Forest Roadless Rule Reversed

[bdog]

One road bifricates hundreds of thousands of real and defacto wilderness and I don't think we need anymore.

Roads or Wilderness?

[extreeski]

fuck,

There goes all the work I did in the early nineties.

(I was a timber sale monitor and site reviewer for the Oregon Natural Resources council.)

We stopped many a timber sale because of defacto wilderness within roadless (recognized) and roadless (unrecognized).

clinton compromised a bit. But shrubya is an absolute asshole!!!

Three years of hard work, protecting thousands of places down the tubes.

[Buzzworthy]

Why all the protection of every tree around it seems?
Wwho here does have an education in Forest Resources Management or has real world experience in the forestry business? I know char knows his shit and stoy for the most part.

There are many rules to even get a road put into a forest and they are strictly adhered to (in most cases). Watershed management comes into play big time, as to not disrupt the environment or have minimal impact.

Roads can't and won't be put in in steep areas, there is a limit on slopes of the roads, hence all the switch backs you tend to see. They have to keep buffer zones, put in culverts to "not disturb" the natural waterflow.
There is lots more too it and would be happy to lend my USFS Forest Roads manual to any of you.

Whether Spew is a troll or not, he has a point, you all sound like a bunch of tree hugging hippies to me.

WOOD IS A RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCE!

Please remember that.

Bossass, nice story, but they fucked up in their processes and had they done things properly, minimal impact would have happened instead.


Blurred, why is everything Bushes fault? Not standing up for him, but the not his fault. The US Forestry system has been in trouble for decades, some of which is now catching up. Clinton acted out of his ass, for ratings and put laws on the books, many IMHO were horseshit (not reality should I say). He played to the American people on that stuff.

I certainly understand not wanting to pay for this backlog and the USFS is in trouble in many ways. I work daily with foresters and there have been many problems explained to me over the last 2 years of my work. I am not just a salesperson, I provide a tool to foresters to do their jobs better and more effiecently. I help to create a "solution" to their problem as far as data collection to make decisions based on said data.


Cutting down trees is a good thing. Roads are needed to get to them though. If you disagree, get out of your house, as it is made of trees, at least part of it.

Sustainable yield forestry is what I know. For every 4 trees cut, plant 5.


Trees grow back is the key element we are all missing.


But then again, it can all come down to money. Who pays?

[Jay Bulworth]

You say you want to protect the trees
but the loggers have already got on their knees
they started to suck on my royal shaft
and stuffed my pockets with a bunch of greenbacks

What you don't understand is that you got to pay
That's only way you'll get some political sway
GWB is like all the rest
He only pays attention to the special interest

MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[cj001f]

Who pays?

The taxpayers. Even us treehugging hippies

It's not about the protection of every tree, is stopping further subsidization of the unsustainable, unprofitable industry that is the western US forest products industry. Newsflash for the small loggin towns - even if you cut the whole forest, you'll never employ as many people as you did. Logging's like any other industry - you've got to be more productive. Adapt, move on.

[Greydon Clark]

Trees grow back? Fuck, thanks for clarifying that bro. Also, thanks for pointing out that my house is made of wood. I was really wondering what I was walking on. Shit, I guess I’m a fucking hypocrite. Thankfully, no one is producing timber on private land and no one is knows how to build houses in a sustainable way so we best clear cut the west slope of Sierra so all the Ghetto Billies in Tracy, CA and Dayton, Ohio and have their cheap particle board houses.

The forest service has rules for building roads beyond the roadless rule? Wow. I wonder if the Bushies are changing those rules? I wonder if they’ve fucked with the National Forest Management Act? What about viable wildlife populations in national forests? Should this be optional concern for land managers? But now that governors and local people get to choose what areas get roads wouldn’t, be extension, they get to choose how to build these roads? Or does top down management work once the locals and Washington are on the same page?

[Luke Warmwater]

Why all the protection of every tree around it seems?
Wwho here does have an education in Forest Resources Management or has real world experience in the forestry business? I know char knows his shit and stoy for the most part.

There are many rules to even get a road put into a forest and they are strictly adhered to (in most cases). Watershed management comes into play big time, as to not disrupt the environment or have minimal impact.

Roads can't and won't be put in in steep areas, there is a limit on slopes of the roads, hence all the switch backs you tend to see. They have to keep buffer zones, put in culverts to "not disturb" the natural waterflow.
There is lots more too it and would be happy to lend my USFS Forest Roads manual to any of you.

Whether Spew is a troll or not, he has a point, you all sound like a bunch of tree hugging hippies to me.

WOOD IS A RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCE!

Please remember that.

Bossass, nice story, but they fucked up in their processes and had they done things properly, minimal impact would have happened instead.


Blurred, why is everything Bushes fault? Not standing up for him, but the not his fault. The US Forestry system has been in trouble for decades, some of which is now catching up. Clinton acted out of his ass, for ratings and put laws on the books, many IMHO were horseshit (not reality should I say). He played to the American people on that stuff.

I certainly understand not wanting to pay for this backlog and the USFS is in trouble in many ways. I work daily with foresters and there have been many problems explained to me over the last 2 years of my work. I am not just a salesperson, I provide a tool to foresters to do their jobs better and more effiecently. I help to create a "solution" to their problem as far as data collection to make decisions based on said data.


Cutting down trees is a good thing. If you disagree, get out of your house, as it is made of trees, at least part of it.

Sustainable yield forestry is what I know. For every 4 trees cut, plant 5. They grow back is the key element we are all missing.

this is so off base it had to be preserved.

I apologize in advance for spelling and whatever other errors I may make...Im too damn hungover to give a shit.

First off, the majority of timber harvested off public lands is clear cut. It is well known that clear cutting strips topsoil, and is NOT sustainable for more than 2-3 generations simply on the fact of stripping topsoil. Also when they replant, they are mono-cultures, not 5 trees for every 4 cut but 20 for every 1, and this makes them very susceptible to desease, we have a BIG problem with this here. Therefore WOOD HARVESTED ON MOST PUBLIC LAND IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.

you obviously don't know a thing as to WHY the timber industry fell on its ass in the late 80's early 90's.

do you realize that less than 1% of our forests remain untouched? This new rule opens up a big part of that one percent.

the big public timber giveaway sales cripples private timber owners, they dont create any jobs and only makes the owners of the timber companys rich. How is that you say? Because they dont lower the finished price or hire more workers, they can sit on the cheap logs for years, sprinkling them with water or sinking them in ponds. Anyone know where the majority of logs cut on public land in the 70's-80's are now sitting? Tokyo Bay.

[freshies]

this is so off base it had to be preserved.

I apologize in advance for spelling and whatever other errors I may make...Im too damn hungover to give a shit.

First off, the majority of timber harvested off public lands is clear cut. It is well known that clear cutting strips topsoil, and is NOT sustainable for more than 2-3 generations simply on the fact of stripping topsoil. Also when they replant, they are mono-cultures, not 5 trees for every 4 cut but 20 for every 1, and this makes them very susceptible to desease, we have a BIG problem with this here. Therefore WOOD HARVESTED ON MOST PUBLIC LAND IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.

you obviously don't know a thing as to WHY the timber industry fell on its ass in the late 80's early 90's.

do you realize that less than 1% of our forests remain untouched? This new rule opens up a big part of that one percent.

the big public timber giveaway sales cripples private timber owners, they dont create any jobs and only makes the owners of the timber companys rich. How is that you say? Because they dont lower the finished price or hire more workers, they can sit on the cheap logs for years, sprinkling them with water or sinking them in ponds. Anyone know where the majority of logs cut on public land in the 70's-80's are now sitting? Tokyo Bay.

Thank You!

[bossass]

If wood is a renewable resource than why do we need to got into pristine wilderness to get more or, better yet, why does our fuckball president need to let a few fatcat companies go in--on our dime--and get more and get rich doing it? Because we are living in an extremely selfish time and a fat little rich kid with sticky fingers is driving the school bus and running over whatever the fuck he wants. Environmentalism is dead, global warming is banging on the front door, and I for one am getting pretty damn nervous.

[Grange]

There are many rules to even get a road put into a forest and they are strictly adhered to (in most cases). Watershed management comes into play big time, as to not disrupt the environment or have minimal impact.

I do have real world experience working with contractors and loggers (usually on state or county land) and I can state with first hand knowledge the rules are not strictly enforced! There are not enough personnel to check every stream, spring and wetland crossing. I do not buy the idea that loggers try their best to minimize environmental impacts in most cases. I believe the majority of contractors or loggers may put up the initial erosion control, but maintenance is often non-existent unless they are caught.

My cottage is next the Nicolet side of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest and I have seen several trout streams sedimented in due to poor erosion control on logging roads over small streams. Sure the company can take a backhoe and remove the sediment, but the damage is already done. Full year spawning classes have been ruined in these stretches of stream due to logging.

[Buzzworthy]

this is so off base it had to be preserved.

I apologize in advance for spelling and whatever other errors I may make...Im too damn hungover to give a shit.

First off, the majority of timber harvested off public lands is clear cut. It is well known that clear cutting strips topsoil, and is NOT sustainable for more than 2-3 generations simply on the fact of stripping topsoil. Also when they replant, they are mono-cultures, not 5 trees for every 4 cut but 20 for every 1, and this makes them very susceptible to desease, we have a BIG problem with this here. Therefore WOOD HARVESTED ON MOST PUBLIC LAND IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.

you obviously don't know a thing as to WHY the timber industry fell on its ass in the late 80's early 90's.

do you realize that less than 1% of our forests remain untouched? This new rule opens up a big part of that one percent.

the big public timber giveaway sales cripples private timber owners, they dont create any jobs and only makes the owners of the timber companys rich. How is that you say? Because they dont lower the finished price or hire more workers, they can sit on the cheap logs for years, sprinkling them with water or sinking them in ponds. Anyone know where the majority of logs cut on public land in the 70's-80's are now sitting? Tokyo Bay.

Never said that clearcutting fell into Sustainable catagory. I hope to see clearcutting slowing down, but in some cases, it wont be. Cheapest way of getting lots of wood, so they do it. Money.

And yes, I know nothing, as I work directly with public and private sections 5 days a week.

Large companies are always going to be in the way of private landowners, that is simple business. Not saying it is right, but face reality.

Greydon, sure do have a lot of questions? My question is why so bitter? Conversation does not have to be that way, unless you want, which I dont prefer.


I guess my education and work experience has jaded my views from the majority here on foresty subjects.

[The AD]

around here stupid hippies turn into stupid yuppies and instead of getting high they get anal retentive and file lawsuits about protecting wilderness areas they've NEVER EVEN BEEN TO.

Yup, and they'd like to keep it that way.

[Stoysluttie1]

Buzz, if you are referring to NEPA, it is not a protection act, only a policy act, therefore mitigation usually occurs and the environmental aspect of any ACTION on FEDERAL LAND that uses FEDERAL money, is not always of the best interest to the environment.

NEPA only requires an agency to follow guidelines, not protect the environment.

However, I completely disagree with your notion that trees are a renewable resource. For instance, old growth forests, such as those in the Tongass, the PNW, and in some cases Utah, are not renewable. Period.

If you are talking about tree farms or re-establishing a forest to use for more lumber, then you are correct, but not entirely correct. Trees grown from mother natures love are seasoned and have stood the test of time. Replanted tree farms are forced to rapidly grow, ie. growth stimulants, which makes the trees weaker (for construction purpoes) and therefore means they will not hold up against time. A tree with 30 years fo growth is not the same as a chemically induced tree grown over a ten year period, even though they may look the same.

protection of every tree is not what most of us are after. But wouldn't it be nice to have most of our most precious resources protected from logging, oil and gas exploration, and devastation? Wouldn't it also be nice to walk through the woods to see an ivory billed woodpecker, a badger, a deer, a golden eagle, hell, even a white tailed deer?

All the passing of this bill does is protect the few who will profit from the opening of these areas, not the thousands who might enjoy them for the beauty, which actually has an economical value, believe it or not. If you don't, look at the economy of Kane County, Utah...the Grand Staircase! Their economy will sustain itself for many many years to come because of tourism, not just ten years if they allowed oil and gas.

Lets spark another debate...the Legacy Highway. Sorry, I mean the Legacy parkway. They changed names to manuever around some laws. Mitigation of environmental impact is a complete misnomer. Putting a highway through valuable wetlands will bolster growth, home and industiral construction, therefore polluting one of the most interesting, intriguing, and studied ecosystems in the world, the Great Salt Lake.

Syre, mitigation measures might be taken, but int he long run, there really is no mitigation measure once they restart the construction of the parkway.

I bring this up because mitigation measures taken while building roads through forests bring more than logging equipment in. Noxious and invasive weeds come. Irresponsible OHV users come. (Not all OHV users are irresponsible) Important corridors for animals are altered. Sedimentation to riparian areas increases, almost no matter what mitigation measure is taken. Soil compaction occurs which equals more rapid run-off. the list goes on.

I also do not agree with your statement that the FS has been in trouble for decades. I'm forgetting the president at the time, but he wanted to bolster Americas economy and a way to do this, after WWII, was to build build build, and that meants log log log. At the time, the FS really did nto want to begin clear cutting everything to make a profit, the orders came down from the President. This sounds familiar doesn't it?

our deficits grow dramatically by the day and one way the Bush administration sees to lighten the load, is to open up public lands. Again, as it did in previous years, wil not work. But what will work is this: Bushes buddies are again, going to make bank off of the public, which will pay for the construction of these roads, pay for the revegetation of the abused land, and pay for the decommisioning of the oil and gas infrastructure the company, which will go "bankrupt", leaves behind. I say bankrupt because most of the O&G companies are a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a subsidiary of antoher subsidiary of a company in Europe or Jamaica if you're halliburton. There si no way to trace the companies history because they come and go so fast, leaving the cost and burden to the American people.

if you want to argue this further, I would suggest contacting Ken paur at the Ogden Ranger District. He's been through this stuff for many years, working both sides of the legal issue.

I'm off to hug a tree, smoke some pot, and savour the last of our natinal forests.

[Dantheman]

When the roadless rule was being proposed the fed's recieved more than 1 million public comments, more than any policy change in US history, >90% of them were positive. The people spoke, they wanted this, fuck shrub.

Buzz - Of all people you should know that <5% of old growth is left in this country. If these fuckwits actually practiced sustained-yield forestry they wouldn't need that last 5%.

[Buzzworthy]

However, I completely disagree with your notion that trees are a renewable resource. For instance, old growth forests, such as those in the Tongass, the PNW, and in some cases Utah, are not renewable. Period.



if you want to argue this further, I would suggest contacting Ken paur at the Ogden Ranger District. He's been through this stuff for many years, working both sides of the legal issue.

I'm off to hug a tree, smoke some pot, and savour the last of our natinal forests.

Completeyly agree with your old growth statement. The old growth Hemlocks by WVU were unreal, and would never come back the same if touched.

Have recently retired Ogden FS head honcho working for us now as a consultant with me.

Last of our forests, I don't think so, but smoking up sounds good.


Im not a activist for cutting trees, but I will stand by my statement that wood is a renewable, natural resouce. This is a broad statement I realize and does not hit every single instance.

I also am not a tree hugger though. Somewhere in the middle. Forestry practice CAN make our forests healthier. I simply has to be done properly. This is something we have mabye yet to grasp.

[Buzzworthy]

Buzz - Of all people you should know that <5% of old growth is left in this country. If these fuckwits actually practiced sustained-yield forestry they wouldn't need that last 5%.

YES! That is part of why the FS has been in trouble for decades, they failed to see ahead.

I 100% agree with your last sentence. Or should I say, we would have more than 5% old growth if they has been practicing sustainable yield for decades, a lot better than they have done at least.

Old growth should be 100% protected IMO.

[Buzzworthy]

I will be attending this conference in June and I wonder if this topic will spring up.


http://www.acf-foresters.com/conference.html

[extreeski]

Shrub doesn't care what we think. The only thing he cares about is paying back all the industries and lobbiest that have supported the republican party for years. He is without couth, ethics, or morals.

All he cares about is money and the rolling back of anything progressive and forthright socially or environmentally in our country.

The only reason why he supports the tax breaks on hybrid vehicles is cause his corporations stand to make money off the changes.

[VC]

Cutting down trees is fun

[splat]

Could this simply be another case of timber corporations passing bribes through a chain of scumbag lawyers (to avert being labeled outright bribery) into the coffers of the Bush Corporation?
Another fine example of selling out the interests of the American public for the benefit of the heirarchy of Bush?
Believe it.

[Lone Star]

WOOD IS A RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCE!

But a forest isn't.

[freshie247]

Predictably, this thread is making my head hurt. Tree farms aren’t ancient ecosystems. The Roadless Rule did not drop out of the sky; it was created after the government held hundreds of public meeting across the West and received millions of written comments. Roadless national forest lands are not equivalent to wilderness areas, for instance, they are not off limits to all motorized use. The roadless rule banned road building. The federal government has always and will always manage large amounts of land. It is their job, arguing that it is unconstitutional when you don't like their totally legitiment decisions or that some rube in Buttfuck, Montana and Industry Town, Idaho could do a better job is ridiculous. Proximity does not give you more of a right to use public land or some how qualify you as an expert. Federal lands are owned in common by everyone in the United States. Logging on public land is welfare. People on welfare need to get a real job. Real jobs don’t require federal subsidies. Anyway, if you don’t agree with me, you can suck my fucking lizard.

Thanks for posting this,I didn't want to have to pony up on such a stupid thread to get the word out.

[mtbakerskier]

Once again our president proves that he is the dumbest mother fuck on the planet, and that he can be easily bought, what the fuck ever happened to democracy?


oh yeah it was bought out.

here is a big FUCK YOU to the bush admin

[Grange]

Buzz, if you are referring to NEPA, it is not a protection act, only a policy act, therefore mitigation usually occurs and the environmental aspect of any ACTION on FEDERAL LAND that uses FEDERAL money, is not always of the best interest to the environment.

NEPA only requires an agency to follow guidelines, not protect the environment.

However, I completely disagree with your notion that trees are a renewable resource. For instance, old growth forests, such as those in the Tongass, the PNW, and in some cases Utah, are not renewable. Period.

If you are talking about tree farms or re-establishing a forest to use for more lumber, then you are correct, but not entirely correct. Trees grown from mother natures love are seasoned and have stood the test of time. Replanted tree farms are forced to rapidly grow, ie. growth stimulants, which makes the trees weaker (for construction purpoes) and therefore means they will not hold up against time. A tree with 30 years fo growth is not the same as a chemically induced tree grown over a ten year period, even though they may look the same.

protection of every tree is not what most of us are after. But wouldn't it be nice to have most of our most precious resources protected from logging, oil and gas exploration, and devastation? Wouldn't it also be nice to walk through the woods to see an ivory billed woodpecker, a badger, a deer, a golden eagle, hell, even a white tailed deer?

All the passing of this bill does is protect the few who will profit from the opening of these areas, not the thousands who might enjoy them for the beauty, which actually has an economical value, believe it or not. If you don't, look at the economy of Kane County, Utah...the Grand Staircase! Their economy will sustain itself for many many years to come because of tourism, not just ten years if they allowed oil and gas.

Lets spark another debate...the Legacy Highway. Sorry, I mean the Legacy parkway. They changed names to manuever around some laws. Mitigation of environmental impact is a complete misnomer. Putting a highway through valuable wetlands will bolster growth, home and industiral construction, therefore polluting one of the most interesting, intriguing, and studied ecosystems in the world, the Great Salt Lake.

Syre, mitigation measures might be taken, but int he long run, there really is no mitigation measure once they restart the construction of the parkway.

I bring this up because mitigation measures taken while building roads through forests bring more than logging equipment in. Noxious and invasive weeds come. Irresponsible OHV users come. (Not all OHV users are irresponsible) Important corridors for animals are altered. Sedimentation to riparian areas increases, almost no matter what mitigation measure is taken. Soil compaction occurs which equals more rapid run-off. the list goes on.

I also do not agree with your statement that the FS has been in trouble for decades. I'm forgetting the president at the time, but he wanted to bolster Americas economy and a way to do this, after WWII, was to build build build, and that meants log log log. At the time, the FS really did nto want to begin clear cutting everything to make a profit, the orders came down from the President. This sounds familiar doesn't it?

our deficits grow dramatically by the day and one way the Bush administration sees to lighten the load, is to open up public lands. Again, as it did in previous years, wil not work. But what will work is this: Bushes buddies are again, going to make bank off of the public, which will pay for the construction of these roads, pay for the revegetation of the abused land, and pay for the decommisioning of the oil and gas infrastructure the company, which will go "bankrupt", leaves behind. I say bankrupt because most of the O&G companies are a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a subsidiary of antoher subsidiary of a company in Europe or Jamaica if you're halliburton. There si no way to trace the companies history because they come and go so fast, leaving the cost and burden to the American people.

if you want to argue this further, I would suggest contacting Ken paur at the Ogden Ranger District. He's been through this stuff for many years, working both sides of the legal issue.

I'm off to hug a tree, smoke some pot, and savour the last of our natinal forests.

You are correct regarding NEPA. NEPA is not a decision making document. It is only a information document. The Forest Service is supposed to use this document to determine if a permit or approval should be granted.

I also fully agree with you mitigation statement. A large part of my job is wetland mitigation especially related to road construction. I have either directly designed or reviewed many wetland mitigation plans and no matter how much effort we put into the plan created wetland functional values are less that a similar natural wetland.

[char]

Newsflash: When the USFS stopped cutting trees in the PNW it made everyone else around them start to do real forestry. Plum Creek, etc no longer had to cut every fucking tree on an acre to compete with cheap logs from USFS contracts. They could finally start doing the semi-responsible forestry they wanted to.

The US is not the place to grow trees, as the global repositioning of forestry is clearly showing (Long leaf pine in the SE is doing well, but the exception generally). Chile, New Zealand, etc, can all produce logs faster and cheaper. This is why you see Wereheuser selling mills and buying plantations elsewhere.

Fiber production can be sustainable, but I'd argue that it is very difficult to make it profitbale in the US.