Drought?

[Wayne SW/MO]

Back hair. That's the government's fault too.

The timber industry has virtually unlimited leverage in the Forest Service. There's not much light between them.

And it's funny that timber harvest ever got rolled into this discussion at all.

Timber harvest has been increasing over the years.

http://www.fpl.fs.fe...p/fpl_rp653.pdf

I think you helped open that door. It's hard to talk about forest fires without mentioning forests.

Your link seems concerned with all timber harvested. A great deal of the total comes from private holdings and includes a lot of softwoods for paper and such.

I think the cut back in timber sales on public land by the FS and BLM is still going on.

The government has been all over the wall in the industry, ask the thousands who lost out in the late 90's when the industry in the NW was squashed by the government.

It started with the spotted owl and ended with a virtual shutdown. The FS changed the rules constantly, so much so you had to wonder if anyone was really in charge. It didn't help when people were seen in civilian clothes pulling up to the grocery store in a green FS vehicles either.

I guess you had to have been there to appreciate it.

[Al Agnew]

Wayne, I understand the bitterness of those who lost their jobs due to the government "shutting down" of public lands because of the spotted owl and wilderness designation. But wasn't it something that was almost inevitable? The jobs were already bleeding away from better equipment and more automation. There wasn't that much old growth left in public lands outside the national parks. The government became the bad guys because they shut it down a little earlier than it would have shut down on its own.

And, by the way, there is still quite a bit of cutting going on in NW national forests. They can't justify shutting the second growth forests off to save the owls, and they haven't made a lot more wilderness areas lately. Flying over the Cascades, you'll see a whole lot of cutting going on or recently cut lands.

[Outside Bend]

Public lands are just that- public, and managed for more than the interests of the logging interest. I guess I don't see what's offensive about the Forest Service managing the property they own- determining what activities are and are not allowed.

If the timber industry needs public support to stay afloat, perhaps they need to develop a better business model. Free market, consumer choice, divorcing gov't and the private sector, fair competition, all that good stuff

[Wayne SW/MO]

Wayne, I understand the bitterness of those who lost their jobs due to the government "shutting down" of public lands because of the spotted owl and wilderness designation. But wasn't it something that was almost inevitable? The jobs were already bleeding away from better equipment and more automation. There wasn't that much old growth left in public lands outside the national parks. The government became the bad guys because they shut it down a little earlier than it would have shut down on its own.

And, by the way, there is still quite a bit of cutting going on in NW national forests. They can't justify shutting the second growth forests off to save the owls, and they haven't made a lot more wilderness areas lately. Flying over the Cascades, you'll see a whole lot of cutting going on or recently cut lands.

I know some curl at the notion that the government was less than professional in the mix. The real problem was just that, a lack of professionalism. They would jump from one policy to the next with little or no warning.

Al you're right that old growth and stands that had matured were being phased out, as they should have been. They never should have been cut in the first place, but they weren't stolen, they were sold by the FS. Most mills that were capable of working old growth were deteriorating because the owners knew it would end, but many turned there efforts and capital into small log mills. The reason being they were led to believe that much of the second growth would be thinned from the public forest to avoid another Yellowstone, plus there was bug killed trees to salvage, or so they thought. I think the bitterness came from the fact that the rug was pulled from them without a good scientific reason, but more for political reasons. Ironically at the time contracts with foreign companies for timber in Alaska were reportedly still in place. To add insult to injury most of those trees that were small undergrowth would produce lumber for export.

I don't know what the situation is in the NW now, but you can't use a flyover to judge what is happening in public forests because so much of the area is private tree farms, especially west of the Cascades.

OB, that's what they did in Yellowstone and we know how that turned out. I don't think you have thought the market situation out.

I'm not defending industry, I'm once again trying to point out that if you allow the government to run things unchecked you more than likely to get chaos and a poor return on your money. At least the profit in public corporations drifts back to individuals across the spectrum.

If the environment needs help fast, put a profit on it, if not then let the government stumble along.

[Outside Bend]

I guess IMO the market situation is irrelevant- USFS' job is to protect and manage the lands it oversees for the benefit of the public. Logging is a tool for meeting those objectives, but propping up the timber industry- in the PNW or anywhere else- shouldn't be a Forest Service priority.

Every logging outfit is at the whim of the landowner, whether they're a crotchety old man or the federal government. I guess I don't understand why the feds shouldn't be able to dictate what operations take place on the land they manage.

[Tim Smith]

And, by the way, there is still quite a bit of cutting going on in NW national forests. They can't justify shutting the second growth forests off to save the owls, and they haven't made a lot more wilderness areas lately. Flying over the Cascades, you'll see a whole lot of cutting going on or recently cut lands.

Most of the PNW looks like a mangled checkerboard of clear cuts. But because of climate differences the fires there are not nearly the problem there that they are in the intermountain west.

The High Park fire is now past 100 square miles and still going strong with highs projected in the 100s on the Front Range today. We've been getting fires in the mountains since March this year, and longer fire seasons have been the trend.

And the point was made that somehow that's all the government's fault because they inhibit logging...yet logging is increasing, according to Wayne on private land, where "normal logging practices" have continued unabated and fires are most common.

So if you're trying to say that somehow this is another free market/government issue, that's just a red herring and no, it doesn't belong in this discussion about drought.

[Wayne SW/MO]

I guess IMO the market situation is irrelevant- USFS' job is to protect and manage the lands it oversees for the benefit of the public. Logging is a tool for meeting those objectives, but propping up the timber industry- in the PNW or anywhere else- shouldn't be a Forest Service priority.

I don't dispute that OB, but the way the Ag dept agencies seem incapable of a long term plan that can be counted on.

So if you're trying to say that somehow this is another free market/government issue, that's just a red herring and no, it doesn't belong in this discussion about drought.

You don't believe that the forest could have been managed better to negate some of the effects? Al is right about old forest being very fire resistant, I've seen the result on several occasions. I'm not familiar with the east side of the Rockies, but the FS and BLM have complete control over the forest and if they've done everything right we must assume the forest are doomed.

[Tim Smith]

I don't dispute that OB, but the way the Ag dept agencies seem incapable of a long term plan that can be counted on.

You don't believe that the forest could have been managed better to negate some of the effects? Al is right about old forest being very fire resistant, I've seen the result on several occasions. I'm not familiar with the east side of the Rockies, but the FS and BLM have complete control over the forest and if they've done everything right we must assume the forest are doomed.

Well apparently their options were to cut everything down or drive everyone out so no, I am quite sure they could not have made everyone happy. When you're in charge, it's your job to be the scapegoat. Much of that pertains here.

By the way, there is currently a bill in the Colorado legislature (introduced by Mark Udall, Democrat) to subsidize the mitigation of beetle killed trees (primarily by cutting them down). I'm curious why these supposedly highly valuable trees the logging industry gladly would have taken off our hands suddenly needs a 200 million dollar subsidy to harvest....

...I suppose the rotten ones are only good for fuel...and CO2 emissions...now.

[Al Agnew]

Actually, in the terms of our lifetimes, the forests that have been cut over probably are "doomed" unless a lot of money and effort is spent on thinning the less valuable smaller trees and underbrush. Just about any forest in the intermountain West is susceptible to big, destructive fires because there is just too much fuel. The alien bugs that are killing whole forests may end up turning large tracts of forest into grasslands or scrub. On the little stretch of I-90 over Bozeman Pass between Bozeman and Livingston, you can see whole mountainsides where nearly all the trees are dead or dying. The chances of those hillsides burning in the next decade or so are very high, but even if somehow the fires don't happen, or somebody comes in and salvages all the dead timber, it will take centuries, if ever, for them to become forested mountainsides again. And it's steep, rocky land that will probably suffer tremendous erosion if there is a fire--or even if there isn't--erosion that will remove much of the thin layer of organics that would allow new trees to sprout.

The multiple use "mandate" of the Forest Service is unrealistic in many cases, because some uses preclude other uses. Wilderness stops not only motorized travel but all extractive industries like logging and mining. Logging and mining make the forests unattractive for a lot of recreational uses. The best they can do in many cases is allocate portions of the forest for one conflicting use or another.

[Tim Smith]

High Park fire now at 118 square miles near Ft. Collins. Containment has slipped to 45%.

Fire in Estes Park Colorado took 21 homes yesterday.

Colorado Springs fire forced the evacuation of 11,000 homes, has burned 200 acres and is currently out of control.