I didn't say you weren't smart, but sensed very little actual logging experience...
I also savvy trapping, hunting, know a little bit about cutting timber and getting logs off of steep ground...

Thanks Curt. Your right on.

Milt -
First my main point was and continues to be we should not expect a process that comes out of the legislative process (the America Way if you will) to look after public resources over the needs of special needs.

Would you disagree whether either the fact that the timber beast is a special interest in this State and has been so for a long time or that they were successful in molding Forest and Fish rules to their advantate?

I don't recall saying any\where that the buffers were inadequate, only that the one picture in Vedders photo did not appear to moving towards the promised (as in Forest and Fish) stand of time similar to that of 140 year old natural stand.

I was wrong though in the number of members on the Forest Practices Board. It is 12 and not 13. Those members inlcude"
The Commissioner of Public Lands (head of NDR)
Director of Departemnt of Community trade and Economic Developement
Director of Ecology
Department of Agriculture
Department of Fish and Wildlife
A County Commissioner (currently from Snohomish County)
And 6 memebers of the general public appointed by the Governor.

As a practical matter the representives of the various state agencies is a person designated by each director.

By law one of the 6 public members must be a small forest owner (less than 500 acres) and anotehr most be an independent logging contractor. Currently the other 4 public members inlcude a tribal person (Nooklsack tribe), a person that is with the Port of Port Angles, One from Evergreen College, a member of the board of trustees for Washington Forest Protection Association.

I leave it to the readers to decide how representative the above group is of each's interests.

I still continue to feel that the nasty "viability" clause is an obstacle to adaptive management. While I don't follow the developements and going ons with Forest Practices Board as closely as I would like (there is only so much time I'm willing to devote to wind mill tilling) those that I trust that do so tell me that the adaptive process is not as a responsive to new information as many of us would like.

But since you asked I do have some specific issues with Forest and Fish and will address some of them in my next post.

Tight lines
Curt

Lot's of logging experience.

Few years on the rigging crew, and a few more on the landing running the yarder, shovel and everything else.

How many people outside of logging know about lift?

pullyourheadoutofyourbuttsyumpbuilder

Milt - part 2

As a fish biologist for more than 3 decades I had the opportunity to spend a lot of time in the north Puget Sound basins and obsreved the impacts of past forest practices on our watersheds and the fish resources those basin produce.

I would be among the first to admit that as currently written Forest and Fish is a vast improvement of past practices. I would like to discuss what those past practices had done to a basin that is near and dear to me and my other PNW anglers and that would be the Deer Creek Basin on the North Fork Stillaguamish which of course supports the famoust Deer Creek Summer steelhead.

For 50 years (since 1938) Deer Creek itself has been closed to all fishing. Since 1982 the Stillaguamish basin has been managed as a wild steelhead release water during the summer season. Since 1983 there has not been a summer gill net season on the Stillaguamish basin (less than 10 summer fish a year had been caught inthe Tulalip marine fishery -mostly hatchery or Snohomish basin fish). Other than a single attempt of wild summer steelhead brood hatch planting inthe late 1940s the upper Deer Creek basin has not been planted with hatchery fish. Significant sampling and obsrevation of adult summer steelhead in the basin during the 1980s and 1990s failed to identify any hatchery summer fish from either scale samples or adipose clips. In other words Deer Creek has been managed as close to what many would consider appropriate or proper wild fish management (WSR, no hatchery fish etc) as any basin in the State yet the population collapsed.

The entire upper basin (above the lower canyon) is timber lands - USFS, State and private and has been extensive logged. In fact the only significant activity in the basin has been timber harvest. Haig-Brown when he visted the basin he found cool water with deep green pools with those wonderful summer steelhead. I vistted the basin some 60 years later I found warm tepid water (day time temperatures in the 70s and down at its mouth into the 80s a warm summer afternoons), that more often than not was a muddy brown or gray with its channel filled excessive bed load materials. Anyone familar with the needs of cold water salmonids can not escape coming to the conclusion that the Deer Creek summer fish were and are in trouble due to habitat problems. Further the deterioration of the freshwater habitat can only be placed at the foot of timber practices (the only thing happening in the basin).

With that backgroudn I come to my major problem with the current forest and fish rules - there is no consideration at what has happen to the habitat base in the application of its rules. While the current forest and fish rules may have been relatively benign if they were applied in old growth basin. That fact is they are not and in basins such as Deer Creek that habitat is so trashed that it and the fish it supports can only tolerate additional abuse at great risk to those resources. The basin was and continues to be in dire need of a respite from past abuse. Forest and Fish does not give them that respite. In fact it does the opposite while creating the impression in the uniformed that it represents a responsible management approach for such basins.

I'm of the opinion that the continued picking of the habitat scabs in such basins can not help but delay the healing of the habitat and recovery of the fish. That delay represents a grave risk to resources such as the fish of the Deer Creek basin.

My other major concern with the current Forest and Fish rules is that it does not address the cummulative cutting rates in specific basins. To my eye at least it is pretty clear that many of the basins in the North Puget Sound areas those basins where habitats have unraveled in a large way have been those basins that experienced rapid cutting rates - where as much as 1/2 of the timber in a basin would be removed in only a decade or two. Just too much distrubtion too quickly. Regardless of the cutting prescriptions when there are high cuttirng rates in basins with frequent rain on snow events and unstable soils the aquatic habitats are going to take major hits. Such situations again in my opinion are not adequately addressed in Forest and Fish.

You and others of course are more than free to disagree with my opinions/observations. Howver those observation are based on what significant "boot time" has shown what our fish need to survive and be productive enough to support recreational angling.

I will freely admit that my view of the world and my measure of successful land management in our NW basins is likely "colored" by my zeal for wild salmonids but for that I will not apology.

Tight lines
Curt

Hey Vedder, any news from today???

The DNR representative told me they have no record of a permit at the address we gave them. They were going to do an on site inspection tomorrow. They did promise to get back to me with their findings.

Yipee!

Sorry, I'm A bit goofy right now, but glad you're doing your thing Dave. Looking forward to what you find out.

I'm not quite as excited about your "experience " as you are...

You may very well be one of those 50 year old guys with 150 years of "experience"...

I didnt expect you to get excited about my experience logging, why would you?

Fact is, I have been on both sides of the fence on this issue. Buffers are important, you know that but insist on down playing there importance. You are also stating missleading facts about good forestry management.

I am done with you. I make it a policy not to debate with extremists on either side of the fence.

Good luck Dave, sounds like you may have blown the whistle on a illegal operation.

SMALMA WINS AGAIN!!!!

I love opinions based on real science and facts -

Some of that BS "forests and fish" Propaganda reminds of the "clean coal" garbage and GW's "clean air act" hokey.

most of the sheep don't really notice what's happening, but the shiny new toys and cool new shows keep them happy.

I saw the same show and wondered the same thing. Doesn't seem responsible. The beeping sound drove me nuts.

I met Steven Huang from DNR out at the site today. Really nice guy who answered all my questions and did a good job explaining forestry practices in layman terms. I brought him in from across the river where Dave took his photograph from....it gave him a viewpoint of the site he had never seen before.

Steven is meeting a WDFW bio and the consultant from the logging company later today to discuss some minor issues/possible violations. This will be his 6th visit to the site (not counting the one we did together today) since the application process began over a year ago. He was out there twice before the logging began, twice during the logging process, and now twice after the logging.....the operation was properly permitted to say the least.

The logging company, per Steven, is as reputable as they come...."Green Certified" I believe is the proper term. They have very few, if any, violations from prior logging operations.

Now to the "buffer zones".....for this particular parcel they were required to leave a 105' strip from the river untouched, and they did. If they would have applied for the small landowner exemption (under 20 acres to qualify; the parcel in question is 18.60 acres) they would have only had to leave a 78' buffer, so it could have been much worse.

Dave's photo is deceptive as it looks like the slope runs almost to the river when in fact the slope stops about 125' and the topography from the there to the river is predominantly level. There is a creek (non fish bearing, dry 9 months a year) that runs down the steep portion of the site that also required buffer zones. The creek does not run directly into the river, it goes subsurface right where the steep slope meets the level ground. If the creek did dump directly into the river or was fish bearing the required buffer strips would have been much more strict and in all likelihood prohibited the logging from occurring as it would have significantly limited the amount of harvestable timber.

There may be some minor violations.....they were only allowed to take a percentage of trees from the 200' mark down to the 105' mark. Like 35% now, 35% five years from now, and the remainder 10 years from now. But it appears to me that they took them all. I asked about fines and he said it would probably be mitigated....like we could levy some fines, or you can plant some cedar trees along the river.

So there you have it....in a nutshell.

Ike

Been wondering the same thing myself for 16 years.

I'm "Green Certified" too, and look what time it is!

What color is money?

Well it is good to know that this company is doing their logging for the most part, if not all within the regulation that their permit requires. That is good. What is bad is that 105' is all that was needed as a buffer for the river. Logging practices are way better than in previous years, but are they good enough? Is 105' of buffer what nature needs to have a healthy river? I really don't know, but, I don't think so. Witnessing things that bother you and then making an attempt to verify that they are legal is great. If they are legal, but still seem wrong, well, standing up for that is what brings change, usually for the better. Hopefully someday the money will be encouraging enough to NOT log so close to rivers and the buffer zones will be big enough that biologist who know about this stuff will agree with the size of the buffers. Glad to hear this operation was done according to regulations, I personally wish the regulations could change a bit to increase buffer zones around rivers and streams. Thanks for taking the time Ike and Dave.

Is the 105' buffer from the low water mark or the high water mark?

I think the people in the Chehalis, Doty area, wish the buffer was in miles and not just feet. It'd be ok with me if "clear cutting" was completely done away with..........many other State have only "selective cutting", sure seems to work there.

"Time tells all"........just hope the fish have athe ability to recover after the $$$$$$$$ have been made.