A study

[skuzie]

"Change in Forest Cover: Between 1990 and 2000, Canada had no significant change or no reported in forest cover."

.. looks like them beavers arent making a big loss

Canada Deforestation Rates and Related Forestry Figures

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by skuzie

"Change in Forest Cover: Between 1990 and 2000, Canada had no significant change or no reported in forest cover."

.. looks like them beavers arent making a big loss

Canada Deforestation Rates and Related Forestry Figures

I love that...'or no reported'.

I think we need more boots on the ground actively doing work to help the trees such as pruning low & dead limbs (reduces fire damage to a tree and directs nutrients to the crown); cutting the dead, diseased, and mishapen trees while leaving the best trees (slows disease spread, reduces fuel load, provides lumber & other wood products); remove excess fuel load while leaving brush piles for wildlife cover (reduces fire damagw when fire does occur, and ground squirrel poop is great fertilizer, and the squirrels feed the raptors etc.); allow some type of trained volunteer corp adopt stands of forest in concert with forestry officials and perform this work.

How's all that sound so far?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I think we need more boots on the ground actively doing work to help the trees such as pruning low & dead limbs (reduces fire damage to a tree and directs nutrients to the crown); cutting the dead, diseased, and mishapen trees while leaving the best trees (slows disease spread, reduces fuel load, provides lumber & other wood products); remove excess fuel load while leaving brush piles for wildlife cover (reduces fire damagw when fire does occur, and ground squirrel poop is great fertilizer, and the squirrels feed the raptors etc.); allow some type of trained volunteer corp adopt stands of forest in concert with forestry officials and perform this work.

How's all that sound so far?

That sounds great!
I would add, no clear-cutting and adequate stream buffers.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Turtle

This certainly looks like what needs to go on in so far as the planning; that is to say there is no general rule(s) that applies to all the different microenvironments we find here in the NW.

I guess my angle on this is just that we need a more active management of public lands that reflects the best of the logging practices I saw on that OPB show.

And there is the probability that a more 'active' management will include the removal of significant portions of once open for bidding public lands from the potential timber harvests of the past, to allow the time needed to bring old growth forest stands back to an acceptable percentage of the whole, throughout the different elevations of the pacific NW.

Originally Posted by Turtle

I think your 'endangered species' angle is a bit of a stretch, as there is no shortage of trees that at least have the potential to grow for 150 years, wheras the end-game for the endangered species list classification is extinction.

Examples of endangered habitats include prairie pothole region (reduced to 3% of orginal), Florida everglades and whether the loggers of the pacific NW like it, old growth forests of the NW USA.

Comparing the endangered species and critically endangered was to emphasize the magnitude of loss already existing in that area. And it has basis in fact via results in other regions and the loss of habitat, the ability of other species to outcompete, and general losses in total numbers regardless of human management practices that should have improved the conditions of target species.

If the old growths are fragmented (like the existing pothole region is) you create the same condition and further reduce the normal populations of species that exist in these specialized environments. Its not just the pothole/water environment that creates the habitat, and its not just the trees that create diversity of the forest. What has occured via past forest management practices created microenvironments where macroenvironments are the norm. Having the potential for a stand to become 'old growth' is irrelevant when you have destroyed the existing macroenvironment and all the interconnected dependents on that habitat. How has the salmon fishing been in the last 20 years? Someday a big earthquake will come along and take down the dams allowing the salmon to spawn again. Same philosophy as "maybe someday the forests will grow back". Once the environment is gone the trickle down effects continue to destroy existing species. Do we really have another 100 years to wait before planning for the return of old growth forests on public lands?


Link to listing of protected/species of concern of Oregon:
http://oregonstate.edu/ornhic/tebook.pdf

Note the pages and pages of plant species listed.

From a link yesterday regarding needs of some listed protected/SoC in Oregon and their habitat needs:

Marten: High-productivity old growth (volume class 5+) 2 square miles per female, 3 square miles per male. A Habitat Conservation Area consisting of 34,000 acres, 25 miles apart to support 25 breeding pairs. HCAs of 6,800 acres , 9 miles apart to support 5 breeding pairs.

Northern goshawk: Home survey ranges = 20% to 80% old growth forest. Use areas range from 10,000 to 30,000 acres. Significant avoidance of clear cut/non-forest. No more than 33% of productive forest area should be less than 100 years old.

Originally Posted by Turtle

Oh, I haven't forgot them. We also have mushroom hunters, pot growers, bear-grass & hucklberry harvesters, squatters, miners, shooters, campers, poachers, etc. out in the forest.

You Forgot BIRDERS!!

I am not against logging. I am not advocating denying privately held timber stands from being harvested (where streams are not involved). But when it comes to the public lands and the whole of "we the people" and what has occured in the past, its seems very clear that the timber industry has cashed in on the resources well past the point of 'sustainable', and they will have to wait another 100 years or more before begining to feast once again, on the profits of an old growth forest. 7% of the original old growth remains. In my nsho, once the numbers of old growth forest reach 25% of their original total, we can begin to explore how much of the harvest is 'sustainable'.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Cedars

And there is the probability that a more 'active' management will include the removal of significant portions of once open for bidding public lands from the potential timber harvests of the past, to allow the time needed to bring old growth forest stands back to an acceptable percentage of the whole, throughout the different elevations of the pacific NW.

It seems to me that the two aims are not mutually exclusive. I think we can not only allow the old growth to regenerate while harvesting, I think we can accelerate that regeneration.

Originally Posted by Cedars

You Forgot BIRDERS!!

I forgot the trash-dumpers too!

Originally Posted by Cedars

I am not against logging. I am not advocating denying privately held timber stands from being harvested (where streams are not involved). But when it comes to the public lands and the whole of "we the people" and what has occured in the past, its seems very clear that the timber industry has cashed in on the resources well past the point of 'sustainable', and they will have to wait another 100 years or more before begining to feast once again, on the profits of an old growth forest. 7% of the original old growth remains. In my nsho, once the numbers of old growth forest reach 25% of their original total, we can begin to explore how much of the harvest is 'sustainable'.

As I say, tmwot* the two aims of fostering old growth and harvesting timber are not mutually exclusive.

*to my way of thinking

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Turtle

As I say, tmwot* the two aims of fostering old growth and harvesting timber are not mutually exclusive.

Doing some quick googling today, I came across this:
WEC - Sustainable Forests Campaign

What the state was proposing was a 30% increase in logging on public lands, no protection of existing old growth, and logging within 25 feet of salmon streams, under the guise of "sustainable harvest".

"In September 2004, the Board of Natural Resources, chaired by Commissioner Sutherland, set a new logging target averaging nearly 600 million board feet per year from 2004 to 2014. In the last 15 years, timber sales from state lands in western Washington have rarely exceeded 500 million board feet annually. During planning, DNR projected that logging levels of only about 400 million board feet per year could be sustained if existing levels of resource protection were continued. At its peak, the new target would require 636 million board feet to be logged from state forests. The public strongly opposed this decision, with testimony at a public hearing on the logging target 5 to 1 against the increase."

From the same site and the Washington state DNRs own calculations:
"Facts about the Logging Plan and State Forests
Information from Department of Natural Resources (DNR) shows that in 2067, 61% of our state forests will be in an unhealthy condition. And over the next ten years, under the logging plan adopted last fall, there's no improvement.
Percentage of state forests in an unhealthy condition today: 63%
Percentage of state forests in an unhealthy condition in 2013: 63%
Percentage of state forests in an unhealthy condition in 2067: 61% "

While the ideas may not be mutually exclusive, it seems to me the people of Washington state were lucky to have a tree hugger group out there overseeing the DNR motives and proposals to prevent needless waste of their natural resources and actually hold the DNR to their promises of sustainable management methods in action, rather than only on paper destine for press release materials and placating the nay-sayers...
(I figure its statements like this that keep me out of elected positions)

Settlement outline: <Lawsuit ES>

On a consumer level, I have not seen a shortage of wood for my projects. Once in a while I hear of news reports of lumber shortages, under extreme circumstances, such as when a hurricane is predicted to hit some southern state and there is a temporary shortage as people run out to buy plywood. But that is a transportation issue more than an actual wood shortage.

So it doesnt seem to me, an increase of logging was market induced, rather it was a knee-jerk reaction to a small percentage of persons, probably politically connected, within the borders of that particular state (5-1 opposition to the plan). And it is likely, the increased influx of wood product to the market would have actually driven down prices for the raw material, further stressing the marketplace for the smaller lumber companies and the people they employ.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Cedars

Doing some quick googling today, I came across this:
WEC - Sustainable Forests Campaign

What the state was proposing was a 30% increase in logging on public lands, no protection of existing old growth, and logging within 25 feet of salmon streams, under the guise of "sustainable harvest".

The dirty rats! So much for the best laid plans of mice & people.

Originally Posted by Cedars

In the last 15 years, timber sales from state lands in western Washington have rarely exceeded 500 million board feet annually.

I Gargled a bit myself today and found this fact sheet on Gifford Pinchot National Forest. It is my nearest & dearest forest haunt.
Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Originally Posted by fs.fed.gov

Timber:
-- Volume Harvested (million board feet) 9.4 mmbf
-- Volume Sold (million board feet) 15.06mmbf
-- Timber Stand Improvement (thinning of small diameter trees) 1.451Acres
-- Reforestation 15 Acres

Not very encouraging I must say. A considerable part of the Southern forest has never recovered from the Yacolt Burn.

Originally Posted by Cedars

From the same site and the Washington state DNRs own calculations:
"Facts about the Logging Plan and State Forests
Information from Department of Natural Resources (DNR) shows that in 2067, 61% of our state forests will be in an unhealthy condition. And over the next ten years, under the logging plan adopted last fall, there's no improvement.
Percentage of state forests in an unhealthy condition today: 63%
Percentage of state forests in an unhealthy condition in 2013: 63%
Percentage of state forests in an unhealthy condition in 2067: 61% "

Again, not encouraging.

Originally Posted by Cedar

While the ideas may not be mutually exclusive, it seems to me the people of Washington state were lucky to have a tree hugger group out there overseeing the DNR motives and proposals to prevent needless waste of their natural resources and actually hold the DNR to their promises of sustainable management methods in action, rather than only on paper destine for press release materials and placating the nay-sayers...
(I figure its statements like this that keep me out of elected positions)

I have supped with the occasional tree-hugger....sshhhhhh

Originally Posted by Cedars

On a consumer level, I have not seen a shortage of wood for my projects. Once in a while I hear of news reports of lumber shortages, under extreme circumstances, such as when a hurricane is predicted to hit some southern state and there is a temporary shortage as people run out to buy plywood. But that is a transportation issue more than an actual wood shortage.

I hear this is in part due to imports from Canada because they have more lenient logging rules.

I looked through the threads to see if we had one dedicated to forestry but found none. Do we need that? We haven't heard from this thread's author in a while. I wouldn't be opposed to posting in a dedicated thread if you made one.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I Gargled a bit myself today and found this fact sheet on Gifford Pinchot National Forest. It is my nearest & dearest forest haunt.
Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Nice fact sheet. You brought up volunteers in an earlier post and from above link:
Volunteers - Volunteers/hours/value 773 / 34,074 / $590,564

I wonder what they have the volunteers doing.

Originally Posted by Turtle

A considerable part of the Southern forest has never recovered from the Yacolt Burn.

Here are two of the big fires in MN. The most famous is the Hinckley fire:
Great Hinckley Fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The bigger one is the Cloquet fire:
1918 Cloquet Fire: Information from Answers.com

Both these areas lie north of the Twin Cities and south of Duluth. (Cloquet is 3/4th of the way to Duluth from the Twin Cities, Hinckley is about 1/2 way between Duluth and the Twin Cities)

When I was a young thang, a boyfriends grandmother told stories of fleeing the Cloquet fire carrying his dad in her arms. She spoke of the terror in people because everyone knew the story of the Hinckley fire.

The last big fire was a few years ago in Carlos Avery Wildlife Management area. Around 9,000 acres burned. I saw that one expand on my drive home from work and spent the next day watching the tanker planes picking up water from one of the big lakes near me.

Heres a story of evacuating a horse farm from the fire area:
Carlos Edge Fire

Originally Posted by Turtle

I looked through the threads to see if we had one dedicated to forestry but found none. Do we need that? We haven't heard from this thread's author in a while. I wouldn't be opposed to posting in a dedicated thread if you made one.

There is this thread:

US Public Land Forest Managment & Fire