portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting oregon & cascadia

forest defense | save the biscuit

Study Warns of Significant Risks for Salvage Logging in the Biscuit Fire as Forest Service

The Medford Mail Tribune reported on October 21 that the U.S. Forest Service wants to harvest more than 500 million board feet of timber from the Biscuit fire area in the Siskiyou National Forest. This figure comes from the Environmental Impact Statement which will be released some time next month.
A study completed by Eugene-based ECONorthwest was presented to the Siskiyou National Forest this week, along with ecological findings from the Corvallis-based Conservation Biology Institute (CBI). Both groups warned of substantial risks in a large-scale salvage logging project in the Biscuit fire area on the Siskiyou National Forest.
ECONorthwest claimed that the salvage project would likely cost taxpayers more than what would be economically gained."They seem to forget that logging is a very expensive, very risky, very dangerous enterprise - economically, physically and ecologically," said economist Ernie Niemi, vice president of ECONorthwest. "It looks like a big economic gap to me. I don't know the exact numbers, or the exact places on the land where they would log, but the economic hurdle the Forest Service has to get over is very high for it to come to the taxpayers and say, 'This is a good deal.' ''

CBI does not dismiss the possibility of some salvage logging in the area, however they are very concerned about a large-scale salvage project. CBI President and ecologist Jim Strittholt said, "There is no scientific justification to say that salvage logging is a benefit ecologically."
Pruning is good 21.Nov.2003 14:19

pkripper

"I don't know the exact numbers, or the exact places on the land where they would log, but the economic hurdle the Forest Service...' blah blah blah

Typical of most of the idiots running around the State who believe no amount of logging is ever justified. These sames enviro-morons who live in wood houses and who can't keep their houseplants alive have no idea what their talking about. There is scientific justification to say that salvage logging is ecologically beneficial. It just doesn't jive with their eco-agenda.

Move back to the concrete jungle you came from...

Ecological Fuels Reduction=GOOD Salvage Logging=BAD 21.Nov.2003 19:25

ANT

First off. Not all of us enviro-morons live in or like the city. I think its an unsustainable hellhole. Second, in no way can you support, factually, that salvage logging is healthy for a forest ecosystem. When fires come through the forest they burn at different temperatures. Usually the fires burn at low temperatures which will only burn the underbruch and small trees. The large trees may be marked by the fire but are not destroyed. In certain small and scattered ares the fire will burn at higher temperatures thus destroying all life. This is usually a very small percentage of the fire. High temperature fires are found most often in tree farms that are all small same aged (Monocropped) trees. Logging large, older trees only exacerbated the problem by opening up the canopy and letting more sunlight into the forest floor, thus drying out the landscape and/or helping brush(a fire fuel) billed up more than it naturally would. Also salvage logging brings in more roads and large machinery which compacts the sensitive post fire soils making it harder for trees to come back.
The only way to help stop the dangers of forest fire, create more jobs and help the forest ecosystems is by starting to do more ecological based fuels reduction. Which means basically lowering the amount of fuels on the forest floor and thinning out (in ecological based ways) the smaller trees. This should first be focused in areas that have already been trammeled by man and in the wild/urban land interface. The wild/urban land interface areas are areas that buffer communities and forests.
Look into the science before you go bashing enviros.
As long as we're throwing stereotypes around I think I would fit what you call a hip-neck and you must be an uneducated simple minded redneck who can't see the big picture.

if you cut it, it won't grow back the way it is supposed to. 01.Dec.2003 18:14

Ugly Oregon Kid willamettedeath@hotmail.com

You don't have to be very intelligent to pass forestry classes. This is one of the largest roadless wild areas in Oregon. Even salvage logging would harm this area, roadbuilding and fuel waste would destroy it forever. Beink a backwoods-raised person myself, Iknow from personal experience that when you drink water that is silted from logging and fuel waste makes you real sick. I don't want these ignorant, chainsaw happy texan assholes in the Siskiyous. I just want the Siskiyous!

You gotta be kiddin'... 03.Jan.2004 12:42

DunnerMeister

It's just unbelievable the illogic of not harvesting dead trees that didn't survive the Biscuit Fire. I grew up in the Grants Pass area and a barn or an abandoned house would be absolutely swallowed up by nature if you let it. So is the idea of getting in and harvesting what timber is there that can be economically and responsibly taken after a fire like this. Nature has a way of healing itself after events as dramatic as this fire or the eruption of a volcano (see Mount St. Helens), how can logging portions of this fire be so catastrophic considering what's already been done to it?

Frankly I believe that you environmentalists worship nature as if it were God (which it is not) and will not relent your crazy antics until every forest has been ridded of any human that might want to develop these natural resources for the benefit of mankind. Indeed, where would you live if you couldn't go down to the hardware store and buy a 2" x 4"?

DunnerMeister

dead trees? 08.Jan.2004 12:11

huh?

How many burned trees are being "harvested" - I've never seen one at a mill or on a log truck. Why would they be taking the burned timber that's worthless? No, instead they take the UN-burned that are fire-resistant, that in nature would regenerate the forest with healthy stands of more fire-resistant trees. The soil should be allowed to stabilize after a burn, not be further eroded while it is regenerating. Logging after a burn is equivalent to raping a burn victim. The ineveitable effect is to further destabilize soils, increase sedimentation into waterways, and dry out the ground and underbrush that creates hotter drier conditions that fuel hotter fires. Left intact, forests regenerate.

Tourism is the only trade left in many of these places. Logging is short term work, but tourism and recreation provides lots of income over the long haul. Even those not conservation minded should see the economic logic in leaving the wild places in a sustainable state, even if we/you can't think in terms of the future generations in terms of the historical significance of losing the travel corridors and roadless areas this sale will destroy.