Logging slows down forest recovery after burning

[BuzzH]

BHR,

So let me get this straight...

Any article that challenges anything the Bush Administration says is "bashing"???

How do you propose the public find out the truth about complex eco-system problems?

Should we just believe whatever we're told by corrupt politicians? No need for science, let the political hacks do whats "best"???

Unbelievable.

 

[BigHornRam]

"How do you propose the public find out the truth about complex eco-system problems?"

Go to Ralph Maugahn's web-site for starters Buzz. Listen to Al Fraken and Michael Moore as well.

 

[BuzzH]

BHR,

Nice response...a dumb post, even for you.

 

[1_pointer]

BHR- Don't know what field your wife is in, but I am pretty confident in saying that in the Range Science profession that is not the case. Most of the Foresters that I've known/dealt with are more interested in getting things done on the ground than complaining about the president. But, I will say there are factions that do more complaining than doing, but I'd guess that's true for most all professions and some are worse than others.

Tone-
From what I can tell in the picture and from memory, western wheatgrass, lupine, and american kochia were the most abundant spp. Some areas of the burn had lots of snowberry and cliffrose resprouting along with basin wildrye. Definitely am of the mindset that fires would be very good for this area, especially if we keep getting the H20. I'm starting to get an affinity for the Palouse. Definitely lots of game and diversity there, even it most of it's farmland now. I'd love to see it in the late summer/early fall. Funny thing about that last picture, is that we are catching some grief from some folks for doing that type of project. Guess we'll just have to play the cards we're dealt...

 

[TheTone]

Unfortunately with so much of it converted to farmland most true palouse prairie is gone. What hasn't been farmed has probably been grazed, sometimes heavily at that. The amount of starthistle, cheatgrass, and tumble mustard is unreal in some areas; and I'm starting to see more and more medusa head in areas I frequent where I've never seen much abundance of it in the past. I'm sure spotted knapweed is on the way as it is literally all around us up here. Some areas still have pretty decent bunchgrass communities, but in reality they will probably disapear unfortunately. Its really sad to me since palouse prairie is a really cool, diverse ecosystem type. I'll try to take some decent looking pictures of some this week and get them up or send them your way. We actually do have some things that are already blooming up here, a small white Lomatium species that I have actually seen in bloom on January 1 in years past. Washington State University does own a pretty decent piece of palouse prairie/meadow steppe at the Smoot Hill site that is worth seeing if you ever get the chance. They are starting to get some starthistle and cheat there, but it is pretty intact. Also the craig mountain area south of Lewiston has some good habitat for critters and you can see some great elevational gradients there, going from forest communties on top of the mountain to steppe at the rivers.

As for the mosaic pattern seen in that last pic, that is probably the best guess we can have as to how things used to be, will reduce out of control fire threats, and provide good productivity for wildlife; and yet you still have people who are questioning it.

 

[1_pointer]

I'd love to see the pics. Weeds like knapweed and medusahead may make us wish we had cheatgrass back in some areas! Weeds are a big problem and treating them doesn't happen soon enough lots of times IMO. The area I administer doesn't have a weed problem yet; not saying they aren't there just saying their not widespread/dominant.

Not only questioning it, but doing much to stop those kinds of projects. In a particular county in No. UT one ranch has approx 2/3 of the sage grouse, yet when we try to do on public lands what they've done on private we get mucho roadblocks thrown up. I guess I just don't get it. Anyways, we'll just get done what we can and keep on keeping on.

 

[BigHornRam]

If Tweedle Dee could follow a tread for more than 5 sentences, he would have learned that the original article was a rant about censorship. Pointer made a comment in his first post that I called him on. Instead of responding to it or retracting it, he just switched the subject. Then Tweedle Dee told me to shut the #*^@#* up on a thread about censorship....comical. If Pointer can't handle a debate with me on an issue, how is he going to handle debating someone who really knows their stuff? Still waiting for your response or retraction Pointer.

The problem with todays "science" experts is they all think the same way. If some one challenges them, they have a fit and cry "censorship".

Someone get a copy of that study and post it here so we can have a "peer review" of our own. Double or nothing Buzz on whether or not an uneducated moron like me can put that worthy study out of it's misery.

Tone you want to see a good example of intact Palouse Praire, go visit Wildhorse Island on Flathead Lake.

 

[BigHornRam]

"yet when we try to do on public lands what they've done on private we get mucho roadblocks thrown up."

Pointer, I think you're finally starting to see the light. Forest Service puts up a timber sale...mucho roadblocks. Drill in ANWR.....mucho roadblocks.

 

[BuzzH]

The laws need to be followed, whether its logging, drilling, or improving habitat...and rightfully so.

 

[ELKCHSR]

There is a line that is crossed on "the laws" all the time by the enviro whacko’s when it comes to putting injunctions and the like on the extraction industry..

It doesn't have any thing to do with "saving the world" so to speak, it has every thing to do with making it so expensive to remove "legal" sales that extracting the raw product isn't feasible.

Plain and simple as that, and it doesn’t taka a PHD to see it...

 

[BuzzH]

Cheese,

You're wrong...as usual.

 

[BigHornRam]

No Buzz,

Cheese is right on this one. Did you hear about the recent ruling reguarding an appeal by a tree hugger group on a bug kill sale near Butte? The tree huggers will have to post a bond of several 100K. The tree huggers aren't happy about it but the law is the law.

 

[BuzzH]

BHR,

I dont have a problem with a bond being posted...on both ends. I think all logging companies should post a bond until each sale is officially rehabed.

As to why you and cheese are wrong...real easy. This discussion is about the biscuit fire in SW Oregon. The proposed action by the USFS is to log more in that one sale than has been removed in the last 10 YEARS.

I'd say logging on that scale not only should, but needs to be put under public scrutiny. Further, any salvage logging over 100 acres, or one that requires any new roads, should require an EA...IMHO.

The occassional green-slip small salvage sale...not necessary.

For the record, why dont you and cheese post up some examples of salvage sales that were stopped, even though they were within the laws.

Good luck.

 

[BuzzH]

BHR,

For your continuing education:


Does Post-Fire Logging Make Ecological or Economic Sense?
Betting on Biscuit
By Matthew Koehler, Citizen Journalist 1-22-06

It’s rare to find two diametrically opposed sides using the same exact posterchild to support their views. However, that’s essentially what’s developed over the past few years as the logging industry and their supporters have locked horns with conservation groups and scientists in a battle over so-called “healthy forests” policy and the future of America’s public lands following wildfires.

That “same exact postchild” is the 2002 Biscuit Fire that burned nearly 500,000 acres in the Siskiyou Wild Rivers Area of southwestern Oregon’s Siskiyou National Forest and the U.S. Forest Service’s subsequent Biscuit “Fire Recovery Project” that approved cutting down 19,000 acres of ancient forest reserves and roadless wildlands in a forest of global ecological significance.

“Charred Moonscape?” On Biscuit, Reality Takes Backseat to Rhetoric

Natural fires have been an important part of the Siskiyou Wild Rivers area for thousands of years. The fire-enriched Siskiyou region has more conifer species than any other temperate-zone forest in the world, and has been identified by scientists as one of the most important ecosystems on planet. In other words, not exactly the ideal place for industrial logging of ancient forest reserves and roadless wildlands.

Unfortunately, listening to some people, you’d be led to believe that the 2002 Biscuit Fire laid waste to everything in its path. While referred to repeatedly by the logging industry and their supporters as catastrophic, devastating and unnatural, the reality is that 84% of the Biscuit Fire area was either unburned, or burned at low to moderate intensity.

Yet, this reality hasn’t prevented Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) – who incidentally has received $643,363 in campaign contributions from the logging industry during his senate career and was one of the major supporters of the so-called “Healthy Forest Restoration Act” – from declaring in a recent opinion piece that “Today, nearly half the Siskiyou National Forest remains a charred moonscape.”

In fact, since Senator Smith apparently believes that he gets a free pass from reality, he has enough confidence to boldly use the Biscuit Fire and the botched Biscuit “Fire Recovery Project” as the posterchild for his Orwellian-inspired Forests for Future Generations Act.

This bill and its companion in the House – the so-called Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act from fellow Oregon Republican Congressman Greg Walden ($165,646 in logging industry campaign contributions since the 2004 election cycle) – essentially would fulfill the logging industry’s wish list by providing all the bells and whistles for more industrial logging in our nation’s public forests that weren’t initially provided in the Bush Administration’s Healthy Forest Initiative or previous laws passed by the GOP-controlled Congress such as the Healthy Forest Restoration Act.

Specifically, these bills use natural and essential ecosystem functions such as wildfire, insect and disease outbreaks and windstorms to put old growth forests and roadless areas at risk from logging and roadbuilding; create an expedited process for logging after fires which scientists conclude is the worst kind of logging – polluting streams and hindering forest recovery; allow the Forest Service to divert funds from fire protection programs to pay for logging projects; and eliminate meaningful public participation for post fire logging projects and remove protection for imperiled wildlife by waiving requirements of the Endangered Species Act.

A Hard Look at the Biscuit “Fire Recovery Project”

The Forest Service, logging industry and some politicians have used buzz-words such as forest restoration, fuel reduction and community protection to justify the so-called Biscuit “Fire Recovery Project,” which is actually one of the largest public lands logging projects in U.S. history.

During the summer of 2004 Siskiyou National Forest Supervisor Scott Conroy signed a record of decision for the Biscuit “recovery” plan which called for logging 370 million board feet of trees from 30 square miles of the Siskiyou National Forest – enough trees to fill 74,000 log trucks lines up for over 600 miles. That’s over 20 times greater than the annual logging levels on the Siskiyou National Forest during the past decade.

 

[BigHornRam]

Buzz,

Koehler is a zero cutter that knows how the game is played. Using him as your source is worse than getting it from Ralph IMO. I'll see if I can find some examples of salvage sales that were stopped even though they were within the laws.

 

[BigHornRam]

Here's one Buzz that helps make Russ' point

Bond condition ends no-lose litigation - Sunday, January 1, 2006




SUMMARY: Judge's order requires logging foes to shoulder some risk in delaying timber sale.

Among economists, there's a concept known as “willingness to pay.” The general idea is that people say they want all sorts of things, but a truer measure of what they value is what they're willing to pay for and how much they're willing to pay.



It's in that context that we find intriguing a federal judge's recent order requiring environmental groups to post a $100,000 bond to halt a logging project on a Montana national forest while they appeal a ruling permitting the logging.

U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy of Missoula said The Native Ecosystems Council, Alliance for the Wild Rockies and The Ecology Center must post a $100,000 bond while the groups appeal an unfavorable ruling in their lawsuit to block the Basin Creek timber sale near Butte. The groups obtained a restraining order barring completion of the logging pending the outcome of their appeal.

While we certainly don't think substantial bonds should be required in all cases in which people or groups challenge the actions of government agencies, some situations seem to warrant them. This is one.

In disputes such as this one, there are two ways for logging opponents to win. One is on the merits of their case. The other is by playing out the clock. The timber in question involves trees killed by insects. Dead standing trees have value for lumber, but their salvage value diminishes relatively quickly as the wood deteriorates. Those who oppose salvage logging projects can prevail in court if they can show the Forest Service erred in its planning, preparation or administration of the timber sale. But they also can win on the ground if their lawsuits and appeals can drag things out long enough for the timber to lose its value and no one wants to buy it.

In this case, the Forest Service says the agency could lose up to $600,000 if logging is delayed a year - not an unlikely delay given the pace at which federal courts work. And, for what it's worth, the timber already has been sold and belongs to R-Y Timber of Townsend. Its profits and its workers' paychecks are at stake, too.

In October, Judge Molloy ruled against the environmental groups suing to block the Basin Creek logging. Molloy has never hesitated to smack down the Forest Service when the agency has erred, and, in fact, his rulings on past logging cases have made him a hero of sorts among environmentalists. In the matter of Basin Creek, however, Molloy concluded, “The Forest Service has demonstrated a threat to public health and safety due to increased potential for wildfire,” and that the merits of the proposed logging outweigh the risks associated with doing nothing with all that dead timber.

If Molloy has erred and misinterpreted the law or abused his judicial discretion, then his ruling will be overturned on appeal. In that case, the environmental groups would get their $100,000 back and, likely, have an opportunity to recover their legal expenses. If Molloy's ruling is solid, then they'd have to forfeit the $100,000.

The groups undoubtedly say they're in the right. But what's their willingness to pay?

Even with the bond requirement, this isn't a level playing field. The potential economic losses for the taxpayers and loggers is far greater than the $100,000 the environmental groups have at risk. Still, the bond requirement does encourage the litigants to weigh the merits of their case carefully and dampens somewhat the potential to prevail merely through the elapse of time.

Obviously, the authority to require people and organizations to post bonds must be exercised using good judgment. A strict pay-to-play system could limit people's access to justice. But in this case, the environmental groups have had their day in court. They want another one. In a no-lose situation, why wouldn't they?

Judge Molloy's bond requirement seems a reasonable condition for delaying logging of timber that retains value for only a limited time. Judges routinely make case-by-case decisions, and they're expected to use their discretion in the interest of justice. Requiring litigants to post reasonable bonds in cases where they're unlikely to prevail on the merits, where delay creates the potential for economic hardship on others, serves - not undermines - the cause of justice.

 

[BuzzH]

BHR,

That doesnt prove anything as far as a sale being within the law and then being shut down. No reference to it at all, so you and Cheese still need to keep looking.

By the way, you've once again failed to "get" the point of the article. Anytime the FS has timber sales of the magnitude of the biscuit fire, there needs to be proper public involvement...in particular when 370 million board feet of timber is going to come out of basically one watershed. In particular when 84% of the area in question either didnt burn or burned with only moderate intensity. I guarantee I have more experience in the area of salvage logging than you do...and I can tell you first hand in large-scale operations like this, you need public involvement. You need people on the ground making sure things are handled correctly, and you sure as hell can expect opposition and legal issues...its a given...and rightfully so.

You'd have to be an absolute fool to not prepare an EA or EIS and have some damn convincing proof that what you're proposing is legal and in the best interest of the environment, wildlife, the public, etc. etc. etc.

The one thing that I know you fail to realize is that the decisions made TODAY on our public lands will take a long, long, long time to see the final outcome on. In other words, if I propose a timber sale today, its cut next year, the results of whether or not I made the "right" decision is going to take 50-100 years to find out. So, I better make darn sure what I'm proposing isnt going to be a bad decision. The way that I make sure that decision is correct (as correct as it can be) is to look at all available science, talk with as many experts as I can, etc.

Guess what? Without peer-reviewed and documented science, those decisions will NEVER be easier, never be decided, and sure as hell never be defended in any court in the U.S.

So, go ahead, rail away about how "bad" science is, how its not necessary, etc. You're just flat wrong, simple as that.

Live in your sheltered life like you did when you were 3 years old...many of us dont have that luxury. We have to live in real life where laws, regulations, and science demand accountability. Thats the way it is, and frankly thats how it should be.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Funnier than hell to see BHR applauding Judicial Activisim......

BHR, do you even understand how the "system" works? Judge Molloy ordering the $100k bond just means that one is likely to be let thru, as a $100k is a waste to tie up when there are 10 other sales/suits that need to be funded. So, instead of tieing up the money to an uncertain outcome, it is easier to sue and block 10 other sales, win them, and then charge the Feds $450 an hour to make them follow the law.

That $100k is only an impediment to one drainage being saved for hunting, something you don't seem to care about.

 

[BigHornRam]

Great response as usual Jose.

Buzz,

I don't think you get the point. Koehler's goal is to end ALL logging on public lands. He's an extremist, so the rest of his comments are meaningless. Just like the fatass ex sheriff you like to poke fun at. I would not use the sheriff as a source, why would you use Koehler?

Am I wrong to assume that the F. S. that we as citizens hire to manage our forest, know WTF they are doing when they put together a timber sale? When Schrub and company pass laws to make the F. S.'s ability to manage it's forest easier, all I hear you do is grumble. Don't you work directly or indirectly for the F. S.? Well that is where the problem is. Sounds about as disfunctional as FEMA, the CIA, and most all the other gummint agencies.

 

[BuzzH]

BHR,

Theres a such thing as making things easier...and theres a such thing as corrupting a system to circumvent environmental laws and regulations.

I think we both know whats currently going on.

Also, its fair to note in the administrations haste to "make things easier" they are actually making things more complicated, making more court battles, etc.