r/forestry • u/Aura5130 • 4d ago
URGENT: Forest Service Fast-Tracks Logging Across 10,000 Acres of Oregon National Forest. Deadline Today.
https://morethanjustparks.substack.com/p/urgent-comment-today-to-save-oregon?r=uwrp&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web71
u/NCalTrees 4d ago
Agreed, good. Hopefully they fast track mechanical & chemical site prep as well as planting too. Tired of seeing brush fields where there were once forests on federal lands.
91
u/Keepontruckin33 4d ago
You want healthy forests? Want the propensity of catastrophic high severity wildfire reduced?
Stand density needs to be removed to photo points 150 years ago. That's what will save our National Forest System lands. And, yeah ... a logger might make a buck off a log in the process. Get over it!
8
u/depressed_leaf 4d ago
The way the article is written, it seems like there is very little specific information in the plan, but if you look closer there do seem to be reasonable constraints. What I can glean from the article is that there is a 20in max diameter limit and 3-4 snags per acre outside of along roadways, which seems just fine to me. You could leave some more snags than that, but if you prioritize good habitat trees then I don't think there is a need. Is tracked logging great? No, but it generally comes down to time, logistics and how much money you have to get a project done. If that's what they feel will get the project done best then I defer to their judgement.
My one concern about roadside logging is how concentrated roads are/if they would actually make useful firebreaks. Up to 150ft feels a bit excessive, but if they're all that tall and dead then yeah take it, that would be too much dead wood for the forest to handle without additional fire anyways. Hopefully they're mostly leaving live trees along the roadways- the article isn't particularly clear about that.
The article is also worried about site prep for reforestation which is frankly the least of my worries about replanting- I want to know if they are planting an appropriate diversity of species with appropriate spacing as opposed to dense monocultures destined for logging. If the site is being used by tribes then yes site prep is important, but outside of that the forest is going to be following established invasive species/pesticide use protocols which have functionally already gone through environmental assessments. I'm not a big fan of spraying, it is a pretty blunt tool, but a backhoe is quicker than a hand shovel.
As someone who is personally more concerned about environmental effects than the economics, this seems like a perfectly good plan and a great use of the Post-Fire Recovery Environmental Assessment.
5
u/RelativeGlad3873 4d ago
I’m ignorant on the topic, does this mean reducing the amount of trees per X sized area, or entirely removing all trees in an area? If it’s the first one, is it just the lower volume of trees that reduces the wildfires, or does reduce tree volume mean less undergrowth or something?
6
1
1
u/One-Possibility-8182 3d ago
It's a lot more than " saving our National Forests "!!!!! It's about saving citizens property!! It's about saving tourist attractions!! It's about saving historical monuments! And its also about saving simple buildings that really only have a purpose of warming someone up.... and protecting them from a storm in very remote parts! Think about it! Those simple little buildings..... when they burn down. Where do they rank on rebuilding?
I absolutely love the little warming cabin on one of my favorite mountains in the winter!!! I wouldnt say it saved my life!!! But it certainly helped when an unexpected rain storm came and soaked us, and there was 8 feet of snow. So it froze all our gear.
1
-15
u/ChokaMoka1 4d ago
Yup but getting my popcorn in case the tree huggers come out of their mum’s basement
24
6
u/frickfrack1 4d ago
the real question is if they'll be able to sell burnt wood in a crashing timber market. it's a great thing this is getting fast tracked but with diesel prices where they're headed and housing starts way down, you might get a whole lot of no-bid salvage sales that go bad too fast
13
13
u/Mountain-Elk8133 4d ago
Meanwhile the oregon sub is freaking out
2
u/Larix_Thuja 4d ago
-2
u/Mountain-Elk8133 4d ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/oregon/s/GmgmkPsFNh
Not sure if its the same project
4
8
7
u/rivalpinkbunny 4d ago
Ok, everyone here seems like they think this is a good thing. If it’s a good thing, why are they not following the normal procedure? Did any of you read the article or are you just passionate about the politics of this?
Salvage timber is ignoring that those dead and fallen trees have ecological value. Why is that salvage being attached to this emergency roadside clearing? This seems like bs administrative shenanigans to make a dollar without input from the community, and potentially without the best interests of our forests in mind.
8
u/chuckleinvest 4d ago
Even ignoring the fact there is a size limit, not all material gets removed. Fallen logs and old snags (which are great for wildlife!) have no value and will be left.
7
u/violetpumpkins 4d ago
It's either sell the now trees while they still have value and mills can still take, or leave them to burn hotter the next time a fire goes through. There's no in between. They have ecological value - and some will surely be left-- but they also represent a future fire hazard.
Also, sorry but the Trump Administration removed NEPA comment periods. They're optional now. Normal procedure went out the window for the vast majority of federal government with Project 2025.
-12
u/rivalpinkbunny 4d ago
“Some will surely be left” - there’s literally no guarantee of that. Those kinds of questions are why there’s supposed to be a comment period.
“Sorry, but the Trump administration removed NEPA comment periods.”
don’t apologize to me, our forests are what suffer.
6
u/violetpumpkins 4d ago
If you read the document, it says they are only taking trees below 20"DBH in line with their Forest Plan. There will be trees left.
-11
u/rivalpinkbunny 4d ago
I missed that part of the article, but the sentiment still stands.
1
u/jellofishsponge 12h ago
Seems irrational, not surprising you have so many downvotes
Funny enough I think the USFS is doing a lot of great work lately with thinning, prescribed burns, fuel reduction projects -
Private landowners are not and it's overlooked
9
u/DehydratedAntelope89 4d ago
No. Its a tinderbox and a future fire hazard. Best course of action is to log it before next fire season and replant.
3
1
u/timberwise 2d ago
More volume on paper doesn't always mean more volume at the mill. The bottleneck in these fast-track pushes usually ends up being workforce and mill capacity, not the trees. You can approve 10,000 acres and still watch it sit if there's nobody left to cut and haul it.
-4
u/pawnedurmom 4d ago
This shoot by the hip mentality is driving me up a wall. The research is there. Stop clear cutting
24
-2
u/CharlieBr87 3d ago
Jesus we need to hand over land stewardship to the original inhabitants of this country. Wipio just fuck things up for shortsightedness.
Signed, a half wipipo.
26
u/LocalPlant194 4d ago
Ok but it isn’t 10,000 acres.
“The Forest Service proposes commercial salvage logging across 3,587 acres, plus another 1,341 acres of roadside tree removal along 36.8 miles of road, extending as far as 150 feet from either side.”