feds to open more land to loggers?

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

mga

wandering
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
27,165
Reaction score
14,260
Location
Monticello
seems the federal government is going to open more land to loggers:

U.S. Forest Service Plans to Lift Roadless Area Protections

The Colorado announcement follows last week’s similar announcement that the Forest Service will begin consideration of a plan to open millions of roadless acres in Idaho to logging, mining and road building.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2007/2007-12-31-091.asp
 
seems the federal government is going to open more land to loggers:

U.S. Forest Service Plans to Lift Roadless Area Protections



http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2007/2007-12-31-091.asp

The key words here are "begin consideration of a plan". In other words, they're thinking about it. They'll hold lots of meetings and compile tons of data. And then they'll think about it some more. See a pattern here?
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for major timber sales from the Feds in the near future.
 
All kinds of plans have been created for White Mountain National Forest and Allegheny National Forest and enviro-whacko injunctions keep the wood in the forest. Preservation is not the answer. The new plans with increased cutting limits are very conservative and cut far less volume than annual growth.
 
How bad it gets

Where I work, (a federal agency that has managed timbered lands for over a century), we are under a lot of pressure to get out some cut.

So our Ranger has made compromises to get that done.

We have lots of reasonable environmentalists that have no problem with thinning/reasonable logging. Ignore them.

The extremists really control the show now. They have been focused on don't cut anything over 21 inches dbh. EVER! We largely gave into that. Then they have gone with what about all those trees that are 15" - 20" that will soon be 21 "?

So the local agreement with those folks that is in place for now is that if we don't cut anything over 16 inches, they will not appeal. This allows us to get something done short term.
BUT, if you have three Ponderosa Pines; Two at 25" plus 17-20 feet apart and a 16-25 incher in-between. You do not get to thin that middle tree.
This is actually a relatively common scenario with our forests recovering from the railroad logging era.
Another common problem is the limitations diameter restrictions place on insect/disease clean-up.

There have been successes from the Bush administration with the emergency logging of fire salvage. But that is not true everywhere.

It is not uncommon for Congress/The President to tell a government agency one thing in one piece of legislation, (cut this much timber), even though it is in conflict with other laws and not doable.

Don't look for a big turn around.
 
My, my we are a cynical bunch! I wonder why? You forgot, when the lawsuits end, in years and years, then the protests start. But, on another point, how many mills are there in Colorado? I went there a few years ago to a logging training--on my own dime. Went skiing up around on the Steamboat ski area, we skied and looked at the junk they wanted to cut. Vail had brought in a logger from the Oregon Coast. The town paid for moving his equipment and everything to show how 40 acres could be logged using skyline.
Not sure if anything came of this. I don't think any of the loggers there wanted to risk sinking money into a new to them type of equipment and then rely on the Forest Service to put up timber sales. I'm sorry to you Rockies people for calling it junk, but what we were shown was short, stubby dead and dying spruce and lodgepole. It didn't look like it would even pay for fuel. I believe there was one mill left in the state at that time. I'm sure Idaho is in better shape. But is it like here? This area has roads already put in, most were rocked, and we could cut like crazy in good, sound timber, but can't because of the lawsuits, Northwest Forest Plan, etc, etc. Why not cut more in our areas where very little roadbuilding is required?
Oh, and if this makes you feel better about diameter limits, I had to hunt and hunt for helicopter landing locations, and it was almost impossible, because I was told, no large snags may be cut, and no large trees. Found 2 locations, not the best, and the flying distance will be farther than recommended, but the sale sold. I digress. Remain cynical and you'll not be disappointed.:chainsaw:
 
and because we don't get to cut as much as we should
the fire dangers have gone up; explosively!

you can't just let wildland fire burn on its own like we did
back in the old days

too many houses and too many people who choose to
live in not so good spots

we need to thin and we need to log
 
pretty sure the company your talking about that they paid to come in and do that job from oregon was skyline thinning and they got paid pretty darn well for that job. even though i herd it was not profitable for the owners of the land but it reduced fire risk which is what the town wanted from what i herd.
 
Back
Top