that happen a lot here with textile industry, manufacturing, and shipping.

Don't even get me started on inter provincial trade and agriculture. It's like every province is a different country.  ::)

Tom, you are so right when you say governments don't make money, they take money. Why? Money is power and politicians love power.

Tom is always right. They say there are three things important for politicians, money and............. I can never remember the other two. :D

In Minnesota, the DNR Commissioner is an office manager type who may not know the difference between a fish and a tree, but his goal for the DNR is to return the maximum amount of dollars to the state treasury. Getting contracts finished quickly is far more important than weather or economic problems for the loggers.

Also there is a large controversy brewing over the mills (and some of their subsidized loggers) bidding far more on state sales for stumpage than they will pay for wood delivered to their mills by the rest of the loggers. The DNR has agreed that it is not right, but so far they have done nothing in spite of the fact they have the means in existing rules to block some of this practice. It reminds me of the old story about the country vet that used to service his rural clients by horse. At one of his stops, the vet's horse started making a funny sound and the farmer said "hey doc, what's wrong with your horse, it's sounds like he is clucking?" The vet replied "oh don't pay any attention to him, he thinks hes a hen." The farmer replied "well you are the doctor, why don't you cure him?" The vet replied "I would, but I need the eggs."  :)

Here are three quotes from the Evergreen FYI - Quotable Quotes:

Forest policies mirror changing public values

And now, first and foremost, you can never afford to forget for a moment what is the object of our forest policy. That object is not to preserve the forests because they are beautiful, though that is good in itself; nor because they are refuges for the wild creatures of the wilderness, though that, too, is good in itself; but the primary object of our forest policy, as of the land policy of the United States, is the making of prosperous homes. It is part of the traditional policy of home making in our country. Every other consideration comes as secondary...You yourselves have got to keep this practical object before your minds; to remember that a forest which contributes nothing to the wealth, progress or safety of the country is of no interest to the Government, and should be of little interest to the forester. Your attention must be directed to the preservation of the forests, not as an end in itself, but as the means of preserving and increasing the prosperity of the nation.

Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States, at a Society of American Foresters meeting, Washington, D.C., March, 1903, Evergreen, Winter 1994-95

Why forestry is in trouble with the public


For too long, we foresters took the public for granted, assuming unwavering support for those who grow the nation's wood fiber. Few noticed when the public's mood changed, and those who did were often ridiculed by disbelieving colleagues. Now we come to a day of reckoning: the public believes forests are too important to be entrusted to foresters. To restore lost confidence, foresters must first come out of hiding. We have a lot of explaining to do because, where forests are concerned, the public will no longer support what it cannot see and understand. Regaining the public's trust will take time. We must be prepared to answer hard questions about what we are doing and how our actions are impacting the environment. We must also help the public think through its forest management options. When we lay out these options, we must speak of much more than trees. Only then will our critics know we love forests as much as they do.

Dr. Alan Houston, Forester and Wildlife Biologist, Ames Plantation, Grand Junction, Tennessee, Evergreen, October, 1997

A nation that consumes more than it produces is exporting its environmental impacts to other nations that provide what is consumed. It is like shipping your garbage to another town that needs the money and is willing to put up with the stench.

Most of the raw materials consumed by the industrialized world - including the United States - come from impoverished countries that lack the money, technology and political will needed to regulate their own extractive industries. In the emerging global economy, nations should be increasing, not decreasing, their dependency on wood fiber because wood is renewable, recyclable, biodegradable and far more energy efficient in its manufacture and use than are products made from steel, aluminum, plastic or concrete. Furthermore, growing forests and the lumber they provide store large amounts of carbon dioxide that would otherwise escape into the atmosphere, adding to the potential for global warming.

           Dr. James Bowyer, noted author and Director, Forest Products Management Development Institute, University of Minnesota, Evergreen, September 1993

I believe that many experts have been saying the right things for many years about this issue. And from what I read, I believe that eighty percent of the people agree with these experts. The only change is that most of the people want more access to our national forests for recrecational purposes. So if harvesting can be done in an environmentally friendly way and that harvesting can share the forests with recrecational users, all will be OK. However the Forest Service offices have been encircled with lawyers from well financed environmental groups and nothing is getting accomplished.

Down here, high grading has a another term - they call it (and I mean forestry engineers) genetic erosion.  :o

I think much of the problem currently has been that trees were considered just about free. If you sell land and there is a lot of lumber on it - unless you find a buyer who wishes to have the lumber, you aren't going to get anything extra for the land.  But, the days of free trees are coming to an end. Just like the days of free meat came to an end when they ran out of buffalo.

Like most people, Byran and people like him want the government to fix the problem.  The problem in a democracy, the administration that does what you want will probably be soon replaced by one that undoes it. Since growing a forest is more than 4 to 8 years, expecting a government solution is probably pretty futile.

Here in Costa Rica 27% of the forested are protected as national parks - and they are istill n danger of being destroyed because of poaching of trees. What is sad about that is the amount of revenue generated in Costa Rica from those parks is huge because of eco-vistors. But a tree worth the price of a average Tico home is a big temptation.

Though the plantations are risky, they serve the same purpose as all those cows you see. They are a replacement for being able to just go out and shoot a buffalo. I think we are seeing the same thing with the logging industry. Yes, there are trees still available, but the density of good trees is getting less and less all the time and the amount of poor quality trees is getting more and more. Often, it isn't worth the effort for the loggers to log a forest - the quality just isn't there.  Also, many of the best trees are in the worst places to get to.

Extracting a tree from the forest and hauling it to a sawmill is expensive in time and equipment (and gas!) - that is a lot of waste you are moving. The portable sawmills have a real avantage in that you can remove only what you are going to use - and leave the rest. Moving boards is a lot easier.

But, portable sawmills don't need big sawmills. Big sawmills are profitable because you can keep them fed. There is a lot of investment in a big sawmill - it is worth it if it keeps running.

The big plantations have their own sawmills I would assume, so the private sawmills are run by people who work with loggers.

This shifting of markets reminds me of what happened in the computer industry. We started with mainframes because almost no one could afford to buy a computer - but technology kept improving to the point that very few things are done on mainframes anymore - and the many of the companies that made them are either bankrupt - or went into other lines of business. The news I am seeing on sawmills is not that they are being sold, it is that they are shutting down. It seems to me to be following the same pattern.

Just sort of rambling on a Monday morning...

Lots of good thoughts and fun rambling material, Fred. 
I went through the demise of the mainframes myself.  I worked for RCA Computer division and in the field, later, with Burroughs, RCA, IBM and Sperry Univac equipment.  A lot of the Mainframe demise was due to industry politics and cut-throat competition.  They actually ended up cutting their own throats.  Just my opinion, but, there is and always will be a place for a big number cruncher/report generator/storage facility.

The reason I offer that as my opinion is because the Main Frame Industry had rigidly followed disciplines.  These have been lost as the power of individual computing was dispersed to the masses.  The general public/user doesn't understand the necessity of backups, or the dangers of uploading changes to a file used by many.  It assumes the file it downloaded is correct and has nowhere to go to prove it.  We've done away with the sacred repository of data.  Most DP professionals saw it coming.  The user base made demands of control and, eventually, the business management of the mainframes gave up and handed over the keys to the safe.

It's a small example,but, now two people can go into a meeting, each with a different report on the same data or the same report with different data and each will call his report official because it came off of his computer.

There's an old DP Joke about a Main Frame salesman and a PC salesmen arguing about their wares.  The PC salesman called the Main Frame salesman an antique. He said that controlling mainframes was like taking a stick to dinosaur.

The Main Frame salesman responded "Perhaps, but I'd rather take the stick to the dinosaur than try to corral a bunch of lizards with a switch."

I always thought that funny but true.  :D

There is a lot of wood in private tree farms and an industry crying to sell it.  If some of the people who blindly decry the destruction of the Forests would open their eyes, they would see that there is much pulp and lumber on the stump ready for processing and, if they don't develop over the top of it, enough private land to replace what is used.   Their valued recreational "forests" don't have to be bothered accept for maintenance to keep them healthy.  Of course that is another consideration that some of the small minded haven't allowed themselves to accept.

Foresters are trained Forest protectors.  Their schooling doesn't entail only the cutting of trees.  It's too bad that there are some folks that are so short sighted that they don't see that. 

I have to blame the Foresters for some of it too.  The "secure" jobs have been mostly with the government.  The private landowners can take advantage of the Foresters knowledge and skills only if they can afford to put him on the payroll.  Small landowners have little attraction to an individual who is looking out for his future.  Cuddling up with a multi-millionaire who owns Thousands of acres is a lot more comfortable.

The private landowner has been left in the cold to break his own trail.  I think that is why so much private, forested land is being sold to developers.  The local governments favor the developers and there is no "in-between" agency to speak for the small landowner.  The taxing agencies can run rough-shod over individuals who have day jobs or are retired.  The Division of forestry could, if it would, bring the land-owners together in seminars and organizational meetings. They could mix the large and small landowner so that there wasn't a distinction between the two.  Forestry could, if it would, develop an Army of Tree growers.

The goal for the Forestry service is not the recruitment of citizens though.  Education has been passed to the colleges and seminars are given on professional teacher schedules in towns far away for charges that most small businesses reject.  Not many farmers are willing to give up 3 days away from the farm, a tuition for the school, travel, room and board for a questionable  bit of knowledge and no long term organizational benefits.   

Returning raped land to a natural forest is a good goal.  So is the provision of trees to the wood industry. 
I'm puzzled by the willingness of developers, the road departments, power companies and other entities who take down trees and burn them rather than find a market for their use.  Speed to these people is the main goal and anything in their way is a hindrance, not a product.

The mills haven't the capability of storage of product that is needed when there are large developed areas.  They turn away the bulk of the logs because of this lack of ability to store them or the end product.  Do Governments see this as a place where they can help?  No.  They are perfectly willing to give the mill free taxes to get them to come to town though.  When it comes to anything other than the tax rolls, Government remains ignorant and unwilling to develop new ideas.  So, mills close, loggers quit and Foresters greet shoppers in Wal-mart. :)

Dealing in Forestry products is a losing battle.  Not only do you have the agricultural aspect but the marketing of end product as well, left in the hands of unorganized individuals, but, you also have them competing politically with in-your-face wackos, who see private land as just an extension of their domain, and Governments "for the people" who are interested only in the tax rolls and how many individuals they can pack in a small space.

Who, in his right mind, would want to be a Tree Farmer?

Holy cow Tom! Are you saying I am not in my right mind? (If so, you might have company...  :D )

I have a report in my hand - in Costa Rica, half of the wood needed this year will come from somewhere other than Costa Rica. Yep, Costa Rica has to import wood.

It does help that trees grow a LOT faster here than up there. Hardwood grows faster than your softwoods - softwoods so fast you sort of have to jump out of the way. And, because we import wood - prices of local wood are getting very high.

I have seen the wood triple in price in the last 4 years for stumpage. The reason? Amost nothing left available in the fields, so unless you plant it, you can't cut it.

Tom - industry politics and cut-through competion pretty much defines business - and incredibly, PCs thrived in that time. If you want to get into what happened to the mainframes... The truth we are finding in computers is that if you follow the rigid disciplines, the problems are getting so huge, you will never get out of design. That is why about 80% of projects were failing for a while.

We are following more of an evolutionary process now with review. Seems to work better.

Just remember, the lizards are here, but the dinosaurs are extinct... There is a reason. And if the dinosaur is really big - I don't want to take a stick to it... ;)

I've never understood why the disciplines couldn't be taught to anyone responsible for Data.   Somebody has to be in charge.  There has to be a "Set" that can be trusted whether it is controlled by software, hardware or people.

It's amazing to me that a PC like I have sitting in front of me can run a General Ledger as fast as I could on the main frame.  What is not recognized it the "volume" of data we were passing.  Main Frames are dependent, very much on I/O.  Not only were we running the General Ledger for the Master Company, but the Ledgers for the franchises as well.  While that was going on, we were running district inventories, private store inventories, distributor inventories, orders and shipping for parts and cars as well as allocation of vehicles in 5 states with computerized assignment of accessories.  Not to mention the in house utilities and programmer testing.  These systems were basicly communications driven batch and provided a valid bridge between distributer and dealer, but, also between dealers.  It provided dealers with control of their vendors as an aside as well.

All of this was running at the same time along with online communications, batch and on-line reports and a miriad of other systems that were run in support.

While there are die hard PC developers who claim to be able to do this with PC's, generally they find the data, and its dispersal,overwhelming.

PC's and Main Frames both have a place in the world and it's difficult now for one to exist without the other.

The politics and cut-throat I was referring to was the demise of RCA by underhanded means, as an example. Larger companies were stepping on smaller companies and that could be expected, but, they weren't taking advantage of the Mind Bank or the Research and Development of the smaller companies.  It was a matter of squashing rather than usurping.  There was plenty of blame to be passed to everyone.  It's unfortunate though, because the Industry was the loser.

The funny thing is that most PCs have more power now than a mainframe did back when. But, we use them mainly for posting on the Forestry Forum... and smiles!

Oh now come on Fred.  ;D Sure, by volume alone we (most of us on here) are probably sending more data to the Forum. That's like comparing how many breaths I take in a day compared to steps I take walking for exercise.  ;) Still accomplished using the same unit, your body, instead of the computer.  :D But, I use my computer for the forum, communicate with my handheld computer in exchanging field data, write reports, maintain an inventory data base, maintain a business, compile a book, create and print maps, watch a DVD, play an Audio CD, research information from the web. Many tasks that I don't want to have to do with a pencil, crayons, scale bars, string box and compass and other stuff I can't remember.  :D :D ::)

;D cheers

SD, you really do all that on the computer?  I thought it was just a fance typewriter.

All they are is electronic filing cabinets with phone and calculator attachments.

As long as we are rambling, I will add my two cents.

Back in the 70's I worked for a very large company with plants all over the US that had a Data Processing Kingdom that occupied many floors in the headquarters, all under tight security. Working on one of the plants, I was the one who got the first run of the Operation Register, the second run, and the final run. The first run was on that continous folded, wide green bar paper and was about four inches thick. All the runs were completely ignored unless some crazy charge appeared in the department expense ledger.

One day we sent in a formal request to get a printout with some data that was important to us in running the plant. The request had to go thru division channels and then over to the Kingdom. About two months later we got a reply that our request could be done, but they currently had a 46 week backlog of requests and the estimated cost to reprogram the computer would be $220,000. And oh by the way it cost $40,000 just to investigate our request. :o

After the shock wore off, we decided the reason for the security for the Data Processing Kingdom was to prevent us from attacking that dinosaur.

The demise of those monstrosities was long overdue.

Ah yes. Another dissatisfied user controlled by an inept Data Processing Department.

I guess perceptions change depending on which side of the Teletype you happen to be standing upon. :D

Quote from: Gary_C on December 11, 2006, 07:06:03 PM
As long as we are rambling......

Well that about sums it up alright...  ;D :D :D :D :D

O.K. its time to go after Wenrich before he slips out of here.

Tom

You really yearn for the days of card punch machines, compilers, basic, fortran, and cobal? Getting page after page of output because you misplaced a comma? Endless do loops?  It's a wonder the computers survived.

The recycled paper mills could almost live on just IBM punch cards.

After we got open architecture, the Bill Gates-IBM-Windows fights were no fun either.

Like my father in law used to say, "Ya, I remember those good old days, they were just DanG hard work. I do not ever want to see them again."

I am fond of my experiences but not ignorant enough to think they were necessarily better. :D

What I do feel is that there was a lot of training being done for Professional Data Processing folks that emphasized the importance of things like backups, corrupting files, legitimate data flow and programming techniques that guarded a limited amount of processing power, defined things like rounding, dividing by zero and other basic mathematics.  I think the Data Processing industry is not the better off for ignoring these disciplines.  There purpose was to protect the Data from corruption and loss.  The small "nut" of professionals surrounding the mainframe lived by these defensive rules as if they were a religion and the users benefited by being able to trust their data sets. 

It was no perfect world by no means, but the rules kept it alive. 

When PC's proliferated, the handling and management of Data was passed to the user who didn't understand the disciplines.  As a matter of fact, they were anti-establishment enough that they wanted to be able to upload changes to Data Base with no rules attached.  That way, they wouldn't have to wait on someone to create a report, they would create it themselves, when they wanted and still not have to take responsibility for the accuracy of the data.  Analysts worked double time to try and stay ahead of the game and try to educate the user as well as create "idiot proof" programs.  Data processing lost the disciplines.  That is what I think has been the loss by dispersing the processing to the users in the manner in which it has happened. 

Time cures all ills though.  The finger will eventually turn to point the way.  Documentation will again become important, as well as "whodunnit when". :)

Quote from: Gary_C on December 11, 2006, 09:18:11 PM
"Ya, I remember those good old days, they were just DanG hard work. I do not ever want to see them again."

That's exactly what my grandmother always said to.  :D :D :D And she would get sarcastic with the do gooders that thought so much of an era that they had no clue about. Too much being sucked in by Grizzly Adams and Swiss Family Robinson TV shows. I wonder how many of them would want to reach into the oat barrel for a chunk of pork with green growing on it, slice it off down to the red meat, and flip in a pan full of butter on the old wood cook stove. In the fall that's what people did or put some in an ice house with sawdust and ice blocks hauled from the river in winter. You didn't go kill a cow or hog every day for meat. When did ya have time to plow the field, haul the water, hoe the potatoes, cut the wood, and feed the horses? :D :D :D

If you pay a tenth of what you had to pay the mainframe people, you can get what they used to provide, the problem is that a person buys a computer starts building documents - and know think they are moving. They don't understand data integrity or anything else really.

That being said - if you want to do it right - you can do it with the little machines.

I think the same is true. Now, for very little money, you can buy a sawmill - that doesn't mean you know how to quartersaw. But, enough people learn the discipline that is necessary.

The issue is that with a large investment, NO ONE, but those who have the necessary skills get to do anything. For example, no one would hire me before as a forestry engineer no matter how much I know about tropical forest - because I don't have the degree (don't have one is computers but have worked in the field for more than 25 years now). But, since I own my own company which employees forestry engineers, I get request (and a willingness to pay) for my advice - and I get paid more than a forestry engineer.

What the availability of technology has done is created the opportunity for people to enter into fields without proving first via a university that they know the basics. This is both good and bad. The good is that there isn't any real barrier besides hard work and someone learning how to program, etc. - the bad is that people can declare themselves experts when all they do is talk a good game.

Pulling this back to the original concept - there are people like Byran who know enough to be dangerous, and unfortunately, are very good writers. I really like his book (which I read) and when I read it, I wasn't as knowledgable as I am now. This is the danger, but it is also called free speech - which is a wonderful thing.

Freedom is a great thing - but it has to be balanced - a forum like this provides that balance. A person is always free to say what they think - and others are free to point out that they do not have a clue.

The alternative is that only those who are educated in a particular discipline are allowed to comment - which would be a very bad thing - that is called inbreeding.

just my dos colones

Quote from: crtreedude on December 12, 2006, 08:22:03 AM
The alternative is that only those who are educated in a particular discipline are allowed to comment - which would be a very bad thing - that is called inbreeding.

I've actually witnessed that and some was even video taped by the media. We had a Select Committee on Wood supply that had meetings with the public and behind closed doors. One big exec from a forest company based here in New Brunswick, basically stood up and said woodlot owners should have no say in public forest management, since they haven't the forestry education, or the know how to manage forests, or the skills it takes to market forest products.  ::) ::)

Good post, Fred.

Well, you write enough and eventually something good just might come out - I least I can hope it is true!  ;D

You mean that I have to tell the truth too?

Otherwise, you could stand before an impeachment committee in here. ;D :D

We have a committee that does that?   I like peaches. 8)

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 and the National Evironmental Act of 1969 doesn't allow the US Forest Service to be very greedy or reckless with their management decisions. The excessive planning, analysis, documentation, and public concensus for the implementation of any management activity has pretty much "tied their hands" of getting anything accomplished in a timely manner.

Road closures are more the trend than construction of new or the reconstruction of existing roads, ie, the Huron-Manistee National Forests, which was a heavily roaded forest, has closed in excess of 30 miles/year for the last 10 years and continues to do so based on its Forests' Plan.

Tom, you've blown my mind with all these new angles I never considered...and general facts about the 'big picture' concerning the wood industry and the mentality of the mob.  I remmeber seeing my neighbors cut down 5 pine trees in their front yard, for what seemed to be no reason, and thinking: "HOw horrible!!"  I used to be so sensitive to a tree being cut down, but I see now there is a world of ignorance behind my reasoning then. 
I'm totally interested in learning as much as I can of the 'big picture'.
I don't have the time right now, but I'm gonna read this thread through later.

I hope you soon find the time to read it, Brandon, and also to further explore the Forum.  There is a wealth of knowledge displayed here, not only of Forestry, but of the wood industry in general, as well as some pretty DanG good lessons on life itself.

You are right on target in your pursuit of the "big picture."  Without an understanding of the overall concept, you are basically unarmed when confronting challenges in any of the specific areas.

My knowledge of the workings of the USFS is limited, but I would think there would be a huge variance in policies, depending on location.  The Best Management Practices used in the Apalachicola NF, for instance, would be considered horrific in some other forests.  By the same token, some of the practices that are necessary where Tillaway works would be sinfully wasteful in a place like the Apalach.  The ANF is totally flat, and all of the soil is very sandy and porous, so the 13" rain that devastated Tillamook would have hardly been noticed here.  Everybody would have said, "DanG, that was a hard rain!" and gone back to work the next day.  Also, by the nature of its land, ANF is pretty much a pine monoculture, with small pockets of cypress and juniper, and almost no marketable hardwood.  Its "big picture" purpose is the same as all the other National Forests, in that it is to preserve a large tract of land to be managed as a forest forever.  The details of its management is quite different, though.  Another factor that makes it different may be the demographics of the area, too.  This area doesn't seem to have been discovered by the enviro-idiots, yet.  I have never heard of any tree-huggers or demonstrators making their presence felt there.  A well managed clearcut in a pine forest is not a particularly ugly thing to look at, at least not for long.  Slash is usually piled and burned to cut down on the beetle population, and due to our climate, the tract appears as a beautiful green meadow in just a few weeks.  Next thing you know, the tops of the new little trees that have been quietly planted start to appear, and the process has begun anew, all with very little fanfare. :)

Personally, I think the USFS and the Florida Division of Forestry have done a good job of educating the public.  Prescribed burning has been a primary tool around these parts for many years, at least all of my adult life.  Even though the public is generally aware of it, they continue to get on the local TV channels and in the newspapers to explain what they are doing, and why.  Complaints from the public are relatively few, and I credit the public Foresters for this.

I'd like to see some comments from other areas about how your forests differ from others, and how those differences are being managed. ;D

Indiana is a great example of the difference between the the Forest Service and state management of forestland.

Up until the late 1980's, the Forest Service accomplished most of their timber harvesting objectives in Indiana using clearcutting. The idea being to regenerate oak/hickory forests. The enviromental lobby in Indiana was very vocal and has stopped almost all timber harvesting on the Hoosier National Forest to this day.

The State of Indiana has relied on selection and group selection harvesting on state forestland to accomplish their timber harvesting goals. There has been very little backlash against this and timber harvesting on state forestland contines to this day. In fact, our current governer (who I very much dislike for other reasons) has increased timber harvesting 100% on state forestlands in the last year. He as also proposed some small clearcuts. Unfortunatly, this is resulting in more hardwood timber on the local market and this has hurt private landowners I represent with certain timber sales due to oversupply in a somewhat depressed oak market. Sate timber sales tend to have higher total volumes and larger areas. This makes them more desirable than smaller private sales with less total volume sold.

As a side note, do foresters at the National Forest Level ever do 100% mark and measure timber sales like use consultants? All I ever see on timber listing web sites for Forest Service timber sales are boundaries marked and timber cruise estimates in cubic feet. This is even the case for timber sales in the eastern hardwood forest types where board foot is the commonly accepted measure. I guess the Forest Service wants everything done one way.

Yes they do 100% tree measurement and sample tree measurement sales, but they sell in cubic measurement (cunits). I agree that it is confusing when most of us are more familiar with board foot measurement use.

Quote from: jrdwyer on December 14, 2006, 09:17:11 AM
I guess the Forest Service wants everything done one way.

That's just what I was wondering about, JR.  From where I sit, way outside of the loop, it appears that they just bid it out by the ton and take what it brings at the mill.  Now that's a really efficient and reasonable way to do things in an even-aged pine plantation, but it would be total folly in a Northern hardwood forest.  Do you think they would have just taken the easiest model, the Apalachicola, and done all of them that way?  I would hope not, but it is a bureaucracy, ya know. ::)  I hope some other Foresters with experience in USFS will weigh in here, too. :)

I see that Ron Scott has checked in while I was typing.  Ron, do you think they should, and do, take the same pains to measure these plantation pines as they do the hardwood forests?  They can actually schedule these cuts years in advance.  They know exactly how many trees there are, from the planting records, and how big they are from a simple observation.  They know that they need to be thinned in 10-15 years for pulp wood, then again for chip'n'saw in another 10, then left to grow for sawlogs for another 20.  The question is, are they flexible enough within their bureaucracy to differenciate between the needs of the Northern or Western forest, and the Southeastern pine forest?  My gut tells me they are, but I don't really know. ???

Quote from: Ron Scott on December 14, 2006, 08:31:27 PM
Yes they do 100% tree measurement and sample tree measurement sales, but they sell in cubic measurement (cunits). I agree that it is confusing when most of us are more familiar with board foot measurement use.

I spoke with my uncle who was working in a national forest at the time the forest service changed to using cunits from the previously used cord measurement.  It had confused the loggers who were accustomed to buying by the cord and they didn't know just what to bid on a sale that was sold by the cunit.  As he explained it, a cunit is one hundred cubic feet(if I'm wrong, please correct me).  I asked him how that differed from a cord that measured 128 cubic feet and why there was a change needed.  :)

A cunit is solid wood, where a cord is not. It takes roughly 150 ft³ of stacked 4 ft wood to make a cunit, or 100 ft³ of solid wood.

We have one mill locally that still buys by cunits.

Dang,

Yes, The USFS cruises timber volumes with required accuracies based on the specific cruise design depending upon species, volumes, size, density, diversity and size of stand, etc. etc.

Less effort and sampling needs to go into uniform pine stand measurements as you stated. Excessive measurements of more sample trees than indicated by the cruise design would be added expense and overkill in most cases.

Most USFS timber sales are also "check cruised" for accuracy; the checkers check the checkers. ;)

A standard cord may contain 60 to 100 solid cubic feet of wood depending on the size of the pieces and compactness of the stacks.

The cubic foot is a unit of "true volume" that measures 1x1x1ft. of  a volume of raw wood that is equivalent to a 12 inch cube. A cunit is 100 cubic feet of "solid" wood (not including bark or air volume). Thus the USFS is selling "solid" wood only, not bark or air volume. That would cost the logger extra. ;)

Multiply the number of cubic feet by 6.0 to convert to board feet of sawn material.

Also, keep in mind each province, state or region has it's (their) own standards of conversions. I think we have seen this in different discussions on the forum. I know the conversions I used are those used my marketing boards and the Maritime College of Forest Technicians. Too many standards.  :D :D :D :D Some conversion like cunits to bf would be the same for all, unless their is some funky math I'm not aware of. But converting something that is variable like stacked wood with air spaces and bark into something representing a solid block of wood is where you get umteen different answers. ;D

I've finally taken the time to read through this thread and as usual there are multiple discussions going on – all good.  It started on roads, then went to clearcutting, then on to cubic ft / bd ft comparisons........

Being a USFS Ranger/Line Officer having worked in four Regions of the country doesn't mean I will know any more than anyone who has already posted.  It does, however, mean I have a pretty good perspective on the topics so generated.  I liken the comparisons of someone really knowing what they are talking about to marriage; I've only been married 28 years and still have no real clue what it's all about...........

Roads.  Where has somebody got that the roads are paid for by the taxpayers?  Roads are paid for by the timber companies who have bought the timber in the first place (there are exceptions – especially Alaska, and I'm not talking about that.  I'm also talking modern era as in the last 20 years).  When a sale is sold by the USFS the road can be built by the Purchaser or it can be opted back to the USFS for contracting by another party.  If it is opted back, then the Purchaser is billed on every Ccf (more on this too) he removes, and prior to removal.  <We don't trust anybody when it comes to money>  So if the Purchaser bids $80.00/Ccf and the road costs $25.00/Ccf to construct then the Purchaser pays $105.00/Ccf until the road is paid for, then his payments are reduced back to $80.00.  If the Purchaser builds the road he will get credited the $25.00/Ccf until the road is paid for (so he will pay only $55.00/Ccf) then after it is paid for he will pay the $80.00 bid rate.

Ccf.  Who can explain a board foot?  I know the technical definition but the board foot of old is not the board foot nowadays. A 2X4 is not a 2X4 but we get charged for a 2X4.  What is a 2X4 now? 1 & 5/8 X 3 & ½? A Ccf or (cunit) is 100 cubic foot of solid wood.  Look at the major scales (Scribner, International, Doyle) even they can't agree given the diameter and length.  Cubes are just that – elegant measurements.

Clearcutting – God I love it, but only where it will work and for ecological reasons.  All foresters are grilled on the sciences of silviculture, silvics, and regional silviculture.  Our new (old) buzzword is ecosystem management – read "silviculture".  Ain't nothing more than looking at a stand of trees for multiple reasons to cut (or not) a certain way.  I don't want any folks to go off on old growth, West Coast forests and Cascadia crapola, Ecosystem management in the context I'm using is for managing a stand in the 21st century – with all the hassles and glories that go along with it.  You don't have to be a forester to know more about the land than all the textbooks combined, just look at it, love it, and treat it right.  As the old saying goes we are managing it for our grandchildren.....

The topic of this thread is greedy or reckless ... and of course the answer is yes.  The USFS is governed by the Laws and policies generated by the people of this country through their elected representatives.  Gifford Pinchot had a little old book of about 60 pages on how to manage the forest.  We now have hundreds of thousands of pages of direction, policy, laws, & court rulings to help (?) guide us.  If folks want to cast stones, they'd better not live in a glass house......

I think cubic measurements are better than board foot rules, but the hardwood sawmills to whom I sell standing timber buy timber and/or logs using board foot measurements. For me to list cubic measurements for hardwood sawtimber or veneer on my timber sales would be silly. I use tons for pulpwood as weight scales are commonly used for pulpwood.

The conversion efficiency is all figured into the price per board foot. The mills know how much overrun they will have for a given type of timber and a given average tree size. They also know how each consulting forester measures trees and thus know how close these measurements will be to actual log scale. So although log rules may seem like an outdated or inaccurate system, they do function perfectly well in today's marketplace.

This may come as a surprise to some western US foresters used to scaling bureaus, but there are some area sawmills to whom I sell standing timber that do not bother to measure the cut logs. Full payment is made to the landowner prior to any trees being cut on the basis of my 100% mark and measure sale. The mill just keeps track of the number of truck loads for a rough estimate and then tallies the lumber cut for their customers. It is a very efficient system not having to measure all those logs. I suppose a good weight to board foot conversion could also be used, but so far no one in my area is doing this for hardwood sawtimber or veneer.

I use cunits, cords, m³ etc for sawlogs and pulp and bf for saw logs as well. Some mills here pay for logs by the ton, tonne, bf, cunit, cords. Most loggers want cord figures so when the volumes and stuff are listed in tabular form they can see what each number represents by referencing it to cords. They also pay their cutting crews by the cords. We have been using 2 cords per thousand as a figure, but I truely believe it's closer to 2.2 cords per thousand based on some mill scales I've seen. All mills that buy saw logs and veneer here scale the logs or go by weight (logs). Mills don't buy hardwood logs and veneer on the stump here, if they ain't cut and laid out for inspection the buyers don't even open the pickup door. Too much defect to chance it.

I grew up on bard foot scales - Scribner to be exact, but times have changed.  I don't remember anyone asking us our opinion on going to Ccf, it just happened.  As for payments by companies for hardwood, to me it depends on what folks are comfortable with.  We had an (internal) knock down, drag out argument the other day because we still interchange Ccf and Bd ft (using .58 Mbf/Ccf) and that's after twenty years of trying to convert to Ccf.  We don't scale logs, we meet marking criteria for statistical standards based on logs or pulpwood prior to sale.  10% for pulp, can't remember here but was 5% some time ago for logs.  Haven't been here but three months.  I personally like weight scale for pine species.

Also need to change my profile, have moved to west central Arkansas as district ranger on the Mena/Oden now (Ouachita NF).  We are selling about (here we go again...) 23 MMbf this year and prepped another 15 MMbf.  I ain't sure about conversions but my target is 54,000 Ccf sell and 36,000 Ccf prepped.

Quite a change from Leadville, Colorado.;)

Definitely a change from Leadville.  This place reminds me of the Pacific Northwest in the early 80's before the "owl" parables.  We are cutting lots of timber and it's growing faster than we are cutting, doing lots of ecosystem management and in some T & E species habitat (red cockaded woodpecker), and ramping up our burning past 23,000 acres this year.  I've come into a place with some challenges though; they haven't had a ranger in almost a year, they had a death of an Archaeologist on the job back in early summer, and we said good-by to three folks on the district (two were staff) who retired last night that had a total of 100 years experience between the three.  Still have six vacancies not including those three but change will be good (always an optimist).

Looking at your web page you have an outstanding list of credentials and accomplishments, so I feel a little humbled by some of my simplified responses to how the Forest Service does business.  Definitely a good Agency and one I have chosen to come back into and spend the rest of my career in............

If you are interested in getting some insight into converting cubic to BF and how cubic stacks up against BF in terms of measuring potential recovery and value, go to the following link: http://www.roundwood-measure.com/case_for_cubic.pdf

This is a good thread. Is the Forest Service greedy or reckless?
Living here in the Northwest I would say hardly either, I would wish the Forest Service would in fact be more greedy and a little reckless.
Here where I live I see VAST chunks of land unmanaged, unkept,basicly left for dead. Which is probably it's fate anyway.
It just frustrates me to no end to see an endless resource just sit there and either rot, burn,or get devoured by the bugs. This, in my opinion, is nothing short of criminal, a forest properly managed will always have trees growing, lots of trees and wildlife will flourish. I am a logger and I get to witness first hand the advantages of forests properly managed and I'm proud to be a part of that process I am able to look back at jobs that I have been a part of and even been responsible for actually choosing the trees to leave and there spacing, imagine that someone with just a high school diploma able to that, how can it be? Most of the jobs I work on are privately owned timberlands though, you have to have a college degree in order to know which trees to leave on Forest Service land it seems.
I'll stop the sarcasm now. The FS it seems is between a rock and a hard place, the enviromental crowd has strong armed there way into the FS's business through what they say is good science, and good lawyers, they are well funded and use the courts to tie up timber sales for years.The FShas so many rules and regulations there should be no possible way that any timber sale should even be considered for a lawsuit let alone be tied up for years in the courts.
Our forests, and I emphasize OUR, are in what I would consider dire conditions, they're rampant with bugs and disease, they are so overgrown and ripe for catastrophic fires it's scarey, every year around here we get to see the big mushroom clouds rising above the latest monster fire and believe me they are litterally monsters.
This condition probably won't change for the better it's just going to get worse, millions of acres will be burned every year, more firefighters will die and more enviro lawyers will get rich taking the FS to court, and they'll blame thier latest scapegoat "global warming" for everything that is wrong in the forest.
Our forests should be declared disaster areas, emergency steps should be taken, our forests should be managed and managed aggresively which means logging and logging hard! And if it was done like it was 30 to 40 years ago the FS would make money, lots of money, enough money so that we wouldn't have to pay to park at our trailheads, we wouldn't have to pay to camp at FS campgrounds the campgrounds would be kept immaculate like they used to be, roads would be in better shape, small  rural communities would flourish, schools would be well funded, and finally our forests would be in a healthy state.
This may sound extreme to some but if the eviro's can be extreme so can I.


MDP

You guys talk of lawyers taking the forest service to courts. I haven't heard anyone but natives and wood thieves going to court with DNR here. Close to 95 % of our forest in New Brunswick is Provincial land (45 %), private woodlots (38 %) and industrial freehold (12 %). What  is federal land is Camp Gagetown where they bomb and burn the forest, Fundy National Park and Kouchibouquac National Park which is a marsh dune. There really has never been any significant environmental movement, just a watch dog group with a handful of folks called the Conservation Council. There are no foresters on the council, some are retired university professors, social workers, retired mill employees, woodlot owners, doctors, retired nurse, columnists and some touchy-feally types (whatever a Coordinator, Development and Peace is ). I would say almost all their funding comes from government sources, tax donations and membership. I deduce that from reading some info on their site, so it's more than a guess. ;) The only stumbling blocks here for the most part are markets and prices.

With apologies forst to leadville_ranger i state for the public the difference between the Bopyscouts and the Forest Service...... The Boy Scouts have adult supervison.

The passage of the 1976 Forest Lands Mangament Policy Act pertaining to oads stated simply that ALL RS2477 roads were to be left open and only those actually constructed after 1976 were to be able to be blockaded, so in the infinant wisdom of some desk jockey it seems they cut a corner her or there and now since the road was constructed after 1976 they could block it off..... come to the mid 1990's and the FS decides they have to many roads to maintain so they decontruct the roads particularly if those roads have not had any use.... erfo the gated roads and the RS2477 Rights of way..... we have had several thousand miles of roads in Central Idaho destoyed or set to be destroyed by the USFS over the next few years, mostly political, all becuase some people dont thik anyone should use the forests at all.  The dead wood is stacking up and central idaho is a tinderbox waiting for the right lightning strike to set it all off..... well at least those roads could have been used to access fires, but no, that would be to simple a reason to leave well enough alone, quite a few of those old roads accessed mines that have not been mined in years, others once led to old homesteads absorbed by the circus [i meant forset service] and very few people care about the disapperance of roads.... or the gates on the roads cause then they can use the roads for their 4 wheelers and not worry about meeting a bigger rig..... until the circus puts up restrictions against 4 wheelers behind the gate which is becoming more common.

As far as clear cutting goes, the circus still does it, and gets away with it because they leave "islands" of 3-4 acres on 160 patches, and in some places clearcutting is warranted, particularly where it is steep ground and highleads are utilized.... my dad-in-law was line machine timber feller before getting  rolled over by a 4 foot log n 2 feet of snow [buggered uphis knee] you cant just put a line machine in a patch of a few trees for selctive cutting, first it dont let the trees go down, and second the lines need room to move in a v shaped pattern as it takes nearly a day to set up the line in the bottom of the canyon if they are reaching down 1500 to 2000 feet, although most machines around here are still only reaching about 800-1200 feet.  To me it looks silly to leave a patch of trees that are over ripe, and have other clear cut patches within 100-500 between, but then again no one really asked me.... cause the public comment is usually 2-5 years before an area goes up for sale, so the mental evironists can file their lawsuits and stop the sales......

The other problem i have with the Circus is the way they included certain areas in the :wilderness" by "cherry steming" a road into it..... there are  more wilderness acres in Idaho County Idaho than are total acres in a couple of eastern states, one wilderness area alone is bigger than the norhern most county in idaho state, no tax base for it, no profit sharing from it, it just sits there with the richest gold strike in the world in one mountain waiting for the future generations to come to its senses and open it up for some congress critter to get rich doing so.....

Blueduck is one of the last free radicals
21 years operating a mobile dimension 127

William
Central Idaho republic

Last week I heard our minister of Natural resources state that the forest companies are well below their AAC for crown land harvesting. The reason is of course, markets and pricing. Then later on in another breath he said as soon as markets pick up we will be harvesting the surplus from previous years. I don't know about you, but i think that is going to drive prices down because of an over supply of timber on the market. So if that is what is planned, expect prices for timber that are barely profitable to fall even further and cause even more folks to look for another career. Private wood producers aren't going to stand a chance to make a living off their timber unless they have a viable/reliable market share. We just can't compete with crown wood.

SD, just think if you had hundreds of enviros filing lawsuits blocking most of the logging on crown land how it would affect prices.  Lower supply, prices go up.  Or the mills would just import more wood.  Too many trees or too many loggers, wood prices stay low.

Hey there blueduck,welcome to the forum.Good imput for one of your first post.

blueduck, I'll second cfarm.

When the gov changes the rules, those that know when the rules are changing make the big bucks. Think back to when they let you start to own gold and when they let  gold seek its own price level.  Gov changed the rules and look what happened.

I don't know where to start, but boy don't ya just love being able to discuss such matters?  I'm delighted I'm able to interact with folks from across the country and even the world at times, talking about the very stuff that keeps beans on the table or at the very least happiness for whatever we do.....

First, I like the analogy Blue Duck gave of the Forest Service and Boy Scouts, truth be told though the Forest Service does have supervision – it's called Congress......... (?).

RS 2477 – what a nightmare, if you look on the Web at various places it's about even as far as those in favor of RS 2477 and those against it.  Maybe that's good, I don't know.  But, RS 2477 is not a cure all.  It's rooted deep in the 1866 Mining Laws and was actually repealed by the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976.  The crux is it grandfathered in a bunch of the old roads but didn't do a very good job of doing it cleanly.  Roads after FLPMA had a moratorium on them for being accepted through Policy Decisions of various Department of Interior heads.  The latest form of interpretation was taken in early 2006 and was called the "Disclaimer Rule".  Under it, the old version of RS 2477 sort of reared its head but with changes; roads no longer had the 12 year statue of limitations and there were no appeal rights with the Department.  Meaning any disagreement could only be handled by the Courts.  Oh by the way, Congress has ruled the Disclaimer Rule illegal – but who is watching.......One thing folks need to watch is whatever form this thing takes will affect private land rights too.  I'm very acquainted with some of the Colorado Law and recent Court decision basically taking away a landowners right to gate his road because the County asserted "Prescriptive Rights".  The road was a dead ender and had not had maintenance for years.  The guy blocked it to keep folks from pilfering his ranch – he lost, County tore down the gate and opened the road up to public use.

Cherry stems – the Forest Service can not proclaim Wilderness.  It can only be enacted by Congress.  The Forest Service had some major planning back in the 1970's and early 80's called RARE (one & two) Roadless Area Review and Evaluation.  It was an inventory of roadless or areas meeting roadless character.  Lot's of Wilderness has come from these studies but only after proponents got a Congressional ear and moved forward to get it into Law.  Cherry stems – if not for those you'd be walking a lot further to get into your favorite chunk of heaven.  Cherry stems aren't good for anything but are a key to everything.  They are what the debates come about for moving boundaries or even if the proposal has a chance of passing.  I see them as just something we'll always have around and will have to deal with them...

My post is already too long so I'm gonna wait on clearcutting and public comment 'till later.......

There are many very excellent posts on this subject. I have always had a lot of respect for the US Forest Service. However I cannot say much good about their supposed adult supervision, the US Congress. Rocky Ranger has that exactly right.

I have looked into buying USFS timber sales in the Chequamegon National Forest. I used to be on their mailing lists until I stopped requesting any listings. I never saw any bargans on the sale prices and the financial requirements are pretty stiff. You have to tie up your money up front and that is risky with all the lawyers circling the USFS.

Most people do not realize that those roads that are now used for recreation were built by loggers. On the MN State job that I am now finishing I built the access road at my expense and the state will then put it to good use after I am done.

Two weeks ago, I was driving south out of Duluth on Hwy 23 and I just happened to see a sign in front of the headquarters of the Chippewa National Forest. I was shocked by the size of that building set back on the west side of that road. I guess they need a lot of people to fight all those lawyers?

Good point Gary on the roads and recreation. Where would the yuppie enviro lawyers be without there cell phones. A lot of cell towers around here are way up at the very end of logging roads, you don't hear them complaining about those ugly cell towers planted right on top of there precious mountains. If those roads weren't there they wouldn't be able to call the office on there cell phone from there big log house that is carved into a once wooded hillside, that's deep in the forest that should never be logged, unless it's for themselves.


Mark

I just read a long story that illustrates the problem with the US Forest Service.

In 1998, ranchers in northern Colorado and southern Wyoming were told by the US fish and wildlife Service (FWS) that under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) they had to give up 238,000 acre-feet of water annually to "save" species along the North Platte River in Nebraska.

The ranchers learned that the US Forest Service had already reported that as much as 396,000 acre-feet of new water could be generated annually if the Forest Service increased the timber harvested from the national forest land that surrounded the ranchers and serve as the watershed for the North Platte River. The forest service rejected the ranchers proposal, rejoining that it had no obligation to comply with the ESA.

The ranchers sued in Wyoming federal district court. Scores of federal lawyers for the Forest Service, the FWS, and the Dept of Justice jumped into the case, raising a host of defenses. Environmental groups intervened, not to demand that the Forest Service protect species, but to defend the agency against any requirement that it fufill its primary job-as ordained by Congress-of of harvesting timber and providing water supplies.

Then, in 1999, five weeks before trial, the federal judge dismissed the case. It was not "ripe," he ruled, because Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska were negotiating on how, by 2001, they could agree to cough up the water the FWS demanded and, the forest service was revising a plan and might agree to harvest timber to provide water for the species.

Just recently, five years after the district court envisioned, the three state agreement went final. The cost: a whopping $317 million; $157 million will be paid by US taxpayers, the rest by the three states. As to the Forest Service, in Dec 2003 they rejected without any detailed consideration, recommendations to increase timber harvesting and maximize the water yield. Oh, by the way, the final plan is to yield 130,000 to 150,000 acre-feet annually, short of the 238,000 needed.

Thus a win-win proposal, which would have generated more than enough water for the species, created jobs and revenues, preserved forest health, and secured local economics, at no additional cost, was rejected.

In its place is a multi-million dollar scheme that creates losers all around, beginning with those ranchers in Colorado and Wyoming.

(This information comes from the Jan 2007 Loggers World Publication)

We deserve better government than this!!!!!

Quote from: Gary_C on January 04, 2007, 12:52:56 AM
We deserve better government than this!!!!!

No truer words have ever been spoken my friend.  I work Govco (local goverment to be accurate) and look forward to the day I can walk away from the Land of Goverment Stupid.  I didn't quite understand the story but get the point non the less.

Thanks for taking the time to share that article Gary. Loggers World is an excellent publication and has a lot of informative stories that relate to us who are in the resource business. That article makes one wonder who's side is the government on.

I don't want to throw water on this thing because I haven't read the story, but these facts just don't add up.  Water in Colorado is not owned where the rain or snow falls but by whomever was first to put it to use and first in priority (the first one to do so).  It's called the Postponement Doctrine.  Been around since the 1870's and was the the main reason Colorado was settled after the gold and silver rushes.  The practice mentioned is commonly called "logging for water" and holds more promise than has been shown to pan out.  I don't know, it seems right to me if you log and open up the forest then more snow will collect and increse runnoff.  Not so much caught in the limbs and needles only to be evaporated back to the Maker's realm.   

However, the studies I've seen don't settle the notion either way.  If you are an optimist Optimist you can cut your way to more water than you can use.  If you are a pessimist you might get 5 – 10% increase but only in wet years and only during runoff.  Take your pick.  I do know when the environmentalists got a' hold of this notion they promised to take it to court and keep it there until they won.  Scientifically, it hasn't been proven to any degree one way or the other.  However, if the water was somehow created then whoever filed on the water would have the right to use it based on priority basis.  It would not belong to the Forest Service unless they filed for those rights.  Also, since most of the water distribution systems (read rivers and streams) are already over appropriated then the water could be gobbled up before it could be used in a later filing.  I'd like to read the article but don't subscribe to that magazine.

Rocky Ranger, I am glad you explained that as I wasn't sure how that worked. You can read the entire article here, but I don,t think it add much more. The water the FWS was demanding did belong to the ranchers and they did have the right to use it in perpetuity.

Summary Judgment (http://www.mountainstateslegal.org/summary_judgment.cfm?articleid=107)

Perpetuity doesn't exist in US courts.  It was struck down when the US took back some indian reservation ground in the '60s or thereabouts.

I took a short course on hydrology, but its been awhile.  You can increase the amount of water coming off of piece of ground by doing a clearcut.  A lot depends on the aspect and slope as to how much water comes off.  The only problem is that it isn't a permanent type of fix.  The forest will grow back and the amount will start to decrease.  There is also a question of water quality, since turbidity gets to be a factor until there is some sort of vegetation on the clearcut.

I think the FS didn't want to make a precedence from this type of a case.  If they were to make up a set amount of water, what would prevent someone going to court to have them make up more?  I'm not saying that they couldn't do it, but they may have a problem of maintaining it.

Also, just to add the water flow also depends on the soil depth to impermeability ( 1 ft vs 6 ft), soil texture, compaction, frozen soil, the water inputs, time of year (growing season), and type of vegetation (conifer vs hardwood vs grasses and herbs). Also, the flow of water at a certain level goes up and down quicker when not forested. I've never read a paper on the uptake of water by thick sapling regrowth versus mature trees. I wonder what the difference is. Of course that changes over time with stand development I'm sure. I've read of studies done on clearcut areas, where the vegetation was controlled by herbicide to estimate evapotranspiration, however the loss through the soil surface and humous (wicking) was not measured.

Stream discharge is a function of horizontal velocity and vertical velocity, both of which vary depending on where the measurements are taken. Weirs (on small watersheds) and flumes (on streams with heavy sediment) are used for more accurate measurements.

Iowa State University Press has a good book titled " Hydrology and the Management of Watersheds"

Cheers

They say the National Forests in the West are overgrown and in desperate need of thinning. So if the FS actually did what they are supposed to do (thinning and low intensity burning) would that increase the annual run off and still maintain water quality?

The 396,000 acre-feet of water the ranchers proposed to substitute for taking their water actually was contained in a Forest Service report. The FS had already reported they could generate that much water if they increased timber harvesting in the watershed.

Thinnings may increase run off for awhile, but, it wouldn't be near the amount as a clearcut.  All the thinnings should do is to increase growth on the remaining stems, and reduce fireload.  The purpose of the thinnings is not to increase water runoff. 

Increasing harvest will increase the runoff if you are using a clearcut regimen. 

Very good discussion and ideas!  Water as we know it though takes on another form in Colorado.  An example; during a fire two years ago we were dipping from a pond trying to keep some houses from burning.  We had several helicopters – three type 1's hauling 1,500 gals at a swoop and dipped an extensive amount from the pond.  The owner was going to charge us 40 cents/gallon (after the fire was out) for the water.  Normal rate is 11 – 12 cent per gallon but I digress....  Come to find out, the pond was owned by the guy (the hole and the berm) but the water itself belonged to somebody entirely different.  Water flowing through the National Forests in Colorado belongs to whoever filed on it.  All those pictures showing water in the lakes and streams in reality the water is owned mostly by the farmers on the eastern plains and the cities along the I-25 corridor.

Logging for water is a good idea and might work (but as Ron has pointed out) it ain't once and done.  It is continual management to keep the forest vegetation at a stage that maximizes water production every year.  There are way too many variables involved to even go that route on Federal lands including any excuse some folks have of managing anything on the National Forests.  Even if a person tries to move forward then water quality issues come into play.

I know I get a little defensive when it comes to the Forest Service and yes, we've done some of the stupidest things in history but I will try and clarify when we don't deserve the criticism on a particular issue.  But – we are doing some good things too.  My District this year is selling about 29 million board feet of timber and prepping another 15 million for next year.  That 15 million will have another 10 million added after September 1, 2007.   Log on brotheres log on.......

Rocky Ranger
You are right in being defensive. I apologize for laying this problem on the Forest Service. Actually the real cause of the problem is how all government agencys operate.

Even if you accept the additional water needs as claimed by the FWS to "save" this species, and they do not have a very good track record in saving anything. And even if you doubt the Forest Service's own report that 396,000 acre-feet of water could be produced by additional logging, the idea to try that option certainly had everything going for it. And I can just imagine the FS management saying "screw those people over at FWS, they are not going to lock us into doing anything." Thus the FWS most likely believed their best bet was to try to bully the local ranchers into giving up their water to satisfy their demands. So eight years and almost a third of a BILLION dollars later, a agrement was reached that most likely will not work either, the ranchers lost much time and money fighting the proposal, and the agency heads can all sit back and say "we won that battle."   :)

I doubt the Chief of the Forest Service, his Deputies, and the Regional Forester for Region 2, and his Deputies are saying they won that battle.  I remember when this first came up, the Regional Forester was quoted as hoping to try it and see if it worked.  I also remember the fire storm it created in the environmental movements at his statement.  Office of General Council (OGC) there in Denver handle all the water cases for the western US for the Forest Service.  I know most of those folks and can assure you if there is a way to make something work they will find it.  The issues you bring up are very complicated, much more so than I'm able to cipher.  FWS is an Agency of regulatory actions, the USFS is more into managing resources.  It ain't always a good marriage  – that's all I got to say about that one.......  Bottom line, managing a dynamic forest for increasing water yield has a very low chance of survival.  I don't care who done the research.

USDA ANNOUNCES  ABIGAIL KIMBELL AS THE 16TH CHIEF OF THE FOREST  SERVICE    

Forest  Service Chief Dale Bosworth Announces his  Retirement
   
  WASHINGTON, January 12, 2007 - The U.S.  Department of Agriculture today announced the  selection of Abigail Kimbell as the 16th chief  of the Forest Service. Kimbell succeeds Chief  Dale Bosworth, who is retiring on Feb. 2 after  41 years with the Forest Service.  "Abigail Kimbell is a veteran of the Forest  Service who began as a seasonal worker and has  since filled an impressive series of field  assignments," said Agriculture Secretary Mike  Johanns. "Gail brings a wealth of knowledge to  her new position. She is well respected both  within the agency and by our stakeholders. I'm  confident she will do a terrific job as chief."   

"I am grateful to Dale Bosworth for his 41  years of public service and especially for the  tremendous leadership he provided during his six  years as chief," Johanns continued. "I am struck  by all that the Forest Service accomplished  under his watch, from advancing the Healthy  Forest Initiative to a four-fold increase in  fuels treatment work. He also bolstered the  agency's financial system, making it a source of  pride government wide. I wish Dale all the best  in retirement."

Kimbell currently serves as Regional Forester  for the Northern Region in Missoula, Montana,  which includes northern Idaho, and North Dakota.  As Forest Service Chief, Kimbell will oversee an  organization of over 30,000 employees and a  budget of just over $4 billion. Before becoming  regional forester, Kimbell served in the  Washington Office as Associate Deputy Chief for  the National Forest System, with responsibility  for assisting in the development of the Healthy  Forest Restoration 

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal of Lolo Salvage Sale Decision

  The Supreme Court declined to accept an appeal of a 9th Circuit ruling on a Lolo National Forest timber salvage sale. The high court rejected a request by a group of Montana Counties, school districts, the timber industry and the Justice Department asking for a hearing on the Circuit Court ruling because it imposes new scientific and procedural requirements on the Forest Service. The WildWest Institute (formerly the Ecology Center) challenged the 2002 project in federal court. The Montana district court sided with the Forest Service, but a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit overruled the district court decision, voting 2-1 to grant summary judgment to the environmentalists.  The panel found that the Forest Service had scant evidence to prove the claim that thinning and salvage logging in old-growth forests would benefit wildlife and it was unclear whether the proposed logging would benefit old-growth dependent species like the northern goshawk and pileated woodpecker. The court also said the Forest Service should have conducted soil testing in the project area rather than use information from test of similar soils in other areas.

We have an abundance of Northern Goshawks and Pileated Woodpeckers around here and there isn't any old growth for miles. or even in the state.

I've never heard the old growth angle either. All it takes is a woodlot full of open trails and narrow roads and few hares and ruffed grouse running around and you'll have goshawks. In fact I seen one last fall/winter here on my woodlot that caught a couple grouse for lunch. I seen him in a distance lugging one on one visit and seen where he just killed one down the road in front of my eyes and my woodlot is mostly plantation. ;D

Since they are able to fly, they may be seen outside of mature and old growth forests, but they are in need of such habitat to maintain a viable population.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/SPECIES/goshawk/goshawk.html

http://www.pileatedwoodpeckercentral.com/information.htm

Now that I recall from other sitings, I have seen them in mature sugar maple stands in mid canopy perching. Probably looking for prey, never seen a nest of them though. But around here there seems to be quite a few and the mature forests are very fragmented on private woodlots. I think the old growth spin has to do with the Pacific Northwest subspecies, interestingly named for the Queen Charlotte Islands. But if it is also true for the Eastern subspecies, then it is all the more important to leave full cycle trees and wolf trees that species such as hemlock, white pine, red spruce, and sugar maple can provide for their needs. Those woodlots with all the scattered pine and hemlock left may be doing more good than the logger ever realized.

We do have mature forests here.  Many of my trees are over 80 so I would call that mature.  Mature but definately not old growth. 
I really enjoy watching those birds.