Salvage Logging

[Almost There]

Has anyone seen anything on the report I believe put out by some researchers from Oregon State in regards to forest regeneration in burn zones. The study had to do with burn zones left alone and those subject to salvage logging. Over a two year period it was found that regeneration in unlogged zones was surpassing the regeneration in logged zones. Of course as the debate rages in Congress the White House is sending out experts to refute these claims saying that this study doesn't reflect where the forest areas will be in ten years, or the fact that forests made up of different kinds of trees may respond differently than the forests examined in Oregon. Bottom Line: The White House wants to allow logging in these areas...because the lobbyists say it needs to be done. What do you all think. Some of you may have more info on the subject and I am all ears.

[Scribe]

About the only time that I ALMOST felt sorry for a FS District Ranger was when he showed me huge piles of slash left by a logging company. He felt it was a fire waiting to break out. It was too much to haul out and it was too dry and too big to do a controlled prescribed burn. He was - in his words - "damned if he did, and damned if he didn't". This was in eastern Oregon and a few years later, it all burned from a lightning strike. I don't know what happened to the District Ranger...

As to salvage logging to prevent fires, it doesn't work - because timber companies don't want the smaller trees that readily burn - they want the big trees with lots of board feet. Big trees don't catch on fire unless the ground fire gets hot enough.

[Almost There]

That was something brought up in this study. There was more kindling type wood on the ground in the logged areas than in the burned but left alone areas. Where the trees were left these smaller branches were still attached to the burnt trees. Amazing how our wonderful forest service looks out for our forests.

[Cookerhiker]

From today's Washington Post:

Text:
<!--StartFragment --> Study Lends Support to Opponents of Logging

By JEFF BARNARD
The Associated Press
Thursday, January 5, 2006; 6:51 PM


GRANTS PASS, Ore. -- New research indicates that forests don't need to be replanted after wildfires and that cutting the burned trees for timber increases the short-term danger of new fires.
The study of the aftermath of a massive fire in an Oregon national forest, to be published online Friday in Science Express and later in the journal Science, gives opponents of salvage logging new support. But it is not likely to resolve the continuing debate in Congress over what to do with the millions of acres of national forests that burn every year.
"These results surprised us," said Dan Donato, a graduate student in forest science at Oregon State University who was lead author of the study. "Even after a huge high-severity fire in a place that is really tough to grow trees we are finding abundant natural tree regeneration."
Based on test plots in areas that were logged and not logged, the study found abundant seedlings growing, even in areas severely burned, most of which were killed when dead trees were cut down and hauled out. It also found that cutting the dead trees left much more wood on the ground to fuel future fires, even after the logs were hauled away, than leaving the trees standing, unless crews burn the debris.
The Biscuit fire was the nation's biggest in 2002, when it burned 500,000 acres of the Siskiyou National Forest in Oregon. It became the focus of intense legal and political battles.
Environmental groups argued that the best course is to let burned forests regenerate on their own, producing diverse habitats more resistant to future fires. The Bush administration and timber industry counter that harvesting dead trees provides valuable timber and pays for modern reforestation techniques that produce a new forest decades faster than nature.
Jerry Franklin, professor of forestry at the University of Washington, called the study "good science," bolstering his view that salvage logging almost never contributes to ecological recovery of a forest.
But John Sessions, professor of forest engineering at OSU, said the ultimate test of leaving a forest alone would be how many seedlings survive to maturity while competing with brush that will not be controlled unless dead trees are sold to pay for it.

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/05/AR2006010501485_pf.html

I didn't see the article in the on-line version of Science this morning but will keep looking.

Despite all the research in the world, the Administration will only do what it and the timber companies want.
<!-- start the copyright for the articles -->

[Cookerhiker]

Here's the link to the abstract on Science Express:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/gca?sendit.x=52&sendit.y=8&sendit=Get+all+checked+abstract%28s%29&gca=1122855v1

Viewing the full article requires paying a subscription fee.

[Animal Man]

Fire is a part of nature's cycle, logging isn't. You would think they would learn.

Happy Trails

P.S. I'm and old Hotshot (wildland FireFighter) so I have seen many examples of this in our forest

[Fiddler]

Keep those damn saws out of the woods. Loggers on their own land, or trail maintainence crews when necessary, otherwise leave the trees alone. Mother Nature will clear, thin out, replant, whatever is needed and do it RIGHT. And she won't be doing it just because there's a few bucks to be made.

[Fiddler]

By the way - - I think the title of this thread should be changed to Savage Logging. Get the 'L out.

[Almost There]

Fiddler, that would work, btw, I live in Georgia now, but grew up and lived in Schaumburg for 27 years! Go Bears!!!

[smokymtnsteve]

don't use TP.


USE TP??

THANK A LOGGER!

[Scribe]

Only 4% of this nation's timber is produced on National Forest lands. So, you should use only 96% of your toilet paper.

If you choose to use toilet paper that is 100% from public lands, that's your problem, not mine. ("Green Forest" products are made from 100% post-consumer wood products - and they do have TP ).

[Animal Man]

I am not against logging. I work as a sawyer and a bucker in the southwest, but it does take its toll on the land. alot of todays loggers do a good job at min the damage. but a burned area is a lot more sensitive to the damage. and "savage logging" does alot more damage than if mother nature was allowed to repair its selve. besides if you have ever harvasted charred burnt trees its not work most lumberjacks want to do anyway.

just my thoughts

[lobster]

Isn't the burnt matter good for the soil so harvesting it might not be the best idea for forest health? Also, since it is burnt, might not it break down fairly quickly ( in relative terms) with the effects of weather?

[Alligator]

Isn't the burnt matter good for the soil so harvesting it might not be the best idea for forest health? Also, since it is burnt, might not it break down fairly quickly ( in relative terms) with the effects of weather?
It depends on the fuel load. If all the material is burnt heavily, nutrients will fly through the system, carried out by streams. Thus lost. A heavy burn can sterilize the soil also. On the other hand, most western ecosystems are adapted to fire. If the fires are normal, the system should have no difficulty regenerating. That is, provided that the pre-burn forest is naturally established.

[partly cloudy]

I will no try to dispute the Oregon state rep[ort but then that's in the west. In the east, we have a complete different set of rules, especially the northeast.
The damaging fires in the west consume thousands of acrea, homes, even towns. An eastern fire in the Smokies or Appalachian mountains are mainly leaf fires and, at most, less than 100 acres. We don't have fires that rage thru the tree-tops. Yes, the ground gets scourched and young sapling are burnt, but rarely are standing timber affacted. A burn scar on the bask of a red oak will not hurt the tree.
The eastern hard wood forest must be thined out every so often. If you let the trees grow unchecked, the forest canopy will be come so dense that sunlight will not penetrate and the sadling will not grow, no regeneration. The forest service CLOSLY watchs all logging operations so little damamge will be done to the ground or standing timber. Here in the Allegheny National forest in no'western Pa. the FS does a great job. In the early part of 1900, the timber was stripped of mearly 550,000 acres. This was the land that no body wanted. The FS picked it up and no we have a beautiful, diversified forest.
Just anither thought; remember back in the 70's when gas was in short supply because OPEC cut our allotment? This could happen with timber in the future. Concret houses, etch-a-sketch, write with charcole. I know, over-exageration, but think about it.

[partly cloudy]

I will no try to dispute the Oregon state report but then that's in the west. In the east, we have a complete different set of rules, especially the northeast.
The damaging fires in the west consume thousands of acrea, homes, even towns. An eastern fire in the Smokies or Appalachian mountains are mainly leaf fires and, at most, less than 100 acres. We don't have fires that rage thru the tree-tops. Yes, the ground gets scourched and young sapling are burnt, but rarely is standing timber affacted. A burn scar on the bark of a red oak will not hurt the tree.
The eastern hard wood forest must be thined out every so often. If you let the trees grow unchecked, the forest canopy will be come so dense that sunlight will not penetrate and the saplings will not grow, no regeneration. Then the ferns will take over to complete the process. Then you have a climax forest. The forest service CLOSLY watchs all logging operations so little damage will be done to the ground or standing timber. Here in the Allegheny National forest in no'western Pa. the FS does a great job. In the early part of 1900, the timber was stripped on nearly 550,000 acres. This was the land that no body wanted. The FS picked it up and now we have a beautiful, diversified forest.
Just another thought; remember back in the 70's when gas was in short supply because OPEC cut our allotment? This could happen with timber in the future. Concret houses, etch-a-sketch, write with charcole. I know, over-exageration, but think about it.

[partly cloudy]

oooooooppppppssss did it again sorry