I'm sure that conditions vary around the country. In coastal redwood forests the amount of sediments released by haul road crossings over salmon or steelhead streams especially in summer when water levels are low choke the streams and prevent survival of the young fish. Even access to the upper streams is often denied by these makeshift crossing; usually logs dropped across the stream with no abutments encouraging erosion.

 

sinjin,

I don't doubt these things happen, but what are you trying to say?


Whistler

 

If the ecosystem "adjusts" meaning no more fish, I believe that qualifies as degradation and destruction.

Maybe pigeons and sparrows are the same as hawks and eagles to you but not me. Without knowing what we're unravelling I would want to proceed with caution and mitigate our impact whenever possible. The idea that the planet will heal itself is fine but extinct is extinct.

 

Agreed.

sinjin,

There are laws against the kind of activities you're describing here regarding watersheds. I could tell you countless stories of the 100's of thousands of $$$ spent on scenarios just like the stream crossing you're describing every year.

I've personally waited on site many times for DAYS while environmentalists have determined how to do things without affecting small, dry 75% of the time, creeks. In the end, there was minor disruption, but 99% of the time, things were left better than they were found, and you like having a warm house and gas in your truck right?

My point here is, we have the technology, and in fact the LAWS, in place to ensure the minimum possible impact on the environment. Unfortunately, NOTHING that man does does NOT affect the environment in some manner.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Waxy

 

Waxy,

If your "environmentalists" were gov't agency biologists you should refer to them as such. For all the years that no thought was given to stream viability a little overkill might be in order.

Yes we now have laws but does the industry have the will to follow the spirit of the law? I'd say not yet. In my experience just about every logger considers themself an authority on forests and forest ecology.

No impact is not an option but the old days of cut and run are over. Good riddance. Pretty pathetic that it takes a bunch of hairheads to get some responsibility out of industry.

BTW old logging roads from the 50's on up are still there and still eroding into the streams. No money as yet set aside to remove and restore.

 

Actually most of the environmentalists were independent consultants. Usually from large enviromental firms like Golder, etc...

Some were gov't employees, and all were enforcing gov't laws.

I can only speak for myself and the "industry" that I've observed, and from that experience, I say yes, the industry does have the will, in many cases, a stronger will than the gov't or environmental agencies.

Is it 100% pure in its intention, no. The oil industry, and forestry industry too I'm sure, have found themselves on the end of a microscope of ever increasing power. Where the environment was once never given a second thought, companies now have teams of environmentalists (for lack of a better word?, they come from very diversified fields), and entire floors of people dedicated to doing the paperwork that comes with environmental regulations. The fact is, good environmental policy is just good business.

I don't dispute the fact that there are some messes out there, and the wrongs should be righted, the question is, who's gonna pay for it?

One way or another, the answer is you and me.

Waxy

 

"Degredation" "destruction" and "heal" are anthropomorphic terms we assign to reactions regarding our actions upon the Earth. They have absolutely no bearing on reality in this realm beyond what we give them. That is, the stream itself is not destroyed but only your characterization of what a stream should be. That is an important distinction to make and be aware of.

I fully believe that humans must mitigate the extent to which we change the enviroment needlessly. There is no reason to alter streams and hills through carelessness. As Waxy said, we have the knowledge to do this.

However, I don't think we should be doing this out of some noble obligation to the Earth--again the Earth doesn't care. Rather the obligation is to ourselves. Nobody enjoys taking a sightseeing trip to the superfund site. We all want 'clear' air and water. Looking at eagles and whales and bears is far more interesting that looking at rock doves or weaver finches roaming rampant in cities. However, all of this is for our benefit, not that of the abstract 'ecosystem' or 'Mother Earth'.

Talking about extinct, worst comes to worst human beings alther the landscape so much they become extinct but the world continues onward like it always has. It seems to me that this is the real root of the issue.

I tend to dismiss 'environmentalists' and others who don't acknowledge this.

Whistler

PS I'm not saying this is you Sinjin. It would be quite unfair of me to characterize you in such a manner based on the very little I know about you. I'm just stating where I stand.

 

As posted by kennyrrt:
And guess what? The best way to remove the defective timber is to ... let it burn. Healthy trees don't burn, there is too much water in them. When fire skips around in the treetops, it actually stimulates the healthy trees. Nature does a much better job of controlling and culling than we ever could.

Of all the stupid and ignorant things I have seen posted that rates up there with Elvis lives. Live trees don't burn!?! Obviously this person has never seen wood burn let alone a forest fire. Sap filled pine trees will literally EXPLODE when they catch fire. Please ban him imediately, it should be a crime to let him waste space and time. I only wish we could prevent him from breeding and voting.

The same like minded people claimed the Alaskan Pipeline would destroy the deer and caribou. Instead they flourish and are actually doing better because of it (apparently it gets a little cold near the Artic Circle and they like the heat generated by the pipe line). Never hear about that.

As I posted earlier I find it hard to believe that logging can cause more damage then fire. Somebody else posted that you can hardly tell land that was clear cut 20-30 years ago from old growth unless you knew exactly what you where looking for.

 

Nevermind--brain freeze.



Whistler

 

Whistler,

all poetic allusions aside, The LA river is now a concrete drainage ditch no longer a "river". When Los Angeles was founded it was a camp near the river because steelhead and salmon were plentiful. The area is poorer for the loss of the fisheries and not just to the people.

I don't believe in all that "Mother Earth" crap and I do not believe the natural world only has the value we assign. The Earth does not belong to us but we to it. Oops, poetic again.

BTW land recently clearcut is distinguished by trees all of the same age (unnatural) and the second growth is generally bigger for it's age but far less dense than "old growth" which grew slowly under the canopy.

 

All those "tree huggers", what a joke! They always want to save the trees but by doing that, we lose the whole forest! Those people don't understand that the forests that burned were too overpopulated with trees per acre. The land was capable of supporting about 75-100 trees per acre. In some spots in the San Bernardino area, there were up to 500 trees per acre! I think that somewhere we should be able to find a common ground so we can try to prevent this from happening to this extent again. I realize fires are going to happen, but we didn't stand a chance when these forests lit up.
But then again the politicians don't do their job when they have a chance to. Gray Davis got 45 million from the government to help clean up the forests and what did he do? Nothing, there's still 30 million that wasn't spent (except to maybe pay for all his "temporary" help during the recall election). Thank god he's almost gone.

Rant Over...

 

dhermesc
I speak from the experience of being a wilderness firefighter and living among the very plants of which I speak. I'm interested to hear your views. I'm interested in your list of qualifications. Some trees do pop and burn. They do that when the underbrush holds the fire against the trunk. Questions?

I do agree with the contention of clear-cutting, replanting, re-cutting being just fine.

On edit:
Your ignorance is noted for future reference

 

I whole-heartedly agree. And when we 'screw things up', we pay the price. I think that is the most compelling, and maybe the only legitimate, reason (for lack of a better term) 'to take better care' of our environment.

I am pretty much right there with you Sinjin, but I think I conceptualize the issue in a slightly different way.


Whistler

 

dude,

where are you getting your trees/acre statistics?

I don't object to thinning when advisable as long as most of the dropped trees remain nearby.

 

CDF Stats. On the news and in the papers...