# Open Source Logging?



## hogdog (Dec 21, 2012)

This site is very open with the sharing of professional information and help. I thought I would ask if anyone has heard of Open Source Open source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Logging in any form? 

I've have seen many businesses tied up in the complex nature of their work. The saying 'many eyes makes all bugs shallow' can hold true for any business I feel. Any operation can always be run smoother, cheaper and faster given unlimited resources to gather better information. The reality is most businesses don't have these resources so operations run at less than optimal even if they are still profitable. 

Especially for logging public lands where everyone has a vested interest; couldn't these operations benefit from such a platform? 

Sorry if this sounds too unrealistic but I thought I would ask anyway.


----------



## Gologit (Dec 21, 2012)

'Many eyes make all bugs shallow'? That's a new one.

Just exactly what are you proposing? Or are you selling something? Please keep it simple, some of us still move our lips when we read.


----------



## Carburetorless (Dec 22, 2012)

Yeah, that bug metaphor went over my head to. I don't think you'll find many loggers who are familiar with the term "Open Source". Most loggers use terms like "many bugs means rotten logs" and "open the throttle".

"Open Source"; What are you, a computer programmer? 

"Cheaper, faster, given unlimited resources"? Are you saying you can run a logging operation cheaper and faster if you have a #### load of cash to throw at it? Faster definitely, cheaper maybe, eventually if you have enough cash to throw at it and the bottom doesn't fall out of timber before you pay for the equipment and start turning a profit, providing you're not plagued by break downs.

If you want to understand the logging industry grab a saw and get your hands dirty for a couple of weeks, then run a buncher feller for a day, then sit down and crunch the numbers, and look at the ups and downs the industry has.


----------



## Pelorus (Dec 22, 2012)

'Many eyes make all bugs shallow'
Confucius needs a Snickers bar also.


----------



## Gologit (Dec 22, 2012)

I think I'll move this to the Forestry and Logging thread...they need some entertainment over there.


----------



## slowp (Dec 22, 2012)

My forester brain translates Open Source into Collaboration. My brain says Collaboration=Lots of Micromanagement by People Who Do Not Understand Forestry And Logging. Also, Lots And Lots of Time Spent "Planning" By People Who Spend Little Time On The Ground Being Planned For.

GIS is a blessing and a curse. It does save time, but the info is now used by the specialists during the planning process and they seldom do ground truthing. Which results in somebody stumbling upon a stream or wet spot late in the planning process and that puts the brakes on for a while.

Meanwhile, folks are planning who know virtually nothing about equipment capabilities, economics, and logger capabilities. Nor do they want to learn. It "isn't their real job." 

I could go on and on and on and on....

Collaboration ultimately means no one person is responsible for making decisions. Now, when the excrement hits the ground during logging operations, if it ever does, there is ONE person who is blamed when things don't go as planned.....guess who? :bang:

That's my experience. Others may have had happier experiences.

Meanwhile, the shallow bugs continue munching away.


----------



## Oldtimer (Dec 22, 2012)

There's a universe of difference between logging trees and logging data...


----------



## mad murdock (Dec 22, 2012)

I hear you slowp, company foresters used to be allowed to really do their job, now they are given a policy book, and a narrow budget, and have been given less and less resources at their disposal to manage more and more acres. They have been morphed into contract managers, overseeing contractors who do whatever the contract specifies be it cutting, hauling road maintenance or in the case of where I work, aerial application. In some cases the REITs even hire a contractor to oversee us the contractor, with the forester being involved only remotely. It really has changed, over what it used to be. For better or worse, it is what it is. The worst part IMO is the over reliance on GIS data, which often is not verified by boots on the ground, so as you stated, things don't always match up, and the worst of it is if your giS equipment quits working for whatever reason, you have to stop production because of a stupid computer!


----------



## floyd (Dec 22, 2012)

Wow, consultant /pr talk. Please flesh this out for us.


----------



## 2dogs (Dec 22, 2012)

No I would to disagree with the Open Source concept with regards to public lands. This type of planning allows for someone in New York to have a say in forest management in New Mexico while never even having been there. A Forester living in the forest he is managing (for say 20 years) will have his expertice and experience diluted by theorists and do-gooders who feel everyone in entitled to their opinion. It is similar to, after years of planning and writing a THP, a group of little old ladies show up and chain themselves to the gate preventing any work from being done. 

Open Source is another road block to forest health. A certain amout of thinning and fuels reduction must go on continually. Open Source has stopped most of this in the planning phase.

Forest health is not a bug to be worked out. It is not a new problem.


----------



## North Star (Dec 22, 2012)

slowp said:


> My forester brain translates Open Source into Collaboration. My brain says Collaboration=Lots of Micromanagement by People Who Do Not Understand Forestry And Logging. Also, Lots And Lots of Time Spent "Planning" By People Who Spend Little Time On The Ground Being Planned For.
> 
> GIS is a blessing and a curse. It does save time, but the info is now used by the specialists during the planning process and they seldom do ground truthing. Which results in somebody stumbling upon a stream or wet spot late in the planning process and that puts the brakes on for a while.
> 
> ...




The mineral exploration industry is a mirror image of this. The majority of the claim staking, line cutting, geophysics and field work is planned by geologists, GIS techs and other office personnel who never step foot in the bush. When the field crews run into snags in the bush, this usually translates into more money having to be spent. It always looks real simple when its just a map with UTMs on a computer screen. When things go haywire, then the blame game begins and then it's just a race for everybody to cover their a$$.


----------



## North Star (Dec 22, 2012)

2dogs said:


> No I would to disagree with the Open Source concept with regards to public lands. This type of planning allows for someone in New York to have a say in forest management in New Mexico while never even having been there. A Forester living in the forest he is managing (for say 20 years) will have his expertice and experience diluted by theorists and do-gooders who feel everyone in entitled to their opinion. It is similar to, after years of planning and writing a THP, a group of little old ladies show up and chain themselves to the gate preventing any work from being done.
> 
> Open Source is another road block to forest health. A certain amout of thinning and fuels reduction must go on continually. Open Source has stopped most of this in the planning phase.
> 
> Forest health is not a bug to be worked out. It is not a new problem.




We've had something similar to this in Ontario call the "lands for life program". I've seen entire townships taken off limits to logging and mineral exploration because a certain plant grows in a swamp there. This decision was made by a committee of greenies in Toronto about a tract of land 900km north of them that they have never been to. It seems that these decisions are always being made by people who the outcome will not effect in any way. Sorry about the rant, but this sort of thing happens here on a regular basis and it drives me nuts.


----------



## Samlock (Dec 22, 2012)

I think the open source method is great for designing and developing highly complex systems such as computer operating or community infrastructure. A forest is an extremely complex and diverse system, yet an open source management is not capable to do anything with it. Why? Well, nobody really designs forests. They grow as they have always grown. The actions made by human in a forest are very simple and options are limited. Logging is not about choosing or designing alternatives, but acting. It requires will power of few, not opinion of many.


----------



## redprospector (Dec 22, 2012)

Gologit said:


> I think I'll move this to the Forestry and Logging thread...they need some entertainment over there.



What would we do without you Bob? 
otstir:

Andy


----------



## redprospector (Dec 22, 2012)

2dogs said:


> No I would to disagree with the Open Source concept with regards to public lands. This type of planning allows for someone in New York to have a say in forest management in New Mexico while never even having been there. A Forester living in the forest he is managing (for say 20 years) will have his expertice and experience diluted by theorists and do-gooders who feel everyone in entitled to their opinion. It is similar to, after years of planning and writing a THP, a group of little old ladies show up and chain themselves to the gate preventing any work from being done.
> 
> Open Source is another road block to forest health. A certain amout of thinning and fuels reduction must go on continually. Open Source has stopped most of this in the planning phase.
> 
> Forest health is not a bug to be worked out. It is not a new problem.



Oh, so that's what they call what they do here in New Mexico. :msp_mad:
It seems like everyone from everywhere else have all the say over what goes on here. :bang:
If this is "open sorce" then I'm again it. 

Andy


----------



## saxono3 (Dec 22, 2012)

I've never heard the term "open source logging". Seems somebody has to be in charge of every cut, weather its the private land owner, the US Forest service, Bureau Of Land Management, Game commission, what have you.


----------



## hogdog (Dec 22, 2012)

I apologize if the post was in the wrong category and thanks for everyone's responses. 

No I am not a programmer nor am I selling anything but the saying "...all bugs shallow" comes from programming I think. A bug is an unforeseen problem and a shallow bug is a problem that is not propagated or built upon. 

Carberatorless
I am not saying I could run an operation any better, quite the opposite. When I refer to resources I am not only talking about money but people resources as well. There are some problems that can't be solved by throwing unlimited amounts of money at. These problems take smart, experienced people which can be more of a limited resource than money.

I would love to run a saw or buncher feller. I'm sure nothing is peaches and cream, especially in this industry. I'm 25, out of school and figuring stuff out, if you will.


Slowp
I would think your GIS problem is a good example of more than a shallow bug. Ask me how to fix it and I would have no idea. Put a lot of intelligent minds together who work in this industry and who knows what could happen.

I completely agree that there is a big potential for micromanagement and bureaucracy. Both of which are bugs in administration. Couldn't these be made shallow as well with constant improvement and analysis?

Murdock
What is 'REITs?'

2Dogs
Open Source can be different than free for all. I agree that a Forester with 20 years under his belt should not be contesting with laypersons about his expertise. Certain Open Source structures only allow experienced people of the trade or only reward for positive contributions. Theorists and do-gooders could be brushed aside, probably where they belong.

North Star 
Couldn't these problems you speak of be overcome? You're indicating that the land track was unnecessarily made off limits due to an ill decision by people who didn't have a clue. The 'greenies' over value the swamp plant and think you over value your mineral or logging resource. The good decision is one where everything is valued correctly and objectively with everything taken into consideration. The best way this can happen is when all of the qualified people about this issue put their heads together, crunch all the numbers and say ya or nay.

Samlock
Your response has definitely made me think. I agree that no body designs a forest and that the final actions are undertaken by few. However the human interaction with the forest is a very complex one IMO.
Here in Colorado, the forest burns every summer, pine beetle has ravaged entire mountainsides. All the while everyone is arguing what is causing it and what to do about it. The standing beetle kill has little value, especially where there is no roads, so it will be there 'till it rots or more likely burns. This will affect snow accumulation which will affect how much water everyone will have in the spring. The situation I'm describing is a very complex one and we haven’t even begun trying to make money.

Thanks for everyone's input. I'm not trying to tell people how to do their job nor am I saying I could do it better. I am just trying to start a discussion on this topic and maybe spark a few ideas.


----------



## redprospector (Dec 22, 2012)

hogdog said:


> I apologize if the post was in the wrong category and thanks for everyone's responses.
> 
> No I am not a programmer nor am I selling anything but the saying "...all bugs shallow" comes from programming I think. A bug is an unforeseen problem and a shallow bug is a problem that is not propagated or built upon.
> 
> ...



Just my opinion...BUT.
Your own description of what's happening in Colorado is a classic example of "open sorce" logging. 
No one wanted anyone to do anything because, well, it was just so darned pretty (let's put the emphasis on the word WAS).
Now the same bunch can't decide what to do with their own screw up. 

When we started suppressing fires, we took over natures job. Now, nature would send a fire through the forest every few years to keep the ground fuels down, and thin out a lot of the smaller, and weaker trees. Since we took over natures job the forest has become overgrown. There are enough ground & ladder fuels to ensure that any fire that goes past the initial attack from firefighters is almost guarranteed to be catastrophic. But let's face it, firefighting is big business now, and even if the funding and market place were there to thin and log all of our forest's it still wouldn't be done because it would step on too many toe's. I have to be careful because I'm getting into the politic's of it, and Bob might move this to the political forum. 

Long story short, the mess that we are in today is stemmed from too many chief's, and not enough indian's. Or maybe it's too many chief's and none of them care what any of the indian's have to say. I don't see where we will be making any headway by repeating the mistakes we've already made. Unless you think we can make the same mistakes better. :bang:

Andy


----------



## madhatte (Dec 22, 2012)

I have some experience with Open-Source software in the Forestry arena. 

Growth models are continuously evolving. Logging companies buy timber based on cruisers' measurements. Sometimes, in spite of everybody's best efforts, they get less than they paid for. Nobody wants that. If a given cruiser's measurements for a sale are procedurally consistent, and the scaled volume at the mill differs, often the weak link is the growth model. Tarif tables only describe what is measured NOW. Growth models can extrapolate that across the landscape, drastically reducing the number of measurements needed to turn in an accurate measurement for a specific sale. There is a widely-varying amount of interest in different species, research-wise, and some species have been ignored altogether, due to financial constraints. 

The FS has an office in Colorado Springs which has never once failed to go the extra mile for me, and there are private outfits dedicated to making the math of forest mensuration usable by everybody as well. 

The problem with a true Open Source approach regarding timber is that both geography and markets require extensive local knowledge for success. The best we can do with current technology is to share what we know among ourselves, and wait for software to catch up. The onus of responsibility still falls on individual ownerships to manage their own land.


----------



## mad murdock (Dec 22, 2012)

REIT=Real Estate Investment Trust. Most of the private timber outfits are companies that have organized from spun off land holdings of larger mill/land operations like potlatch timber, plum creek, or they are land holdings held by large mutual fund or other fund managers like Hancock, Campbell group etc. a lot of the private timber ground in the west is held by such entities, and us gypo (gyppo) contractors do the ground work for them.


----------



## Gologit (Dec 22, 2012)

madhatte said:


> The problem with a true Open Source approach regarding timber is that both geography and markets require extensive local knowledge for success. The best we can do with current technology is to share what we know among ourselves, and wait for software to catch up. The onus of responsibility still falls on individual ownerships to manage their own land.



Well said.


----------



## North Star (Dec 22, 2012)

hogdog said:


> I apologize if the post was in the wrong category and thanks for everyone's responses.
> 
> No I am not a programmer nor am I selling anything but the saying "...all bugs shallow" comes from programming I think. A bug is an unforeseen problem and a shallow bug is a problem that is not propagated or built upon.
> 
> ...




Unfortunately no, these decisions are final. The committee I speak of was created to appease the environmentalists in a huge polluted city that want to dictate how the rest of the province should be run. The tract I'm talking about was 10 square km that had a known zinc deposit that was waiting to be defined by the right company. This was cut off by this committee of greenies. This land is probably 50km from where I live in a mining town. The funny thing, is that all of the mining tax revenues generated by the mines where I live and work end up funding roads, schools and hospitals in southern ontario. But yet they want to stop mining. It's horrible to see these lands taken off limits by people that live 10 hours away because they think its best. The political pressure in southern ontario is enough to shut down mills and mines in northern ontario - this has been demonstrated over and again.


----------



## Gologit (Dec 23, 2012)

redprospector said:


> Long story short, the mess that we are in today is stemmed from too many chief's, and not enough indian's. Or maybe it's too many chief's and none of them care what any of the indian's have to say. I don't see where we will be making any headway by repeating the mistakes we've already made. Unless you think we can make the same mistakes better. :bang:
> 
> Andy



Exactly right.


----------



## M.R. (Dec 23, 2012)

Close to a couple of decades back I remember a winter time read of a book by Allan May that in a lot of ways dovetails
quite a bit [in many ways], of what is is being disscussed in this thread.

allan may - A Voice in the Wilderness - AbeBooks


----------



## redprospector (Dec 23, 2012)

madhatte said:


> The problem with a true Open Source approach regarding timber is that both geography and markets require extensive local knowledge for success. The best we can do with current technology is to share what we know among ourselves, and wait for software to catch up. The onus of responsibility still falls on individual ownerships to manage their own land.



Hmm. I may be getting in over my head here, and I'm not being arguementative, just trying to tie what you're saying together with what I've seen.
One. If we're talking National Forest Land, where does the individual ownerships fit in? If it is the "head honcho" over that particular forest, how can it be managed, or how can they take ownership of anything if the people in that position change every few years, and each one has their own different ideas of how to manage this forest? 
Is it possible to successfully manage that forest when almost all possible markets were spoiled by previous mis-management?
The onus of responsibility may fall on individual ownerships, but who is accountable? Or is there any accountability? 

Andy


----------



## madhatte (Dec 23, 2012)

redprospector said:


> If we're talking National Forest Land, where does the individual ownerships fit in?
> 
> .... The onus of responsibility may fall on individual ownerships, but who is accountable? Or is there any accountability?



Really tough question. I have an answer, but I need to think about the words first. You are 100% right to call me on this one. Gimme 24 hours to come up with a coherent answer.


----------



## redprospector (Dec 23, 2012)

madhatte said:


> Really tough question. I have an answer, but I need to think about the words first. You are 100% right to call me on this one. Gimme 24 hours to come up with a coherent answer.



You got it buddy. 

Andy


----------



## Gologit (Dec 23, 2012)

I took "onus of responsibility" to be in the context of private land. It would make sense in that the management is more of a continual and even handed process.

Government land? Dunno . You guys have more recent experience with public lands than I do but what I see is good people who could make good decisions...if they were allowed to.

The lack of communication thing always frustrated me. On private ground I could usually get an answer quickly and it would be a definitive answer that I could use immediately. Whether it was yes or no or a compromise between the two, and whether I liked the answer or not, at least I knew what to do. And what was expected of me.

Working with the FS was like living in a world of ever spiraling complexity. Finding answers and guidance beyond the strict wording of a contract was difficult. No, it was almost impossible. The problems were always simple ones , stuff you could throw men and machinery at and come up with a workable solution. Getting the permission to do that was the stumbling block.

"I'll ask my supervisor" and "we'll take it under consideration" and "it's not in the contract and there's no need to discuss it any further" doesn't get any logs down the hill.


----------



## slowp (Dec 23, 2012)

Gubmint land? Nobody seems to be responsible. I guess Congress is responsible in a way through budgeting and overseeing what is going on. They have bigger fish to fry. Meanwhile, in this part of the country, there are people with different agendas in the Forest Service, the Chief of the Forest Service--a political appointee who usually is already working for the FS, follows or tries to follow what the President's folks want. 

Now, trying to stay neutral, I have read and heard through the grapevine that our current president actually wants to increase the cut. But it aint happening. There was extra money available to do so and the District Rangers actually turned it down. These days are unlike the old days. District Rangers are very seldom foresters that have come up through the ranks. District Rangers are likely to be former administrative assistants, fish biologists, botanists, etc. They do not have a timber background nor are they interested in that because there is no pressure to produce. In the old days, to refuse to increase production would have resulted in a transfer to Godawful, Nevada. That doesn't happen now.

Rangers in this region are hired for their "collaborative" abilities. They try to please everybody. That doesn't work. The group with the biggest threat gets the say in things. In our case, that is the Gifford Pinchot Task Force, based in Portland, OR. They are an environmental group who want roads closed and the "forest restored". According to them, jobs should be created for restoration in our community. That is not happening. 

It'll be interesting. A mining company from Canada has just gotten approval to do exploration drilling 12 miles from here. The GP Task Force says they'll go to court to stop it. Maybe they'll blow all their grant and donation money on that fight? 

Personally, I'd rather see our area working in timber rather than mining. We're kind of hard up for jobs here so the mine is welcomed by most folks and you can't blame them. Maybe I'll sell some cookies if it brings in people. Maybe I'll sell my place and move to Seattle, Montana:msp_smile: if it brings in people.
Stay tuned.


----------



## North Star (Dec 23, 2012)

slowp said:


> Gubmint land? Nobody seems to be responsible. I guess Congress is responsible in a way through budgeting and overseeing what is going on. They have bigger fish to fry. Meanwhile, in this part of the country, there are people with different agendas in the Forest Service, the Chief of the Forest Service--a political appointee who usually is already working for the FS, follows or tries to follow what the President's folks want.
> 
> Now, trying to stay neutral, I have read and heard through the grapevine that our current president actually wants to increase the cut. But it aint happening. There was extra money available to do so and the District Rangers actually turned it down. These days are unlike the old days. District Rangers are very seldom foresters that have come up through the ranks. District Rangers are likely to be former administrative assistants, fish biologists, botanists, etc. They do not have a timber background nor are they interested in that because there is no pressure to produce. In the old days, to refuse to increase production would have resulted in a transfer to Godawful, Nevada. That doesn't happen now.
> 
> ...




What mining company would that be? Just curious - Im in the exploration industry. 

The 1st nation/Indian reserves are the most successful at halting drilling or exploration in my neck of the woods. In the last two years, there have been two companies that had to walk away from their properties due to protests/blockades/court injunctions. These companies depend on their stock price to raise funds and as soon as they run into these problems, their stock plummets. That's usually the end of the company.


----------



## slowp (Dec 23, 2012)

Ascot CEO: Mining gamble near volcano could bring thousands of jobs

It is a company out of Beautiful British Columbia that is into exploration--Ascot.


----------



## North Star (Dec 23, 2012)

slowp said:


> Ascot CEO: Mining gamble near volcano could bring thousands of jobs
> 
> It is a company out of Beautiful British Columbia that is into exploration--Ascot.



Ahh one of the millions of juniors out of Vancouver. All of the companies that I work for are either based out of Vancouver or Toronto. Best of luck to them.


----------



## madhatte (Dec 23, 2012)

Alright, it's tomorrow now. Here's my half-baked explanation of what seems to be happening from my perspective. 

The two groups I linked to above are both producing software for use in estimating forest behavior. 

The first, FMRC, is a USFS office which is more focused on sale-level metrics, and their software is freely available to anybody who wants to use it. It's not truly "Open Source", in that the user is not allowed to modify or redistribute it (in the spirit of the GNU or BSD licenses), but that's not really a problem, as the underlying lookup tables are themselves Public Domain, and if one were so inclined, it would be only a matter of time, talent, and money to create a similar program suite from the same background data. That said, the FMRC guys are absolute superstars when it comes to customer support. They're a small group and they work closely together to make sure that their programs work together. There are regional tables for most commercial species grouped together by FS region within the US which, in general, breaks out to separate equations for each species by 16- or 32-foot logs. There are some holes, though; as it happens, nobody has done ANY work on hardwood growth models in R6 AT ALL, which means I have to manually deduct an approximation of the difference between a generic conifer and whatever hardwood I'm cruising. I don't want to go into greater detail on that right now but suffice it to say that I hope somebody does the math for me someday so I don't have to. 

The second, FBRI, is a non-profit dedicated to stand-level inventory extrapolated to the landscape level. Their software is a astoundingly powerful suite of macros and lookup tables which push and pull data back and forth between GIS and a relational database. The major licensing difference is that all of their tables are proprietary. Further, through use, they become calibrated to the local ownership being inventoried. They are also a small group of technical wizards who support their product well. The software and what it can do are both pretty intense and I'm still learning but I'm pretty sure this approach will be the way things are done from now on. A major innovation is a feature that generates a local Site Index at a 10-meter resolution based on a whole bunch of mysterious and spooky math. 

So: mensuration techniques, software, and data analysis protocols are becoming standardized, which approximates the idea of "Open Source" at the industry level. This is good. It means that over time, timber sale volume estimates will get better and better. We're already coming in at an average error of <50Mbf per million, cruised versus scaled. 

However -- local knowledge will always trump sweeping protocol. Nothing beats boots on the ground. The industry needs, now more than ever, to prioritize creating and nurturing expertise. Shutting down and merging offices to save "costs" only serves to squander what expertise we have.


----------



## redprospector (Dec 23, 2012)

madhatte said:


> Alright, it's tomorrow now. Here's my half-baked explanation of what seems to be happening from my perspective.
> 
> The two groups I linked to above are both producing software for use in estimating forest behavior.
> 
> ...



I now have a little understanding about the software used. BUT (and I'm still not being argumentative), who is accountable? Or is anyone accountable?
I will use the Lincoln for example, over the last 20 years or so. Logging was a way of life here, then we get a ranger who all but shuts the forest down. The one decent sized mill in the area tries to tuff it out. The next ranger tries to open it up somewhat, but at the first sign of a law suite from environmentalist and the forest is all but shut down again. The mill calls it quits. Now this is not in times of economic hardship, but rather in the middle of decent times. Several companies in the forest products industries tried to move into the area, but the FS couldn't (wouldn't) give them any kind of encouraging words on being able to let them have enough product to keep their doors open. So now we have a forest that is overgrown with little funding for thinning. Logging? Hahaha, that's a distant memory. When I started falling there were several thousand loads of logs going down the mountain every year. Now, there are less than 1000 loads going down the hill. The markets for logs are all but non existant, there are 4 (so called) sawmills in the area now. They are all portable bandmills. Now I have nothing against portable sawmills, but 4 of em don't constitute a log market. There is a pallet mill south of Las Cruces. That's about 100 miles past where the old mill was, and since they're the only real game in town they pay less than what we got localy just a few years ago (and that was true before the economy went to crap). The only other possible market is the Mexican's wanting poles for telephone poles....of corse we can't export though.

The first ranger that I mentioned was a self proclaimed environmentalist. In my mind he was the beginning of the end, and he was quite proud of his accomplishments.
The next ranger I mentioned started out with what seemed to be good intentions, but (in my view) not enough guts to see them through. He told me once that it was just not worth the effort & expense to fight environmentalist in court. (I've been told the same thing by a few others since then.) We've had several other rangers since then. They only seem to last a few years each.

I agree with you wholley that what is needed is boots on the ground, someone in charge with extensive knowledge of the local forest, and a desire to *really* take care of it.
I believe that without good market's, good forestry is extreemly hard to achieve. 
It seem's that no one is held accountable for mismanagement of forests, and that no one is really rewarded for forests that are well managed.
Maybe that's why open sorce isn't a good idea. There are so many involved that no one can be held accountable.

I may be totally wrong, and I know my post should probably be moved to the whining thread. But please correct me where I'm wrong, like I said before, I'm trying to tie what you have said in with what I've seen over the last many years.

Andy


----------



## redprospector (Dec 23, 2012)

slowp said:


> Gubmint land? Nobody seems to be responsible. I guess Congress is responsible in a way through budgeting and overseeing what is going on. They have bigger fish to fry. Meanwhile, in this part of the country, there are people with different agendas in the Forest Service, the Chief of the Forest Service--a political appointee who usually is already working for the FS, follows or tries to follow what the President's folks want.
> 
> Now, trying to stay neutral, I have read and heard through the grapevine that our current president actually wants to increase the cut. But it aint happening. There was extra money available to do so and the District Rangers actually turned it down. These days are unlike the old days. District Rangers are very seldom foresters that have come up through the ranks. District Rangers are likely to be former administrative assistants, fish biologists, botanists, etc. They do not have a timber background nor are they interested in that because there is no pressure to produce. In the old days, to refuse to increase production would have resulted in a transfer to Godawful, Nevada. That doesn't happen now.
> 
> ...



Congress responsible??? Hahaha. That's the most irresponsible bunch of yahoo's I've ever heard of.
I think you hit the nail on the head though when you said that people in the Forest Service have different agendas. 

Andy


----------



## madhatte (Dec 24, 2012)

redprospector said:


> (and I'm still not being argumentative)



Dude, I WELCOME argument. Any questions that you have which make me uncomfortable are huge red flags telling me what I need to work on next. 



redprospector said:


> a ranger who all but shuts the forest down.





redprospector said:


> it was just not worth the effort & expense to fight environmentalist in court.



I agree with this 100%. The enviro's are MUCH better used as allies than enemies. It takes a bit of work and time but a good number of them are honestly interested in doing good, and a bit of effort to educate them goes a long way. The trick is to find the keystone person who would halt actual progress in each ownership, and to spent the time and effort showing them that we aren't the Bad Guys. PROTIP: beers after hours work way better than politics on the clock.



redprospector said:


> without good market's, good forestry is extreemly hard to achieve.



This is the part that we have no control over. We, foresters and loggers, have no input to either taxpayers or stockholders, and those are the people who need to be convinced that short-term profits and long-term economics are not necessarily at odds. We need to work together to speak as one, somehow, to tell them all that trees grow really well, and that rivers recover from minor disturbances, and that forest products benefit us all. We need to stop drawing lines in the sand that don't benefit anybody, least of all the land we all depend on. We need to sit around a table and agree on the language we will use to talk to the folks who hold the purse strings but don't do the time on the ground, so that they will trust us to make decisions on their behalf. 



redprospector said:


> I may be totally wrong



_AU CONTRAIRE_

You are very much right. Working forests need working Foresters. Foresters plan sales, and sales keep people supplied with products that they need. Problem I see is a lack of dialogue between the various levels between inventory and finished product.


----------



## madhatte (Dec 24, 2012)

god damn I sound like a hippie


----------



## northmanlogging (Dec 24, 2012)

madhatte said:


> god damn I sound like a hippie



Don't worry about it, you're making sense... tree huggers and environuts speak from the heart and most times emotions don't make sense to anybody else... 

Forests need management, not neglect (read protection). Unfortunately an open source (open sore) would invite too many loud, well funded, under informed, voices to have a say. Bureaucrats have a nasty ability of dodging the blame and only listening to the shiny suit with the loud voice and a bunch of lawyers.


----------



## redprospector (Dec 24, 2012)

madhatte said:


> > Dude, I WELCOME argument. Any questions that you have which make me uncomfortable are huge red flags telling me what I need to work on next.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We are seeing different problems I guess. Problem I see is we need a little less talk, and a lot more action. 
I think we'd see that action if there was accountability. If a forest is an overgrown tinderbox, and getting worse, the questions should be asked; Who is in charge, and why is this forest in this shape? The Head Honcho over a forest is the manager. If the FS was run like a company and the manager wasn't taking care of his charge, he would no longer have a job. Not transfered somewhere else, unemployed. I just think there should be accountability.

Andy


----------



## redprospector (Dec 24, 2012)

madhatte said:


> god damn I sound like a hippie



Hahaha. I didn't say that. I may have thought it, but I didn't say it. 

Andy


----------



## slowp (Dec 24, 2012)

redprospector said:


> Congress responsible??? Hahaha. That's the most irresponsible bunch of yahoo's I've ever heard of.
> I think you hit the nail on the head though when you said that people in the Forest Service have different agendas.
> 
> Andy



I'm telling it like it is. Congress is in charge of the budget allocations. They are the purse strings agencies rely on. They, like the President, could change laws and fund projects but they have more important things to do---like get re-elected. That's all my politics for now.

The laws need to be tweaked if not redone. Nate, that's the problem. One person can hold up or stop a project and there is always one. There have been collaborative groups elsewhere--The Quincy Library Group, and one in NE Oregon who had a majority come together and agree to some management projects.
One or two people brought each to a stop. These people are self righteous and will not allow projects that are economical and environmentally feasible, to go through. Then the project ends up in court....and the decider is a law school graduate who might go camping or fishing once in a while, but that's the extent of their forest knowledge. 

I had a timber sale where the judge even decided the logging method. NO GROUND BASED EQUIPMENT was to be used. Never mind the topography. Luckily, the market was good then, and the loggers were willing to use intermediate supports even though there was no allowance for the extra cost, and every unit was logged. Now, 100 feet away, on the exact same terrain, a new sale with ground based equipment was sold and logged. Does that make sense? I liked to work around yarders more than skidders, and the yarder ground looks nicer, but looking at it from a practical direction, it made no sense. 

I think the new sale next to the old one got through because it had a lot of helicopter logging on it. That was because roads in the Matrix management areas (supposed to be managed for timber) had been decommissioned. To open them up would have invited a court fight, even though that area was supposed to be managed for timber production and consisted of plantations that had been managed for that end. 
There was a large unit that would have had to have 4 culverts installed in a washed out road. By the way, the road also accesses Port Blakely lands. In fact, the planning process was almost completed with the plan to reinstall the culverts and at the FINAL planning meeting, one of the 'ologists spoke up saying it couldn't be done and the unit was switched to a helicopter unit. The ranger always let the 'ologists make the decisions. 

Not sure, but I suspect that contract modifications have since been done throwing out the many acres of helicopter units due to the market crash and the high cost of heli logging. That would be over half the volume of that sale. 

If you really want to feel depressed, scan The Oregonian, or The Seattle Times for the occasional article about an upcoming timber sale. The comments will show you how brainwashed most folks are. 

Right now, Highway 2, Stevens Pass is closed because trees are toppling over from the snow load. Two people were killed the other night. I feel bad but I would like to see it stay closed and no trees cut just out of orneryness. 

The same folks who are anti-timber are also experiencing having a project they want being stalled the way timber sales are. The Suiattle River Road accessed a trailhead leading into the Glacier Peak Wilderness. 
It washed out and there are plans to rebuild it. One guy, backed by a national enviro group, is appealing and suing and doing what we are familiar with. The comments by some of the tree hugger hikers prove their hypocracy--the road realignment would go through a patch of old growth and they are supporting that, because they do not want to drive farther or walk an extra 9 miles to get to the wilderness. 

The hikers are organized, have money, and have the masses behind them. I'm hoping the suer wins, just because I'd like them to get a taste of their own medicine, but I don't think that will happen. 

Have I said enough? Have a good Christmas eve. The best Christmas movie ever, starts tonight and goes for 24 hours--Don't shoot your eye out!



I wish I could e-mail this thread to all the politicians, but I don't have the millions of dollars to get them interested. Ooops sorry about that.


----------



## northmanlogging (Dec 24, 2012)

The suiattle river road is a real funny one, many moons ago my Grandpappy was hired to pave and straighten it out, (maybe build it the strories are old) by none other then the SIERRA CLUB...


The really funny thing about it is that the part of the road that is washed out is a rather small strecth with a well used jeep trail to get around it. and the old growth is much much farther in... The timber is just big second growth, from the days when the FS would burn the units after logging, or third growth hemlock, depending on which part you happen to be playing in... I have a pikture of the wash out somewhere...


----------



## northmanlogging (Dec 24, 2012)

took some digging but here ya go, its a couple years old now but I don't think its changed much since then, maybe the moss is a little deeper...


----------



## redprospector (Dec 24, 2012)

slowp said:


> I'm telling it like it is. Congress is in charge of the budget allocations. They are the purse strings agencies rely on. They, like the President, could change laws and fund projects but they have more important things to do---like get re-elected. That's all my politics for now.
> 
> The laws need to be tweaked if not redone. Nate, that's the problem. One person can hold up or stop a project and there is always one. There have been collaborative groups elsewhere--The Quincy Library Group, and one in NE Oregon who had a majority come together and agree to some management projects.
> One or two people brought each to a stop. These people are self righteous and will not allow projects that are economical and environmentally feasible, to go through. Then the project ends up in court....and the decider is a law school graduate who might go camping or fishing once in a while, but that's the extent of their forest knowledge.
> ...



I was just being facetious, I know congress holds the purse strings. Even if it is like giving a 10 year old your credit card, and turning them loose in a toy store. 
I don't think "tweeking" laws works. If the law is crappy, you can't get all the crap out. Kinda like baking brownies. Brownies are good, but if you get just a little poop in the mix you have to throw the whole batch out. You just can't get all the poop out of em once it's mixed in.
These laws need to be thrown out, and new more reasonable ones put in their place.
I don't think that would get all the crap out of the mix. Maybe cut it down from 2 cups of poop in the mix, to 1/2 cup? Doesn't matter much, any poop in the mix will sure screw up a batch of brownies. 
Merry Christmas!!

Andy


----------



## northmanlogging (Dec 24, 2012)

ya know up here in the great state of Warshington you could put other things in the brownies, and then you wouldn't care and just eat the whole batch... hmm maybe thats what they are trying to do...


----------

