Blockade Halts Hauling at Fiddler Timber Sale

oso, 24.03.2005 08:25

Hauling was halted this morning at the Fiddler timber sale after a blockade was placed on Eight Dollar Road at the boundary of the area closure issued this week by the Bureau of Land Management. The first logging truck arrived before 3:30 am, encountering an installation that included a person hanging in a 'bi-pod' approximately twenty-five feet above the center of the road. Two poles supporting the person in the platform angled outward from a Volvo sedan set sideways across the road. A cable lead downward from the top of the poles through the sunroof of the vehicle, providing a point of tension that could not be disturbed without endangering the suspended activist.

The man in the pod identified himself as "Erif" (fire spelled backwards) and sent down a statement that said "The reason why I'm up here is so people see people standing up in non-violent, no-compromise direct action against the timber industry."

Beneath the pod a banner read 'THESE FORESTS NEED FIRE, NOT THE REMOVAL OF OLD GROWTH'. By daybreak at least four logging trucks sat idle in front of the blockade and the area was taped off as a crime scene. Around 35 supporters cheered on the dangling activist from the police line. By 8:30 am the police brought in a cherry picker and Erif climbed down voluntarily. His action stopped log hauling for nearly five hours. An arbitrary arrest was made before dawn when police took a man into custody who was sitting nearby playing a drum. The drum was confiscated as evidence.

This is the latest action is a sustained campaign of civil disobedience that is drawing national attention to the issue of post fire logging. The majority of Americans are opposed to the continued logging of native and old growth forests on public lands, yet the US Forest Service continues to undermine the process of public participation while catering to the demands of the timber industry. A Temporary Restraining Order before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals could shut down all logging in the Biscuit fire area as soon as today, and a case underway in another court is seeking a Preliminary Injunction to do the same. Meanwhile, loggers are being allowed to fell trees at a frantic pace before federal courts can rule on the legality of this project.

Download this article in pdf format >>

Add this article to your pdf newsletter selection >>

Checkout and Download your PDF-newsletter selection >>

Email this article to someone >>

Make a quick comment on this article >>

thank you. 24.03.2005 - 08:43 keep up the pressure....i support your actions. bull of the woods> yes indeed 24.03.2005 - 09:45 there will be a continued resistance to this very illegal shut down of the woods and logging of old growth. the word of the people is out and we will shall not be moved. good work. Mori D.> Erif, 24.03.2005 - 12:44 Nice name, buddy! Did you think of that yourself, or did the people who paid you to sit up in that stand come up with it for you? Tserof> you guys 24.03.2005 - 12:52 You guys are complaining that the BLM kicked you out, and then the next day you set up a road blockade? Nothing like proving them right after the fact. Let me remind you: - The legality of the Biscuit restoration project has been upheld in court several times now. Given the tangled mess of the NWFP and NEPA which favors litigants such as yourselves, that's pretty significant. - Interfering with contractors through 'direct action' is illegal, always has been illegal, and always will be illegal. - Your actions aren't non-violent. At best they're 'passively violent'. You're basically holding a gun to your head and saying, "if you do you're job, I'll shoot." Not to mention the fact that you're endangering the lives of the workers who depend on those roads for emergency access, or that the law enforcement officers endanger their own lives in an effort to remove you and your wrecks from the roads. Thinktivist> Thinktivist, Let me remind you... 24.03.2005 - 13:22 ...to check your facts. You are absolutely wrong when you say "The legality of the Biscuit restoration project has been upheld in court several times now." The court actions up until now have only focus on injunctions and restaining orders, not on a full review of the merits of the project. Once the Biscuit Logging Project is fully reviewed by the Courts we are confident it will be ruled illegal. Just look what Judge Hogan (the logging industry's best friend in the US Court system anywhere in the nation) said last week when he ruled on a TRO request...of course, despite the "serious questions" raised in the lawsuit Hogan ruled that the logging could continue, but he didn't rule that the Biscuit Logging Plan was legal or illegal...that process is currently playing itself out. Excerpts Cascadia Wildlands Project, Klamath Forest Alliance, Native Forest Network, National Forest Protection Alliance v. Conroy "Plaintiffs have raised serious questions on several claims. For example, the decision in Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2004) suggests that the Service may not have employed an acceptable methodology to ensure (1) compliance with Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (SNF LRMP) soil quality guidelines and (2) continued viability of populations of management indicator species ∑ These examples represent only a portion of plaintiffs‚ claims, but they suffice to demonstrate that plaintiffs have raised serious questions." "Plaintiffs produced several declarations in support of their claims that the challenged timber sales will irreparably harm Port Orford Cedar trees through the spread of Phytophera lateralis (cedar root rot, or PL), and fish, aquatic habitat, soils and Wild and Scenic Rivers by erosion and sedimentation." Laughing Loon> Keep up resistance!!! 24.03.2005 - 14:13 Y'll rock my world!!! Keep loving, Keep fighting... forcynthia> Let us rmind you 24.03.2005 - 14:43 A judge will grant a TRO, which would halt operations, based on the likelihood of plaintive succeeding on the merits of their arguments...the judge has said, by not granting the request, "not likely" and let operations proceed. There has been no crime other than the attempted blockades. Representing the harvest activities as such is wrong at best, or just a flat out lie at worst. Curious> Logic? 24.03.2005 - 17:46 Saying that logging should stop because a judge MIGHT rule against the Forest Service in the future makes just as much sense as saying that the DEA should resume raids on medical marijuana patients in California because a judge MIGHT rule against Raiche. Just because ONRC, KS Wild, or John Ashcroft can file an appeal in federal court, doesn't mean that they get to decide what is legal and what isn't. Daffy Duck> Legality is a state of the heart 25.03.2005 - 05:48 The argument over what is "legal" is just so much BS. "Legal" is whateever some black-robbed "honorable" lawyer says it is, if you are a slave.....or it is whatever is in your heart that you know is right if you are a Free Man (or woman). My prayers are with the people making a stand according to what is right in their hearts. Keep defying the bastards! Peat Moss> we are not bastards 25.03.2005 - 09:01 in our hearts we believe is ok to log dead trees, to take some of this most valueble and rare resource and use it for the good of the people. local mills suppling local jobs, creating valueble wood products for local people and the world. the timber industry isnt a robber baron, its your neighbors. we arent going to hurt the environment logging less than 5% of the trees that were killed in the fire. we are careful, the rule are strick and and followed. open your hearts, use your minds, look and learn. stump stump> You Are Bastards 25.03.2005 - 09:42 You logged IN the Kalmiopsis Wilderness last year as part of the "road side hazard" scam, you've logged 96% of the old-growth in the lower 48, you're logging a Late-Successional Reserve, you want to log inventoried roadless areas, you're enacting a logging plan that was opposed by over 23,000 of your neighbors, your lobby got the survey and manage and aquatic conservation strategy axed, and you've contributed to a boom-bust economy and social divisions that would not exist if you'd just wake up and start thinning all the damn plantations you've created instead of logging the very last of the old-growth forests. But I love ya anyway son. Mother Earth> Anyone 25.03.2005 - 10:04 Do you really think that plantations aren't being thinned? Do you really think that only 4% of our mature forests are left? You must not get out of the big city much, do you? Don't believe everything that the KS Wild and Greenpeace propaganda machines tell you. Pete Moss: It's good to know that I have your support. I WILL keep doing what is in my heart, and I WILL keep on defying the likes of Headwaters, KS Wild, Pacific Rivers, FSEEE, Greenpeace, Umpqua Watersheds, Sierra Club, etc. Peace out! Jib Jibang> Plantation Thinning 25.03.2005 - 12:03 While the Medford BLM estimates that there are 770,000 acres of dense stands containing small diameter trees that could be thinned producing up to 6 billion board feet of timber, the Forest Service and BLM continue to target old-growth for logging. Can you tell me why 6 billion board feet from 770,000 acres of plantations on Federal Lands isn't enough for the timber industry? Or why the industry continues to demand old-growth on public lands while managing their own lands on 60-year rotations? The photo above is of a typical mark for a federal timber sale "thin" on public lands. Note that the big-ass fire-resistant trees are marked for cut, and the small-diameter dog-hair shit that came up due to fire suppression will be left on site. There are thousands of units in Southern Oregon that reflect this mark. And we're going to put a stop to it. Love, Snag Hugger> Plantation Thinning 25.03.2005 - 14:03 Well the good ol' boys at the Medford BLM claim that there is six BILLION board feet of timber under 12 inches in diameter on 770,000 acres of plantations in Southwest Oregon. So why the timber industry, the Forest Service and the BLM continue to force illegal old-growth sales on an unwilling public is a mystery to me. Riddle me this...Why can't industry grow their own damn old-growth rather than feeding off the public lands? If there's SOOOOO much old-growth out there, and if it'll NEVER run out, then you should have no problem getting plenty of large-diameter phatties off of the thousands of acres of Boise and Superior forest land, right? No protesters or lawsuits on the thousands of acres of industry fiber farms out there. Or perhaps industry really has liquidated ALL the old-growth on their own land, and really doesn't have much interest in growing big trees on either private or federal land. Step away from the old-growth and into a sustainable future. The plantations can provide jobs and fiber. Dumbass. Wood Rat> Oregon the Beautiful 25.03.2005 - 14:05 I visited Oregon for the first time this past summer. I was in awe of the beauty of trees and in fear of the removal of these magnificant species. I keep reading about only 5% removal and yet when I was there I truly learned what clear cutting means. This is not right. Modern science has created many products that can be used to make items besides trees. It is about time Oregon starts looking into these products. I am all for the strong people that oppose the destruction of one of the last stands of great trees. As a voter I will forward my concern to state leaders. Grace> stump leaves our community with stumps only 25.03.2005 - 14:56 stump, those timber jobs you're promising my community mill is a lie. those trees are not falling by the saws of fallers crews from CJ or Selma. those trucks filled with logs are rolling away fom CJ not towards it. Even people who work for R&R mill in CJ oppose what you are doing. Your local economic bs carries no weight with those of us who know what is happening on the ground. give up that lame argument...would you! edgar_friendly> You are the bastards and stupid too 25.03.2005 - 20:22 We are not the bastards said: "... the rule are strike..." Your grammar and language use is "strict" too redneck fool. Get your ignorant ass off OUR public lands, OUR paid for with Federal tax dollars old growth reserves, stop harassing our friends who are demonstrating to save some of the last old growth habitat in the U.S. and yes forests that have burned as part of the natural burn cycle are habitat, stop engaging in unconstitutional closures, and violating your own survey rules, Freddies. Your lawless profiteering off our PUBLIC lands for private profit is not welcome and we will continue to resist you. Raven> More Plantations 25.03.2005 - 21:59 What's wrong with plantations? We need more of them. They way to treat these national forests is to cut the big ones, plant some trees in rows and spray those farms with herbicides. Geez. Havent you ever planted a garden? Lets get to it and fininsh the job. We still got 4% to go, we ain't got nothing to lose, and sweet government contracts to gain. Quit whinning. Cat Killer> More arrests needed 26.03.2005 - 06:40 These arrests are the only thing that keep this in the news. Make your stand against the destruction of this 500-year old naturally evolving eco-system. As legendary forest activist Lou Gold said: "This is a humpty-dumpty situation; once you tear it down, all the kings horses and all the kings men can't put the pieces back together again". Peat Moss> More arrests needed 26.03.2005 - 07:52 The arrests are all that get reported at the Biscuit. More are needed to keep it in the news: People making a stand in defense of this 500-year old naturally-evolving eco-system. OK> More arrests needed 26.03.2005 - 08:03 more people arrested keep this issue in the news. keep it up. OK> THINK, people! 26.03.2005 - 12:29 The only thing more amazing to me than the bush administration's, the forest service's, and the timber industry's desire to milk our few remaining wild areas for chump change, is the willingness of a rural Oregonian who is actually feeling the brunt of this old-growth forest destruction in the form of compromised drinking water quality, loss of recreational opportunities, and a reduction in tourism dollars, to stand up for his plunderers. Sliver Thistleprick> Tree sitters rule 26.03.2005 - 18:14 Forest Defenders are the coolest people in the world. Thanks. Spotted Owl> Good-good 28.03.2005 - 06:49 Let's o, Friends! We are fighting against a NATO radar locator planned to be built in a nature reserve in Hungary, so can understand what you feel. Do not give it up, it is encouraging for us as well! Bob Hungary Civil movement for Zengő Bob> e-mail:: balazs@humusz.hu Homepage:: http://zengo.fw.hu/ Inaccurate 29.03.2005 - 10:29 Saying that the industry doesn't want to thin plantations is inaccurate. After all, it was the forest products industry that recently sued the BLM to more agressively thin their young forests. Thinning is great. Thinning is good. But thinning is not sustainable over the long term. Damn near all of the plantations on BLM land are going to be thinned within the next 50 years. Young plantations will have grown into mid-successional forests. Then what? No more harvest on public lands? That's not what Giffort Pinchot had in mind when he lobbied for the creation of the National Forest System. I'll bet that John Muir and Gifford and rolling in their graves right now, given the wild tangent that a large faction environmental movement has marched off on. Moon Muffin> Good Point Moon Muffin 29.03.2005 - 13:36 Clearly all we have to do is liquidate the last 4% of the old-growth in the lower 48 and THEN plantation thinning will be sustainable. That's brilliant. So tell me again, why doesn't the timber industry grow old-growth on their own lands instead of managing on 60 year rotations? Mary Smelcer> nice sarcasm, dude 29.03.2005 - 21:26 Anyone ever tell you that you argue like a 15-year-old girl who's pissed at her parents? First off, the "remaining 4%" is a myth, straight up. Secondly, lots of private land owners DO grow their forest on long rotations that allow them to achieve maturity before harvest. Simpson Forest Products has something like 2,000 spotted owls living on their second-growth forest lands in N. California. And that's just one land owner of many. Sure, Weyerhauser doesn't grow trees past 30-40 years. If they could figure out how to grow two-by-fours straight out of the ground, they probably would. Boise isn't much better, but they have more of an ethic than Weyerhauser. I think that people tend to focus their negative energy on Boise because they can't spell Weyerhauser. The fact is that Weyerhauser does what is best for their bottom line. If we provided them with economic incentive to grow old-growth, they would. And I think that we should provide them with economic incentive, possibly paid for with revenue from a healthy and sustainable federal timber harvest program. The BLM and Forest Service don't have a bottom line. They should do what is 'best' overall, for forests and for people. That means, to paraphrase Gifford Pinchot, to provide forests as well as wood. Thanks for being so receptive to differing points of view. (OK, I had to throw in a little sarcasm, too.) Mix Master Moon Muffin> the 2-5% continuum 30.03.2005 - 17:08 Decline of the great American forests You say it's a myth. Prove it. In nearly every issue of the Forest Voice, there's a series of snapshots of native forest taken at different times over the last 400 years. While we have more in the West than they do in the East, the picture gets pretty thinned out for both sides in the end. I happen to have a rasterized image from one of their online publications, which I'll upload with this comment. There's also some pretty graphic animated maps of forect cutting in various parts of the northwest on the Cascadia Scorecard website at:  http://www.northwestwatch.org/scorecard/maps_forests.asp Fiddler's Friend> Compromise- a concept not shared by many 30.03.2005 - 18:03 I see all this controversy coming from people who haven't actually been there and seen the truth in the units of the Fiddler project and others. If you did, you'd see that there is paint on the biggest and best lumber snags out there. You'd also see that no live trees were painted as "leave snags". You'd also see that this situation is NOT "the largest timber sale in Forest Service history". You'd also see that "thinning" the dead trees is NOT "destruction". You'd also see that vast acreages of lands ARE being left untouched, despite their capability to support limited harvesting of medium-sized snags through low-impact helicopter logging. You'd also see how logging slash of all sizes (all the way down to 1/2" diameter sticks) ARE holding back erosion in most areas. The fight seems to be not about whether the land can support this limited harvesting but rather on whether nit-picking on rules was right or wrong. This project is NOT a giveaway to the timber industry! If it were, all those massive 40"+ diameter painted snags (no-cut), would be going down the road on trucks to the mill. I find it very funny that people are outraged over timber being harvested in Roadless Areas. Even Bill Clinton did NOT outlaw this practice in his "Roadless Folly", a purely political ploy using the same "stealth tactics" also employed by the Bush Administration. The lies about clearcutting and blathering over roadside hazard trees being cut are not pertinent in this discussion. Truthfully, this project IS a compromise and can be backed up with sound scientific facts. In my humble opinion, there ARE places where we should NOT be harvesting, as well. More analysis and better conclusions should have been made. LSR's, Roadless Areas and "owl circles" are merely just lines on a map. If the land can support limited harvesting of snags AND can be done without even moderate problems, why not take some of that wood and help reduce the importing of extremely "non-green" wood from other countries? Whatever happened to "think globally and act locally"? I could rant on and on but, some people need to take the Birkenstocks off and go out there and see things for themselves. Just reading propaganda and blindly believing either side of the issues is NOT the American way. AND, btw, I DON'T advocate clearcutting or true old growth harvesting. Big-ass trees should just stay put, IMHO. They are thousands of times more valuable where they stand than as beams or paneling in some rich bastard's mansion. Thanks for listening and I hope people will open their minds. Mtn_high> e-mail:: lhfotoware@hotmail.com less emotion, more thoughtfulness 30.03.2005 - 19:40 maybe we should be pickin' our battles, here, fellow environmentalists. Maybe we should be trying to save green trees, and roadless areas, instead of saving dead on arrival snags. If it were not for the fact that Siskilou National DeForest deliberately let the Bisquit fire burn, so as to invade the North Kalmiopsis roadless area, just as they did in 1987 Silver Fire, I'd say you should take all the dead trees out of the areas that are not true roadless areas. Because the dead trees that you save will be replaced at some point by killing standing green trees. How many green trees are the timber fuckers taking out of Fiddler, anyway? I thought it was only dead ones? Like i said, if it weren't for the sneaky way the Circus handled the fire in the first couple or three days (and if you timber fuckers don't believe it, I can tell you that i was there when the Californicator department of Deforestation guys, plus one of the Del Norte Stupidvisors testified about how the CDOT offered to put the fire out, over nd over, nd the Circus told them "no way, Jose!" Why do you suppose that is? Anyway? Well, DUH! It was so the Circus could go in and cut the hell out of everythinng in sight, just like they did after the Silver Burn. ONly all the tree huggers stopped them, by Dog! Thanks for listening, hope you got it all settled now. Virginforests forever! jumpin joe flash> Interfering with natural processes 31.03.2005 - 10:00 I used to think like you did, that it was the Forest Service's fault that the Biscuit fire got out of control. Now I see it differently. It's the Forest Service's fault that they have been supressing natural fire in wild areas for half a century. Ultimately, there are parts of the ecological system in this area that depend on fire, and even dead trees. When you suppress the fires, and take away the dead trees, you are altering the balance of that ecosystem. If the Biscuit had presented itself as anything other than a model fire, with most of the severe burns being CAUSED by the firefighting efforts (setting backburns around the periphery of the fire area, where most of the timber sales are), then maybe we could just say the balance of nature is already catastrophically destroyed. However, this fire burned in a desireable way, despite intense heat and dry conditions. Obviously there is some balance in a forest that can resist the undue influence, and the very hot fires, of already-cut timber plantations intermixed with native forest. We should let the forests which remain handle their own regeneration, because that ecosystem knows what it needs to successfully resist fire in the future, and we don't. I'd like to see what kind of fire science you're referring to. I've been reading the Beschta report ( http://portland.indymedia.org/media/media/2005/01/309694.pdf), Jery Franklin's comments on the Biscuit plan ( http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/Comments-on-Biscuit-Salvage-DEIS-Franklin.pdf). What science are you referring to? I don't see how large pieces of slash being left on the ground "to inhibit erosion" is going to help with the regrowth of natural vegetation and trees, or reducing the risk of intense fire in the area. I also haven't heard that the lumber market is begging for an influx of pine logs. I've heard that Chilean Radiata Pine plantations put out pine cheaper than the Biscuit can. Could anyone correct me on this? I have taken off my birkenstocks (they got stolen years ago...) and until the public forest was closed to visitors, I was spending time up near Fiddler Mountain. I saw a lot of dead trees there, also a lot of woodpeckers, and regrowth on the ground. Also a lot of barren slopes whether either logging or fire had taken away the trees are marginal soil and left it incapable of supporting regrowth, a trend that tends to be exacerbated by removing tree mass from the area and an ecology that depends on nutrient-cycling. In other parts of Fiddler, I understand they are taking green trees, and in some of the other sales, this has been a much larger proportion of the take. Fiddler's Friend> it's in the contract 31.03.2005 - 10:28 Just for informations sake ... It's in the contract that no green tree can be harvested unless the sale administrator specifically allows for that tree to be harvested because of a safety issue. That doesn't happen very often. If green trees are cut just for the hell of it, the contractor gets slapped with a huge fine. Super Trooper> Accelerating natural processes 31.03.2005 - 11:28 I see and accept that your knowledge of general forest sciences is considerable and you do see some of the truths within the Biscuit Fire. Yes, previous logging practices and fire suppression have had major impacts over the decades. Those truths are not debatable. However, many of the cutting units have never been logged before. Other areas have not burned in recorded history, either (but still remain within their fire-return periods). However, you can't generalize conditions and treatments, especially in the biologically-diverse Siskiyous. Different cutting units required different treatments based on many constants and conditions within them. The fire burned at different intensities and patterns based on those same differences in stand types. On one hand, you say that man's fire suppression has caused the problems while on the other hand you say that this was a model fire, not out of balance with nature. I'm thinking that maybe you'd consider both to be true but, that cannot happen in a single cutting unit. You also say that the fire burned in a desirable way but, that cannot be true over the entire burned area. Some of the cutting units have up to 98% mortality, and THAT is NEVER a good thing. One particular densely-wooded old growth unit looks like it had the crowns "pre-heated" until it got to the flashpoint. When that point was reached, the entire hillside must have flamed out almost instantly, cooking and killing everything within it. If I knew how to post it, I'd supply a picture. In taking approximately 50% of the dead trees, there are still ample amounts of nutrient-rich material, spread out over the entire hillside, while the other 50% will be made into durable wood products that won't be part of a fuel buildup that could sterilize the soil in the next fire. It also won't produce copious amounts of toxic greenhouses gasses in the next big fire. This is just one specific example of how science was used to decide what to do with a specific hillside. However, in other much sparser cutting units, I'd have to agree with you that removing timber may not be the way to go, even with the larger "leave snags" still in place. I cannot pretend to be an expert on Siskiyou ecosystem characteristics. If I was in charge, I would certainly do it differently than the Forest Service has. That appears to be a moot point, now. I haven't read those scientific reports you listed and I'm quite wary of people who haven't actually been to the individual units and seen what I have seen. Are my observations any less valid than their's? I pride myself on scientific objectivity and want to see our forests recover as quickly as possible. Man's activities within the burned area can accelerate "natural processes" and help to avoid decades of waiting for forests to become re-established. I accept that the converse can also be true. Others don't seem to care if "Mother Nature" takes generations to do her work. I, for one, don't want future generations to pay for the mistakes of today. Big chunks of slash are not nearly as desirable as smaller pieces that lay flat. The Siskiyous are a naturally crumbly mountain range, and the fire has enhanced that characteristic. It could be argued that the generated logging slash is an emergency measure to diminish the erosion that is surely impacting the streams and rivers in the area. This stopgap measure can help hold off major erosion until plants become re-established, IMHO. As far as the lumber market goes, I couldn't care less if the mills don't make money off this. I tend to consider "breaking even" on their part to be their "patriotic duty" to help restore our National Forests back to their former grandeur. Lumber should ALWAYS just be a happy by-product (and NOT the focus) of scientifically-sound ecosystem management. Regarding green trees being cut, I understood that NO green trees would be cut, except in the case of safety (ie...landing construction and flight path in and out of those helicopter landings). Mtn_high> e-mail:: lhfotoware@hotmail.com Great Maps 31.03.2005 - 14:20 Couple of things you might want to consider though. The 1600 map has a couple of interesting areas of "native forest". I am especially delighted to know that an unbroken sea of trees blanketed the Willamette and Rogue Valleys. It looks like maybe the Mississippi was a vast forest also...? not sure. Its also interesting to see the currently forested Yellowstone and Klamath...you might want to go see for your self. The maps are very graphic but they do nothing to discribe anything regarding forest conditions or age or really much of anything. When man came across the land bridge , they brought one forest magt tool...fire and they used it freely. I would suggest by the time the next wave of settlers came after 1492, there excisted no native (defined as unimpacted by man) in North America. your utopian vision of "Native Forest" is a hallucination. It hasn't existed for a couple thousand years. protest that. Curious> Yep 31.03.2005 - 16:17 I double checked and your map shows the great Mississippi Forest from the delta to the headwaters. The Ohio and parts of the Missouri too. Great stuff. Who would a thunk it? The constant flooding must have grown great trees. Curious> 2002 Map 31.03.2005 - 16:25 Also, the 2002 map doesn't show the reforested areas of the east, especially the cotton fields of the South which are very much like old growth with very large beech, oak and other hardwoods, as well as good-sized shortleaf and loblolly pines. Growing conditions in the South are so good that pines often put on 3 feet of height per year and 6" of diameter every 10 years. The map also doesn't account for fragmented old growth with near-old growth characteristics. If spotted owls and other purported old growth dependent species use these kinds of forests, why not consider them in the equation? Basically, we're NOT running out of forests. Again, I agree that we shouldn't be "liquidating" the true old growth (older than 150 years). We also shouldn't be liquidating superior trees that are just under the age defined to be "old growth". Someday in the very distant future, it may be alright to harvest VERY limited scientifically AND ecologically-sustainable amounts of live old growth, as long as the American public gets a VERY good return on their "investment". Certainly, there is plenty of timber volume here in this country to satisfy America's hunger for wood and paper products without eliminating old growth ecosystems. What I don't understand is why the Sierra Club and other groups are pushing for zero cutting in our National Forests, instead, seemingly being OK with importing wood from the clearcuts of northern Canada. Looks like NIMBYism to me. Mtn_high> e-mail:: lhfotoware@hotmail.com Value Judgements 31.03.2005 - 18:03 Fir will also grow that fast...but certainly not in the Sis Q. I dissagree but respect your opinion on the older tree harvest. We can and need to be taking a "very few" now. Though it would make a heck of a lot more sense to get that material from dead trees than green and growing trees....and it certainly makes more sense to cut trees here where we have the strictess laws in the world than cutting tropical hardwoods in some 3rd world country with no real forest mgt laws. Curious> slash and erosion 01.04.2005 - 13:51 Mtn_High offers a fresh voice to a discussion board otherwise cluttered with sniping clap-trap from all sides. But small sticks as erosion control? Those sticks elevate the fire hazard. A reburn is more likely because logging put combustible fuel on the ground all at once. Without logging, unburned canopy materials would fall at a more staggered and gradual pace. This is one reason why areas logged and then planted after the 87 Silver fire experienced almost 100 percent high-severity fire effects in Biscuit. If post-fire landscapes are more erosive, as is Mtn_High's premise, then the WORST thing we could do for water quality is to invite another intense fire in a short timeframe. Sadly, that's what salvage logging will accomplish. twig counter> Slash and Erosion Explained 01.04.2005 - 16:01 Slash controlls erosion is three ways: 1) It intercepts rainfall, dissipating the energy of falling rain-drops that would otherwise erode exposed mineral soil. On a side note, standing stags actually increase the erosional force of rain on soils due to the fact that rain accumulated on them and then falls to the ground in larger-sized drops. Remember: it's the roots that hold the soil in place, not the bole of the tree. The roots are not removed during salvage. 2) Logging slash, even down to pine needle sized pieces, retards down-slope movement (sheed and rill erosion) of fine sediment. Take a close look at individual pieces of slash out in the field, and you'll find that a small ammount of fine sediment has accumulated behind each piece. 3) Large pieces of slash (large stick size and up) that are resisent to transportation dissipate the force of downslope water flow and therefore reduce the likelyhood that gullying will occur. You'll often see gullying occur on a hillslope untill the gully channel intercepts a large piece of slash, at which point the flow is dissapated. Of course, improperly planned and exucuted salvage logging can increase surface erosion to some extent; however, with proper mitigation measures in place (helicopter logging, water-barring of skid trails, tractor logging only on mild slopes), logging will result in no increase or a reduction in sediment yield. Contrary to the findings in the Biscuit EIS, I doubt that the Biscuit salvage will increase sediment yield at all. Mtn. High: You've obviously done your homework and have put thought into the opionions that you hold. I only wish that so many others who tend towards knee-jerk reactions could do the same. I disagree with some of your points, but your knowledge of the subject and truthfullness make the discussion so much easier. Geology Dude> Balance is best 01.04.2005 - 17:36 Thank you for your compliments and comments, twig and GD. I guess it's up to us to educate some of these misguided people on both sides. twig: I appreciate your observations and input on the fuels problems that cannot be ignored. However, doing nothing won't decrease the potential for a high-intensity re-burn. I'm curious though, how did unharvested portions of the Silver Fire do within the Biscuit? In a few short years, most of those snags will have fallen to the ground, causing a jack-strawed effect and putting the massive fuel buildup right where we DON'T want it. Near the ground. It seems to me that a balance has been struck regarding fuels and prevention of soil erosion. Removing only a portion of the timber volume provides slash to help cover the ground. Retaining the large snags in some of the units helps to protect the soils from the pounding of that hard Oregon rain and provides a more durable form of snags used by cavity nesters and woodpeckers. Geology Dude is correct though, in saying that small twigs DO hold back erosion. Go see for yourself! Geology Dude: I can personally verify nearly 100% of what you've said through my extensive experience in the burn salvage arena. The main thing I disagree with is your contention that standing snags don't help protect soils against the rain. Certainly, some of the water that comes off the trees are in the form of larger droplets but, I prefer to think that branches also deflect the force of raindrops AND droplets falling from tree branches. As well, water often travels down the bole of the tree travelling in and out of the bark crevices, slowing and taking erosive energy from a significant amount of rainfall. To everyone: Compromises were made in each individual unit to balance these issues. The Biscuit Fire Salvage plans are VERY different from past salvage operations. I remember going on a school fieldtrip when I was in 8th grade (1973) and was astounded at the devastation of a massive salvage clearcut near Yosemite. They used to leave 1-2 crappy snags per acre and level the rest. Four years ago, I got the chance to go back and work in that same area. Portions of the burn were left to recover on their own because of wildlife concerns. The rest was replanted with pine. The pine plantations were doing rather well (but desperately need thinning), as this is an excellent growing site. The untreated areas were an ultra thick mass of manzanita and whitethorn that was nearly impenetrable. There were no significant trees growing, nor much of any sign of any wildlife in those "natural" units. However, this may or may not be applicable to the Biscuit but, it is something to consider. Certainly, the Silver Fire had more aggressive salvage guidelines and, hopefully, we've all learned from mistakes made in the past. The Biscuit Fire will certainly be a "living laboratory" and we will learn even more in the decades to come. Mtn_high> e-mail:: lhfotoware@hotmail.com do this homework 01.04.2005 - 17:49 I think we're reading articles of faith here about slash and erosion. The McIver and Starr report published by the Forest Service indicates a dearth of research backing these claims. They specifically note the complete absence of homework supporting Geology Dude's claim that salvage logging decreases sediment movement. Anyway, it's counter-intuitive to assume that logging operations would somehow disturb soil LESS and move LESS sediment into creeks than if no logging were to occur. The peer reviewed work of aquatic scientists led by Bob Beschta of OSU states unequivocably that salvage logging offers no benefit to aquatic systems, and in fact can severely degrade such systems, even when mitigation measures and best management practices are employed. Geology Dude and Mtn_High have a point about the counter-erosive role played by slash on the ground if we freeze the temporal dimension of this discussion to just a few months or years. Inevitably, natural recovery of plant cover (observable now at Biscuit by anyone who cares to look) serves this function. Further, the rain-dissipating effect happens whether the slash is located on the ground or in a standing canopy of fire-killed trees. Even if tree boles somehow route water flows over exposed soil (unreported in the literature to my knowledge), it seems the effect would be spatially localized and likely would be mitigated by much larger downed woody debris in the form of logs. These arguments you're offering are not reasons to extract burned trees. They are excuses. twig counter> silver fire salvage logging 01.04.2005 - 18:01 In case anyone's interested about pre-Biscuit landscape condition, fire effects in the area burned by the 87 Silver fire, and the legacy of post-fire salvage logging, the Pacific Biodiversity Institute conducted an analysis that addresses all of these factors:  http://www.pacificbio.org/Projects/Fires/reports/VegetationMortalityAnalysis-screenres.pdf For those who've never before read the argument that unburned trees eventually fall to the ground and fuel catastrophic fires if not flown out by helicopter, consider that this claim is only raised by advocates of salvage. Also consider that forest ecosystems with mixed-severity fire regimes such as the Siskiyou Forest adapted over tens of thousands of years to occasionally high severity disturbances including those partly fueled by accumulations of logs on the ground. Nothing new here. twig counter> Two plus two is.... 02.04.2005 - 10:00 Gee, if we believe that removing large fuel is a good thing...we are advocates of the same. If I like homemade blackberry pie I am an advocate of my eating homemade blackberry pie. Boogyman> Twiggy 02.04.2005 - 11:36 Twig Counter, You seem to be twisting the facts to support your convoluted notion that all timber harvest is bad. You have stated two pieces of sceintific literature out of many. Starr has clearly stated that, although that there is a lack of peer-reviewed research specific to this subject, it is very clear that the presence of logging slash serves to mitigate surface erosion. You can see the process and the result very easily with the naked eye. In regards to Bestcha, sure his work has been peer reviewed. What you didn't mention is that the peers who have reviewed his work have found it to be very un-scientific, opinionated, and one-sided. Basically, he just wrote what the Pacific Rivers Foundation wanted him to write without doing any actual analysis or research. Finally, standing snags do concentrate water droplets and increase their erosional force. Just take a look for yourself. You'll tend to see more surface erosion (especcially more channelization) initiated around the drip-lines of standing snags. Even water running down the bole of the snag has the effect of concentrating the flow, which increases the possibility of channelization (which is not a good thing as far as sediment delivery to streams is concerned). Geology Dude> Home Builder 03.04.2005 - 20:10 Just passing by and took a look at the posts. I see a map with some black and some white. The map with 2002 does not have much black on it. Does this mean there are no forests left on this continent? Or does it indicate no more "old growth". I live in the south, and let me tell ya there are a lot of woods out there, woods not shown in black on your 1620 map, and not shown on your 2002 map. Where I live and work, in the Dallas TX area, I can tell you for a fact that there are more trees here now than there were when white settlers first settled the area in the 1840s. They may not be old growth trees, but they are trees none the less. Having compared aerial photos from the 1940s to today (2005) I can attest to the fact that there is more tree canopy covering the City of Dallas today than there was 60 years ago. (I do not have aerial photos from the 1840s, just written accounts of the area) Not that any of you give a damn about the south, not that any of you have ever been here. Not that any of you have ever built a home for a poor person and their family. I do it every day, and thank the timber industry for supplying my business with the material necessary to shelter low income families, many of whom are recent immigrants to this country, many of whom work in the service industries that supply your parents with cheap products so your parents can save their hard earned salaries and send you off to college. Anyway, plant a tree, I do it everyday! Stihl 440> Been there and was impressed!! 03.04.2005 - 21:15 Was a time that all we wantend to grow was cotten. Stip it clear burn it and grow king cotten. The FS land east of the Mississippi was all devastated plantation and they have done an amazing job of trying to put it back to native species. Giving Mother Nature a helping hand can be a very good thing. And yes building a Home is one of the most positive things I can think of...if fact I've done that too. Curious>