For the Past 16 years I have lived in the middle of a
forest which was first logged about 1920, a second
time in the 70s and observed what happens on a day
-to-day basis. Besides my personal observations, I have
talked with state forestry specialists who inspected
my trees, and U W professors (of forestry), and read
extensively. - JMC
1/15/06 Update
US District Judge, Martha Peckman has thrown a monkey wrench in our
National Forest Policy. Judge Peckman probably knows all about
trees
from having bought a Christmas tree once. But, the environmentalists
are in charge and now quite a few timber sales (144 contracts involving
289 million board feet of timber on 5 1/2 million acres in Oregon,
Washington
and California) are cancelled So, now the
Enviros get their way and the
timber will be left to rot instead of bringing in much needed revenue
and
providing much needed lumber.
Sure, we can buy the lumber from Canada. But why is it any
worse for the
environment to cut wood in the US than in Canada? And why
are forest
fires "good" for the environment while logging is not?? Please
tell me if
you know. . . . . . . JMC
| The US Forest Service says $2.8 million worth of timber is standing in the Deschutes National Forest after a fire which killed the trees. They want to harvest that timber before it rots and gets infested by bugs. I can confidently predict that people who masquerade under the name "Environmentalist" will do all in their power to prevent this harvest. They like bugs and fire |
Trees
Given the enormous romance that people who claim to be of an environmental
bent,
have with trees, it is amazing that so few of them seem to
have any real practical
knowledge of trees, how they grow and how they don't.
The "Ancient Forest" fiction
From the moment a tree sprouts it is involved in a life and
death struggle for survival.
Here on the Olympic Peninsula as well as most of Western Washington,
the primary
problem is sunlight. Other trees, as well of a myriad of other
vegetation, are growing
up and blocking the sunlight. The one that gets tallest, fastest
is generally the winner.
Most trees lose this battle while they are still small and fall
at the feet of the winner.
Only a tiny minority ever become sizeable trees. The rest become
forest waste. They
dry out and eventually rot and provide nutrients for their adversaries
- - - - or tinder for fire!
Once they become sizeable trees, the salal, vines, grass, thistles,
Oregon grape and other
weeds and bushes are no longer a problem. Depending on the species,
this usually takes
about five years.
After that, their main problem is other trees. But, there just isn't
enough room for all the
trees either, so still young trees mostly die. As their trunks become
larger, dead trees
become more of a hindrance to other young trees. It takes a long
time for a
substantial tree trunk to decompose - some times a century, depending
on size, species and location.
Thinning This is why, responsible land
owners (which government mostlyis not ),
thin their forests. The young trees which don't make it, become
a fire hazard and
a breeding ground for insects. Whether a forest is thinned
or not, only a very few
trees reach great age. The whole concept of Ancient forests
which the so-called
"environmentalists" love to prate about, is a fiction. There simply
is no such thing!
Although, there are a few trees which have reached very large size
and great age,
forests do not, because trees are constantly dying and new ones
are constantly sprouting.
'Saving' the forest
The idea that preventing logging, road building or other human activity
in a forest will
"save" it, is a no-brainer. When the forest becomes clogged with
dead trees, and trees
growing too close to one another, several things happen:
1- The growth of healthy trees slows down because they are
having to fight their way to
the sun and to the soil nutrients they need.
2- Young trees just don't sprout because there is not room for them
and if they do manage
to sprout, they die quickly.
3- The forest becomes a tinder box where lightning, or human
stupidity can easily set a FIRE
which destroys it.
But, Isn't fire O.K.?
Some of the so-called "environmentalists" will tell you that fire
is good because it cleanses
the forest and they point to the new growth that occurs after
a fire as proof that "nature makes
everything right". Well, intelligent management of a forest
can "cleanse" it without the
terrible damage that fire creates and it can return some income
from the process. While the
"tree huggers" point to new growth in fire-ravaged forests, they
don't show you a few other things:
1-Fire is destructive to wildlife. Animals are often confused
by the smoke and don't figure
out which way to run or can't move fast enough to avoid being
incinerated. Firefighters
of the great Yellowstone fire told graphic tales about
animals with feet burned off coming
into their camp seeking any kind of help they
could get.
2- A very hot fire leaves the ground bare. Following winter
rains wash away the top soil, and
in some cases leave nothing to support
vegetation. I can show you places where there are the
skeletons of very ancient trees destroyed by
fire and there is no soil left on which new trees
could possibly sprout.
3- Every year, there are deaths among fire fighters who just
happened to be in the wrong place
at the wrong time trying to do their job..
4- Every year, home owners are burned out by wild fire.
The environment,
The economy
human life
homes
are sacrificed to the god of environmentalism.
Tree burnt in ancient fire (the weather has removed the charcoal)
No new trees growing there
now or ever because following winter rains washed away all the
soil,
Alpine Lakes wilderness - photo by JMC
Environmental Craziness
About a decade ago, a group of unemployed loggers staged a demonstration
in the Olympic
National Forest where they went in and cut up into market lengths,
trees that had blown down
(over a million dollars worth of timber was on the ground). They
didn't steal anything or damage
any living trees. They were, of course, arrested. They had made
sure the TV cameras were
there to record what they did. But, they didn't have the help and
sympathy of the news media
that the "greenies" usually have.
The end result was the men were jailed and had a huge legal bill
and a criminal charge attached
to their records - - -
But, the logs still lie there to this day - - rotting, festering
destructive bugs and blocking
growth of young trees!
Taken for "a ride"
There is a group who take ignorant city dwellers on airplane rides
over forests that have been
logged. They tell their "marks" that the land they are looking at
was "clear-cut" by the "big
corporate timber barons" (big timber companies, in fact have their
own timber and do not usually
buy from the government)
and not reseeded -
and, of course, they ask for donations to "fight the destruction
of our forests". Gullible people
believe then that they have seen with their own eyes what they have
been told and write letter
s to their congresspersons, and in some cases even write letters
to the editor of the PDN.
There is absolutely no way one could tell from an airplane whether
or not cut over timber land
had been reseeded. The little seedlings they plant are
so small and the other vegetation grows
up so quickly that in the first year, it is hard to find the
seedlings when walking through the land,
much less from an airplane. After that, it will take at least five
to eight years to be able to tell
what was going on even from a low, slow-flying airplane.
Send comment/ question to NOBB
Addendum:
NOTE: The Bush administration has been slowly and quietly
changing some of the crazy rules
to prevent logging, imposed on the USFS by the
Clinton/Gore administration during it's last
days(in between pardoning criminal friends). Bush's rule changes
have had a positive effect on
our wood products industry and have slowed down the importation
of Canadian and other wood.
A Recent AP article in the PDN revealed that an organization
known as the "Western
Environmental Law Center" has filed a lawsuit against the
USFS
because of these minor changes.
I contacted them at: http://www.westernlaw.org, asking
the following question:
"Could you please tell me in simple language what motivates this lawsuit?"
I got the following response from Pete Frost:
"The Bush Administration has eliminated a management standard that
requires federal agencies
to survey certain forests before logging them, and to protect sites
of certain rare and uncommon
species within these forests if logging is allowed. The standard
only applies to species that live in
old growth and 'late succesional' forest which are generally older
than 80 years, and range up to
1000 years. These are very special places, and there are very few
of them left. The standard is an
important way to protect species that are components of these forests,
and to discover new species.
The Administration's purpose is to ease standards to allow more logging of these forests"
My response was, "I suggest you might find the following informative"
and followed with the
address of this page Pete's response to that was, "Marv, I read
enough of it to know that it's bunk.
That's why peer review exists"
To which I responded:
"And the picture - - Do you think I "invented" that? I can give you
map coordinates if you want
to see for yourself - and the story about the million $ worth of
timber left rotting on the ground in
the ONF - - that was seen on Seattle TV. Was that 'bunk' too?"
To which he responded:
"Marv, there's a difference betwen biology and an agenda. One is
factual, one is political. Down
trees in a forest described as 'timber' and 'rotting' reveals only
the latter"
At this point I came to the shocking conclusion that my education
has been neglected - - they
completely left out of my biology course, the chapter on Lawsuits!
The fact is, these guys live off lawsuits. They get gullible contributors
to send them money to file
lawsuits - - and, if they win the government has to pay them "legal
fees", thanks to a gullible
US Congress who passed such a law.