Dogfish –
I find it very difficult to understand how cutting more frequently is going to lead to increasing the average age of the trees in the stand.

You stated:
“The logging of today is not like it was 20 or 30 years ago.” I would agree however much of the damage to our watersheds resulting from that aggressive cutting has not healed and any further cutting only delays the recovery of those watersheds. It is quite clear, especially on basins with steep terrain that the export of timber to mills (local or otherwise) was not the only thing be exported from the harvest sites. There has been considerable increases in sedimentation on most basins in western Washington adversely impact the water quality and quantity in the basin limiting both fish production the availability of water for domestic use – I don’t think it is an accident the virtually all the major watersheds in the area no long allow time harvest – prime example would the Seattle Watershed.

You alluded to a 60-year timber rotation. For much of Western Washington such a rotation seems to be optimistic. While it would be possible to grow a harvestable tree in 60 years on some of the best timber lands (low elevations) in may take twice that long on higher elevations (assuming that a 30 to 36 inch diameter tree is your target). Much of the high productive timber lands is no long in timber production – we all are living on that land and substantial portions of the current timber lands is higher elevation.

If timber were truly a sustainable crop why is there such a push for increasing cutting on the little remaining old growth lands. There reason of course is that second and third harvest produces much lower yields in terms of board feet/acre cut. In Europe as well as here that yields (board-feet/acre) seems to fall with each cutting. It is clear to me that old growth harvest is an extraction activity rather one of sustained harvest.

Tight lines
S malma

From an economic standpoint I could understand why you would want to log the trees that are a fire danger, damaged by insects, or host to Phelinus weirii.
I still would like to hear from you just how long this type of logging is expected to take place. How many cycles can we realistically expect out of this practice and how certain is it that future generations will have the mind to take care of the forests so that logging can keep people employed and local/regional economies moving along?

However, I would like to present my knowledge of how the forest works. I suspect that you already know some if not much of this, but I just feel like putting this out there for all who care to read what I have to say.

A healthy forest uninfluenced by logging is subject to population control by nature. The three things that you mentioned, fire, insects, fungus are all one of the many ways that a tree can die. The death of trees is not a bad thing, because they can recycle nutrients back into the forest via various routes.
While generally devestating, fires create & destroy. Burnt areas tend to favor Douglas fir due to their affinity for open sunlit areas. This we know to be early seral forest.
Insects play an important role in the food web. Those that kill trees directly or indirectly recruit both snags and coarse woody detritus(CWD). Snags provide roosting habitat for birds and food for boring insects which in turn provide food for woodpeckers. Trees that litter the forest floor are processed by insects, microorganisms, fungi, small mammals, etc. This is in essence the food chain which results in the conversion of dead wood into the duff that comprises much of the forest soil.
The various fungi that are associated with root rot often cause the tree to fall to the forest floor. As stated above, the trees become incorporated into the forest floor and return nutrients to the soil. Additionally, under the right conditions some of these trees become nurse logs.

I'll stop here for now.

Eddie,

This example is an oversimplification, but imagine that there are 1,000 logging sites available per year to log. Now then, the State chooses to log 50 per year. Of these 50 sites, they choose to log 20 that are prone to insect, fire, or disease. By logging these 20 sites, and removing the damage, the overall health of the forest is increased. An example of this would be the management of the Bremerton Watershed. A number of pockets of root rot have been logged and replanted with species of trees that are resistant to the fungus. Allowed to proceed, the fungus would spread from root system to root system, infecting healthy trees.

Smalma,

The forest is growing wood at a rate greater than the level of the projected increased harvest The streamside setbacks will allow for LWD to grow closer to the streams, and over time this will make its way into the stream as these trees die of natural causes. LWD generally needs to be within 150-200 feet of a stream for it to have a chance to make it into a stream or river.

Obviously you have different growth rates, dependant upon terrain, moisture, soil quality, elevation. There will be some variation among stands and harvest times. The industry has adjusted their miils to meet this factor.

The restrictive policies inacted under Belcher's time in office left the timber industry limited choices in the quality of timber available to cut. This also had an effect on yields. Forestry management used to be simple 100 years ago. "Where's the saw?" Things are a bit different today.

Rockhopper,

Logging operations are required to leave a certain amount of debris in the new clearcuts for the reasons you stated. Some are "wildlife trees" for woodpeckers, other debris is left to supply the basic nutrients to go back into the soil.

As I had stated earlier, the logging schedule shows continued harvest at the projected levels to be able to continue out at least 200 years. Who is to say what type of development will take place between now and then, or what new technologies will come on line that will reduce our dependance on forest products? I don't know, neither do you.

One current development that has reduced our dependance on softwood trees for use as chips and fiber for the paper industry has been the increased use of hybrid cottonwood/ poplar. These trees are grown in the lowlands, primarily in riverbottom areas. Originally the harvest cycles were scheduled at 7-10 year harvests, but as laws were changed to allow for this timber industry to be treated more like agricultural crops, harvest cycles were were pushed out to 15 years to maximize yields.

We have also started importing lumber from a number of other countries, including Canada and other Pacific Rim neighbors.

Do any of you honestly think that the folks in the timber industry want to invest all of this money into mills, then cut down all of the wood available so as to put themselves out of a job and kill their industry? Seems pretty counterproductive to me.

Dogfish –
If the trees are growing faster (at less for the short term) may result in increased volume of wood but that does not make the trees older!

I agree that current rules are an improvement over that of the past and the 150 foot leave strips is an important step in the right direction. However many of our watersheds were severely abused by those past practices and re-entering them with even “gentler” logging prescriptions will substantially extend the time needed for those areas to recovery from the pass. In my part of the state there are dozens of basins where the aquatic habitats will not recovery in your or my life times from those abuses.

I still have some major issues with cutting rates within individual basins. The new rules do nothing to address that issue. Of particular concern is the period of time and area that an area remains distribute and the length of time a new forest remains hydraulically immature – that is length of the time in which water discharges from the site remain altered (more frequent floods). While selective harvest is becoming more common (especially on the East side of the Cascades) the fact remains that clear-cuts remain way too common.

A major factor in the increased degradation of fish habitat downstream of logging sites has been related to the densities of roads. While the new forest rules will eventually reduce some of that density (decades or more in the future) I would argue that on some of our steep hillsides or unstable soils any roads is excessive

While you and I will likely always disagree it is my position that addition timber harvest in a particular area should not be allowed until the downstream impacts from past activity has been addressed. For example no new logging until the road density in a sub-basin has been reduced (orphan and abandoned roads returned to a hydraulically stable condition) to acceptable levels. The fact remains that the impacts on the aquatic habitat from timber harvest is exported from the logging site downstream. No one would tolerate a plant spewing toxic fumes down wind of our homes but many seem will to tolerate increased peak flows (floods) and decreased low flows and increased sedimentation of the habitats that support our fisheries resources and drinking water.

I appreciate the use of all the wood products that come from the timber industry just don't feel that those benefits should be allowed to trump all other aspects of our environment.


Tight lines
S malma

We are to trust a Republican administration and Logging companys and the forest product companys with protection of our forests.
In one word "NO".
Just remember the example of "Deer Creek" NF Stilly.
Enough said.

That is EXACTLY what I find to be disturbing... all the debris left behind AND piled up at clear cuts. The process of converting woody debris into duff requires a moist environment, which is promoted by canopy cover. While it is nice that debris is being left behind, you have to realize that it will take longer for it to decompose than if it was in a natural environment.

As for leaving small stands of timber uncut, it seems to me that this practice doesn't work exactly as intended as quite a few of the trees left standing are typically small in diameter and thus subject to blowdown during windy conditions. Even some of the larger trees at the edge of the clearcut can get blown down. I would much rather see one solid clear cut rather than islands of trees in a clear cut area. Nobody wins when those trees get blown down.

I find the Populus sp. market to be interesting and was wondering what the status of genetic modification is. It seems like there is potential for growing genetically modified cottonwood/poplars that mature to market size quickly. Although it is just about impossibly to isolate a tree farm from spreading seeds, if the farm can be located in an area where there are no other Populus sp. present it could be advantageous to use a genetically modified plant.

Piss poor title!

Dave with you not being in the industry you have no clue of the changes the timber industry has made. All you have is what you read from inviromental groups that should be living in grass huts but are living in wood homes.

So what I would like to know is where you inviromentalists think lumber should come from..

Title Changed

Dave, don't worry about the spin-doctors. That's their job, to produce doubt when someone like you is speaking the truth.

A little more about Mark Rutzick:

“It turns out Oregon's Senator Smith was key in appointing the timber industry lobbyist to NOAA Fisheries. The timber lobbyist, Mark Rutzick, lead the timber industry efforts to fight ESA protection for salmon. Which is why Senator Smith and Pres. Bush appointed him to control NOAA Fisheries policies.”

"Mr. Rutzick, a Portland lawyer who was suggested for the fisheries job by Senator Gordon H. Smith, Republican of Oregon, would not comment on his role in shaping government salmon policy. Officials at the fisheries service say Mr. Rutzick was part of a working group that shaped the new plan, but would not give further details.”

I am familiar with Rutzick’s lobbying on behalf of logging interests through the 1990's. Now, he gets to continue advocating for these same interests, but on the public’s dollar, and from within the agency that’s supposed to be protecting the public’s fish. Sad but true - and that is the truth.