I recently flew over Vancouver Island . I was schocked at what a high percentage of the Island has been clearcut. Many of the clearcuts were on steep slopes that led direclty into streams. I saw similar logging practices on the Olympic Penninsula. I wonder how big a role clearcutting has played in wiping our wild salmon runs?

HUGE

Grandpa, you are absolutely right. We hear about the Washington Forest group (Bill Wilkison's org.) and it makes me want to throw up. There are better laws and regulations now but in general the forestry industry had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table. For you to get your blood into a boil all you need to do is think about environmental extremists, for me, its the rape and abuse of the People's forests - our National Forests. You look at habitat problems and their effect on wild fish - look at the logging practices of the late 19th and almost all of the 20th century. And they did it on National Forests. Can you say Corporate Welfare? Disgusting.

Clearcut logging has also done a lot to help provide additional browse for deer, elk, and other species who live there year round.

As with any harvesting practice there will be some impact on the flora and fauna in the area. Some species benefit, some don't.

With the low finished lumber prices (not including the last two months), and the Canadians flooding the market, even with a 27% tariff, production in the US has shifted somewhat to getting the most out of a particular stand of timber. Timber harvests, especially in private forests, are more selective (except for some of the "Campbell Group" operations.). They make sure they take the "poles" first, then selectively log for saw logs. Pecker poles for pulp are last. There are also stricter regulations on leaving "wildlife trees", etc.

Some operations are still basic clearcut deals, but there are streamside setbacks here in the US that the timber companies have to abide by.

Sure we can gripe about it the past, but what is your house made out of? Many positive changes have been made, and it is getting better.

One big shift has been the implementation of "pulp wood" farms where they have planted lowland river bottom areas with hybrid Poplars/Cottonwoods. This has taken some of the stress away from the coniferous forests, especially when you consider some of these hybrid farms can be harvested every 9-15 years instead of only every 40-60 years.

Many industries have had a negative impact on our environment, the timber industry is only one of them.

Andy

Business is business, money is money. It's what makes the world go 'round.

Corporate America will always (or until they are forced to change) do everything they can to reduce costs and maximize profit.

It's a rare corporation that thinks of the environment (or any other innocent bystander) before it's shareholders (or their own self-serving executives). How many major corporations make dramatic changes to their operations on their own, without government intervention, that cost them money but reduce their negative environmental impact?

Loggers are no more likely to want to stop what they're doing than commercial fishermen. That's not just the corporate managers, it's the blue collar guys too. Who wants to give up their livelihood first?

FWIW, these "increase profits at all non-financial costs" effects aren't reserved for the environment. Look what's happening now with manufacturing. The resource being affected in this case is jobs in the US. Will we legislate job security? Not without corporate execs. going down screaming and kicking.....not to mention the people that will no long be able to get free phones when they upgrade their cellular plan.

rant mode =

So, anyone looking for an SMT Process Engineer?

Of course clearcut logging hurts enviro.

Setbacks and education are doing a lot to improve the situation. The practices of the past are just that , History!

Loggers (Timber Co,s) don't do it here or in Canada anymore. There are a few handlog sales in Canada that impact the shoreline but very minimaly.

In my opinion the greatest threat now is development.

Golf courses are death to fish!

All those green lawns that look like carpet along the streams and shorelines.

The uncountable number of improperly functioning septic systems.

Little things like over fertilizing and dumping waste in the storm water probably contribute as much or more to the problem now.

Just my opinion!



herm

Isn't the agreed stream setback only 200 feet under the forest and fish law, Locke's sell out to the timber industry which will be in place for the next fifty years?
What I really hate seeing now is land meant for timber production being turned into massive housing developments and then the industry pressures for more national forest timber. Makes me sick.

Sorry to sound stupid.... but don't you live in a house?

We all require new housing. Whether it be for me or my daughter in 20 years.

Now where you should put houses is a good debate...

The new forest practice rules have made a huge impact in how logging will affect streams and riparian zones. I know there are those that will argue they don't go far enough, but I think development and farming probably create a greater threat to fish habitat.

As far as buffer protection under the new forest practices rules, buffer widths are based on stream type and site potential tree height. Buffers also consist of a core, inner and outer zone with different requirements for each zone. I wish it were as easy as saying buffers are "X" feet, but it isn't. Obviously there are some problems with the new rules, but hopefully through the adaptive management component of the rules we can correct things as they come up.

Dogfish and Herm, When you say that the past is history do you intend for those that participated in damaging actions in the past to have a free pass? Am I not allowed to criticize and be dubious of those people and companies that have caused harm in the past? Especially when many are still active in the forestry industry??? Just because the vast majority of the industry caused innumerable problems with their abusive logging practices right up until the 1990's and were never convicted of any crimes does not mean they get a free pass from me. If it sounds like I'm bitter - that's true. Growing up here, watching log trucks pull up to the Ports and offload logs onto ships, exporting our resources and our jobs while leaving you and I to clean up the mess has given me a hard heart to those that I truly believe to be environmental terrorists.

The Forestry industry has much to prove to me. I hope that the new rules work and that the industry adheres to them. I am reminded of President Reagan's words to Gobrachev. "Trust yet verify"

Herm, you say "the practices of the past are just that, History." Try telling that to the Stillaguamish System, which is plagued by slides and siltation problems and will be for generations to come due to past poor logging practices.

Beezer

And??

I drive a car that burns oil and gasoline too, but does that mean I can't be ticked about the Exxon Valdez?

Dan S., right on the money.

There is responsible resource management, and there is something else.

And, while I think most of us agree that they're taking steps to curtail harmfull forestry practices, are they forcing the timber companies to repair the damage? If not, is the government stepping in to fix it?

".......are they forcing the timber companies to repair the damage?"

The answer depends on what you call damage. If upgrading roads, disconnecting ditch water from streams, replacing culverts that block fish passage, side cast pull back and abandoning or upgrading stream adjacent parallel roads, then the answer is yes. If the question is in reference to old debris torrents and slides then the answer is no. I've looked at hundreds of debris torrents and slides and there's really nothing that can be done other than stabilize and revegetate the slope.

I don't know if that answers the question completely, but hopefully it clarifies some things.

I don't know why some of you don't read the entire post and think about what was said before you fly to conclusions.

I never said nor tried to insinuate that I thought that past practices were proper or that they should be forgiven or forgotten!

I don't think that the rules that are in place now cover everything but I do know that it is a lot better than it was.

I'm not going to debate wether trees should be harvested or not, in my opinion they should be and they should be harvested in a manner that is both economicaly and environmentaly feasible(sp). In many areas clearcutting is acceptable, I don't like it but I have taken the time to understand it.

The timber industry has learned a lot and it still has a great deal more to learn.

History is to be learned from, so it doesn't happen again!

When we, americans, send our industry to 3rd world nations and then we as chest thumping, finger pointing,environmentalists, buy those products, lumber included, because it is cheaper than homegrown from Co.s that try to compete, and are at the same time, not only changing their practices for the better, but in many instances attempting to right many of the wrongs committed in the past, I think we better start looking a lot closer to home, for the real enviro terrorists!

Just my opinion.




herm

Herm,

Excellent points.

I am not trying to rain on anyone's parade, or say that they can't b!tch about past forest practices, but at that time, they were legal. The forestry industry has made changes, as mandated by law, to their harvest practices.

I think we are in agreement that the forestry industry has had significant impacts on salmon habitat, and other environmental issues. The issue at hand is if they have learned from the mistakes of the past to make things better for the future.

I believe that there have been a number of positive steps made in that direction.

The difference between an idealist and a realist is that the idealist can only see things his way, and if they are not changed immediately, then that is unacceptable. A realist sees things how they are, and how they would like things to be, and then tries to make the industries involved change their practices incrementally to acheive their goals.

I believe that we are all on the same side, we want the fish to succeed.

BTW, I know the difference between a feller buncher and a shovel logger, I know how to value an excavator by the wear patterns on the treads and under carriage, and I am proud to help finance folks involved in the forestry industry. I do it every day.

I also like to build things made out of wood. It is a beautiful medium to work with.

Andy

Must be a domestic vehicle. :p

Along with the comercial fishermen the logging industry only did what the gov. decided what was propper.

I don't think that most of the forest industries would of done what they did if they knew the impact they had. Now the freaking netters know the damage they are doing and yet they are allowed to continue.

We are always whining about the past. Netting is right now and its killing whats left of our runs.

"I've looked at hundreds of debris torrents and slides and there's really nothing that can be done other than stabilize and revegetate the slope."

borntofish, thanks for addressing my question!

Has it proven to be too expensive, or too difficult, to stabilize and revegetate? Or is it really not either, but it's more effort than someone's going to put out w/o being forced?

My visual image of an steep, rocky slope and accompanying slides doesn't look like a simple challenge.