New Forest Service Plan- good?

[bluetick78]

I never commented on the actual health of the forests. I agree that without the extreme regulation and endless litigation our forests could be much healthier with logging and other forms of management. I also agree with the above statements about fire being necessary periodically to rid invasive pests and recharge the soil if you will.
That being said, I'm always untrusting of Rob Bishop in regards to public lands. He has made his desire for a "land transfer" very clear, and I dare say that is contrary to the opinion of most sportsmen and women.

 

[TheTone]

How are people defining forests as being in poor health? Is something thats so often mentioned, so I'm curious how people have come to that conclusion. To me the biggest forest health issue I see in my area are massive noxious weed infestations, which are most common along roadways, motorized trails and logged areas.

 

[kicker338]

Sounds good if they follow threw with it. The forest here in Nth. Idaho is an absolute mess, try hunting it dead blow downs every where, brush so thick you can't crawl threw it and trees dying like flies. I talked to some loggers a few yrs. ago who were logging an area and they said the timber was in pretty bad shape. They said if the forest service had weighted 3 more yrs. the only thing that timber would be good for was for bugs to eat it. My other pet peeve is when they are able to log an area is when they are through, the forest service puts up a gate and the only axcess is walk in, of corse they can drive anywhere they want to but not us. Looks like there is more gates inside the national forest here than there is on axcess roads going into the forest. Trying to find a campsite in hunting season is also a mess, they have everyone jammed up on designated roads. When they gate these roads it also stops people from taking in there big tents or trailers so you no longer have mulitaple use, you have limited use.

 

[TheTone]

I'm a big fan of walk in access vs. motorized. What I've experienced when you have to walk in is you find more animals, more animals closer to the truck and often better herd dynamics. Motorized access has been shown to increase animal vulnerability. Something has to give when it comes to what success rates are and when they climb you will typically lose season length, tag numbers or both. I'd rather have long seasons and OTC tags than a place I can rip all over in my atv. I'm also pretty sure the forest service and other government agencies aren't gating roads so they have somewhere to drive around and you can't. I also think loggers would have their own reasons for thinking trees are in bad shape, to them its probably about what the log is worth at the mill, but that doesn't necessarily mean the tree is in bad shape to the habitat/area. North idaho has always been thick and brushy and most likely always will be, its a matter of the climate and the plant species we have here. When parts of north idaho were more open that was a result of the huge wildfires in the early 1900's, events we are likely to never see again due to modern firefighting.

 

[kicker338]

Intersting points you have brought up there Tone so lets examine them. 1= walk in axcess, in the 20yrs. I've hunted elk I have yet to see any noticeable difference in the amount of game between gated roads and open ones. I've discussed this with a lot of guys who are diehard elk hunters and they all agree with me, elk are where you find them and we all find them close to open roads with a lot of traffic as well as gated roads. In fact all of the guys I know prefer closer to open roads than gated ones, we have better success. Here's a real kicker, my brother went on a guided elk hunt, 14miles in on horses, 7 days, never even seen an elk and almost no sign like I said elk are where you find them. 2= as far as atv's riping all over, yep, on atv trails of which are mostly bikes not atv's. The majority of atv's here in Nth. Idaho are used by hunters and trust me, we, me included are not about to go ripping threw the woods, aint going to get an elk that way, we want to approach our hunting area as quietly as poss. 3= loggers they sure don't want to see trees in bad shape. Trees that are starting to rot are worthless to loggers, sawmills don't want, or buy rotten trees period. I'm lost on your statement about tree's not being in bad shape to the habitat area. A tree either is or is not in good shape, it's either helthy or dying. 3=fires your right about that. One of the big reasons the forest is in bad shape is because the forest service has been trying to play god stopping fires. Take man out of the way then we would see real nature at work. Funny part about what I've said about fires came from the girl that was in charge of the burning program for the forest service here in Nth. Idaho. 4= final comments about gated roads and hunting, we as hunters, me included have to remember the national forest is not just for us hunters, it's called multiple use which covers a lot of things and closing off areas ( gated as well as closed roads) is not multiple use.

 

[BuzzH]

Lots of broad brush painting going on with this thread.

For starters, its flat impossible to "manage" acreage the size of a ranger district, let alone the entire NF system.

Secondly, even within a given ranger district, there is a wide variety of forest types, habitat types, etc. etc. and there is not a "one size fits all" management scheme that is going to create some fire-proof, park-like nirvana forest. For a whole bunch of reasons, you just cant selectively harvest across vast acreages, further, you wouldn't want to even if you could.

Not to mention that the FS is required to manage for more than just loggers, miners, grazers, recreationists, berry pickers, ATV riders, horse riders, hunters, anglers, etc.

There seems to be a misconception that every last acre of FS lands should include all those things or its not truly "multiple use". Seems to me that about 95% of the time, multiple use advocates really mean "motorized access" where they can drive a machine of some sort. What I often wonder is why, and how, a gated road is not creating multiple use??? Do the people that don't want to be bothered by ATV's, pickups, and motorcycles not deserve their piece of the multiple use pie?

What about the needs of secure wildlife habitat, clean water, sensitive/threatened/endangered species...are they not worthy of consideration under multiple use management?

The list goes on and on and on regarding how the FS and other land management agencies MUST take into account all these things before they can even begin to manage a piece of the NF.

Of course there's the whole issue of weather like we just had this last fire season...extended periods of little to no moisture, high temperatures, winds, red flag days out the ass, dry lightning. Forest management doesn't mean jack didly when conditions are like that...things burn.

The problem I have with all these forest management ideas, is that they generate a lot of talk and very little action. Mainly because to accomplish these things, it takes money, and congress likes to make demands without providing the funding for the land management agencies to get things like this done.

Despite what's been stated on this thread, the FS has never been run like a for-profit company, and never will be. The things that they are forced to do, via Acts, laws, and regulations passed via Congress, precludes them from ever recognizing a profit. IMO, they shouldn't run like a business where profit is the main motivator, that's not how I want my National Forests managed...at all.

 

[JWP58]

Whew, I was hoping the all seeing eye was going to bless this thread.

All mighty hath spoken

 

[TheTone]

Whew, I was hoping the all seeing eye was going to bless this thread.

All mighty hath spoken

Sure is a bummer when a guy that knows what he's talking about and has a ton of field experience offers something up...

 

[JWP58]

Sure is a bummer when a guy that knows what he's talking about and has a ton of field experience offers something up...

I concur

 

[Jauwater]

Keep in mind the forest isn’t just for hunters. I’m sure a lot of people would enjoy access for other reasons then hunting or looking for animals. I know most places I frequent on the east coast 4500ft+, the forests are a wreck. Dead down, and standing trees everywhere. We have infestations killing off the furs at such a rapid rate it’s insane.

The National Park Service estimates that in some areas, including the Blue Ridge Parkway and Shenandoah National Park, around 80 percent of the hemlocks died due to infestation. Not only was the hemlocks’ disappearance devastating from a visual standpoint, it also meant the threat of ecological imbalance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[5MilesBack]

If you really want a kick in the nads, study up on the funding for the FS. The forest service falls under the USDA, and the majority of the funding under the USDA goes for food stamps and welfare programs.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

The national forest system was devised by a forester. Not the Boone and Crockett club. Pinchot did so to ensure multiple use recreation and to offer a sustainable yield of resources for the citizens of this country. Teddy gets credit for it but, it was well within the works before he ever got involved. A big part of it was to ensure that a growing country had wood resources for building. That gets lost today. It's so misunderstood and misquoted it really is sad and frustrating to see. Fast forward to current time, trade relations (NAFTA mostly) has stopped a lot of the need for this harvest on these lands. Add in public perception and the, cost associated with harvesting timber on national forest lands, and you have the situation we have today.





This is a multifaceted plan that is going to require market demand in order to see these lands ever get harvested under management. So, no matter how aggressive and, on board people are, it is going to take economic variables to ever come to tuition to see it work as intended. With that said, as a hunter and a FORESTER, there is zero reason why I shouldn't be on board with it. And, I am on board with it based on the science behind it. It will benefit wildlife, budgets, and the public. There are no negatives here.



I cringe when I read peoples opinions that have nothing but political motives backing them. It is blind talk. Industry has zero incentive to do any damage to the resource. The idea that industry is this big bad entity looking to do away with its own future is so ignorant of reality, it truly deserves no more further consideration. Its mind numbing stupid to suggest. Industry has to practice sustainable forest management in order to survive. Add in laws defining forest use and sales of resources on public lands and, all the talk about personal play grounds and "industry whore" implications is simply examples of political agenda speaking.


I say heck yes on this plan. We do have to give it time. Give this administration the time to get American business back in the global market and, let economics and good forest ecology do its job to serve every interest best. With the 27% tariff on imported Canadian lumber products, they got a really good start to put american timber companies back in the global markets. As these companies gain their footing and reinvest in American growth, we ALL can benefit from it. While IMPROVING habitat for wildlife as well. I really can't see other options as being valid to even consider. And, I can't perceive anyone who cares about these lands, not realizing this is a great accomplishment. God Bless

 

[BuzzH]

I think to say that industry has no incentive to pillage resources is about as insincere as it gets. Profit margins trump everything else for industry, always has and always will. IF that were really the case, that there was no incentive for industry to pillage resources, then why do we have a multitude of resource policy laws, acts, regulations (Federal, State, and Local) to ensure that industry doesn't do just that? If the intent of industry was so lily white, seems to me there would be no reason for any regulations, laws, or acts pertaining to same.

How do you explain away Superfund sites? Because industry regulated itself?

Its all BS...industry, left to its own, with no over-sight and regulation, would slick the last tree in the Bob Marshall if there was a profit involved...just a fact.

Regulations, laws and Acts from Broad Arrow to NFMA were created so that industry didn't slick that last tree in the Bob...

I'm also a Forester, and I do agree that where practical, there is plenty of room on NF lands to cut some trees, graze, mine, etc. I'm all about active management where it makes sense, and I'm more than willing to help pay the bill to make all that happen. However, that's not to be confused with the BS that is spread by the likes of GiGi, that with active management, forests suddenly become as fire proof as asbestos, free from I&D, park-like, and with a deer or elk behind every tree...all the while supporting a booming industry.

Never been reality in the Interior West, and never will be.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Being a forester you should now that the reg's agencies use to regulate the forest industry, came from industry realizing it needed to police itself. And, were adopted by the governing agency. Not the other way around as you insinuate. That doesn't fit your description very well. Aside from all of that, judging 100 year old practices as the norm for today isn't being fair to anyone. Not even yourself or, your position. Timber is a renewable resource as well. As many of the areas in this country attest too, it comes and goes readily. So, slicking the last tree in the Bob as you say is only an emotional attempt to make an irrational point.



Profit is important in any business. I realize that many don't understand that and, you may very well be one of those people. But, an investment in a mill capable of producing market worthy inventory is a multi million dollar affair. Usually based on a timber base that costs many millions of dollars more. Sometimes BILLIONS. Weyerhauser just bought a bunch of land for 8 BILLION dollars. i suppose most think they can recover that in a couple years. I say most of those people have never done anything but work behind a desk or, in an agency type atmosphere. Those investments are looked to be recovered over a portion of years. Many years actually. You can't just pick the mill and land base up and move it. And they can't buy enough timber land to feed it totally. So, management becomes paramount. That deserves no apology. Only recognition by those that insinuate differently.



Pillaging and profits are two different things. Don't mix up the two. They are not related and do not align. I know many like to suggest otherwise but, once again, they are usually the pencil pushers and the agency lifers making a living based on industry practices. We are not at the turn of the 20th century. And, while Teddy and the like were noble for what they accomplished, times have changed. With investments being what they are, pillaging will lead to a short life. Also, once again, making a profit is the goal but, doing so in a non-sustainable role would be cutting their own throat. That doesn't happen in a world where hundreds of millions and, BILLIONS of dollars are at risk. Saying any different is doing so from a position outside reality.



Is industry perfect? No. As in all of life, it's all a compromise. Most people don't like anything related to timber harvest and judge it that way. Regardless of the results or the details. But, the landowners call the shots on how much and they way it is managed. The agency's regulate industry practices. Companies are going to go about this to make profits. It can be done with everyone's best interest in mind. And this isn't the industrial revolution. What else needs to be said?

 

[Mike 338]

Based upon the article, I'd have to say "bad". A forest in Illinois might be a manageable piece of ground but it's a much taller task in the West. I don't see much in the way of details but gather that it has something to do with throwing money at a problem. That often results in new trucks, carpeting for the office, uniforms, up-staffing to send Rangers around to hassle people for their permits, so on and so forth. It's only a good idea when we know exactly how the money will be spent and know there will be oversight to make sure it's not diverted to "training seminars" in Maui.

 

[ChrisS]

Timber is only worth what they can sell it for. If it costs too much to extract, than they have to reduce the extraction costs. AFAIK Canadian lumber is cheaper because of the trade politics in play and it's cheaper to get at. Opening up all the access in the Rockies doesn't change how much they can sell a board foot for if Canadian lumber is cheaper.

A lot of things have changed in the last 50-70 years in the timber industry. I understand that SYP is also grows quickly, and is cheaper and easier to harvest. Timber use is down as well. Plastics and engineered materials have replaced lots of things. As far as jobs, automation and equipment has greatly reduced the number of hands needed to turn a tree into a product. Simply opening up access isn't going to make those jobs come back.

I don't have a problem with logging responsibly, but responsible logging is nebulous term. Depending on how it is defined, it can increase costs a lot or a little. And if it increases costs too much, it gets pushed aside.

 

[kicker338]

This thread sure hase got interesting. In my first post here, I was and still concerned about access and the limits it puts on a lot of us which the forest service might as well say, if you physically unable to walk there then too bad. I am limlted some what by my age and at 70yrs. old there are roads with gates that I can only walk so far before having to stop and turn back. My wife has a rare mussel condition that limits her to walking short distances. 2 of my grand kids are very limited, my oldest grandson has downs syndrome and my youngest granddaughter is a
type 1 diabetic. In all our cases atv's open up a lot more enjoyment in the outdoors for us. The nat. forest here in nth, Idaho is steep and rugged take away the roads and you wont go far, been there done that and tried that. Put up a gate and that screws over my family and a lot of other people.

 

[BuzzH]

Wvmountaineer,

While you like to take the cheap shots, I'd suggest you just go ahead without the insinuations...no reason to beat around the bush with me. I'm a big boy, can take anything you want to dish out...have dealt with guys like you all my life. Heard it all, plus some.

Having spend the last 30 years in the woods, a majority of it every year in the field, I'm pretty well aware of what is going on with the woods, timber, and the markets. Not to mention that my Dad is a retired from the timber industry that he spent 40 years in.

I think part of the problem we may be having is that we're talking about different geographical areas with very different timber types, ways to harvest, rotation ages and the like.

What you imply, that companies don't and haven't put short term profits (some would argue pillaging) of resources in the Interior West as their motive is pure crap. Its been going on where I grew up (Western Montana) for at least a couple hundred years.

There's a reason that ACM slicked the best of the best trees only keeping the boles up to the first limb, followed by selling their timber lands to Champion, who eventually sold to plum Creek (which turned into a real-estate company more than a timber Co. in Western) Montana. When PC purchased the Champion holdings, they were straight with people saying they only intended to keep their MT mills running for 20 years, about the time it would take to liquidate what timber they had.

They did just that, and promptly shuttered their mills, sold the most valuable land to private individuals, and cut deals with the Nature Conservancy and the Legacy project so that some of their land holdings were eventually bought by the Feds.

What they didn't concern themselves with, none of those companies, is to practice any kind of long-term sustainable harvest. They couldn't do it and make a profit. In particular with tree species with rotation ages, best case, of 80 years...many times and sites I would argue that 120-140 years is more reasonable. It is very difficult, if not out-right impossible, to sustain the level of harvest that PC, ACM, and Champion were doing in the 70's-90's while trying to plan for the future. There was no plan or thought of sustainable forestry...it was slick what you can, turn a profit, sell your holdings, and head out.

Cant blame them, for starters they never implied otherwise and with such long rotation ages, and automated timber-gobbling mills, impossible to sustain.

While your pie in the sky vision sounds good in theory, its never been a reality in Montana and most of the interior West. What you're talking about works great in places with 30, 40, 50 year rotations...in particular when the trees are much easier to access.

Everybody wants to blame the FS and tree huggers for mills closing down...nobody said a word (which you cant its their land) while PC, AMC, and CI liquidated their timber with no eye to sustainability and long-term forest management in mind. I would like you to point out where the FS is required, by law, act, or regulation to ensure that any mill stay running via supplying them with raw materials. I'll save you the trouble of looking, there isn't one.

So, while things like this latest forest planning project sound good in theory, the reality is, we aren't going to see a big influx of jobs, timber, and mills to run it. If that plan is relying on job creation, mills opening up, and for timber to pay for the whole thing...its D.O.A. and a huge non-starter. The only way its going to work is from heavy amounts of tax dollars being injected into the idea...and we know that isn't likely to happen with the current administration.

Pay close attention to ChrisS and what he said about...100% spot on.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Buzz, I didn't nor do I intend to read your whole last post. I just skimmed through it. I will finish by saying that I did not take a cheap shot, i simply stated the obvious. And, the things you are trying to be condescending on, are the things I said in my posts. Had anyone else said what I did, you wouldn't have taken it personally.





God Bless fellas