Logging the Hayman Fire burn area (Update)

[Oak]

The USFS is planning to let logging companies log the Hayman burn in CO. The plan is currently open for public comment.

Here's an interesting quote about this subject from the Denver post last fall.

New rules may spur salvage logging in burned forests
By Theo Stein
Thursday, November 28, 2002-

"Environmental groups say such tree removals produce almost no environmental benefit, but removing the logs does churn up fragile post-fire soils, making them more susceptible to erosion. Nor does removing the dead trees significantly reduce fire risk, they add.

Forest Service officials acknowledge the only real justification for salvage logging is money."
Full Story Here

Now from yesterday's paper:

Forest Service to OK Hayman logging
By Theo Stein
Tuesday, April 01, 2003 -

"The U.S. Forest Service intends to let timber companies log 17,500 acres of trees burned in the Hayman fire in what would be the largest salvage logging project in Colorado history.

"The agency calculates that it will lose more than $800,000 on the project, even after some $400,000 in benefits is factored in."
Full Story Here

Do the USFS comments in those articles sound contradictory?

To comment on the plan, click here.

Oak
*Edited to add "Update"

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 07-08-2003 00:16: Message edited by: Colorado Oak ]</font>

 

[tmsander]

I am all for utilizing the resource. Doesn't make much sense to me to let all that timber rot if it can and should be used. However, to do so at the taxpayers expense sounds awfully like a subsidy to me. That doesn't make any sense either.

 

[ELKCHSR]

I say put the logs in the open market to be used for building and every thing else the wood is used for in our daily lives!!!

 

[tmsander]

Here is my comment, submitted to the Forest Service in response to this:

I am all for using timber resources and feel any negative impacts, such as erosion, can (and must) be mitigated. However, I've read that the Forest Service estimates that this project will result in a net loss of $800,000 to the agency. That's MY money. The Forest Service currently can't maintain all of their roads and often charges just to park on National Forest land. Why on earth, when this agency can't even afford to maintain free public access to the public's land, would it spend this kind of money to subsidize a logging company?

If the resource will bear the unsubsidized cost of extraction, then by all means, cut it. If the only way the extraction and processing industries can profit from this particular resource is by my tax dollars subsidizing it, then let it rot.

Todd Sander
BS, Forestry
MBA, Wood Products Industry and Management Information Systems

 

[1_pointer]

What about the removal of all the nutrients tied up in the dead wood? Is the release of these nutrients one of the big benefits of fires?

I agree that some should be salvaged, but I'm not sure removal of all the wood would be beneficial.

 

[Oak]

Here's what the proposal says about your concern, 1_pointer:

"It will leave a great number of dead trees in place so they can, over time, deteriorate and add nutrients to the damaged soil while also providing for erosion control."

When I read the story I felt exactly like Todd does. Why should taxpayers subsidize the removal of those trees? I wouldn't be against it if they could do it at no cost to the USFS and could prevent erosion.

Oak

 

[tmsander]

The majority of a tree's nutrients are in the branches and foilage, not the bole. That's not to say that there is no nutrient value in the remaining sticks, but it is not as much as one might think.

 

[1_pointer]

Thanks for the clearing that up.

 

[Ithaca 37]

What about the shade value of the trees? Even if they are dead, but still standing, don't they provide shade for seedlings? Or is that not a consideration in that area?

 

[Nut]

I made my comment to the Forest Service.

I also am tired of it always being done at a cost to the taxpayer. Especially when quite a bit of mine goes out west and then my state taxes get raised here to make up the difference

 

[Washington Hunter]

That is ridiculous! If it could be done in a responsible way, and if it would bring money in, I would say go for it. Why would the forest service want to lose money? I just don't get it. The forest service should be in the timber business to make money just like private companies are. Of course, I wouldn't expect the Forest Service to profit quite as much as the private companies that log in an irresponsible way, but they sure as heck don't need to be losing $800,000!

 

[ELKCHSR]

I'm just guessing on this, but I would say that a lot of the costs come into the environmental costs associated with this. If they could just go get the wood, every one would make money, but when things like bridges that are built to go get it have to be removed, and roads put back to bed and replanted back to what is growing there at that time, instead of just destroying the road at the source, they have started putting the whole road back to bed, that includes pulling the earth back up and smoothing it out to the lay of the land. This type of stuff is very expensive and time consuming, I am again just guessing, but to run to the standards every one wants to make every thing beautiful and pristine, costs gobs of money and since it is the general populace, as the FS is concerned that wants this, it costs the general populace the money. Now this may not be every ones view points on the matter, but when we let environmental groups do every bit of the talking for us, this will only get worse. On this subject, I am not the one to lambaste on the tactics (tackticks for Buzz) used; this is just the way things are done. But before any of you say that we should just leave it there to rot, remember then that this country needs the lumber from some where, and that some where is importing it from other countries that will really give it to us in the end, this is such a vicious circle that we have gotten ourselves into....

 

[Oak]

Can you explain to me why the USFS (ie, taxpayers) should pay to keep it "beautiful and pristine" (remember, it's already that way)? Why should we subsidize the logging industry? Why should we support a Welfare Logger system?(

) We should just let them go in there an tear the place apart? And if we want things different, we should pay? Please, please explain this to me. I guess I'm a little slow this morning.

Oak

 

[dgibson]

If the lumber company wants the lumber, they can come get it and spend whatever money is necessary to make it right. There's already plenty of established timber operations throughout the country that (theoretically) already have the bridges, roads, etc., etc. in place, so the argument about "it has to come from somewhere" doesn't hold water. It's not like we're in a timber shortage situation. So what REAL justification is there for the project? It's not money for the gubmint, it's not ecological or environmental or biological. This looks to be about a timber company profiting and the gubmint taking it in the chin, nothing more. Politics supremo. Or so it seems to me.

 

[Ithaca 37]

This is just one isolated example of what the FS and the logging industry have been doing for at least 60 years! I'm glad we have posters here who publicize that kinda stuff. If more of the general public understood what's going on they'd be outraged.

And yet, just as with welfare ranching, there are plenty of people who try to justify it!

 

[ELKCHSR]

What ever you guy's want to say...It really doesn't matter much to me, I am not in the industry any more, I am telling you what I know and what I have seen, nothing more. You can call these guy's any thing you want, but it still doesn't change the facts of what I stated above, in some of your eye's it is tearing up the land, in others it is just doing the job exactly the way the FS regulates it is done, now if the FS say's that they will only allow it to take place if they can make money, then they will get no takers on the ground to get it logged, not when so many stipulations are placed on how the FS wants the work done. Obviously the FS wants the work done, so they will pay the price to have it completed to the standards they have set. These standards are dictated a lot by the way the environmental groups (the populace at large)

have set them up thru law suits and mandates. So, before any of you guy's pick on the way logging is done, who is doing it and the over all costs involved, you must first go thru the people in the FS and no one else, they are the only ones that get to dictate on how and what is done. Getting on my butt or any one else’s on this board about this particular subject is just wasting your breath and getting you stressed unnecessarily and will only give you heart burn…

 

[Oak]

I don't think anyone is bitching about the cost to do the logging right, or the rules that those those who care about the environment have mandated. The BS in the above story comes from WHO pays the cost. The USFS says that the reason they want it done is to not let the wood go to waste. They don't mention environmental concerns. If the lumber market is not strong enough to support the logging companies paying the full cost, then there must not be a high demand for the lumber. Therefore, I would say that the lumber isn't really going to waste. The fact is, the lumber companies aren't going to log it unless they make money. Why should the USFS be paying for the logging company to make money?

Oak

 

[1_pointer]

I guess the timber industries acts in the last 100yrs have nothing to do with the standards that were set by society?

I am not for the total non-use of any resource, but I don't see why I should fund someone else's chance at making money. It wouldn't suprise me to see in the next fifty years that the BLM, USFS, USPS, do their own harvesting of resources to be able to fund their operations. An experiment is already being tried at a new National Park (Valles Caldera in NM). The goal is to have a economically self-sustaining park, which I am in favor of.

 

[dgibson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Obviously the FS wants the work done, so they will pay the price to have it completed to the standards they have set.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's exactly what I'm asking. WHY does the FS want the work done? To what end? If it's just so that the timber doesn't go to waste, why incur the extra expense and trouble? I can see them taking the attitude of "come get it if you want it," but not "come get it and we'll foot the bill."

 

[ELKCHSR]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Why should the USFS be paying for the logging company to make money?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You live in logging country, if there is that much money to be made by these ops, then just jump right on in, you won't be the first to go broke trying it....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> That's exactly what I'm asking. WHY does the FS want the work done? To what end? If it's just so that the timber doesn't go to waste, why incur the extra expense and trouble? I can see them taking the attitude of "come get it if you want it," but not "come get it and we'll foot the bill." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You guys just aren’t quite getting what I am saying... The logging part isn't the problem, it is all those extra things, and they are many, that these individuals want done, over and above the logging part...
How far do you guy's want them to go to make it pretty so it doesn't hurt your eyes to see a heavily logged area, that all costs money and it won't come out of the logs, there just isn't enough money in it to do every thing we think needs to be done for the area to look good again. You have two choices that I see, let nature take care of it, that takes a lot longer, but the costs stay low, or to make it all pretty-right now, which is very expensive. Not much else left but those two choices, ‘cept to leave it I suppose and let it go to waste. This is what society dictate, so this is what they get, at the cost to all the taxpayers for their fickle whims and wants. I definitely didn't make the rules, nor did I work directly in them, but I do know the rules of this game and no amount of wishful thinking will change them...
Only getting down to your local legislators and beating a loud drum with a lot of your friends, and their money might have an effect, and no amount of arguing with me will change this, right or wrong...