Oregon timber revenues may be slashed

JNPBUCK jnpbuck at aol.com
Sun Aug 2 20:27:57 EST 1998


>"We'd like to see a sustainbale forestry model,"
>Binus said. "We can't sustain this rate of ecological devastation."

And they call that sustainable?  They want to take away some of the tools in a
forester's toolbox to manage a healthy forest.  And why must these groups
always pretend they have this "sustainable forestry model" holy grail?  So the
voters are supposed to pick between THEIR version of sustainable and
"ecological devastation".  As a forester myself, I've seen/studied hundreds of
clearcuts and can say that a VERY few can be called ecologically devastated. 
Those few unsuccessful clearcuts are not reason to ban them.  There are
unsuccessful or devastating human surgeries aren't there? Should we ban
surgeries all together?  But I digress...

When asked to pick between a perfect forest and an ecologically devastated one,
the common voter will undoubtedly choose the perfect forest.  Who wouldn't?  I
would.  But virtually no one is saying (at least not on the Oregonian writing
staff) that their version of a sustainable forest is a flawed one.  Or that
there are far more choices in between the two extremes.  The issue isn't as
black and white as they perceive it to be.>Oregon logging industry, which
depends on clear-cutting to harvest more than


>80,000 acres a year; coastal forests are almost exclusively clear-cut.
   
>After the harvests, the loggers then spray herbicides on much of that acreage

I've NEVER seen a LOGGER spray herbicides on one of their clearcuts that they
harvested.  It's usually the forester that is in charge of a spraying job. 
It's one of my pet peeves that people assume that Logger and forester are
synonymous terms.  People can get the idea that we just let loggers loose in
the forest cutting down whichever trees they choose.  Or as a forester I just
go out each day with my chainsaw and start cutting without worry of replanting.

> A prohibition on cutting any tree that exceeds 30 inches in diameter.

What !!?? Not allowed to harvest a mature tree? wouldn't this promote forest
landowners to cut trees before they reach 30" so that no one will come along
and tell them they can't.  What if nearly all of your trees are that big?

 >A requirement to minimize the use of roads and heavy equipment.

Now we can't even use roads or heavy equipment?  Do we just wish the trees to
the mill?  Nothing but expensive (and an extreme amount of fossil fuel burning)
copter  logging, even on flat ground?  

I'd better stop where I am, my bloodpressure is skyrocketing.  Do these groups
have no sense whatsoever?

Paul Buckland
Forester
Paul Buckland
Forester
Inland Empire Paper Co.



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list