Coastal Forestry Issues

Mike Hagen mhagen at mail.olympus.net
Mon Jan 26 11:53:23 EST 1998


I'll check on that volume for you but theres probably someone online
who's got the numbers and wil jump in. 
As far as the idea of maximizing yield goes, the local county 
government has been looking into the possibility and their effort shows
some of the variables in the question. The state holds some 35,000 (not
the right amount) acres of county land in trust. They are supposed to
pay the county a percentage of the profit yearly. A new county
commissioner has made an issue out of the "low" payments. He hired an
Oregon consultant to show how much more could be made. The consultants
report showed, not surprisingly, that 30 to 35% more land could be
logged if one no longer left stream buffers, wildlife corridors and
didn't partial cut. The politician took this to mean the county lands
were being mismanaged (his original intent) and that the county should
sue for return of its land. This is a pretty hot issue at the moment,
but I'm sure it will get better when elections near. (Disclaimer) I
haven't seen the private report and am just relaying the points made by
our local paper, which has a reputation too.

What has people scratching their heads is that no one has ever accused
the state of being overly aggressive in its protection of "other
resources." 
Mike H.

snip
>  Although I'm no growth & yield guru I
> heard it posited from experienced foresters than BC could easily support
> an annual allowable cut in the order of 100,000,000 m3/year or more (up
> from our current +/- 70,000,000 m3/yr) if we were to invest more heavily
> and in a sustained fashion in intensive silviculture.
> 
> Out of curiosity, what was Washington State BSO (before spotted owl) cut
> and ASO (after spotted owl) cut?
> 
>



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list