Timber Production Executive Order

[Yoteassasin]

The reality is due to economic / regulatory factors it has become cost prohibitive to produce certain types of lumber in the Lower48 . It comes by truck and train in from Canada . It comes by boat from Malaysia by the thousands of containers . Then we complain about oil exploration. After that it’s global warming is causing the largest fires man has ever known.
Something has got to give .

Allegedly we are the most enlightened he have ever been yet we can’t solve problems our great grandfathers handled with their eyes closed

At this point the emperor has no clothes
The unfortunate reality is the self proclaimed smart are stupid , the educated are ignorant , and the leaders are phonies.

Give change a chance if it doesn’t work we can try something else

 

[semasko]

In WV and other eastern states, I think you have to consider the entire landscape regarding decisions to maintain older growth forest. In many areas the national forest is the only old forest surrounded by thousands of acres of clearcut private lands. That being said, in huge swaths of NF, the interior areas could use some select cutting.

The big oaks need to be considered for more than just timber value, as they're essential to regeneration, and great hibernacula for bears and all sorts of other animals in areas devoid of good shelter. I think gypsy moth and invasive species really weigh into these decisions more recently.

I think PA state forests do it about as good as it can get with select cuts, leaving slash, hack/squirting the birch and maple, and/or having deer exclosures up for regeneration. It can really be astounding the difference on either side of those fences. I only wish they would burn more often.

All that said, it seems so far the EO is almost a PR campaign without much teeth yet.

 

[wyosam]

In my area of the East, the issue is that the cuts often aren’t profitable, so contracts go unrewarded or at least go out to bid several times before they get takers. “The government” is pushing hard for thinning in this case, but the logging industry can’t support it as fast as it’s needed.

We probably need either government support for small timber mills or a massive increase in lumber prices to change that.

That is the part that gets glossed over when talking about logging a lot. Logging is a tool that should be used, but it isn’t a cure all. Every big fire is met with screams of “it should have been logged and this wouldn’t happen”, regardless of what type of fuel/terrain it is burning in. There has long been a bunch of timber sales that never go anywhere, as much as land managers would like them to. If there isn’t any way to profit from it, nobody is going to bid on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Marbles]

So I’ll ask another one is it ok to cut down as much wood as possible if we make sure there is no undue harm to the whole of the ecosystem we are doing it in. ?

Yes, that is fine. But, you added the no undue harm bit yourself. It also ignores the definition of undue harm, but it sounds like we can agree there is a line, though perhaps we draw it in different places.

Now, I answered your basic question, you answer mine. What does the EO have to say about managing "harm to the whole of the ecosystem?"

 

[2buffalo]

Yes, that is fine. But, you added the no undue harm bit yourself. It also ignores the definition of undue harm, but it sounds like we can agree there is a line, though perhaps we draw it in different places.

Now, I answered your basic question, you answer mine. What does the EO have to say about managing "harm to the whole of the ecosystem?"

The TDS crowd obviously has not read or cannot comprehend what is in the EO. I can help with the former but not the latter.

Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1. Purpose.

www.whitehouse.gov

 

[Yoteassasin]

Yes, that is fine. But, you added the no undue harm bit yourself. It also ignores the definition of undue harm, but it sounds like we can agree there is a line, though perhaps we draw it in different places.

Now, I answered your basic question, you answer mine. What does the EO have to say about managing "harm to the whole of the ecosystem?"

I'd like to think the whole "no undue harm to the whole of the ecosystem " can be implied at this point . Like I said before the velocity of information is too fast to not have grave consequences for bad actors

That being said there is a giant elephant In the room that the people kicking and screaming against this order have yet to consider ..
who is going to do all this cutting ?
Much of the timber cutting will need to be done on/ in trees that don't fit mill specs for what is currently availible to many producers. Which speaks to the root of our problem. We need the industry to start tooling up to accept all of these trees .. to be willing to do it they need assurances it will be economically feasible . ( here come tariffs and the EO )
No one is going to go all George Washington on the cherry tree unless they are making $ .

 

[MallardSX2]

So many “subdivision life” guys on here commenting on timbering. I bet 90% of them haven’t even ran a chainsaw. Lol I love it.

 

[Marbles]

I'd like to think the whole "no undue harm to the whole of the ecosystem " can be implied at this point . Like I said before the velocity of information is too fast to not have grave consequences for bad actors

That being said there is a giant elephant In the room that the people kicking and screaming against this order have yet to consider ..
who is going to do all this cutting ?
Much of the timber cutting will need to be done on/ in trees that don't fit mill specs for what is currently availible to many producers. Which speaks to the root of our problem. We need the industry to start tooling up to accept all of these trees .. to be willing to do it they need assurances it will be economically feasible . ( here come tariffs and the EO )
No one is going to go all George Washington on the cherry tree unless they are making $ .

So, you attacked someone for not answering your questions, but when asked a simple one, you deflect and don't answer.

At least read the thing, interpret the words in a way that says what you want, and answer. I've read it, I could do that for you, but you need to be able to answer for yourself.

So, the original simple quest: What does the EO have to say about managing "harm to the whole of the ecosystem?"

Second question: In areas that are economicly viable, such as the Tongass, do you think practices like leaving a buffer along streams will be followed, or do such practices represent an undue burden on the timber harvesting?

 

[Marbles]

So many “subdivision life” guys on here commenting on timbering. I bet 90% of them haven’t even ran a chainsaw. Lol I love it.

Easy their Dug, just because you think there is a squirrel doesn't meant it matters at the moment.

But, while we are chasing red herring's, perhaps we should set the bar to eliminate the pretenders. Anyone who doesn't own spurs and pro grade saws, and hasn't made money using them is unqualified to comment.

Company saws, or home and ranch line regardless of brand don't count.

If you don't meet all three criteria, then clearly you just play.



This is meant to illustrate a point, not to be taken as a serious suggestion. Criteria were selected so I met them, not because they should matter.

 

[Yoteassasin]

So, you attacked someone for not answering your questions, but when asked a simple one, you deflect and don't answer.

At least read the thing, interpret the words in a way that says what you want, and answer. I've read it, I could do that for you, but you need to be able to answer for yourself.

So, the original simple quest: What does the EO have to say about managing "harm to the whole of the ecosystem?"

Second question: In areas that are economicly viable, such as the Tongass, do you think practices like leaving a buffer along streams will be followed, or do such practices represent an undue burden on the timber harvesting?

Oh wow , well the executive order directs that there is to be a new plan and some objectives it’s not the plan it’s self .
Not sure if you got that .
There are specific time lines in developing and implementing said plan
No it does not mention “ no undue harm “
As I said I’m fairly confident it can be implied that the “new” plan will incorporate that in either intent and/or verbiage
And since you brought some specifics up . No im not ok with a “buffer zone “ around streams . Specifically because a “stream” can be interpreted as a single stream of water

But here we go again freaking out at the disruption of the status quo .

 

[Marbles]

Oh wow , well the executive order directs that there is to be a new plan and some objectives it’s not the plan it’s self .
Not sure if you got that .
There are specific time lines in developing and implementing said plan
No it does not mention “ no undue harm “
As I said I’m fairly confident it can be implied that the “new” plan will incorporate that in either intent and/or verbiage
And since you brought some specifics up . No im not ok with a “buffer zone “ around streams . Specifically because a “stream” can be interpreted as a single stream of water

But here we go again freaking out at the disruption of the status quo .

Here you go over reacting and claiming the sky is falling again, funny how aptly you have described yourself in describing others.

The EO is subject to interpretation, which is the point. How someone believes it will be interpreted is what causes disagreement. There actually is specific wording in the EO that can be construed as intending no undue harm. Again, it depends on how one chooses to interpret it.

Glad to know you are fine clearing to the edge of salmon streams, no restrictions because such restrictions might not be defined to your liking. No, it depends on how stream is defined, just a the sky is falling attitude and any attempt at reason or discussion is obstruction.

I will give another chance, would you support buffer around salmon streams in the Tongass? I'm not up on exact size, but let's say 100 meters or less if supported by data to adequately protect the fry (only reason to specify is you appear dead set to take everything in bad faith).

As for your

But here we go again freaking out at the disruption of the status quo .

Well, do you know what the status quo is in the Tongass? I'm guessing not. There is lots that can be logged even under the current roadless rule, but the money is in cutting the 300 year old growth, I'm sure the roadless rule will soon be lifted, I'm also sure, based on the historic status quo, the timber companies want to cut it to the very edge of salmon streams because those big trees are quite valuable. Commercial fisherman and loggers have a long history of not getting along.

 

[Gila]

The TDS crowd obviously has not read or cannot comprehend what is in the EO. I can help with the former but not the latter.

Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1. Purpose.

www.whitehouse.gov

What’s a TDS? Never heard of it before