Boy howdy. Most of them wouldn't pass a Common Sense check otherwise. I'm on standby right now for how the newest set of regulations affect how I lay out sales.
Environmentalists cost money
- Thread starter forestryworks
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Boy howdy. Most of them wouldn't pass a Common Sense check otherwise. I'm on standby right now for how the newest set of regulations affect how I lay out sales.
The thing about that is, sometimes you get a sale laid out, and before it is sold, the buffer area requirements or something else is changed. You must return and change things.
Then you go out with black paint, flagging, and all that stuff, erase the old boundary and put in the new. The buffers usually get larger, not smaller so volume has to be deducted from the cruise. $$$$$ are lost and spent and so it goes.
We had this happen with the Del Norte Salamander. Some units had to be thrown out because the new buffer requirements closed off access to parts of the units. The Del Norte Salamander does not seem to be scarce in its habitat in Humboldt and Siskiyou counties. You will find them in old rockpits, plantations, along roads etc. But, because they are only found in that area, they are considered to be rare and logging is considered to be a take. Notice that I mentioned they are found in rockpits and plantations.:rolleyes2:
I like the intent of a lot of the rules. Clean water and clean air are key and I can't argue with that. I like the intent but I sure don't care for the way the rules are enforced. When rules are enforced with no thought about alternative methods they narrow down the options for compliance to the point that it's almost impossible to stay out of trouble. The people charged with seeing that the rules are followed are often poorly trained and not very knowledgeable about what really goes on in the woods. Their answer to any question that falls outside of their experience or training is always the same...NO. As in "no, you can't do that and please don't bother me with it again because your'e exposing me as the marginally qualified person I really am and you're making me uncomfortable and I'll salve my pride with restrictive guidelines until you quit asking".
In another post somebody wrote:
Cut and hack,
Burn it black'
Plant it back.
That's all we did for many years. Too many years, really. We shot ourselves in the foot...repeatedly. The way we logged in "the good old days" was largely wasteful and destructive. We're paying for that now and we're paying big time.
We gave the environmentalists the opening they needed and they took full advantage of it. They found that the general public was receptive to their message and they made that work for them. Were they wrong to do that? Probably...but their message is louder than ours, often better presented, and given in such a way that it appeals to the emotions of people who are well meaning but very poorly informed. That doesn't make the environmentalists right, far from it in fact. It also doesn't change the fact that the goal of most preservationist groups is the total elimination of any kind of logging. Their agenda is clear.
We who make our living in the woods can howl all we want about what's happening. I sure do my share. But until we can present our side of things on the same scale that the environmentalists do, until our voice is as loud and yet as reasonable as theirs we're not going to make any progress. We need to be heard. Soon.
Don't get me wrong. I don't have all the answers...or even enough answers most of the time. But I deal with the issues every day and I've watched this business become an ever increasing spiral of complexity.
You younger people coming into this business will be the ones to turn it around and find the compromise between environment and logging. You'd better get started. Sorry about the mess we left behind.
In another post somebody wrote:
Cut and hack,
Burn it black'
Plant it back.
That's all we did for many years. Too many years, really. We shot ourselves in the foot...repeatedly. The way we logged in "the good old days" was largely wasteful and destructive. We're paying for that now and we're paying big time.
We gave the environmentalists the opening they needed and they took full advantage of it. They found that the general public was receptive to their message and they made that work for them. Were they wrong to do that? Probably...but their message is louder than ours, often better presented, and given in such a way that it appeals to the emotions of people who are well meaning but very poorly informed. That doesn't make the environmentalists right, far from it in fact. It also doesn't change the fact that the goal of most preservationist groups is the total elimination of any kind of logging. Their agenda is clear.
We who make our living in the woods can howl all we want about what's happening. I sure do my share. But until we can present our side of things on the same scale that the environmentalists do, until our voice is as loud and yet as reasonable as theirs we're not going to make any progress. We need to be heard. Soon.
Don't get me wrong. I don't have all the answers...or even enough answers most of the time. But I deal with the issues every day and I've watched this business become an ever increasing spiral of complexity.
You younger people coming into this business will be the ones to turn it around and find the compromise between environment and logging. You'd better get started. Sorry about the mess we left behind.
Last edited:
forestryworks
Addicted to ArboristSite
Well said, Bob.
I almost don't mind it when they make us change boundaries before a sale goes to auction. Only my time is wasted. What really hacks me is when a unit is already sold and the F&W folks decide they need to exclude this tree and that tree and this skid route and...
Thing is it never occurs to them that somebody has already BOUGHT those trees, and excluding them involuntarily is theft, plain and simple. Sometimes a purchaser will agree to a tree-for-tree swap, no harm, no foul. Sometimes they'll take the loss. In every case where I've seen exclusions happen after the fact, nobody benefited except nebulous "habitat" whose definition changes minute by minute. It's not like the F&W folks don't have rules to follow -- we try VERY hard to be proactive in supporting their goals through our prescriptions and marking strategies. We even pass the proposed sale through a regular gauntlet of NEPA, wildlife, archaeological, and tribal advisors before putting paint on trees, and they STILL find reason to want modifications later.
If following both the letter and intent of the law isn't enough, what's left for a timber agency to do better? We're already FSC-Certified. That means we exceed all legal requirements. Are we just supposed to roll over and accept that we're the Bad Guys no matter what? What about all the paper the environmental agencies go through to stop logging -- where did that come from?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: ours is a paradoxical profession. We know that we do things that destroy stuff, but we do it because that's not only how to get useful products, but it's also how to grow the next generation so that the product will still be there for later use. We're not ignorant, and the "Save The World" contingency needs to give us credit for that.
I'm not even gonna get into the politics and economics of fire right now. I simply don't have the energy.
Last edited:
Wasn't there a 9th circuit ruling that made culverts point sources for pollution? It was big talk around here for a while but I've been out of the forestry loop for a while now. If that happens won't you need a discharge permit for every culvert
?
?
That's just crazy -- the culverts themselves are to be treated as pollutants? What about everything upstream? I would like to know more about this ruling. This is the first I've heard if it.
Dalmatian90
Addicted to ArboristSite
I just googled this Madhatte: Opposition Mounts To Ninth Circuit Ruling Requiring NPDES Permit For Stormwater Runoff From Forest Roads | Marten Law
I know my town's highway foreman (he comes out of a heavy equipment operator background but attends the seminars and such as well as working with the contract civil engineers as needed) has told me the design preference is to all storm water to "sheet" off the sides of the road to be absorbed diffusely, and avoid curbs / storm drains / culverts as much as possible. I have NO idea how that conversation even came up (though I have a good stretch of town road that "sheets" onto my property).
Sounds like the same thing they were arguing in that court case, maybe taken a bit more extreme.
I also have no clue how you'd build a crowned road along a steep hillside and not use ditches/culverts for the uphill side!
I know my town's highway foreman (he comes out of a heavy equipment operator background but attends the seminars and such as well as working with the contract civil engineers as needed) has told me the design preference is to all storm water to "sheet" off the sides of the road to be absorbed diffusely, and avoid curbs / storm drains / culverts as much as possible. I have NO idea how that conversation even came up (though I have a good stretch of town road that "sheets" onto my property).
Sounds like the same thing they were arguing in that court case, maybe taken a bit more extreme.
I also have no clue how you'd build a crowned road along a steep hillside and not use ditches/culverts for the uphill side!
Humptulips
ArboristSite Guru
You telling me that it isn't theft if they exclude from the sale before the sale. It's still theft, just coming out of someone elses pocket.
"In another post somebody wrote:
Cut and hack,
Burn it black'
Plant it back.
That's all we did for many years. Too many years, really. We shot ourselves in the foot...repeatedly. The way we logged in "the good old days" was largely wasteful and destructive. We're paying for that now and we're paying big time."
I don't agree with this either. There's more timber being wasted then there ever was back in the so called bad old days. Add up all the blown down RMZs, broken off wildlife trees and blown down or fire killed timber that can't be logged because of arbitrary designation of the area as a roadless area it all adds up to a tremendous amount of wasted timber rotting. I don't buy this RMZ stuff helping the salmon runs either. We had more salmon before the RMZs were mandated and the trees seemed to be growing just fine. Salmon didn't go to heck until they OKed Indian netting in all the rivers.
forestryworks
Addicted to ArboristSite
And it's nonsense to think there's any other way!
That's just madness. I'll have to pass that up my chain-of-command and see if we're affected. I know we haven't talked about it yet, and road maintenance is, as always, a huge issue.
As a forestry tech, I have more sympathy for contract loggers than I do for the ownership the sale comes from. Give or take a tree here, a tree there, our management plan isn't really affected. The guys who have already paid for the logs are the ones who really get a raw deal.
I don't doubt that at all...in your part of the country. And on government ground. I'm not there, I don't see what you see, so I'm not qualified to comment on it.
But where I work, which is mostly on private ground, we don't have near the waste that we used to. We don't have the blow down problems with RMZs that you guys have...different soil and terrain and tree types probably. And we sure log our bug kill and burn salvage as soon as we can get to it. Tops and slash are usually chipped on site and either spread or hauled out.
A lot of our ground is checkerboard with FS ground. You don't need signs to tell which is which. Benign neglect pretty much sums up what happens to the government ground. They waste. We don't.
Humptulips
ArboristSite Guru
You'd feel different if you owned timberland. A recent patch of timber I was involved with logging the owner lost half the timber to RMZ designation. That guy sure thinks he was robbed. To top it off seasonal streams.
Humptulips
ArboristSite Guru
Three or maybe it's four years now an estimated 10 million feet blew down on the ridge behind my house. It's still laying there. It's supposed to be a FS roadless area but there's a road right through the middle and at least half the timber could have been salvaged without building any road. Mostly hemlock and white fir so it's all rot now. I can look at it everyday if the clouds aren't too low. What a waste!
On private ground I'd say better then half the RMZ trees blowdown. A lot of places it's 100%.
Wasn't there a 9th circuit ruling that made culverts point sources for pollution? It was big talk around here for a while but I've been out of the forestry loop for a while now. If that happens won't you need a discharge permit for every culvert
Yes there is. It is being appealed. The case started in Oregon. What I understand is, if the decision is upheld, another permit will be required.
However, I am confused as to the intent and knowledge of the folks suing. Roads don't stop running off water when log trucks leave. Roads are rained on for most of the year, logging or not. Unless the intent is to tear up the majority of roads, and shut more access off, I don't understand the point. But that doesn't matter. I do know the main intent is to stop logging.
Well said. The intent is always to stop logging.
The last couple of years we've done a massive amount of road work and installed literally truck loads of culverts and drains. Maybe, for once, we're ahead of the curve.
Dalmatian90
Addicted to ArboristSite
And earn legal fees!
If you were truly interested in reducing silt -- and I recognize such runoff and erosion while usually trivial in individual instances does add up to a lot overtime -- the best way to achieve it is to tackle the engineering standards the roads are built and maintained too. Stuff like silt control structures & vegetation at the discharges of culverts, trying not to have culverts directly discharge into streams, etc.
Not wasting money on environmental impact reports.
Exactly. Lawyers have it figured out...litigation is a cash cow for them. The rest of us, in one way or another, are paying the bill.
ah, a long morning read of the actual opinion from 9th Circuit Appeals, NEDC v Brown, No. 07-35266 is about the application of NPDES permitting and point surce vs non-point source pollution under the CWA and Silvicuture Rule as it applies to the logging case in Oregon and EPA Rule makiing.
For those interested in reading the gist of this Opinion:
Case
pages 6406-8 are the Order and Background.
pages 6440-end Contention of Timber Defendants and Courts view.
near the end the Courts "sympathy" with EPA administration
An interesting side note relevant to this case is Oregon is permitted by the EPA to administer the NPDES for Federal facilities. Warshington, on the otherhand, is not.
The burden this places on the Timber Industry, Federal and State agencies is almost un-imaginable financially and resource staff wise as it applies to both new and existing roads to engineer, monitor and maintain pollution controls.
Seems to me the NEDC is shooting for the shutdown, abandonment and pre-road restoration of these roads by overwhemming micro-management and compliance reports to the courts.
Did Congress fail in writing the law; Did the EPA fail in writing regulations for enforcement ?
I'm sure as hell not qualified to comment on that aspect. But, am not blindsided to the cost to the taxpayer and our economy either.
For those interested in reading the gist of this Opinion:
Case
pages 6406-8 are the Order and Background.
pages 6440-end Contention of Timber Defendants and Courts view.
near the end the Courts "sympathy" with EPA administration
An interesting side note relevant to this case is Oregon is permitted by the EPA to administer the NPDES for Federal facilities. Warshington, on the otherhand, is not.
The burden this places on the Timber Industry, Federal and State agencies is almost un-imaginable financially and resource staff wise as it applies to both new and existing roads to engineer, monitor and maintain pollution controls.
Seems to me the NEDC is shooting for the shutdown, abandonment and pre-road restoration of these roads by overwhemming micro-management and compliance reports to the courts.
Did Congress fail in writing the law; Did the EPA fail in writing regulations for enforcement ?
I'm sure as hell not qualified to comment on that aspect. But, am not blindsided to the cost to the taxpayer and our economy either.
Metals406
Granfodder Runningsaw
If all these Eco-Nuts had their way, we wouldn't be allowed to breath air, because of the endangered 'air-mites'.
They need monetary discouragement from their frivilous lawsuits.
Something like:
Judge: I'll accept your lawsuit, but first let me be clear. If you lose, you will have to pay all court costs, you will also face a counter suit for further damages, and possible jail time for wasting this courts time. To the lawyers representing your case, you too will face stiff fines, and an investigation into nefarious practice, and possible disbarment. Do you wish to proceed?
Sound far fetched? It's not. It happened to me on a small scale for a fishing violation about ten years ago. When I appeared before the Judge and his clerk, he made it abundantly clear, that I had a right to fight the charges. He also made it clear that the fine was currently $80, and if I fought it and lost, it would be in excess of $500.00. So he then asked me, how to you plead? Guilty or not guilty. I yelled out guilty like I was singing in a choir! Made the judge and clerk laugh their butts off. He said he had never seen someone plead guilty with such verve.
The point being, if I was gonna have to pay, I sure as #### wasn't gonna pay more than that 80 bucks.
We need Judges with the sac to tell these fools where to get off.
BTW, SMZ/RMZ's are a friggen joke, just like the ESA.
They need monetary discouragement from their frivilous lawsuits.
Something like:
Judge: I'll accept your lawsuit, but first let me be clear. If you lose, you will have to pay all court costs, you will also face a counter suit for further damages, and possible jail time for wasting this courts time. To the lawyers representing your case, you too will face stiff fines, and an investigation into nefarious practice, and possible disbarment. Do you wish to proceed?
Sound far fetched? It's not. It happened to me on a small scale for a fishing violation about ten years ago. When I appeared before the Judge and his clerk, he made it abundantly clear, that I had a right to fight the charges. He also made it clear that the fine was currently $80, and if I fought it and lost, it would be in excess of $500.00. So he then asked me, how to you plead? Guilty or not guilty. I yelled out guilty like I was singing in a choir! Made the judge and clerk laugh their butts off. He said he had never seen someone plead guilty with such verve.
The point being, if I was gonna have to pay, I sure as #### wasn't gonna pay more than that 80 bucks.
We need Judges with the sac to tell these fools where to get off.
BTW, SMZ/RMZ's are a friggen joke, just like the ESA.
Similar threads
