From: jhurst@amb4.ccalmr.ogi.edu (James Hurst)
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
Subject: Re: Tree spiking (Was Re: Monkeywrenching)
Summary: Clearcutting sucks, stop them before they cut again...
Keywords: Stop the Orygun Chainsaw Massacre, etc, etc.
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:24:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.43396
Organization: Great White and the Buffalo Blues

In article <1992Sep28.194541.22214@slustl.slu.edu> guy@slustl.slu.edu (Guy Smith) writes:
>I, Jim Hurst, wrote:

>>>>Clearcutting is more economical because they huge equipment can be
>>>>rolled into the clear cut areas.  Note that because such equipement
>>>>could not be used with selective cutting, more human labor would

I agree it's more economical if only timber receipts are measured.  But it 
does significant damage to the soil, watershed, and fish and wildlife, not
to mention the productive capacity of the land.  That's public land.  So 
perhaps it's economical for the timber industry, but not the public?  

>>>It is also much more difficult and expensive to do selective cutting
>>>on steep slopes (>20%or so). 

>>I've seen some very nice selective cuts on steep slopes, like 45 degrees.
>>I think your statement is a convenient myth, propagated, like many convenient
>>myths, by those it benefits.
>>
>>>Cats and rubber tired skidders aren't
>>>effective 

>>Take your myths about clearcutting to someplace they'll believe them.  
>>Not here.  Or try backing them up, I love that.

I stand by it.  You're propagating invalid information.

>Actually, I'd agree with your general views on clearcuts. After several
>years of working in the woods (surveying, not logging) I've seen how
>destructive they can be. Many of the "reforested" cut blocks I saw were
>mainly growing crops of blackberries and manzanita (Klamath Mountains).

Yup, if you get out in the forest out this way, it's pretty easy to find 
clearcuts 20 years old that have failed regen for that long.  The forest
service is required by law to regenerate successfully, and in general they
do, using shelterwoods mostly, for sites where clearcuts would fail to regrow
trees.  Although in economic terms such regen is often at a loss for the 
taxpayers.

>As far as my statements, they are not myths. Selective cutting on steep
>slopes is more expensive for a variety of reasons. 

To me, they look a lot like the misinformation the timber industry has spouted
for years, while our forests fell.  Perhaps I'm a bit sensitive about such
propaganda.  However, in particular, I disagree with:

>>>It is also much more difficult and expensive to do selective cutting
>>>on steep slopes (>20%or so).

"Much more difficult and expensive" implies not economically feasible, or not 
feasible at all, which is incorrect.  A 10% expense penalty is average, some
do better.  What is "more difficult" to a logging show?  Yanking big trees off
steep ground isn't exactly child's play no matter how you do it.  The metric
that makes sense to me here is expense, and most of us don't say it's "much
more expensive" if it costs 10% more.  Perhaps we're splitting hairs, but your 
implication that selective harvest is impractical on steep public lands is 
incorrect.  Less profitable for the logging show, yes.  Impractical or even
unprofitable, no.  A myth.

>>>Cats and rubber tired skidders aren't
>>>effective 

I disagee.  Operators on the Clackamas Ranger District on the Mount Hood 
National Forest seem to operate on 20 - 30 slopes successfully.  I don't think
you're giving skilled operators much credit.  They can both move around and
snake out big trees on such slopes.  A myth.

>I wasn't trying to
>justify clearcutting, just amplify the previous comments on why the industry
>prefers clearcuts, based on real experience in the woods. 

Well, the wood are a big place, and it appears to me that perhaps you've missed 
a few things critical to this discussion.

>BTW, I suggest
>you borrow a clinometer and find out just how steep forty five degrees
>really is (thats 100%). 

I have a pretty good idea what 45 degrees is - pretty damn steep, hard to
stand up on.  I've walked sales on 45 degree slopes, clearcuts AND selective 
harvest.  I congratulated the District Ranger on the fine job he'd done.  He 
was proud, and I was proud of him.  He put to rest another convenient industry 
MYTH that things had to be done their way, or no way at all on steep slopes.  
Good man.  And good riddance.

>And maybe be a bit less quick to use the flamethrower.

Guy, I apologize if I offended you.  I felt you were propagating incorrect 
information, possibly for ideological reasons.  If you post invalid assertions,
you open yourself up to correction.  

					Cheers,

					Jim
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry