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
Summary: It isn't as simple as you think.
Keywords: old growth forest
Date: 22 Dec 92 06:26:13 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1992Dec4.213552.28860@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov
(Dale Cook) writes:
>In article <1165@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>On the subject of fire:
>
>Fires are a vital part of the forest ecosystem, not an enemy.

I didn't say it was.  Fire is not a friend or an enemy, it simply is.  This
is the kind of anthropomorphism that in part earns the environmental
extreme the term, "wacko".  I'm not saying you are Dale; I'm just whining
about a pet peeve.  You have been kind, thoughtful and reasonable, and I
thank you for it.  I hope this discussion stays that way.

Fires certainly are natural.  One of the points I was trying to make in
my original posting (although I apparently didn't make it clearly
enough) is that without fire, Douglas Fir would have become extinct or
very rare, millenia before man climbed out of the trees.  It is
important to understand why.

Douglas Fir, or very similar species, once covered much of the (temperate)
earth.  These died out everywhere except the Pacific Northwest (PNW, the
only place Douglas Fir naturally occurs*) because they were replaced by
deciduous trees or true firs, both of which are more advanced than the
primitive Douglas Fir in the sense that they out compete with Douglas Fir
in the struggle for light, water, and nutrients.  Douglas Fir survived here
because the climate is unique.

* Because of its value -- I'm told it has the best structural-strength
of any lumber in the world because of its very long fibers -- Douglas
Fir has been introduced to other parts of the world, including I
understand, Australia.

>Their intensities are also different.  The more frequent a system
>typically sustains a fire, the less intense they are.

The PNW, for an area that gets 40 or more inches of rain a year, has
unusually hot dry summers (typically).* Thus this area was typified by
infrequent, but intense fires, including huge conflagrations that burned
the whole Cascades (well, almost all of it, on average, every 600 years,
the last about 600 years ago).  This is unique and why (in important part)
the Douglas Fir survived here and not in other areas.

At the risk of belaboring the point, it is important to understand what
these fires did for Douglas Fir.  Douglas Fir is not resistant to fire,
like Sequoia or the Red Woods.  Fire usually kills it (because its thin
bark isn't much protection).  The seeds are not especially resistant to
heat (they typically have to blow in from unburned areas -- in the huge
fires I mentioned, that would be from pockets of unburned trees, the valley
or the Coast Range), nor do they need fire to germinate.  What the fires
did was kill everything else and create conditions where nothing else would
come back.

* Which is why a number of seed crops are grown here in the Willamette
valley.  For example, all of the seed for sugar beets for the U.S. and
much of the world are grown here because a) the climate is right, and
b) the seeds can dry in the fields without being damaged by rain (well,
most years).  That combination is unusual, i.e. most areas that have
dry enough periods in the summer are too dry period or too cold, etc.

>Fires have the virtue of creating vital conditions for some species to
>emerge.  It returns vital nutrients to the soils - something clearcuts
>do not.

The fires of which I speak were also typified by horrific soil loss
from erosion, or soil destruction from the heat, which is another
reason Douglas Fir survived here (it can get by with very little soil).
Small fires act as you say, but they often burn after a clear-cut, and
there are other, less destructive, ways to get nutrients back in the
soil.

>It is a natural part of the ecosystem, providing the stresses needed
>for the forest to evolve and maintain biodiversity.

What the fires did here was not so much maintain biodiversity, but limit
it.  Keep in mind, Douglas Fir was the dominate species here when man
arrived and it was because fire periodically killed everything.

>Comparing clearcuts to fires is an inaccurate portrayal.

What the clear-cuts (often followed by intentional fires) do is allow
the Douglas Fir to compete without the terrible fires, which would not
otherwise be possible, long term.  In other words, clear-cuts allow us
to maintain what is natural here, which could not be done otherwise,
without allowing huge destructive fires.

>On clearcuts:
>
>You have neglected the effects of clearcutting on the single most important
>component of any forest: the soil.  Clearcutting does immense damage to the
>soil.  In some areas, reforestation attempts in these areas have failed
>miserably.

This is also true of fires.  Moreover, forestry practices have changed a
lot over the years and they are now more conscious of erosion and
other soil damage.  I wonder if your information is up to date.

Not all of the changes have been for the better in every respect.  Long
ago, they used to clear-cut very large units at a time.  Because people
find these large clear-cuts unsightly, they usually cut much smaller
units now.  The large units where often logged with what is called a
"high lead".  A large cable was strung across a whole valley between
ridges and used to pull logs out of the unit to the landing.  Because
the cable was high, the logs could be lifted completely off the ground,
and thus not disturb the soil (however, at the time they often did other
things that tended to offset this advantage).  With the smaller units,
this isn't practical.

Road construction often is what does the most damage, causes the most
erosion and costs the most money when logging a new area.  When you
hear that it is uneconomical to log some areas, this is almost always
because the value of the timber isn't enough to pay for the roads. 
Often now -- I don't know what the criteria is, but I understand the law
sometimes requires it -- they destroy and plant the roads after a unit
is logged.  I haven't heard the pro and con on this, but from what I
know, this seems mind-numbingly stupid to me.  I would think it would
make more sense, save money, and do less damage to the environment to
save the roads for the next time, but I could be wrong.

>Fires have the effect of sealing the surface of the burned over forest
>floor, so that mud and silt are not as big a problem as with clearcuts.

Not here.

>Remember the Yellowstone fires of '88?  Dire predictions were
>made of how the fisheries would be devastated by these fires, yet the silt
>problems were not seen.  Sure, minor localized silt problems were observed,
>but the widespread doom and gloom predictions never materialized.  

Yellowstone is not in or anything like the PNW.

>Additionally, the system has evolved to cope with fires over millions of
>years; nothing in nature compares with clearcuts.

Agreed.  But that in itself doesn't make clear-cuts bad, any more than
mountain-range wide forest fires are good, just because they were
natural.

>The trees in a forest recover much more rapidly than the soils.  Forests
>can mature in a century while soil may take a millenia to reach optimum
>productivity.

True.  And this is a good reason to avoid the huge fire I've been
talking about.

>Traditional clearcutting has ignored the "dirt".  If you screw it up,
>you've desertified the area for a long time, and there are numerous
>examples of failed reforestation in your area.

Which is why they don't practice "traditional" clear-cutting any more. 
Yes, they clear-cut, but they do things to save the dirt.

>On blowdowns:
>
>Yes, trees do get blown down by windstorms.  But guess what?  These rotting
>trees return nutrients to the soil, provide mulch, and are also a natural
>process.  To say that such trees are "wasted" is inaccurate.  These fallen
>trees are good for the soils.

True, but it is easy to make too much of this point.  It doesn't
necessarily follow that wind-throw (as it is called) shouldn't be
removed.  Even if it is, not everything is removed, i.e. the branches,
needles, broken parts of the trunk and the stump are left behind.

>>It is often said that we have over-cut and that we are running out of
>>trees, but that is a matter of opinion.  Half of the land area of
>>Oregon is owned by the federal government.  Between 20 and 25 percent
>
>True, but the federal government virtually gives away timber on much of
>this land.  Again, timber that is retailed for $50 bd/ft is sold for 
>$5 bd/ft by the forest service.  This is before any discounts (which are
>substantial) are applied for "defects" in the wood.

This is nonsense.  Standing timber is sold at public auction, so it is
sold at market value by definition.  There have been cases of
corruption, particularly involving inspection of the wood, but there
have also be prosecutions.  There is a tendency to blame timber
companies for this -- and I'm not saying this isn't and should be a
crime -- but there shouldn't be discounts for defects at all.  The
standing timber should be sold as is, which would eliminate the need to
inspect the cut logs.  That it isn't this way is really our fault for
not insisting the government look out for our interests better in this
regard.

I often see it said that the government is logging areas it doesn't pay
to log (usually the cost of building roads, which the forest service
does).  I don't find that hard to believe given the perverse incentives
typically found in government endeavors of all types, but it isn't true
around here.  The Forest Service makes a lot of money off the Willamette
National Forest.

>>Willamette Industries and many of the other large holders are on a
>>sustained yield and have been for a long time.  Willamette Industries
>>has cut much of it's land three times now and is growing trees for a
>>fourth cut.
>
>So why can't these companies treat the national forests on public land
>the same way they do on their own land?

Because it isn't their land.  They are told what to do on the public
land.  Why is this hard to figure out?

>They also manage their land for single use - silviculture.

While this is true, it isn't as significant as you might think.  Much of
the private land is not easily distinguishable from the National Forest,
and is home to a multitude of wildlife, including Spotted Owls.

>The public lands need to be managed for
>multiple use.  This implies that different techniques are called for.
>When a forest is clearcut, it has been committed to single use for at least
>the life of a human being, around 75 years.  I don't call this multiple
>use, do you?

That's why I was arguing for longer rotations on the public lands (or at
least some of it).

>>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 volcanoes (which is what the whole Cascade mountain range
>>is) or by very hot forest fires.  The growth (and death) of the Douglas
>
>Lodgepole pine is actually better than Doug Fir at this, and in fact,
>will grow where Doug Fir can't.  Unfortunately, it is a low value tree.

Lodgepole dominates in arid areas (like in central Oregon, on the other
side of the Cascades).  Douglas Fir needs more rain, but does better
than Lodgepole in wetter climate.  Lodgepole doesn't occur naturally
on the west side of the Cascades.  However there is Douglas Fir on the
east side, where there is enough rainfall for it.

Lodgepole is of low value, but not useless as is sometimes said (not by
you, Dale).  It is of low value because demand exceeds supply.
 
>>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
>
>Now this is bogus.  How did the forest manage to survive prior to man's
>arrival if "we have to clearcut"?

Explained above.

>I'm not saying that a modified form of cutting isn't workable, but as
>it's practiced now, it stinks.  Sure, wise forest management practices
>cost more, but there are other things besides wood at stake here.

No one debates that.  Exactly what about current practices "stinks"?

>>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.
>
>Depends on how you go about doing it.  For example, helicopter logging
>is being used in some places.

Helicopter logging is prohibitively expensive in most areas, and that is
for clear-cuts.  If you are just taking a tree here or there, it doesn't
pay very often.  Also, helicopter logging doesn't change the problem of
blow-down. 

>Are you saying we aren't smart enough to think of a better way?

Douglas Fir doesn't grow (well enough to maintain a Douglas Fir forest)
in the shade of other trees.  How smart we are won't change that.  So
yes, that is what I'm saying.

Moreover, clear-cuts, or burns are important for other reasons besides
just re-establishing Douglas Fir.  The open space is important habitat
for both plants and animals too.  And as I've said, there are reasons to
prefer a clear-cut to a burn besides just the loss of timber, both
esthetic and practical.  This isn't just a simple case of "clear-cuts
bad, fire good" or "nature good, man bad", as some would like to paint
it.  It isn't that clear-cut (sorry! :-).

>>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!).
>>
>>I think it is crazy to let trees burn (at least Douglas fir) and I want
>
>Again, see the above comments on fires.  They are *good* for a forest.

That depends on what you mean by good and it depends on the forest. 
Forests are different and what applies in, say, Yellowstone, doesn't
necessarily apply here.

If you want to know what these fires were like, read about the Tillamook
Burn, which as actually three fires, in different years over approximately
the same area.  The first was in 1933.  This was all old growth in a forest
that typically gets more than 100 inches of rain a year.*  They were logging
burnt timber out of parts of that for twenty years after the fire.  And my
dad and his crew were still replanting parts of it into the 60's.

* I mention this because I'm sometimes told by "greens" that old growth
forests like Opal Creek -- which is in fact a temperate rain forest --
are too wet to burn.  The problem with this lovely theory is an ugly
fact: it has already burned, countless times before.  If it hadn't
there wouldn't be any Douglas Fir there.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: talk.environment