2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

The last caller stated that whole trees will not be utilized for biomass. In 2005, Warm Springs Forest Products Industries proposed a 30MW biomass plant that would depend on whole trees logged from Mt. Hood, Deschutes, and Ochoco National Forest. Bark raised concerns and the project has been tabled since.

Mr. Vant Hoff stated that there is no evidence that Oregon's timber industry would overreach beyond a sustainable harvest for biomass. Drive to the coast and you can see the timber industry has overreached for decades.

Burning our way out of climate change is the wrong solution.

posted 2 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Why does the Forest Service feel obligated to allow such damaging activities on our public land?  As a taxpayer I would rather see this kind of thing happen on private land where entry fees could be charged and the impacts can be localized and managed without using taxpayer dollars.

posted 2 years, 8 months ago
view in context

Right in Portland's backyard are two examples of the problems with thinning:

1) "Stewardship contracting" is a specific type of contract being used on National Forests and Bureau of Land Management. It allows the agency to use the money from the sale of logs to be used for restoration work like creating fish habitat. Congress has jumped on this as reason for continuing to fund this restoration work. The result is that the cause of much of the habitat destruction in our national forests, logging, is now also being considered the answer. In Mt. Hood National Forest, this resulted in a $1 million increase in funding for logging in 2007. In the meantime funding for restoration and other forest needs like recreation continued to stay low.

2) Thinning is simply logging fewer trees than clearcutting. The compaction of the soil, the drying of the forest floor through canopy removal, and the infrastructure (roads) needed for thinning has dramatic impacts on the land. Every winter Oregonians watch as forest roads collapse into our streams, and these roads have no preference for if they are transporting thinned trees or clearcut trees. Instead of discussing "how much logging can we get away with," shouldn't we be discussing how to protect our clean drinking water from these forests?

Alex P. Brown
Executive Director
Bark-defenders of Mt. Hood National Forest

For examples of damaging thinning see the Oregonian story on the Annie's Cabin Timber Sale: http://www.bark-out.org/content/article.php?section=news&id=398

And the most recent road collapse in Mt. Hood National Forest: http://www.bark-out.org/content/article.php?section=news&id=421

http://www.bark-out.org

posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context