From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Douglas Fir forests of the Pacific North West
Date: 18 Dec 92 16:34:31 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1992Dec4.164652.120@vexcel.com>
dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
|In article <1165@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
|I agree with what Steven says about the nature of the debate about
|forests.  I think its true of most debates that include environmental
|issues.  I think that extremism on one side begets extremism on the
|other, though I won't adress which side started the extremism so as
|to not hinder a reasonable debate!

Dean Alaska and I in agreement?  The heavens will fall!  Seriously, thank
you.

Frankly I don't I don't understand why some politicians haven't picked
up on and ran with some policies I mentioned (longer rotations,
encouraging maintenance and proper management of small private wood
lots).  I think they would be big winners with the general public.  I
can only guess that it is because the two major moneyed interests are
too polarized to think of or agree with these and the politicians tend
to fall in one camp or another, where the money is.

|>Many say we must "selective prune" instead of clear-cut.  They are
|>completely wrong, at least for the forest of the Pacific Northwest. 
|>The primary species here (by nature, but also by design when man is
|>replanting, because it is the most valuable wood) is Douglas fir,
|>which is what they call a "pioneer species".  It can grow where most
|>trees (or plants for that matter) can't: in the sterile, humusless
|>ground left by volcanos (which is what the whole Cascade mountain range
|>is) or by very hot forest fires.  The growth (and death) of the Douglas
|>fir eventually makes soil that other plants can grow in.  However, in
|>good conditions, it can't compete with other species and it can't
|>compete in the shade of other trees.  So, to re-establish Douglas fir
|>(without fire), you have to clear-cut.  There are also other issues.  A
|>stand of trees support each other, so if you go it and remove some of
|>them, you have more wind-damage -- however you also have this around
|>the edges of clear-cuts.  You also damage the remaining trees and cause
|>erosion every time you go in and selectively log.
|
|It sounds like clearcuts make sense for monoculture tree farms, but what
|about the climax forests?  Climax forests usually have a wide variety
|of tree species, and from an environmentalists perspective, the goal in
|protecting climax is to protect wildlife habitat.  If logging is
|permitted in climax forests, would it make sense to do selective cuts
|to continue to protect habitat?

Perhaps, I don't know.

|Also, if forests are managed to favor a pioneer species, it seems that
|this would decrease habitat.

Keep in mind Doulgas Fir was the dominate species here when man arrived,
i.e that is what is natural here.  Of course there where areas where
other species dominated, climax forest or not.  At one time they always
tried to replant with Douglas Fir, the most valuable species, with mixed
results.  As a result of that experience, I understand that current
practice is to plant what was there before if looks like there was a
reason Douglas Fir wasn't growing there.

|>If it were not for man, this forest would have two possible futures: it
|>would burn or it would become a climax forest and then burn.  Most likely,
|>it would burn (in fact, it probably would have by now were it not for man
|>and I am surprised that more of our forest didn't burn this summer because
|>it has been so dry).  Because there is so much fuel, it would burn so hot
|>that all of the humus would be burned from the ground and with the fall and
|>winter rains there would terrible erosion (note that fish and wildlife be
|>damned in this scenario) creating conditions where only Douglas fir would
|>grow.  Or, if doesn't burn right away, it will become what is called a
|>"climax forest".  I have seen these and it isn't always a pretty sight.
|>The big old trees die and eventually blow over.  If the stand was fairly
|>uniform, this tends to happen all at once with the trees falling like
|>dominoes, the dead trees taking most of the living trees (including
|>whatever young trees there are) with them, so that for a time, there are
|>almost no live trees at all and the area becomes covered with brush, mostly
|>poison oak.  It is impossible to walk through this even if you can get
|>through the brush, because the ground is a tangle of broken, but enormous
|>logs.  In time there will be trees again, but the won't be Douglas fir, but
|>true firs, cedar, spruce, etc.  Eventually it will burn too.  The whole
|>Cascade range from Northern California to well up into Canada burns on
|>average once every 600 years. The last time this happened was about 600
|>years ago.  But for the action of man, it probably would have happened
|>again by now (note again: wildlife be damned).
|
|You make climax forests sound like a dead-end forest.  Aren't new trees,
|maybe not Doug Firs, growing as old ones die and fall?  Under natural
|conditions (no human fire suppression), aren't fires somewhat
|localized, so that this restarting process is also localized?  You
|make it sound like the entire Cascade forests burned.

Apparently I didn't make it sound enough like that, because that is
what I was trying to say.  As I understand it the whole Cascades (or
virtually all of it) did burn at once (that is to say, in one season),
on average once every 600 years or so.  Of course, there were many
smaller fires in between.

As for climax forest being deadend, I do say that the Douglas Fir is
normally replaced with true firs, but that isn't always the case; it
depends on conditions.  There was an area of climax forest which never
burned in the coast range where bark-dust -- debris left from the long
dead* Douglas Fir forest -- covered the ground several feet deep. 
Because seeds couldn't get the soil to germinate, about the only thing
that grew there was rhododendron, which loves such conditions, and a
few scrubby little tree whose name I forget.  I say was because my dad
was hired (twenty years ago) to replant Doulgas Fir there.  He and his
crew were supposed to scrape away the bark-dust down to the soil, but
in many places it was too deep.  I don't know if they were successful
in reestablishing trees there or not.

* From what little I know about how fast logs rot, I'm guessing this
forest had been dead for a couple of hundred years.

|Some areas sould burn sooner, and some later.  Also, you say its not a
|pretty sight, but if the goal (as it is for many) is to protect
|habitat, then the aesthetic quality is not the top priority.

Then what is the problem with a clear-cut, in principle, which does
about the same thing.  In fact, it is in many ways less damaging (see my
next posting).

...
|>The environmental groups (at least the leadership) I think would like to
|>stop as much logging as they can (by any means that they can).  Those
|>that understand what I've talked about above want to see a return of the
|>big forest fires (really!).
|
|They probably see fires as a more natural management method, not subject
|to human politics.  I know that some species of trees will only grow
|after fires release their seeds, though I don't know if these species
|grow in Oregon.

I'm not sure about eastern Oregon, but they don't grow in the western
Oregon forests I'm talking about.

|>I think it is crazy to let trees burn (at least Douglas fir) and I want
|>future generations to be able to enjoy those magnificent big trees and I
|>want to protect wildlife and timber supplies.  Basically I support
|>"multiple use".  I think the answer is not to set aside dying forests
|>like Opal creek, but to set aside some older stands of trees for longer
|>rotation, say 250 to 350 years.  This would please neither the timber
|>companies nor the environmentalists, but I think it the most intelligent
|>thing to do.
|
|Although I also want future generations to enjoy the forests, I also
|want to protect habitat.  If a 250 to 350 year rotation does that, then
|this environmentalist would agree with it.

Wow!

|>BTW, because of the fighting, I think the timber industry and
|>environmental groups are missing areas where they could work towards
|>mutual self-interest.  For example, as I said before, there are
|>thousands of small wood-lot owners in Oregon, but currently the
|>incentive is to cut these trees and put the land to other use, and
|>indeed, these lots are slowly disappearing.  The tax code could be
|>changed to encourage people to replant and properly manage these lots,
|>perhaps even to plant trees there there hasn't been trees for a long
|>time.  This could be a win-win situation for everybody except the
|>state government, which would loose tax money.
|
|I wonder if using most of the forests for as many uses as is possible,
|which is how I interpret multi-use, is as good a strategy as separating
|forests into areas focused for farming, habitat, and recreation, since
|these don't have identical needs.  Clear-cuts could be used in farming
|areas.  Habitat areas would be left alone and recreation areas, by which
|I mean intensive recreation with lots of camper facilities, would
|have selective cutting.  Of course habitat areas would have some
|recreation, but it would be a more primitive type without roads and
|structures.

In fact, we already have that, at least to a degree.  Remember, there is
already 4 million acres of wilderness, plus parks.  The debate has been
over how to manage the rest.

[Please don't respond to this until you have read my response to Dale
Cook's second posting, comming soon.]
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: talk.environment