It's too bad we can't have a clear picture of what's really going on. Clear cutting hasn't been practiced for what, 40 years? And if I was to drive you though those old, "clear cut," forests - would you even know it? I bet if you hadn't been raised in the environment, you wouldn't.

RRMike has a pretty good handle on the situation. Of course, he lives here and can see for himself, like I can.

IMHO, controlled logging is good, forest fires are good. Driving on accessible pubic land is great - because there's enough unaccessible land out there. ( I don't care how tough your truck is - you can't drive there.)

Fishing wasn't hurt that much by logging. Fishing was hurt by the old technology of 50 and 60 years ago:

Hydro-elecrtic dams - if fish can't spawn, they can't reproduce.

None-native fish and stockers - What happens when you throw a handfull of food in a tank filled with stockers? It's like a feeding frenzy. Native fish will pick and choose. Put the two together and who eats everything in sight, as fast as they can? If there's no food supply the the natives starve. The stockers die off, because they are basically - couch potatos - and can't survive the fast running waters of winter and spring.

Pollution - I'm not talking today, I'm talking about 50 to 100 years ago when factories were right on the river and dumping as fast as they could. 35 years ago, the Willamette was a cesspool and you stayed out of it, unless you wanted to get sick. Today, it's pretty clean and getting better all the time.

I realize that other parts of this country are not like it is here. But then again, I'm not talking about logging in Texas or Ohio. Here, you can't get your arms around a tree to hug it, it's just too big.

 

I am a logger at heart, or actually more of an arbourist (sp?). I believe in sensible harvesting our timber, but that hasn't always been the case. I drove over past Forks to the ocean a couple years ago and it is just miles and miles of dam ugly old logged out land. They just left behind whatever they couldn't market, I guess, because all the big limbs and slash are everywhere and growing up with briars. The only trees left behind were an occasional one that was too crooked to use. Although this land was logged a few years ago, I saw no visible effort at reclamation.
And we wonder what fuels a tree hugger.

 

Just because you "own" your land, doesn't mean you can do what you want. You can't log it without a permit, you can't shoot the animals eating your crops.

Ever heard of ELF and ALF? True tree huggers that deserve to die. Causing billions in damage. Their motto is "if you build it, i will burn it." Go ahead, let me catch you !%##$'s burning my property. "if you burn it, i will shoot you."

 

I started camping out with my father in the mid fifties in NM and Colo. I can very distinctly remember seeing vast area's of forest after it had been clear cut. back in those days the forest service would spend 25 million to build roads for the logging comp's and then sell the Timber for 20 million. It made absolutely no economic sense. Besides that the logging companies almost never did any replanting of the area's that they had logged. Modern atv's and dirtbikes and even horses ALL do a certain amount of damage when they transport people who are too lazy to use their feet that the Good Lord gave them for getting around on this earth. I vote for Lazy because I love any Atv. I Don't care much for dirtbikes as they are simply TOO noisy and it takes away from the serenity of the forest in my opinion. If , my name was Festus, I'd probably own and ride a Mule but I don't and I can't. I think that we should NOT allow ANY clear cutting for any reason. (2) Loggers should have too replant ALL area's that they harvest timber from. (3)All citizens should be made to follow very clear cut rules when utilizing a national park area. (4) punishment should be swift and harsh for those who willfully break the rules as this is the ONLY way we will ensure the viability of our national park lands. ...For all those WHO DON'T Know...you can thank that old Trust Buster Mr. Teddy Roosevelt for putting approximately 213 million acres under the domain of the Interior dept...Were it not for him most national forrests would have long since been deeded to the respective states and sold too the highest Bidder ......s.kuteman

 

Since when is it the federal governments right to "buy" land with stolen tax money? And since when can a small minority (backpackers) tell a vast majority (vehicle/animal riders) what they can do with land that EVERY TAXPAYER owns?

I guess you don't think public lands should be grazed either? Well then, you are dead wrong. The cattle herds replace the buffalo herds and balance the ecosystem.

 

Deersniper, Whenever a usage controversy arises it seems like the users with the least noticable impact on the land are the ones who feel they have the greatest substanciation. The same thing has happened in the wintersports arena. The nonmotorized users have been successful in closing down huge tracts of public lands to motorized use ( snowmobiles ) just because they want it quiet when they go out there I guess.
I am an atv rider and a snowmobiler so I lean that diection, but I have seen plenty of what high traffic use can leave and I think there should be areas free from the motorized wheeled vehicles. I don't think the horses mess things up enough to include them in with the motorized group.
Also my thoughts on the grazing. I have family members that hold leases on over 50 square miles of forrest service land. And it is very tightly regulated as far as the grazing goes. It is not closed to recreation or hunting for the most part. The cost for the use of this land is. however just pennys on the dollar for what it would cost in the private sector. I realizr that raising the price to more realistic market vallues would put some family ranches out of business but it may be time to review the profitability of it all, and begin slowly raising the lease prices with a mapped out forecast that the ranchers can plan around and live with.

 

I agree with willowbilly3 on having places with non-motorized use but were losing to much ground. While I believe that everyone should have the right to use the land and not be inturpted by others the motor users are getting brow beaten. We have been closed out of many places just cause the non-motor sports people don't like any motor use anywhere.

To many times I've heard someone spew out false imformation. Back in Anchorage ATV's and Dirtbikes were allowed in the Kinkaid park area. There were single and dual track trails. But the greenies, joggers, & skiers didn't like that. They claimed that nature doesn't make trails like that and ride noisy polluting machines through the woods. Ok, can't argue with that. Never seen a moose ride an ATV. Well once it was closed to motor use the joggers & skiers got to work. Now these trails are 20 foot wide gravel paths with lights for night use. I've also never seen a squirel wire up a light pole.

A few years back we tried to get an 1/8 mile dirt oval for go kart racing. We out numbered the anti's by almsot 5-1 at assembly meeting but their main argument was that it would be to loud. Now the place for this track was to be at the end of the runway at Anchorage International Airport. If you've ever been to the end of a runway that Boeing aircraft use you can't hear yourself scream.

And once a skiing club ousts a motor group from the trails how do they break trail for skiing. With snowmachines. This kind of hipocracy really gets under my skin.

 

Um, actually clearcutting is still done every day. That's what my dad does for a living.

 

What skuteman said about the roads still goes on today. Until the haul roads are removed on the way out the streams will suffer forevermore.

Howdy,
As RRMike just said, clearcutting is still the predominant method for extracting timber in western forests. Notice I don't say harvesting. I don't believe you can "harvest" what you haven't sown and certainly in the case of "old growth" we haven't.

IMO neither jobs nor recreation is a justification for destruction of ecosysytems we owe to our children. Granted the worst may have been done in the distant past but the slow degradation of our public lands continues as population and usage increases.

 

Ecosystems are never destroyed. Individual members of that system may be extipated (e.g. plants or animals) or radically altered (e.g. streams, soil) but the system remains and adjusts to the new and/or altered participants.

When we clear trees from a forest, whether by clear cutting or by selective harvest, we have to remember the ecosystem is not destroyed. It is merely changed. Perhaps it used to be pine dominated but now is aspen/birch/maple. Accordingly the animals are different, perhaps they are deer/coyote instead of moose/wolf.

Even when an area is 'super polluted' the ecosystem still exists albeit in a radically different form. Instead of macroflora and macrofauna you are looking at the microbial level. The same laws and interdependence exist at superfund site.

I think it is important to keep this in mind: 'degredation' and 'destruction' are subjective impressions given by humans, nothing more. In the natural world there is no such thing as either of these two concepts.

Whistler

 

I take no exception to your statement but I assume most of us like the "ecosytem" that Lewis and Clark found. Open lots in the Bronx have ecosystems but I don't want to camp there.

We're talking about reduction in biodiversity.

 

How then can a stream 'suffer' as the result of a road?


Also,
I live in Minnesota. A common issue regarding logging is the preservation of pines. People get very vocal and active anytime somebodys want to cut some pines down.

If we define biodiversity as the sheer number of species inhabiting a particular place, mature pine and spruce forests harbor some of the lowest numbers. An area that has been clear cut and has regrown over 10 or 20 years into a aspen/birch/maple forest has a much higher number of species living in it than a mature pine forest would have had over the same interval.

Biodiversity doesn't seem to be the name of the game either





What we are really talking about is how to make people feel good about the choices we have made.

As a culture we have desires that contradict each other. We want paper, but we want pristine forests. We want to see prairie flowers blooming, but we want to eat cows. We want to see majestic pine forests, but we want lumber to build our houses. We want to enjoy fishing on a river, but we want to ship grain downstream. We want to wear pretty rocks, but we don't want to dig holes in the ground. We want heat in winter, but we don't want to change or 'pollute' the atmosphere.

This is a tough issue and I have no idea how to solve it.

Whistler

 

Here in Northeast Texas, locally called the Land of the Lakes, it may not disrupt the natural balance as much as other places where streams are far less widespread. And it could be exclusive to this region, but roads ( and other developments) do “kill” streams here. Not that they were major to any developed area, but they had their place. Domestic and wild animals both partook of the streams and certain flora subsystems depended on them. Notice I use past tense. In some parts of the area only 60 to 75 percent of the streams are “alive” now as compared to when I was a child (40 yrs ago).
Due to the extreme delicate state of the ecosystem here, the streams that “suffered” and “died” now exist as landmarks or runoff ditches. There are a few that have remained intact during the wet seasons only.
Can they ever return to their previous state? Yes, I think so. As an example: Our old home place had been farmland for around eighty years (approx. 1900-1980) and has in the last twenty years been used as ranchland. In twenty years two dry streambeds have “come alive”. Although they are only a shadow of what they once were, flowing at night; during wet season, they are slowly coming back. We have allowed trees to grow along the banks, shadowing them from the searing summer heat. Ferns and small flowers, useful weeds and grasses flourish in abundance. I am not sure what causes streams to die when roads are made, or when trees are cut, or when the land is disfigured, but I know it is associated to some degree.

 

Streams and lakes die all the time. Whether it is caused by man or beast or climate is somewhat irrelevant to the stream. The change happens and the ecosystem adjusts. That is the way things are

Which is better dry creek bed or stream?

Aha, trick question. 'Better' is a subjective term that implies some level of judgement. Nature does not judge, only humans. Therefore, we want the stream to remain as it once was but the ecosystem does not, nay-cannot, care.

Why do we care? Our own selfish ends. As sinjin said "...I don’t want..." It is our wants that drive this forward.

I don't advocate going and polluting things are altering the landscape in dramatic fashion, I only bring this up because people tend to view nature as a baby that needs to be coddled when in fact we need the coddling.

Whistler

 

True - nature does not care. It will do as it has done for billions of years. "I want what I want when I want it" - is a statement that has taken a precarious role in our lifestyles. But, much like the pioneers of old, I want to be able to look out across a pristine, breathtaking landscape and say, "That is all I need to fulfill my desires" - whatever that desire may be.

Will it be there forever? No. And as stated previously:
Wish I knew, though.