Author Topic: Roadless (Read 3381 times)

Ron Scott · « **on:** November 02, 2000, 06:22:10 pm »

Is everyone keeping up on the Roadless Initiative
on National Forest system lands and its impacts on forest land and resource management?

Forester Frank · « **Reply #1 on:** November 09, 2000, 02:18:33 pm »

Have not heard much about roadless issue lately. What is happpening?

Frank Laurence

Ron Scott · « **Reply #2 on:** November 09, 2000, 04:25:13 pm »

Not much in public news at present.USFS is to make decision in December, but with current national election "snafu" going on there may not be a formal decision for awhile. The local HMNF seems to be going roadless at the whim of the local District Ranger. We need to be aware of this. Its very difficult to get any road use permits or any roads repaired, even when the user desires to do it for collaborative management with the USDA-FS.

Forester Frank · « **Reply #3 on:** November 10, 2000, 01:41:55 pm »

Ron:

Thanks for the reply. Could be an issue for us on the Huron and the Hiawatha.

Frank

Ron Scott · « **Reply #4 on:** November 14, 2000, 06:42:27 pm »

I just received a copy of the USDA-Forest Service Final Environmental Impact Satatement on its Roadless Area Conservation Initiative. I understand that the decision is out along with the new Planning Regulations.A lot to digest here.

Ron Scott · « **Reply #5 on:** November 17, 2000, 09:35:03 am »

On Monday, November 13, the Forest Service released the Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS) and preferred alternative for protecting nearly 60 million acres of roadless areas in National Forests. A final rule will be issued after December 18,2000 based on information in the FEIS.
On Thursday, November 9, USDA Dan Glickman announced the release of the new forest planning regulations. The new rule was published in the Federal Register on November 9.

Forester Frank · « **Reply #6 on:** November 17, 2000, 10:23:47 am »

I'll keep an eye on the Forest Service web site below for current news. This is an important one.

http://www.fs.fed.us/

Jeff · « **Reply #7 on:** December 01, 2000, 09:25:49 am »

The forest service offers this site for Roadless

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/

Ron Scott · « **Reply #8 on:** December 01, 2000, 02:58:54 pm »

The USDA-Forest Service is expected to make its final decision after December 18.16,000 acres are included in Michigan's 3 National Forests; nearly 60 million acres nationally. Timber harvesting on National Forest system land has decreased from 12 to 3 billion board feet, about 1/4 of what was harvested 5 years ago.If approved, the roadless proposal would reduce timber harvesting another 5 to 6 per cent. Local information can be obtained from Jim DiMaio Forest Planner; Huron Manistee National Forests (231)775-5023 ext.8759.

Ron Scott · « **Reply #9 on:** January 05, 2001, 04:58:51 pm »

President Clinton's Executive Order now makes 1/3 of the National Forests Roadless as a minimum. I hear that the local Huron-Manistee National Forest is asking for 35 new positions primarily in fire control.

L. Wakefield · « **Reply #10 on:** January 05, 2001, 05:45:40 pm »

You hit on a very sensitive note. I feel 'roadless' or not, access for fire control is pivotal for the health and survival of a forest. This begs the question of how much clearing and grooming vs how much 'natural' burn is optimum. I'd love to see a thread here where people sound off on their experiences in fire control. (Remind me, did we get into that? I think I've seen it on several other forestry websites.) I am certain that we could tap several points of view, all equally valid. Woodland owners will not feel the same as woodland commercial harvesters, who in turn will have differences of opinion from those setting policy (especially long-term policy) for national forests. LW

BCCrouch · « **Reply #11 on:** February 21, 2001, 12:42:52 pm »

Has anyone heard anything out of Washington, D.C. now that we have an administration that's unlikely to coddle the left-wing, pot-headed, ponytailed preservationists that might suggest a scaling back of the roadless policy to a more reasonable level?

I'd be willing to accept 25% of every national and state forest as some combination of roadless/old growth, but that's about my limit. The remainder needs to be kept in active production of one sort or another.

Ron Wenrich · « **Reply #12 on:** February 21, 2001, 02:51:13 pm »

I think I heard a blurb on the radio that Bush is going to allow more cutting on the national forests. I don't know why, considering the current market conditions. Timbermen were said to be very happy.

Reagan sold a lot of the national forest. It didn't turn out to be such a great deal for the forest.

All national lands should be depoliticized. Our state doesn't play politics with their forests. As a result, they have some of the better managed forests in the state. Timber that needs to be cut is cut, timber that needs to grow is left to grow and areas that need to be preserved are preserved.

Ron Scott · « **Reply #13 on:** February 23, 2001, 06:16:47 pm »

The Bush Administration has delayed the Roadless Regulations implementation date from March 13 to May 12 for more time to possibly address it.

The Huron-Manistee National Forests Public Information Meeting on its Forests Plan Revision for "Old Growth" is March 14; 0900AM-3:00PM at Bill Oliver's; Cadillac, Michigan. Contact Jim DiMaio at (231) 775-5023 ext.8759 if you need additional information.

timberbeast · « **Reply #14 on:** February 23, 2001, 07:50:17 pm »

Personally, I believe that those wishing to "preserve" forests should buy them. State and federal land is a different issue, as we elect those who make decisions on that, but we must know that there is more forest now than in 1900. The Hollywood types should stop spouting off about it and just buy it, if they want it preserved. They have the dough. Put up or......ya know?

Ron Wenrich · « **Reply #15 on:** February 25, 2001, 07:57:24 am »

I have to take issue with a few of your statements.

If you believe the "hollywood types" should have to buy the lands they want to preserve, why shouldn't the forest industry buy the lands they want to harvest?

Of course, it is much easier to use your money to control whoever's in control. The liberals have their pets, as do the conservatives. I would like to see public lands taken out of the political process. Let it be managed for whatever is the best use, be it preservation or timber production. Whatever happened to the multiple use concept?

The reason there is more forested area now than in 1900 is the demise of the family farm. More acreage has reverted back to forest from farmland. It has little to do with timber harvesting. Besides, development now poses more of a threat to the forest than harvesting activities.

Ron Scott · « **Reply #16 on:** February 25, 2001, 09:36:29 am »

Well said! Forest fragmentation from development is a primary loss of forest lands and their availability for multiple use. A study done in Michigan indicated that "schools" was one of the largest causes of forest fragmentation. Many school districts need new schools and rather than renovation of existing sites and buildings, they go off into nearby forested areas to relocate their new buildings. Then all the other home developments, roads, highways, etc. follow.

The USDA-Forest Servcie also had the idea to let the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, etc bid on their advertised timber sales along with the timber producers. If they were the high bidder, they could then hold the timber sale contract in a "no cut" status for the proposed harvest area. I'm not sure how contract extensions, if any, would be handled. Anyway, this hasn't been implemented. Not yet anyway.

timberbeast · « **Reply #17 on:** February 25, 2001, 09:51:22 pm »

Ron, you may have misunderstood my point. What I was getting at is the types who believe harvesting timber is evil, and protest, and chain themselves to trees, etc. All backed by the "hollywood types" who could easily buy thousands upon thousands of acres to protect the spotted owl or their latest crusade. I'm a capitalist, but not at the expense of decimating the forests. Sound practices are followed, and the forests flourish. My property has been in the family (central U.P.) since the 30's, and has been logged and re-logged, and I'm presently harvesting some terrific lumber. I have no objection to multi-use, in fact the state land across the couunty road was clear-cut, about 200 acres, maybe ten years ago, and has helped the deer herd and the partridge and turkey populations. As far as farms, in Wisconsin, where I live, the family farms around populated areas have become "retirement accounts", being subdivided into lots for houses. I can't blame them, it's their property, and its disposal is their perogative. What I'm driving at is that private ownership will always yield better results in any endeavor than will government ownership. Where I'm located, timber companies own massive amounts of land, leave it open for hunting and recreational use. This land is managed far better than government owned land. Why? Because it affects their livelihood.

BCCrouch · « **Reply #18 on:** February 26, 2001, 01:54:48 pm »

Just to play Devil's Advocate for the moment, how can you say that private management is ALWAYS superior to government management when private entities may always sell off their forestland to real estate rapists, oops, developers? Look at S.D. Warren/Sappi--they used to have sizeable tracts of land in New England but disposed of it all to generate cash to recoup some of the costs associated with the buyout? Is all of that land going to stay in production? Not a chance!

Baby boomers will be snapping up little 10 or 20 acre blocks for their retirement property just as they are doing in Michigan even as we speak. Take a look at a plat book from the 1980s and the change is both dramatic and more than a little worrysome to those who rely on 40+ acre thinnings to make ends meet. I don't anticipate the situation getting any better as time goes on, do you?

Ron Wenrich · « **Reply #19 on:** February 26, 2001, 04:15:00 pm »

My observations on state owned vs private owned lands indicate that the state is doing far better management than the privates.

I live in PA, and there is no licensing of foresters, loggers, or anyone else involved with the industry. Loggers have been high grading for years. We have one large mill that cuts all red oak at 14" and up. That's not management, that's mining.

When you look at stocking levels, state and federal lands are much better stocked. They also have a higher percentage of good quality timber. Publics don't go in fear and greed cycles like the privates. The publics can afford to sell poor quality timber and retain good growing stock. They also look at the forests for getting other goods from, besides timber.

I've never seen a shelterwood cut on private lands, with the exception of those managed by paper companies. Most timber sales are diameter limit high grades. The poorer quality is left to stand. I've seen too much of it to think it will ever change.

News:

Author Topic: Roadless (Read 3381 times)