U.S. Forest Service

[Tom]

If there were one thing I wouldn't want to be, it would be an employee of the U. S. Forest Service.

We've had mention of Forest roads, harvesting and fire fighting problems on this forum but tonight, on the news, There is yet another law suit in the West of citizens claiming inept decision making in the recent fires.  Where will it stop?  the Southeast has sued over declining animal and plant species (spell sierra club).  Everybody is trying to get their hands into the Governments pockets through the USDA.

I hate to say it, but I don't understand.  What has happened that makes the Forest Service at fault for all the problems?

Is it really that inept or do people see deep pockets?

[woodman]

   Hay thats my pocket

[Tillaway]

Inept... maybe, they Riffed out most of thier best years ago.  One of our inspectors has a degree in resource and recreation.  This person knows nothing about the actual work we are doing in our contract.  Yet they are checking for compliance.  It is not their fault they are put into this situation and they do their best.  The fault is squarely on the policy makers shoulders in D.C.

To complicate this resource management decisions are often political and are made by people that have no business doing so.  There are so many compromises in these decisions that the resource management goals desired, can't be met.

The lawsuits are just another way of furthering your management agenda.  If you don't like whats being done (or whats proposed to be done) then you can tie it up in court so nothing is done.  Often times doing nothing is the desired out come.

[Ron Scott]

Yes, it's not the same U.S. Forest Service that use to be the "Marine Corp of the Department of Agriculture" for the various reasons previously mentioned.

The "Do nothing" and "No Management" philosophy prevailed upon them by "others" needs some serious attention of the taxpayers and the Congress.




The bears say: "Do Us a Favor...Stop Doing Us Favors"

The protester signs say: "Stop Forest Thinning"; "No Prescribed Burns"; "Danger, Flammable".

[Frank_Pender]

Ron,  one could jsut as easy replace the bears with a Spotted Owl or a Marbled Murlett (sp). and the facts of the toon would remain the same.  The signs of the Tillaway posting of Bureaucratium fits the scene very will.

[mustang]

I worked for the forest service for 25 years in timber and fire in Louisana, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Tennessee.  I finally had to leave because i could not take what the outfit had turned into.  The "Olg Guard" are just about all gone.  Replaced with folks that have no ties to the land ie. farming, logging, mining or ranching. The "Greens" have taken over most line positions( rangers and forest supervisors).  It is truly a sad day for a once proud organization.

[Tom]

welcome Mustang.

[CHARLIE]

Welcome to the Forum Mustang. I sure hope you stick around. It sounds like you have a lot of experience and probably some good stories to share.

[mustang]

Thanks for the welcome.  Found the forum from a link on wood web that Bibbyman or nobel put up. I just bought my first mill a hud-son 36.  I got alot to learn.  I know now why one of our timer purchasers said everyone that marks timer sould run a sawmill for a while.

[Tom]

I've seen some of the Hudson mills run at the Moultrie Ga. Ag show.  Most of the ones they would bring were small.  You'll have to tell us about yours.

[Jeff]

I know now why one of our timer purchasers said everyone that marks timer sould run a sawmill for a while.

A-Men

Welcome Mustang

[Bro. Noble]

Welcome Mustang,

I like to try to stear people that look like good forum members this way.  I know that Bibbyman and others do the same.  I enjoy both forums but consider this one home.  It has personality thanks to the participants and especially thanks to the hard work and dedication of Jeff.

and thats
No Bull

[whitepe]

Amen to the good job by Jeff on his website brother Noble.

[Ron Scott]

NATIONWIDE NEWS

Road-building in national forests limited for one year.
No new roads or logging will be allowed in 49 million acres of national forest land for the next year unless approved by the secretary of agriculture, the Obama administration announced Thursday.

Policy Update

[blame]

oooo another one thanks to our wonderful new president 

[TheWoodsman]

oooo another one thanks to our wonderful new president 

 

[Rocky_Ranger]

The Forest Service is a political animal just as any Department in the Government, the "use book" written by Gifford Pinchot was 34 pages long - with pictures, and a small book at that.  My book now that lists the major laws governing management is about 300 pages long and in very small type - just the titles of the laws.  The Forest Service didn't pass a single one - they all came from Congress and signed by the President, ultimately they started out as all taxpayers ideas.  You bet it is confusing, you bet it makes ya shake your head and wonder some times, but it still is a good Agency - with a tough job.  Times are a'changin, there is not as much environmentalism within the ranks as there was in the 1980's and early 90's, work is getting done.  That work is different than the old days when logging ran the show.  Those that can change with the times - the times are pretty good.  We are still bogged down in our administrative work; Albuquerque Service Center has not been a bargain, and has caused lots of stress on our folks.  But, times are a'changin - work is getting done; logs are heading down the road, plantations are being established, recreation and Wilderness activities are happening, cows are grazing, Rx burns being done, etc.  Just gotta roll with the flow and keep on pushing to do what's right with the land.. 

The roadless thing is a bunch of hogwash anyway, the new ruling just means the Secretary will make the calls.  That had been delegated down under the Bush Administration so it has just been "undelegated".  I think I seen where only 45 +/- had even been proposed (roads) in the past eight years.  We still can propose a road in Inventoried Roadless, just got to get Mr. Vilsack to do the bidding now......

[Ron Scott]

Good Update. I just sent in my reservations for the Forest Service Reunion in Missoula, Montana September 6-11. Looking forward to it.

[zopi]

There is a reason your government is inept...at all levels...over that last few years, the reliable,
intelligent, wise, thoughtful professional government worker has been run out in favor of the
easily controlled politically reliable...especially in the officer ranks of the military...there are a few good ones left, but  there are alot of frighteningly stupid people in very critical positions..

Alberto Gonzales anyone?

That might aggravate some folks...but it is my considered opinion..

[Rocky_Ranger]

I'd like to go to Missoula and see that, probably won't make it though.  Looking at a move coming up but nothing in the works as yet - wishful thinking, I reckon.  I've still got 10 years or so with the outfit before I can retire, could have been eligible now if I'd stayed in at the on-set.  No redos, and no regrets either.  18 years in private industry and running my own company was not only fun but a heck of a learning experience.  Gives me quite an edge in what I do now.

[Ron Scott]

Fire Destroys Forest Service Headquarters

Blue Mountain Eagle (Grant County, Oregon, July 13) - The district headquarters of the US Forest Service in Enterprise was recently destroyed by fire on July 11 and, a few days later, the site was declared a crime scene. Investigators from the state fire marshal’s office have initiated a probe that was expected to include agents from the FBI and US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, as well as Oregon State Police arson investigators. According to the Forest Service, no one was in the building built of logs when the fire broke out. The structure, however, was “a total loss.”

http://www.bluemountaineagle.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&subsectionID=12&articleID=24462

[ouachita]

After working for 22 years as a consulting forester in Texas, I went to work for the USFS on the Ouachita National Forest as a senior forestry technician.  When fully staffed, I managed ten timber markers.  I was, and still am, appalled at the lack of knowledge of a supposably knowledgeable crew.  Four new hands came on board a week before me, two of which had several years of experience.  I left after eight months. 

A major problem as Rocky pointed out is the Albuquerque Service Center, which is the human resource department for the Forest Service.  All personnal that are hired by the different federal agencies have to go through the same paperwork shuffle of getting hired. The ASC has never got it's act together.  After you were hired, any contact you made with ASC was an act in frustration.  We went to work at 6 am CST.  They opened up at 7 am CST.  An hour lost if you were making a morning call.  Since we traveled in a crew truck, several man hours were lost.  It would have been nice if we would have had someone in the office to field questions and act as a liasion to the ASC.  Many times I told my techs if they didn't get an answer immediately, they were to wait several minutes, then call the ASC again.  Another more knowlegable ASC staffer would answer their question. 

I am convinced that that the Ouachita National Forest is being over harvested.  Can I prove it?  No. Just a gut feeling after working in the woods for 30 years.  Asking around, no one could give me any figures telling me anything different.

There are some great people working in the USFS.  Then there are others who are afraid to try something different or fear stepping on someone else's toes.

Charles Westmoreland CF, RF
Arkansas Registered Forester
Consulting Forester

Hot Springs Village, Arkansas

[ErikC]

 I just spent about a week working for them as a mule packer in the Trinity alps wilderness, and have done a lot of similar work in the past. They are an inept organization. But there are many good people who still work there, and a few of the new ones are too. It can be hard to separate the two, but it seems for the most part like the administrators see things different than the ones who do the work. Unfortunately the ones who know what needs done aren't in charge.

[Ron Scott]

Man Wins Battle To Limit Hunting, Snowmobiling In National Forests

BY DAVID ASHENFELTER
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

Kurt Meister isn't your average pro se litigant. Unlike most pro ses -- those who represent themselves in court and usually lose -- Meister has a law degree from Harvard University and time on his hands.

That made it easier for Meister, a 52-year-old stay-at-home dad and full-time stock market investor, to take on the U.S. Forest Service after gunfire from hunters repeatedly caused his daughters to dive for cover during family outings in the Manistee National Forest.

Last Wednesday, Meister's three-year legal battle finally paid off when a three-judge panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the Forest Service to consider declaring a small portion of the Huron-Manistee National Forests off limits to gun hunters and motorized vehicles, including snowmobiles.

"I've won a battle, but not the war," Meister said last week. "My biggest worry is that the Forest Service will subvert the decision and find a way to rationalize what they already decided."The Justice Department and Forest Service said they still are reviewing the decision.

The judges -- Raymond Kethledge, Deborah Cook and Gilbert Merritt -- said the service, in developing its 15-year plan, used arbitrary estimates in determining how many snowmobilers and cross-country skiers use the forests.
It also failed to coordinate recreational planning with the State of Michigan to reduce duplication of gun hunting and snowmobiling between state and national forests.

The judges gave the forest service 90 days to revise the plan it adopted in 2006, and to decide whether to close primitive and semi-primitive nonmotorized portions of the forests -- 6.75% of the combined 970,000 acres of the forests -- to gun hunters and snowmobilers.

"It's a recognition that not every activity can happen on every acre of the forests," said Marvin Roberson, a Sierra Club forest ecologist who lives in Marquette. Meister, an avid hiker and cross-country skier who grew up in Eastpointe, spent his summers in the Manistee National Forest, where his parents had a cottage.

After graduating with an economics degree from Wayne State University in 1979 and a law degree from Harvard University in 1982, he practiced law for 10 years for Clark-Hill, a prominent Detroit law firm. Along the way, he married, had two daughters and decided to stay home to raise them.

Meister said he sued the service in 2007 after it repeatedly ignored his requests to consider closing off a portion of the forests to gun hunters and motorized vehicles in developing its 15-year plan for the parks. He lost at the U.S. District Court in Detroit and appealed.

He figures he has devoted $150,000 to the project, mostly in the form of time.
And he doesn't dislike hunters or snowmobilers. "I don't have anything against people doing their own thing," he said. "I just want to make sure everyone can do their own thing."

Contact DAVID ASHENFELTER: dashenfelter@freepress.com




 

[Tom]

I guess that everybody can do their thing if they recognize that there are others.   Meister isn't recognizing that there are others.  Hunters aren't armed in the woods for nine months out of the year.  If recognized as an entity why shouldn't they be allowed their time too.   I'm not saying that hunters should go around shooting people, I'm just saying that Meister's expectations are greedy.  Perhaps Hikers should acknowledge that they are sharing the Forest duing those times.

It's like the old joke of staying out of the jungle between midnight and one A. M. because that's when the elephants jump out of the banana trees.

Hikers should stay out of the Forest during hunting season because there are guns out there then.   It's already mandated that you don't take guns into the Forest outside of Hunting Season.  So, who is right and who has rights.

The designation of special-use areas has already been acknowledged by the USDA but some want it all.

If Meister feels  he has expended $150,000 to get what he wants, how much would you think that the USDA spends of our money to defend itself in court from the many who take them there to gain "wants"?

[DanG]

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on that one, Tom.  On the face of it, which is all we have to go on, it appears to me that Meister's case is based on the greed of the hunters.  Why should the rest of the world cease to function for one fourth of the year just because a relative few claim that as their time to play?  It seems to me that it was the hunters who weren't(and aren't) recognizing that there are others, and that those others should have some rights too.

[Jeff]

The hunters don't "Choose" that time. Its appointed to them. The same could be done for other activities. Hiking for hiking's sake interferes with hunting.

[Warbird]

What Jeff said.

[DanG]

And what I say is, so what?  He didn't ask for them to outlaw hunting.  He just asked for a very small portion of the 970,000 acres to be left for other activities, leaving over 93% of it exclusively for the 5% of the population who hunt.  Why should I feel like I'm trampling on your right to trample on my rights?

[Jeff]

Okay then, we'll just take your handguns and center fire rifles along with the right to hunt on that land as you won't need as much firepower any longer. You can keep your shotguns, you should be able to hunt with what we leave you without infringing on your hunting rights eh? You should also know that even though we won't let you hunt in that part of the national forest, the native americans will continue to have the right to do so, just like they can continue to gill net your salmon that were planted in your great lakes with the money collected from your license fees. Maybe we will introduce even more wolves to the mix to totally screw up the hunting  and appease the insurance companies who's profits are being dipped into while you continue to pay hunting license fees to help manage the deer herd just enough to feed those wolves who inhabit those lands on which you can no longer hunt. Just think how many government jobs we can create to manage those wolves.

give an inch take a mile

[Reddog]

"I don't have anything against people doing their own thing,"

Yes he does, suing proved that.

Meister, an avid hiker and cross-country skier

That pretty much tells me where his thought process is.

Sad day for the public use of Federal forest lands.

[Reddog]

A little digging turns up some good stuff.

He said he has monitored management of the National Forest since the late 1980s, when the Sierra Club appealed to the Forest Service to set aside some areas for quiet uses and asked concerned users to make sure it was done.

Kurt Meister, a Novi lawyer who has a cottage in Cadillac near the National Forest

So he doesn't live there.

[DanG]

Well I'm not going to get into a pithing match over gun rights here.  You know DanG well that I'm just as much of a gun rights advocate as anyone here, anyway.  I just don't see the subject at hand as a gun rights issue at all.  There are other types of outdoor recreation besides hunting, ya know.  It just sounds to me like there is enough land there to accomodate some of these other activities as well.

"Give an inch, take a mile"?  That could also turn into "give an inch, or lose a mile".  The population of the U.S. has almost doubled just in my lifetime, so it stands to reason that there is less and less land available for hunting.  This is just a fact of life.  Many of us who do not hunt have to make concessions to those who do.  There are times when I won't even go into my own pasture, because my neighbor put a deer stand on his own land, and his shooting lane comes in my direction.  It was ok until he thinned his pine trees, but now I can see the DanG thing from my place.  I don't want to ask him not to hunt there, so I just avoid the area when he or his son might be there.  I don't really mind this little inconvenience, but that's just because I really like the guy.  If I didn't like him, I'd probably make him move it and he would think I was a tree-huggin' pinko liberal communist.

My point is that those of us who don't hunt are hurting for land to use, too.  We used to ride our horses on the paper company land around us, but now they've fenced it off and leased it to hunting clubs, so the hunters have full rights to it and non-hunters have no rights at all, at any time.  There are also some private lands around here where the State has leased the hunting rights for public hunting grounds.  Guess what. NOBODY but hunters can use that land.  It is closed off all year except for hunting season...no fishing, no hiking or horseback riding or ATV riding...just hunting.

[Jeff]

Well I'm not going to get into a pithing match over gun rights here.

The problem is that you are doing just that, because odds are on that what this is truly about. One of the goals of anti-gun is if you get rid of hunting, in effect you get rid of the need for the hunters to have guns if there is no hunting.  Like I said, give them an inch and they will take a mile.

I don't believe for one second this guy's goal was to make a safe place to hike. Bull pukey,

[Tom]

(A bit of an effort at humor here.)

I think that the FLDOT should reserve the fast lane of I-10, I-75 and I-95 for Harleys for the last week of February through the end of the second week of March.  It would go a long way toward protecting the lives of the riders, who are having to dodge all of those cagers every day.

"Give an inch, take a mile"?  That could also turn into "give an inch, or lose a mile".  The population of the U.S. has almost doubled just in my lifetime, so it stands to reason that there is less and less highway available for riding Harleys.  This is just a fact of life.  Many of us who ride motorcycles have to make concessions to those who don't.  There are times when I won't even go into my own town, because my neighbor put a semi-truck on his own lane, and his driving lane comes close to my lane.  It was ok until he wanted to pass, but now I can feel the wind from the DanG thing from my lane.  I don't want to ask him not to drive there, so I just stay at home when he or his son might be out for a drive.  I don't really mind this little inconvenience, but that's just because I really like the guy.  If I didn't like him, I'd probably make him move it and he would think I was a road-raged pinko liberal communist.

The county has bought up an old railroad bed, paved it and made a big, wide hiking and bike path out of it that runs from Jacksonville all the way to Baldwin.   It's a heck of short cut and they won't let motorcycles or cars on it at all.  

[DanG]

    Good one Tom!

Why is it that along about the Autumnal Equinox, some people can't see anything that doesn't have a crosshair on it?  Jeff, you know DanG well that I'm a gun owner and that I will do whatever it takes to keep it that way.  You can call Mr. Meister's motives into question if you like, and I qualified my position on that in my first statement, but the opinions I have stated are entirely honest ones.  I will be highly insulted if you suggest otherwise, as you seem to be leaning in that direction.  Regardless of Meister's motives, which neither of us really knows, I know that my arguments here are not in any way about restricting gun rights.  My only concern is the use of that public land by citizens of the U.S., and nothing more.  I would appreciate it if you would accept my opinions as being honest ones, whether you agree with them or not.

[Gary_C]

And right in the middle of this stands The U.S. Forest Service trying to make everyone happy and in the end, pleasing no one.  

I'd have to agree with Tom and refer you back to the opening statement back in 2002.

If there were one thing I wouldn't want to be, it would be an employee of the U. S. Forest Service.

[Jeff]

My statements dont question your motives dAN  dang laptop! urgg....  Only the flatlander with a law degree from Southern Michigan. As far as I'm concerned, you are in Florida and anything that happens in Florida to form your opinions is beyond my direct knowledge or perspective so I wouldn't care to speculate on it.

[DanG]

Tha's cool.  Your last one just kinda sounded like you were lumping me in with the Sierra Club, and that wasn't setting too well.

[Jeff]

Im lucky I can convey even a wrong idea on this STOOPIDLAPTOP

[Ron Scott]

If there were one thing I wouldn't want to be, it would be an employee of the U. S. Forest Service.

I was one for 38 years and got to know Kurt Meister quite well.

[IMERC]

they are inept....
we call them the keepers of the flame here....


way too politically motivated...

[SwampDonkey]

Here is a different scenario. Probably has no place in this thread, but I've already started typing so here it is. We started a new work area the first day of the moose hunt. A group of hunters, who were unaware that this site was to be thinned, had worked at putting up blinds along roads for their hunt and had several signs and rocks painted about hunting here. Everyone know the hunting of moose is the last week end of the month of September (Thurs-Sat). We had no other site to go to, but here. We allowed the hunters to have a short while in the first morning to have a crack at a moose. But after that we had to get to work, time is money from our pockets kind of thing. I suppose if they wanted to fuss over it they could. But, I'm sure if the boss had asked for $250 per man (13 of us) for each day lost so they could hunt it would have changed things. If not, if they said to bugger off, a call to the closest DNR ranger office would have settled it. There is a good rule in the woods, no hunting around woods operations.

As far as the Sierra Club and lawyers with nothing but tax payer time, we don't get that here. All our federal lands in NB are tied up in National Parks where there is no hunting, trapping and so on and a Military Base, where they do allow passes for hunting, but not just anyone. Those lands only comprise 2 % of our provincial territory. I've never heard of anyone suing the government to change rules and policy. There are lots of report writing, pertaining to policy and such, going on to give someone a job at that. But, nothing much comes of those reports. Majority of folks are just passive. I call it the "Loyalist syndrome".

[Rocky_Ranger]

Well, isn't this an interesting thread?  This is a typical day working for the USFS, except this decision has already been rendered in court.  I wouldn't want anybody shooting toward my house either; and, I wouldn't want somebody to take away my right to hunt.  Hunting is already closed in some portions of the National Forests, when and where is generally determined by the specifics.  Does the public's right to hunt outweigh the safety and protection afforded to a homeowner?  Apparently not in Michigan. 

[Reddog]

  Does the public's right to hunt outweigh the safety and protection afforded to a homeowner? 

No we have very specific laws about hunting around property boundary's.
Now if a non hunter deems they want to go out bird watching or hiking during hunting season, they have some issues to understand before they go on to public land open to hunting.
Recreational hunting has been voted on many times in the state of Michigan, and we have voted to keep it.

[Rocky_Ranger]

Exactly, if a non-hunter chooses to go out during hunting season then they acquire the burden of liability.  I'm sure ya'll have the "hunter orange" requirements, also makes sense to not be stupid and aggravate somebody with a loaded firearm.......  But, if there is a real danger of mis-guided rounds towards a subdivision, say, the Agency at least has the responsibility to look at the problem.  Looks like in this case the Courts made that finding first.

[Reddog]

Exactly, if a non-hunter chooses to go out during hunting season then they acquire the burden of liability. 

No, the hunter is liable for where there round goes.

[SwampDonkey]

I am sure the hunter is responsible for his rounds as Reddog says.

We don't have the pressure over open space up here. Up where my friend lives in Sault Ontario there are all kinds of folks from Michigan coming up to fish and hunt. He gets a little put out when roads to public landings get illegally blocked, so they get reported.

Not a whole lot of hunting goes on here, it's just window hunting. A road will get tramped to death in hopes of shooting one deer that was unlucky to show up. My grandfather never hunted like that, it was all on foot and he hunted into his 80's. The last deer he shoot we had to drag across two beaver ponds. It wasn't off the side of the road by quite a ways. He knew how deer traveled and where they would hold up, their behavior, habits. He had a sense for it. He was a guide/outfitter since age 14. Fellows of his generation and those before him knew more about hunting than most now a days. Heck he was sometimes appointed game warden to fill in for someone in days when you didn't need degrees and certificates after your name.

[Rocky_Ranger]

Normally the hunter is liable, there are cases settled in Court where the burden falls on the non-hunter.  Case in point; fellow in camouflage calling turkeys.  Another hunter shot at the decoys and hit the hunter.  Hunter tried to sue and lost.  Another case in point; hunter in tree stand was fatally shot 3 times by a high-powered rifle.  Wife claimed innocence - she lost.

[DanG]

The Constitution says that we have certain inalienable rights, but along with those rights come some inalienable responsibilities.  The safe use of a firearm is one of those.  It is also incumbent upon any potential victim to watch out for his own safety as best he can.  I see the subject of this discussion as a fellow who is trying to look out for his own safety, while still being able to enjoy being out in the woods.  If I was on a jury, I would look at all sides of the responsibility issue.  Most victims of hunting accidents are other hunters, and almost all of them involve at least one person not following the safety rules.  That one fellow who got shot out of his tree stand made his mistake well in advance of his demise.  He simply married the wrong woman.

[Rocky_Ranger]

Dang right!

[Ron Scott]

Forest Service waives fees on Veterans Day

Veterans Day, Nov.11, the Forest Service continues a tradition of waiving fees at some recreation sites. The Forest Service is working to ensure as many visitors as possible have the opportunity to experience the great outdoors and take advantage of recreational activities America’s national forests and grasslands have to offer.

Chief's Newsletter

[SwampDonkey]

I hear the forest service is encouraging the youth of the country to experience the forests and outdoors with some of their current advertising on the radio.

However, there needs to be more walking and hiking than sitting during that recreating.

[Rocky_Ranger]

Couldn't agree more, Swamp; we've went from about 90 kids to around 3,000 this year.  Lot's of OHV training, fishing, etc.  I been hiking a few trails of late and looks like we might need to maybe do some trail maintenance.  A little sweat helps appreciate a days work.  Cut & pile some brush, clean a few tirlets, put in a few waterbars, etc.  I like the aim of the program - might even fish and recreate after all those chores get did...   

[Ron Scott]

Burned Forest Value Central to Tahoe Logging Fight

Associated Press (April 9) — A recent lawsuit filed to prevent the US Forest Service from logging in a swath of burned Sierra forest claims that burned forests are ecologically significant and should be left to regenerate on their own.

But the idea that the blackened forest should be left alone is not an easy sell in Lake Tahoe, where 250 homes were destroyed in a June 2007 south shore blaze. Moreover, the US Forest Service contends that logging and restoration are necessary to prevent a similar fire in the future.

The E-Forester

[timerover51]

If the area had homes in it, not sure why there should be an objection, as it had already been subject to disturbance.  As for regenerating on its own, the problem there is trying to keep invasive species out and making sure native species are there.

[SwampDonkey]

We don't have an invasive species problem tree-wise here when depending on natural regeneration. Sometimes it's just not spruce in straight rows.  Usually aspen, birch, red maple and fir. Just look at all the old farms abandoned. Some have been harvested twice since they grew back from fields cleared in the 19th C.

[northwoods1]

If the area had homes in it, not sure why there should be an objection, as it had already been subject to disturbance.  As for regenerating on its own, the problem there is trying to keep invasive species out and making sure native species are there.

The people who are objecting to it may be objecting because they simply don't want to see a timber sale happen and the forest managed for timber production. It is the same old story nothing new here. The greenies want it left alone that is the long and short of it.

[Rocky_Ranger]

I know it's not timber management <gasp>, and I don't think it is even the salvage.  I have seen both sides of the argument for a long time and sure can't see how we got into this mess in the first place.  National Forest are managed for use - period.  How we define what use, and the degree of use should be how we are "framing" the discussion.  I certainly don't see anything wrong with salvaging a product with value over not dong so.  There are, however, studies out that say it's better to leave the salvage on-site.  Better for the ecology.  We try and rethink this stuff too much and we won't have anything on this Continent but Native Americans and a few Spanish along our southern tier of States.  'Course, the Native Americans probably think that'd be OK too........... <grin> 

[northwoods1]

I know it's not timber management <gasp>, and I don't think it is even the salvage.  I have seen both sides of the argument for a long time and sure can't see how we got into this mess in the first place.  National Forest are managed for use - period.  How we define what use, and the degree of use should be how we are "framing" the discussion.  I certainly don't see anything wrong with salvaging a product with value over not dong so.  There are, however, studies out that say it's better to leave the salvage on-site.  Better for the ecology.  We try and rethink this stuff too much and we won't have anything on this Continent but Native Americans and a few Spanish along our southern tier of States.  'Course, the Native Americans probably think that'd be OK too........... <grin>  

Rocky your absolutely right I just read some online articles about this specific situation and it clearly is not a case of the forest service wanting to manage this ground for timber production. And there may be sound ecological reasons for leaving this burnt over area as is. But all too often, and what my original point was, is that different groups simply object to managing federal and at all... they want it left as is. Now, in my mind I think we all pay to employ people in the U.S. Forest Service to create and implement policy such as in this situation. But yet there are so many groups that just want to buck the system any way possible because ultimately they do not like managing federal land for timber production at any level. It is about not cutting trees and harvesting wood. That is it in a nutshell.
I just read the most interesting book called "Commerce of the Prairies" by Josiah Gregg. He was a Dr. and a well educated man for his time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Gregg even then, he was talking about how he thought the ecology of the american west was being significantly changed through the absence of fire brought on by mans intervention. This was in the 1820's to 40s' but a lot of his observations and thoughts were based on what he had learned from "old timers". One of the most interesting things, I thought, that he wrote about was how since the the large fires that had been naturally occurring for so long were becoming more scarce, this was causing the forested areas to expand and encroach more and more upon the grasslands in many areas, quite a significant amount. He thought this was causing 'the climate' to change! Primarily because the amount of annual precipitation was changing for many areas. He thought mans intervention upon the natural ecological system (specifically as it relates to the amount of natural wildfires) was causing a change in the climate.
 

[Rocky_Ranger]

Well, now ya went and done it - I gotta find & read that book.....

[Ron Scott]

Help the Forest Service Locate American Elm "Survivors"

US Forest Service - Researchers at the Northern Research Station in Delaware, Ohio, would like to expand current efforts to screen American elm trees that may be tolerant or resistant to Dutch elm disease. To facilitate this effort, agency employees are asking for the help of state foresters, park employees, and the interested public to identify large American elm trees on their landscapes.

http://nrs.fs.fed.us/disturbance/invasive_species/ded/survivor_elms/

The E-Forester

[tyb525]

We've actually got quite a few large, healthy red elms on our property.

[Ron Scott]

USFS Defends Plan to Log Burned Forest at Tahoe

Mercurynews.com, Published by Scott Sunner, June 20th
Responding for the first time to a lawsuit by conservationists, the U.S. Forest Service says the threat of another major wildfire like the one that destroyed 250 homes at Lake Tahoe four years ago outweighs any concerns that its plans to log much of what's left of the burned forest would harm a rare woodpecker or other wildlife. But environmentalists suing to block the post-fire salvage logging on Tahoe's south shore say the agency is exaggerating the fire danger and downplaying the anticipated impacts of logging about half of the 3,000 acres that burned in the Angora fire in June 2007.

The E-Forester

[Ron Scott]

Boy Scouts of America celebrate 100 years by planting 100,000 trees in the Flathead National Forest

During the last weekend in June, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) joined with the Arbor Day Foundation, AT&T and the Flathead National Forest to dedicate 100,000 trees planted on the Forest.  The activity was part of BSA’s landmark 100th anniversary celebration and a nationwide tree-planting campaign with the Arbor Day Foundation.

The effort culminated in the official designation of the Boy Scouts of America Centennial Forest, located on a 30,000-acre tract of land on the Flathead National Forest.  The trees will help restore acres burned in the 2007 Brush Creek Wildland Fire.  As such, they will serve as a lasting legacy of the BSA’s 100th anniversary, will provide habitat for wildlife including the endangered grizzly bear, and help to filter the rivers and lakes that drain into Flathead Lake, one of the cleanest freshwater lakes in the world.

The Chief's Newsletter

[Ron Scott]

Conservation Groups Challenge Logging in Black Hills National Forest

Associated Press (November 7) - Four conservation groups-the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, the Western Watersheds Project, the Native Ecosystems Council, and the Prairie Hills Audubon Society-are suing the US Forest Service over what they call "extreme levels" of logging in the Black Hills National Forest of southwest South Dakota and northeast Wyoming.

The lawsuit, filed October 28 in US District Court in Wyoming, alleges that the Forest Service has not lived up to earlier promises to protect wildlife and habitat in the 1.2 million acre forest.

The E-Forester

[Bobus2003]

Conservation Groups Challenge Logging in Black Hills National Forest

Associated Press (November 7) - Four conservation groups-the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, the Western Watersheds Project, the Native Ecosystems Council, and the Prairie Hills Audubon Society-are suing the US Forest Service over what they call "extreme levels" of logging in the Black Hills National Forest of southwest South Dakota and northeast Wyoming.

The lawsuit, filed October 28 in US District Court in Wyoming, alleges that the Forest Service has not lived up to earlier promises to protect wildlife and habitat in the 1.2 million acre forest.

The E-Forester

Theirs a bunch of crap like this goin on right now.. We are logging to heavy, We arn't logging enough to stop the beetles... If its not one thing its another

[SwampDonkey]

Our problem here is we had too much capacity in a small province. The piece size was getting smaller and smaller. There is lots of trees, but harvesting practices pushed the rotation time shorter. It all regenerates pretty good. But harvesting all the older stuff helped destroy the deer herds, no older growth softwood for wintering. The Christmas Mountains are stripped bare for the next 80 years before the next forest becomes mature. That wasn't all harvesting, a lot of it blew down in 1995. That area is the head of all the major rivers here. Trout fishing suffered to because of roads everywhere and stream environment changed. The water no longer boils with trout when you toss a fly out there. The brook trout is a beautiful fish. Right now where the mature softwood was left as DMA's (deer management areas) is where all the deer are back away from the settlements. If the companies blat enough and they'll have that cut to. These are spruce dominated and those trees live for centuries.