2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 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 internet kitzhaber language 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

I just read through all the above comments. A lot of blame is laid at the feet of the logger. Folks I have news for you. The only reason, I repeat, the only reason the logger has to ever cut a tree is because you, the consumer, wants it! It is as simple as that. You want it for conditioning solution to clean your contact lenses, ice cream, toothpaste and toothbrush, napkins, cell phone, football helmets, medicine, deodorant, grated parmesan cheese, and a few thousand other things.

Yes, forests of New England and then the Lakes States were harvested as a source of fuel, building materials, ships, and trade goods. Forestry was an unknown science and no one knew about sustainability or reforestation. That is why, going back to the very beginnings of human civilization in the Middle East, forests were harvested as a source for fuel to create pottery and bronze. They, too, did not understand the science; their harvesting was, in fact, deforestation, and led to massive erosion and silting of streams, irrigation canals, etc. Soil fertility was lost, crops failed, and, eventually, many of these civilizations also failed. The bustling Roman seaport of Ephesus on the western shore of today?s Turkey was once thought to be the third largest city in the world ? around a quarter million people. Deforestation, erosion, and silting of its harbor now puts the city?s ruins several miles inland. Our very own New Haven, Connecticut, had to extend its wharf 3900 feet between 1780 and 1820! All this because people wanted and needed wood. They did not understand the science of forests or forestry or of sustainability.

When I was in college in the early 60?s, the thinking was to get rid of the old-growth forest as soon as possible. These forests were viewed as old, decadent, rotting, and not very productive. Prior to World War II, most of our private forests had been logged. The returning GI?s and the resulting baby boom and growth of suburbia required a huge source of wood. By necessity, we (the American consumer) turned to the federal forests.

Since then, we?ve learned a lot about the forests ? that?s why we have scientists. Our private lands have regrown and, similar to the Tillamook State Forest, are now of harvestable size/age. We are more aware and understanding of all the things that make up a forest ? water, wildlife, fish, etc.

Oregon?s Forest Practices Act, passed by the Oregon Legislature in 1971 (at the urging of the forest industry) acknowledged that new science. As the science evolves, this Act has changed accordingly.

As a science, forestry in this country is only a hundred years old with much of the knowledge coming in the past half century. Most of what I know as a forester was not known when I was a student. My son is a forestry student and what he is currently learning is mostly knowledge that was learned in the last 3-4 decades.

So, when pointing fingers, be very careful because maybe that finger needs to point inward.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context

I just now heard the last 20 minutes or so of Think Out Loud with Emily Harris but did not have access to a phone.

I have been a forester for 45 years ? all of it in Oregon?s Coast Range. The spotted owl has had a huge impact on how we think about and manage our forests and all the things that make up a forest (wildlife, water, wood, recreation, etc.). It has brought about huge changes. Our forest management practices are much improved as we better understand the science coming from all the research. We?ve enacted the Forest Practices Act. We?ve spent many tens of millions of dollars replacing culverts with better ones ? ones that are fish-friendly. The list of current and improved forest management practices goes on and on.

I spent several springs hooting for spotted owls and had several answer my calls. None of these were in old-growth or even in the vicinity of old-growth. One was in a former railroad logging camp that was abandoned many years ago and had grown back into a nice stand of second-growth.

But first, there are some givens that must be understood:

? Nothing lives forever, not even a tree. It will die and it will need to be replaced.

? An old tree or stand of trees was once very young and, in fact, did not even exist at one time.

? The mosaic of forest stands and ages has constantly moved around the landscape over both time and space. This has been the biological and historical norm for millennia.

? In his doctoral work, Dr. Bob Zybach, came to the conclusion that, in 1600, there was virtually no old-growth in the Coast Range.

? Humans have lived in Oregon for many thousands of years and they managed (sometimes very intensively) their environment. Their use of fire greatly shaped the forests first seen by European explorers and, later, settlers. The Native American use and management of the environment is still evident today.

? All naturally functioning forests must have a full range of ages ? from very young to very old ? to accommodate the full spectrum of plant and animal species. Further, this allows for the replacement of any age class or stands lost due to wind storms, fire, etc. Today?s federal forest policies are skewing the forest towards very old forests and are precluding other forest ages and those plant and animal species that depend on those other age classes.

? A very small percentage (6%) of the federal forest?s annual growth in Oregon is currently being harvested. Another 32% is lost to mortality and is left to rot in the forest and to feed insects and fire. The remaining 62% is left standing as live, green timber to grow another year. This 62% is contributing to over-crowding and is making our forests more susceptible to fire, disease, insects, etc. There are biological limits to the amount of wood a forest can sustain.

There are many who will dispute the above. However, the foregoing is well-established fact (from both a scientific and historic standpoint) but is probably little known or little accepted by most. It certainly does not fit popular notions.

It seems to me a very logical forest management plan should acknowledge the foregoing. For example, if we assume timber must be 200 years old to have old-growth characteristics, for the sake of argument, then why not manage our Douglas-fir forests on a 400-year rotation with the intent of harvesting all of it at some point in time? (I?m not suggesting wilderness areas or parks.)

[Obviously, not all forests need 200 years to attain old-growth characteristics. Lodgepole pine may need only 70 years. Doug-fir might be managed to attain these characteristics in only 150 years. Thus, 200 years and the suggested rotation age of 400 years is merely a suggestion. Soils, climate, and vegetative types must be taken into account and the ages will change accordingly. In other words, the usual one-size-fits-all federal forest policies are folly.]

This way, we can lessen the problems associated with drought, stress, over-crowding, high fuel-loadings and fire danger, etc. Further, with the assumed ages given above, at some point fully half of the federal lands would be old-growth. This means we would actually have far more old-growth than at the current time and, quite likely, more than we have ever had. We might even an un-natural amount of old-growth!

Would this ever fly? Of course not! There are many who feel all federal forests should be old-growth and will accept nothing less. Politicians find it expedient to legislate accordingly. But, this has consequences. Our federal forests will be doomed to insect epidemics of historic and catastrophic proportions as currently found in the pine region. We will have ever greater fuel loadings and half million-acre fires (e.g., the Tillamook and Biscuit Fires) will become the norm.

The BLM?s West Oregon Plan Review actually offered an alternative similar to the above. The environmental community rejected it out of hand and were very vocal in labeling it as an attempt to increase old-growth logging. That seems rather illogical if, over time, the plan could actually increase the amount of old-growth.

If, in fact, the spotted owl or any of the other plant and animal species truly does require old-growth forests, we could actually create more habitat. All it takes is to understand the science and the courage to make management decisions in a logical, reasoned manner. However, that requires far more courage than any politician has.

Since we have changed from an exporter to an importer of wood (nearly 40% of our softwood consumption now comes from the mostly northern, old-growth, boreal forests of Canada), we are wearing blinders in that we are exporting the costs of our consumption. This raises the question ? is the management of our federal forests ethical? I think not. Other regions have their own endangered species concerns but most do not yet have the regulations or the concern about these issues that we have.

We may think we are acting locally and are thinking globally. In truth, we may be acting locally but most of us have no clue how our actions affect the bigger, global picture. We have tunnel vision and blinders. We can?t see past the length of our arms.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context