Buuuulllllsh-t!

When acreage is managed properly, it yields more board feet of timber in a shorter period of time.

Clearcutting is used because it is the most profitable tool available to the landowner. It is the quickest buck out there.

If you were to do more selective harvest, your land would yield higher production, with lowered cost.

With timber prices in the toilet at this time, it makes no sense to be cutting like that. If it was for pulp....yeah, you might turn a profit at this time. But the trees in that pic look like conifers to me.

Excuse me now, my dog looks hungry. I have to let him in to the cats litter box.

Maybe when the prices are low it takes more trees to meet their overhead ?

Select harvest methods on steep ground are a joke.

Do you think it would make sense to "selectivly harvest" every sqare in of the state to meet the production of a few thousand acres managed properly to provide timber while sustaining healthy populations of wildlife ?

Oregonian,

In case you haven't noticed, NOBODY (with the exception of Sol ) is attacking loggers on this thread. We all realize they are just trying to make a living getting paid for what they were hired to do. What we are attacking is the practice. I guarantee that things were not done by the book here....if you physically inspected the slope, the soil composition, proximity to the river, etc., you yourself would say "this is horrible and it should not have been logged in this manner"....or something along those lines.

Ike

More likely I would REALLY wonder what the fuss was about...

Your experience here is very important. Could you elaborate on this paragraph?

Thanks.

Again--
This is just like everything else everyone argues about on these boards. You can bet your paycheck, that clear cut meets every law and rule for that "practice"
That poor Pilchuck has gotten crap beat out of it both logging and build homes up on the ridge, it has had a huge impact over what it looked like 30 years ago and the county is still letting people build right on the banks and put in roads.
What needs to happen is for the "group" to stay on the politicians and force the practice of clear cutting to be eliminated like gill netting should be eliminated.
We have more than enough evidence of what clear cutting does to our rivers.

While that particular buffer does look pretty darn sparce, I think you need to wait for the permit information before you jump to too many conclusions.

I'm not going to argue that the buffer in the photo is adequate, but a lot of the rhetoric on this thread about current forest practices in general is based on speculation and a poor understanding of the influence of contemporary timber harvest practices on fish and fish habitat. I suggest that people read a few of the published studies on harvest influences on hydrology and sediment delivery to streams. Look at LWD recruitment curves, and you will see that nearly all large wood recruited to streams comes from within 100 ft of the channel. Other riparian functions are largely provided for within a 100 ft buffer. Ecological returns from a buffer are diminished the farther you move away from the channel. Opportunity for selective harvest of smaller trees within buffers is included within the rules in some situations, and this was intended to accelerate the growth of conifers left behind to provide large wood more quickly to streams. That was a negotiated element with broad support from a wide variety of stakeholders. People wanted late succession riparian stands as quickly as they could get them. Thinning is a way to achieve that. A minimum conifer basal area has to be maintained before any trees can be removed from the outer areas of the buffers, and only the smallest trees can be harvested from within the buffers. Regardless, there is a no-touch buffer required to be left adjacent to the stream.

Selective harvest upslope isn't always possible or desireable. In many sites, more roads would be required to access the stand for selective harvest. Roads are responsible for a lot of the water and sediment delivery to streams. Increased soil disturbance is also likely. Regeneration is slower in a thinned stand. So selective harvest isn't necessarily the solution.

Compliance with the rules may be a problem, and this may indeed be an example of that. But before people rush to make the rules themsleves more restrictive I think you have an obligation to understand what the rules are and what the science is that supported the development of those rules. It doesn't sound like many of you have taken the time to do that.

show me a slope (forget steep, b/c they all are) in a western washington or oregon that doesn't end in a streambed or a drainage that goes into a stream bed. Last I checked, all water flows downhill.

As it looks to me, Oregonian is probably right. The logging operation is most likely "by the book."

What everyone else is arguing about is what they think the law should be, it has nothing to do with what the law actually is.

People can get all up in arms about what they see in a single picture and question the efficacy of forestry laws, but you all oughta have a reality check with respect to what Oregonian is saying. To me, it also just looks like a run of the mill timber sale. It may not be the best location for one and the current laws may not be adequate enough to address the problems that particular sale poses to that river, but I dont understand where people are coming from when they think it is somehow illegal. It would be a pretty bold move to proceed illegally on a fish bearing stream well w/in sight of the public.

If you dont like it, get the laws changed. It's that simple and impossible all at the same time.

Dom

Sun and shadows

Trees smile when they're happy...

Here's another picture for you Aunty...

BTDT, the greenies already had their way with forestry...

Do you want me to cry about the harmfull chemicals used in the painting industry as if this was 1957 ?

Org,

You're never gonna win that argument on this board. Fish habitat is more important than Weyerhauser's or any other gypo op's pocket book. Let me guess what your retort will be....hang on...almost....I got it, "There's more bigger trees down there in the draw on the creek, if you won't let me have that, I'll have to work harder and take more somewhere's else, you already took the two that I could've had if I was here ten years ago! I can't make as much money without those trees, productivity is what counts," heard you the first time, but that's probably reciprocal, huh?

Oregonian....Your a total idiot!

Moma always told me not to argue with fools, but in your case I feel the need to make sure that everyone here recognizes you as one. You are doing a fine job of proving it yourself, but I feel the need to make sure that nobody gets confused.

1st, you can log a steep hillside with out damage to the flora and fona....Its called lift. Logs can be brought to a landing with out dragging the ground ( the main cause of erosion on any logged area).

2nd, This can be done while still seeing a profit for the land owner and the contractor. It's simple, you dont hire a contract logger with out the proper tools to do the job properly. In other words, he needs a yarder that is tall enough to obtain the lift that is required to protect the flora and fona. and dont forget plenty of skyline so that you can reach far enough to keep the lift that you need.

Dam! I get confused sometimes talking to idiots....We were talking about buffer strips along fish bearing streams wernt we.

Like I stated earlier, one small clear cut means nothing, but multiply that by just a few, we now have a problem.

Enough for now. The dog needs to go visit the cats sh-t box, he looks hungry again.

I am curious as to where the greenies got there way with forestry. Yeah they shut some BLM areas down, I am the first to say that it pissed me off.

I am all for logging, a good share of my family are loggers. There loggers for a reason....there to fukin dumb to do anything else! But I still love them .

But as dumb as most of them are, they will be the first to tell you that things should, and can be different. But they dont make the rules, they just obey them.

As far as harmfull chemicals...none were used untill recently. They used to burn the areas that were logged, but some ignorant asshole decided that burning was bad. So now they spray the logged areas with a chemical that kills everything but trees. So now the deer and elk have nothing to graze on but the tree's.

Brilliant.

You missed the point stam, many on this site seem to think todays logging is comparable to decades ago, wouldn't you think I was an idiot if I was convinced all painters were still dumping all types of horrible chemicals in the river...?

syko, are you a skim reader ?

Refreshing to hear about lift from a...what did you say you do (did) ?

Lead bounce -
By my quote "... but then you would be taking on one of our sacred cows. Politics seem to dictate that the situation be left as is; I would say t.i.c. if it were not so sad."

That our forest practice rules like so many things in todays society is a function of special interest groups and lobbying than what is good for the resource. For centuries the timber industry has been a political power in this State and the latest Forest and Fish rules just continue to illustrate that they still have significant political power. This is even further compounded by the Federal goveronment adopting the forest and Fish rules as a Habitat Conservation Plan(since 2006) which essentially put those rules in place for the next 50 years.

The Forest and Fish HCP is suppose to have a significant adaptive management piece that would be responsive new knowledge or information indicating that the Forest and Fish rules are inadeqaute. Unfortuately such changes must go through the Forest Practices Board ( a 13 member panel appointed by the Governor). The board is made up of a variety of forest stakeholders including folks from the timber industry. To top things off State law allow this Board to disapprove rule changes (adaptive management needs) to preserve the "viability" of the timber industry. I don't know what "viability" means (don't think it was defined) but except it means leave the bottom line as profitable as possible.

It is my opinion that while the Forest and Fish laws sound goods and makes for great TV commericals it falls far short of providing the non-timber resources the protection they need. While it provides for a "viability" of the timber industry it does not insure an equal "viability" of the resources so many of us here care about.

Regarding stream side buffers - one of the splashy promises of the Forest and Fish law was a promise that confir forest buffers would be produced along fish bearing streams (and the Pilchuck certainly has fish) that would be similar to what would be found in a natural 140 year old stream side forest. Looks to me that the "strip" shown in Dave's picture is further from that promised standard (140 year-old stand) than it was beofer it was last logged. I for one find that un-acceptable.

Tight lines
Curt

Smalma -

I have gained a more respect for you after reading many of your posts, but it looks like you are now acting just like one of the mob. I'll grant you a free pass on a lot of the subjective BS you expound, but as usual I wonder where 's your science ? How wide should those buffers be? What makes them good enough? Where specifically has adaptive management failed us? You have any science to contribute to your assessment ? Or do you just want to pile on saying more restriction is always better? Like it or not, the landowners have to make a buck or they will sell out to your local strip mall as fast as you can say "Tight lines".

Ex logger (smart enough to get out of it 30 years ago...unlike you).

Trapper, hunter, fishermen, and now I make oil.

whydoyouaskstumpbuilder?