🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5qgq4k$emh$1@news.pacifier.com>,
dhogaza@pacifier.com (Don Baccus) wrote:

> It sounds like your on the verge of espousing that tired old myth
> that "private timber lands are better managed than National
> Forests", a myth that a quick climb to the top of Saddle Mountain
> can disprove...

For those reading from other areas, Saddle Mountain is the highest peak
in the Oregon Coast Range, not a very impressive set of mountains, that
qualify as respectable hills around here.  I think Saddle Mountain is 
only about 2600 feet high.  The Coast Range is marine rain forest,
historically covered with doug fir, cedar, true fir and spruce.

Saddle Mountain is in the middle of what is known as the "Tillamook Burn,"
actually a series of three fires that consumed about 800,000 acres of
mostly virgin forest.  The worst of the fires was a firestorm of 
astonishing proportions.  The updraft created winds of 80 mph blowing
into the fire, and it spread a layer of soot 50 miles downwind.

Before The Burn, most of the land was private timber holding, but the 
great depression in combination with the fires forced many timber
companies to default on their property taxes.  Much of the land in
The Burn was never returned to private hands, and is now managed by
the BLM.

The Tillamook Burn was considered a tremendous disaster. The fire had
burned so hot, it would be generations before the forest recovered
naturally.  In about 1938 or 1939, the people of Oregon floated a bond 
issue to reforest The Burn. I think they voted about 6 million dollars 
for the effort, to be repaid from timber revenues.  It probably classes 
as one of the best public investments in history.  With the intervention 
of WWII, most of the replanting didn't get finished until the early 
1950's.

In the 1960's, people were discussing a 70-year harvest cycle.  By
modern standards, that's pretty long.  The original plan was to have
The Burn in full production by 2020, but they're taking a lot of
timber out right now.

The area around Saddle Mountain is still privately owned, and when the
price of stumpage peaked about 4 years ago, the owner (a timber company)
decided to harvest, which they did by clear cutting.  The Coast Range
gets about 40 to 80 inches of rain a year, so reforestation is easy.
Saddle Mountain is on the wetter west slope.  The property was immediately
replanted, then sold to another timber company interested in a long term
investment.  

This leaves a stump farm to look at until the new growth gets big enough.
A lot of hikers are upset, because they liked the scenery from the top of
Saddle Mountain.  If they wait about 20 years, the scenery will be back.
Eventually, the whole Burn will be clear cut except for riparian strips
and unstable slopes.  There's no concern with old growth, because there 
isn't any.  It either burned in the 30's or was salvaged out in the 40's 
and 50's.  It's a huge tree farm, and gets managed like a tree farm.

The fact that the owners decided to harvest says nothing about private
vs. public management.  The publicly managed trees will be clear cut
just like the privately managed trees.  
 
> If conservationists ONLY targetted industry workers, and not industry
> leaders and government as well, you'd have a point.  There's nothing
> illogical about attacking all elements involved, though.

Yeah.  Well, don't forget the railroads, the housing industry, and the
model boat builders of America, not to even speak of the evils of
Eberhard Faber.
 
> And who is it that provides that political lever?  The industry.  Remove
> the lever, and you'll remove the incentive for politicians to force
> stupid decisions down the throats of professional resource managers
> even when science tells us they're stupid.

And how do you propose to 'remove' the timber industry?  If you mean
remove the resource from political influence, I'm all for it.  However,
that means all you activists would be out of a job, and I don't think
you're that honest.
 
> Attacking elected officials is, in a real sense, merely attacking a
> symptom.  Remove one, and another will pop up willing to line his
> or her pockets with timber money.  You need to remove the money, the
> lever.

So, when are your buddies going to start addressing campaign finance
reform?  I'd be more interested in the spiel if there was any sign
you were addressing any of the problems.  You're not going to dismantle
the timber industry, and you're not going to stop the trees from
growing.  For that matter, you're not going to eliminate congresscritters
representing rural constituancies.  Urban pressure groups have a lot of
power, but they don't have control.

Demonizing everyone who doesn't toe the party line will inevitably cut
into your support base.  Holding bozo demonstrations that the general 
public thinks are foolish will cut into your support base.  Conservation
groups need to carefully guard against being taken over by the lunatic
fringe, like happened to the Sierra Club last year with their 'zero
harvest' vote.  Now they're stuck defending an indefensible position.

The conservation movement has done a pretty good job of opening a public
dialog on forest resource management, but the conservation movement
isn't going to get to dominate the conversation.  

-- Larry