Thanks, Plum Creek Timber!

“Forest clear-cut abuts Lewis and Clark Trail

MISSOULA, Mont. (Associated Press) Plum Creek Timber refused to sell a section of land along the Lewis and Clark Trail to the U.S. Forest Service, instead selling the government a 15-foot easement allowing public access and then clear-cutting the property.

Complete text”

“jag-offs, all of them”

“And so it goes.”

“Plum Creek takes a mile square at a time in some of Idaho's best country. And they are on record as saying "we are not sustained yield" corporation. Timber liquidation to pay off stock holders who could care less is there game.

dumb fuks.




excuse me but I've seen enough of their work first hand.”

“What exactly is the beef?

That they harvested adjacent to the trail or that the harvest method was clearcutting?

Clearcutting is the ecologically preferred harvest method in pure lodgepole pine stands.”

“My beef is, first of all, that they refused to sell the land. Then they went ahead and clearcut it -- knowing full well that it abuts a very historic trail -- and it is 4 years before the bicentennial of Lewis and Clark's trip.

But what the hell, that clearcut will be all better for the 300 year observance, right?”

“Yeah, this probably shouldn't have happened.

I do have a question, though. If we put lots of land off limits to logging, won't this concentrate the impact onto less protected areas?

So, the wood that might have come from a forest in the Northwest instead comes from the Southwest and Upper Midwest.

Wouldn't it be better to cut smaller sections in all forests to spread out the effects?

I'm no expert, but I just wonder if I should cheer western wilderness designations or frown as the loggers move here.”

“sorry, Southwest should have read Southeast”

“Don't concentrate on the number of acres presented for a specific situation, compare percentages. Anti-wilderness groups love to emphasize the number of acres being designated for protection, never revealing the number of acres already open to logging, which of course would show that the lands set aside are a very meager portion of all lands.

BTW, are pure lodgepole stands the natural situation, or were they planted that way at some time or created somehow? Monocultures do have certain preferred circumstances, but even climax forests aren't true monocultures, are they? Not a forestry expert, so just asking. Here in the Northwoods, you can hike into a red pine plantation (don't confuse a monoculture planting/reforestation with a real forest) and it is deadly quiet and bereft of wildlife.

I have no problems with judicious, sustained yield timber harvesting, even on a large scale, since I like my wood products, too, but there are too many in the timber industry who are arrogant (such as cutting the trailside lands) and distort their activities to an ignorant public. I have seen nothing to back the contention that the commercial forestry industry is "running out" of trees. There's just more profit in old growth trees, or federal lands that get sold off cheap (but don't call it a socialist subsidy).

But just wait until commercial hemp finally gets approved (over the timber lobby's best expensive effort) and watch them get theirs. The pulp industry does not want to see Kentucky, for example, start a trend.”

“Plum Creek owns 1.6 million acres in Montana alone, land it received from it's parent company (Burlington Northern railroad). That may keep them busy clearcutting in the west for a few more months.

BTW, their Habitat Conservation Plan for Snoqualmie Pass in the Washington Cascades exempts them from the Endangered Species Act for the next fifty years. Not a bad deal.”

“
Satellite view of Mt. Hood National Forest, Oregon.”

“Less than 20% of the forested land in the U.S is owned by timber companies. Over half of the forested land is owned by an estimated 10 million private individuals in small lots. Currently all lands that are protected by law in Parks, Wilderness, etc. comprise 10% of the U.S. There is an additional 10% or so that is 'de facto' protected -- lands not legally protected but so remote, rugged, or low in commodity value they have never been logged or mined and most likely never will.

Lodgepole pine in the northern Rockies commonly grows in pure even-aged stands. That is its natural life cycle. And yes, climax forests are often pure. A forest planted by humans is just as real as a native forest. The wildlife that move in don't care.

As I mentioned earlier clearcutting is the best harvest method for lodgepole. It most nearly mimics the natural disturbance cycle. Of course, Plum Creek could allow the natural process of a mountain pine beetle infestation killing all the trees followed by the catastrophic stand-replacing fire. That would look OK next to the trail -- after all it's natural. I am not familiar with this particular site but it will probably respond after harvest like lodgepole pine elsewhere. By the time of the celebration there will be 5,000 to 10,000 seedlings per acre giving the appearance of a green velvet carpet. It may have looked like that when L&C first walked by.

The environmental community often says natural resources should be managed according to the best science. Well, Plum Creek did just that. Now you oppose the best science because some humans consider it ugly. Should we compromise on best science whenever it offends subjective human impressions?

BTW The American Forest and Paper Association (timber industry lobbyists) favor the use of agrofibers for paper and pulp. The opposition to hemp is from the AMA and law enforcement. For a variety of technical and chemical reasons kenaf is a superior fiber to hemp anyway. One hemp advocate recently admitted to me the entire hemp legalization movement is part of a larger plan to legalize marijuana. I cannot ascertain the veracity of his statement. He may have been pulling my leg.”

“gordon: thanks for the info on lodgepole ecology. Having seen the improvements in harvesters (Ponsse USA is headquarted here in Rhinelander and their machines are deluxe, and selective harvest oriented) I'm not that concerned with short term aesthetics, either, unless they could have been mitigated by harvest methods. Some folks will never be satisfied - look back on all the moaning about how Yellowstone was "ruined" by the fires and how some wanted the govt. to "do something" to make it look better right away. What are the erosion issues, for example, with a large clearcut vs. a natural cycle with lodgepole? I'd imagine that slope and drainage patterns have to be taken into account, as well as manmade soil disruptions such as new logging roads.

On the ownership issue, are you including National Forest lands in the "protected" category? They may not be owned by timber companies, but they sure get leased for logging. Of the National Forest and State Forest lands here in the Upper Great Lakes (and that is a lot of acreage) very, very little is wilderness. BLM lands aren't exactly locked up either.

How about economic comparison on wood pulp vs. hemp; there seems to be concern that hemp will undercut prices since it can be regenerated annually and will grow on marginal lands. When it comes to the quality vs. cost issue in our society, the latter seems to win in a lot of other venues. I can see the ag schools and bio-tech folks gearing up to improve the hemp fiber quality when the green light is given, especially in states that are cut out of the equation right now because of small or no forest resources.”

“Timber on Federal land (National Forest, BLM) is sold to the highest bidder in an open auction. The winning bid price varies with current market prices for lumber, the number of environmental restrictions placed on the purchaser and other factors.

Erosion: different harvesting techniques are used on steep erosion-prone ground to minimize the amount of soil loss. Stream buffers of unharvested trees are usually left. Roads can be built so there is no additional soil movement over normal baseline levels and harvest units can be laid out and operated so there is no additional erosion. Timber companies do have a vested interested in soil protection on their own lands -- the next generation of timber depends on it.

Forest fires do not leave buffer strips along streams and burn just as intensely on steep ground. Fires in lodgepole forests typically were infrequent high intensity fires that nuked everything.

My comment on de facto wilderness was directed toward those areas that are listed as open to logging, mining or grazing but never have seen a chainsaw, cow or bulldozer for the reasons listed. Most are small non-contiguous blocks, but others are quite large expanses. Private lands also contain some of these parcels. Various estimates place the total area of these undisturbed parcels as greater than the national Wilderness system.”

“1. Lodgepole forest are an early seral forest community in central and north Idaho. It is the first tree to come in after a large disturbance such as fire and logging and is therefore even aged. However, LP communities are a small portion of the forest in the site in question. The are NEVER the climax community in this area. In fact, years of habitat study in the northern rockies (USDA/Univ. of Idaho-Wellner, Johnson et al) show that LP is a seral, not climax community. If left alone the LP will die and be supplanted by douglas fir, grand fir, subalpine fir, mountain hemlock, western hemlock, or western red cedar depending on the conditions of the site in question. In the are of the LC Trail climax communities are grand fir and subalpine fir mainly, with a little mountain hemlock. Also, a study of the climax community in the northern rockies makes it obvious that the climax communities are never pure/even aged. Sorry, I spent years doing prelogging and old growth inventories in this area, not to mention 30 years of recreating there. Seral stands are monoculture, climax communities are not.

2. Plum Creek is cutting 1-square mile at a time, regardless of their nice info-mercial. They do not replant everywhere, they just allow us to assume that from their happy report that they treeplant.

3. The issue Kleet brought up is the practice of destroying a significant historical site not the merits of logging.

4. Consider the precedent of Champion International in Montana...Slash 400,000 acres of timber, 100%, no consideration for any other forest values, then lay everyone off and sell the land to developers and city folk who want 20 acres of MT.

5. I know that the timber execs smile on TV and say "we have clean water because we respect riparian zones and use culverts." Ya, sometimes they do. Come to the area in question and look at the ONE-SQ-MILE cuts and show me the riparian zones. They aren't there. Sorry.
Also, take notice of the muddy blowouts down the side of the mountain. The steepest of slopes are logged here the same as level ground.

6. I take exception to the notion that animals don't care what kind of forest they are in. Do all animals eat the same food? Do all animals tolerate the same water contents and temperature extremes? Do all mammals eat the same vegetation, nuts, berries, etc? Do all birds perch and roost in the same kind of tree in the same canopy layer? I could go on and on. The animal communities are as varied as are the forests they live in. Maybe if I had never been in the woods or seen different forest types I could think that animals didn't care about where they lived. If this is "science" according to Plum Creek then I think it is obvious how much they value science.

7. All that being said, I wish to make it clear that I am not against logging. I've seven logged some of my own ground 3 times in the last 25 years. Logging doesn't mean that the forest is ruined.

But taking 1 sq mile at a time does ruin that site. Some of these sites, very productive and well watered, have filled with brush and haven't grown trees for nearly a century. They don't tell you that on the TV commercials do they?

I know that there is usually room for some kind of forest harvest. In fact, logging can even be used advantagously to enhance other forest values--but at a $$ cost, and not everywhere. But it is unfortunate that the timber industry spends millions on add/education campaigns to paint the best possible outcome of what they do, and what they idealliy can do if they were willing to spend the money. But all to often the only place that happens is in front of the TV camera or near highways and high visibility sites. To do otherwise everywhere would cut into profits. And that is not what a corporation is about.

It is also poor science to apply what they think works in one forest to forests everywhere.

I'm not against logging. But I don't believe all that I am told by the industry.”

“sonrisas, you note two points I touched on: first, that climax forests are not monoculture, at least not the old growth sections I have hiked in here in the Northwoods (precious few such places left), and the effects of monocultures on wildlife -- as I noted, the red pine plantings that are now mature around here are virtually sterile when it comes to wildlife and other plants. But the neat rows are great for thinning and harvesting. The aspen monocultures do provide periods of good habitat for some select species, such as grouse, woodcock and deer, so for a few years sportsmen love them, then they grow past that point, get mowed for pulp and the cycle starts anew.

If the timber/logging industry did employ all the techniques they are capable of, things would be much better. But I have seen examples of both the best and worst logging practices in the Northwoods over the last few decades. And I've seen the paper and particle board companies pit the independent timber cutters against each other for low prices, which makes it hard to convince some folks to invest in the best practices.

The money thing sure blinds a lot of folks, and not just in the forest products industry. Some days I can't say the education industry is any more righteous.”