http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/fp_fpi_timberharvest.pdf

This document describes the buffer requirements allong streams.

If the buffer doesn't have any trees in it, what good is it? The buffer requirement should be 105' of trees. Gary Locke sold our forests and fish forever.

Geez 100 posts of bashing these guys based on a picture and Stam is the only one to step up and admit he was wrong.

JoJo -
I don't recall saying that the loggin operator was wrong - only that the forest and fish rules are in my opinion inadequate to protect fish habitat as well as I would like. The fact that in ithis case the logging was within the rules doesn't change my opinion regarding the adequacy of the current timber harvest rules.

Tight lines
Curt

Ditto that.

Stam is coming over soon for some Crow Pot Pie, my favorite recipe for eating crow....

When I went through the thread again I would say NWAddict was dead on.

Ike

You're right Ike, NWaddict made a good post.

I agree with you Smalma. The issue I always have is with the people that jump all over these hot button issues with little or no knowledge to back there statements up.

Smalma - So what would you change and why?

I said......

I think I'll stick by what I said.

If you guys think the creeks are so untouchable, then how about a 100' buffer from the spawning beds all the way to the Ocean, lets undevelope the whole esturary and really get some results..............why just protect one tiny part of the system ?

Esturaries are probably the most important habitat next to actual spawning grounds. You are basically right Oregonian. We should care more about them, not just the streams. The lack of quality esturaries is a huge problem for all salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat, amongst others. They are considering restoring esturary habitat down by the Possession Pt. boat launch. Even though it is small, I like the idea.

What about the smaller areas...like Seattle, Tacoma, and Portland ?


P.S. I am just stirring the pot (VHawk likes it when I say it up front).

Hey, watch it buddy...
Portland's no estuary!

Oregonian -
Point well taken. We as a society have been degrading our river systems on many fronts from the headwaters to and beyound the river mouths. Meaningful restoration efforts needs to occur on many fronts at the same time.

However sticking to this topic remember that water flows downstream and that anything that happens in the headwaters will be passed downstream. degrade enough of the headwater creeks we will destroy the whole system.

Tight lines
Curt

The 'all' and 'every' statements are what the Hell is wrong with things now. Each site needs to be evaluated on it's own merits, but of course what the public gets is some fanatic on one end of the stick or the other with common sense left out of the mix. Any time I can look through a stream buffer and see the clear cut easily on the other side and the clear cut climbs right up a hillside, what good is that buffer? It doesn't shade, it doesn't stop runoff, and it becomes very suseptible to previously protected timber blow-down.....all of which is bad.

Improving stream habitat isn't freaking rocket science regardless who wants to make it so.....it only takes a little caring and a willingness to stop those who are doing the damage. Sometimes it may amount to, "Pick up that damn beer can you left!" or it may require (an angle that I personally don't care for) calling in authorities.

It's a fight that every consciencious sportsman needs to take seriously and become involved in in one way or another. OH...IMO.

Because they overdid the take from 35%, blow down may become a problem. I am pretty much against most gov't restrictions, but where they make sense, they make sense. Spend enough time in the woods, and you will see the damage that bad logging practices make, no doubt about it. I especially love the patches of 6" trees that they leave in the middle of a several hundred acre clear cut. Most of the time 1/2 or more of the trees are gone in the first storm. After the 96' flood it was amazing how many culverts and roads had been blown out in the area I was hunting. Left over debri was blocking the culverts then taking out half the hill when they went.

Here's an example of what I consider to be the extreme in the other direction....akin to property theft by government, IMO, under the guise of environmental protection.

The property discussed is a 5 acre rectangular parcel in a flat scrub tree area with no stream. The new owner bought the land with a single wide trailer on it, tore that down and was planning on building a house. What his plans are now I have no idea. I don't know all the details, but I have a hard time seeing where this type of heavy handed land use restriction is justified. Anyway, here it is.....


_________________________________________________________

The proposed harvest will be approximately 10,000 board feet of predominantly alder on this 5.2 acre parcel to provide an extension to the driveway, create a homesite and other related improvements. Red Alder, Western Red Cedar and locally suited native shrub species will be planted in most of the cleared area. Lawn area will be limited to a 30 foot zone immediately around structures to provide defensible space from wildfire. A no-disturb buffer of 50 feet will be maintained along the north, east and southern boundaries, with a 224 foot buffer along the western boundary. A fifty foot buffer will be maintained around the perimeter of the property and along the road right-of-way. These undisturbed buffers total 3 acres of the 5.2 acre parcel. No clear cuts are proposed. All understory will remain undisturbed. The COHP is a Type II Forest Application Permit and is exempt from SEPA review pursuant to RCW 43.21C.037.
_________________________________________________


What's that do to your gut?