Trump to strip protections from Tongass National Forest, one of the biggest intact rainforests

a reply to: lostbook

Part of the reason why the fires in California have been horrific is because we don't allow anything to happen to them, so Ma Nature steps in finally and does it for us once it gets to the point where we can't stop her anymore.

But along the way, we've stopped her often enough that by the time we can't control her, we get what you've been seeing all summer.

It's terrible, not climate change, but a true man-caused disaster. What do you think cleans up deadfall? Ma Nature uses fire.

This is terrifying to me. Absolutely terrifying.

First, since this came from WaPo, let's get some real facts out there. No one is increasing timber harvesting. Trump didn't start this. This was started under George Bush in 2001 with the 36 CFR Part 294 (.pdf) aka the "2001 Roadless Rule." That rule (note "rule," not "law") established areas of the National Forests as unable to be disturbed with access roads, and placed limits on timber harvesting. The proposed rule (which will apparently be implemented) is Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Alaska (.pdf), which is a special rule that came about over a series of lawsuits and conflicting court decisions concerning the Tongass Forest. From the rule itself:

The rule does not authorize any ground-disturbing activities, nor does it increase the overall amount of timber harvested from the Tongass National Forest.

Now, everyone get that? Timber can already be harvested from Tongass. No additional timber will be harvested from Tongass. There is no authorization for ground disturbances in Tongass. That does not change.

What changes is who is making the decisions for Tongass. The State of Alaska has created a plan that (they and the USDA believe) better suits Tongass National Forest and the USDA is going to follow that plan instead of changing every few years when activist judges decide to change the plan.

I also want to mention this line from the OP:

It's also a major carbon sink to the North just like the Amazon is a major carbon sink to the south.

No, it's not. That is not even hyperbole... I don't know what it is, but it left hyperbole way, way behind.

There are no northern similes to the Amazon rain forest. They do not exist; they cannot exist. There is not enough sunlight, not enough heat, and not enough liquid water year round to accomplish that. The number of species of fauna is so small in comparison to the Amazon to be ludicrous for any comparison. The number of flora species is tiny in comparison as well, as very few species of flora are able to grow in freezing cold weather.

As for being a carbon sink, harvesting does not stop a forest from being a carbon sink; it improves the ability of the area to do so! Growing trees absorb carbon much more than mature trees, since they grow so much faster. Trees are made of carbon, just like every other form of life on this planet. When a tree gets bigger, it does so by absorbing carbon. When a tree dies, it begins to rot and releases that carbon. However, if a mature tree is harvested and turned into lumber, that lumber is then protected from rot and retains the carbon. By harvesting mature trees, we are removing sequestered carbon from the forest and allowing the forest to then absorb more carbon. We are also increasing the supply of lumber, which reduces its price, which allows for more affordable housing.

There is something inherently arrogant and evil when people decide they know more about how to manage a forest than those who know the forests. The Indians knew how to maintain the forests. They took whatever they needed form the forests and gave no thought to damaging it, because they only took what they needed. They lived in harmony with nature, not as some sort of overlord of nature.

My home is mostly wooded, a combination of hardwoods, cedar, and a little pine (which I set out when I was younger and which now towers over the hardwoods). Last winter, I allowed a logger to bring in some equipment and harvest some of the lumber. My rules?

• NO CLEAR-CUTTING!
  
• Blazing roads is OK, but try to clear and use the existing logging roads (from about 80 years ago) as much as practical.
  
• Only take mature trees.
  
• Cedar: take what you want. They're fast-growing trees that mature here early and are so plentiful we consider them "weed trees."
  
• Red/white oak: Make sure to leave smaller ones around the general area to grow back in.
  
• Pine: Only take the very largest trees.
  
• Other hardwoods: Check with me first, but probably I'll say yes.
  
• Disturb my mountain as little as practical.
  
• You have heavy equipment that will mess up my yard. Do what you must, but fix anything you messed up before you leave.

Last year he got about 6 or 7 loads. He would have gotten more, but the weather was not cooperating at all. This year he will be back to finish, weather permitting. The result?

• I can hike up in my mountain easier now, since the old logging roads have been re-blazed.
  
• The younger trees will get a chance to grow.
  
• The floor will not be as littered with dead, fallen trees.
  
• With less dead timber on the floor, the chances of fire are lessened.
  
• I made money.

This is exactly what California does not do, and exactly why California deals with ever-increasing wildfires. Nature does not harvest; instead nature burns. If nature is allowed to burn, the floor brush never builds up too far and the burns are small before they run out of fuel or weather stops them. Humans want to live in these areas, however, and burns are not healthy for humans. So humans harvest and clear... same result: the forests are kept clear and healthy, and in the process we get lumber to use.

The problem comes in when humans decide that they don't want to harvest and clear and don't want nature to burn either. Too bad; either we take care of the forests or nature will. And nature can be cruel. Go back and read Lumenari's posts. She knows of which she speaks.

Anyway, back to the issue at hand: let's get some facts before turning this into a political hit job like every other thread. The lies in this thread are too numerous to mention. I linked the actual documents above; WaPo does not set (or apparently understand) USDA policy, no matter how much people think they do. WaPo just stirs the boiling manure pot every chance they get.

TheRedneck

a reply to: lostbook

So, that law basically repeals the roadless part of the area, meaning they can build roads through the area, but still have to observe the same amount of limitations on timber harvesting. It still makes it so the earth itself should not be disturbed, but to make roads, you have to disturb the earth...so I do not know what that means for sure.

So overall timber harvesting will not increase NOW. But it may open the door for future changes since roads are there. Those roads could be made to act as a fire break though if they do them right. It appears the roads need to be approved by the governing agency, so it is not unregulated from what I read in that.

I understand the concern of the Native Americans/inuit/Eskimo population too, hopefully the government will work with them to make sure too much of this area is not put at risk of over logging. Of course, government execs can be bought...so there should be people watching this closely, limiting the ability of greed and bribes to cause ecological harm.

originally posted by: Ringsofsaturn777
No, you dont care?

What part of "no" is giving you a hard time?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: lostbook

Part of the reason why the fires in California have been horrific is because we don't allow anything to happen to them, so Ma Nature steps in finally and does it for us once it gets to the point where we can't stop her anymore.

But along the way, we've stopped her often enough that by the time we can't control her, we get what you've been seeing all summer.

It's terrible, not climate change, but a true man-caused disaster. What do you think cleans up deadfall? Ma Nature uses fire.

That's a part of it I think. However, I believe that, mostly, it's due to climate change making areas in the West drier due to less rain/drought. The drier brush is ripe for catching fire. By claiming "poor forest management" Trump is placing the blame for the wildfires in the wrong place

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank you for your input, Redneck! Your posts are always very well written with supporting info. What's not clear to me is the difference between lumber that is cleared for roads/ development and timber that is "HARVESTED..?" Is there a difference? If there is a difference then that could mean more woodcut down than what is implied here.

And what is meant exactly by the term "ground disturbing activities?" It's very vague and can be applied to many instances. Vague terms can allow for lee-way when it comes to bending the rules as I'm sure you know. As I said, I respect your input but this situation seems a bit fishy to me even if it was originally requested by the Canadian government.

a reply to: rickymouse

Yes, I'm just not clear on if clearing tress for roads is the same thing as timber "harvesting." The wildlife impacts are also of concern to me.

a reply to: lostbook

That's a part of it I think. However, I believe that, mostly, it's due to climate change making areas in the West drier due to less rain/drought.

Time to listen to the science.

NOAA Annual Precipitation for Sacramento, CA

I looked over the yearly charts for precipitation... Sacramento seems to be about center of the fire area each year. I'm not seeing any temperature increase or rainfall decrease outside of normal. That says your belief is simply wrong.

California is mostly arid. It's dry because Mother Nature has decided it's going to be dry. That decision was made well before it was ever a state, well before there was a USA, well before the white man even figured out something was here. The flora in that area has adapted to survive fires because fires are common. We stopped the fires as much as possible and allowed brush to build up.

Fire requires three things to occur: heat (which it also produces), oxygen (which we have not affected), and fuel. Once it starts, it only requires two: oxygen and fuel. It's not rocket science: the more fuel, the more fire. Blaming someone sitting in Washington DC because they didn't give other countries all our money instead of spending it here is sorta... ignorant?

Look at the fire locations. That's where the fires are. Not in the White House.

TheRedneck

a reply to: lostbook

Whenever someone logs an area, they have to get access to equipment. Paul Bunyan retired.


Typically, to clear a road, one looks to a pathway that requires the least number of larger trees to be cut. The loggers that I used plowed a trail up the side of the barn to a gap in the back fence I told them about. They then picked up an old logging road and cleared smaller trees and brush out of it. Finally, they blazed a path up to the top of the mountain.

In all of this, their job was to make a way for equipment to get up to the trees, close enough to allow them to be drug out of the mountain. It accomplished them nothing to cut smaller trees; they were just more brush and work to be moved. They were after the larger trees for lumber. Anything else was just more work for them.

Clear-cutting is a different process. Clear cutting just bulldozes through smaller trees and clears the whole area. I will not allow that here. It turns out to be faster and in some ways easier on the loggers, because a single piece of heavy equipment just clears everything out, but it is also wasteful and takes the area much longer to recover.

I would be against any clear-cutting in any National Forest. I am all for spot-cutting lumber. Spot-cutting takes a few smaller trees at times to get equipment in, but a precious few compared to clear-cutting. Spot-cutting allows the ecology in the area to recover faster (sometimes it looks pristine after only five years or so), and it also helps keep the forest cleaner since those roads serve as breaks in the brush.

When we talk about roads, we're not talking about asphalt, or even gravel. We're talking about areas where there is enough space between trees to maneuver equipment through. That's all a logging road is. Oh, and another benefit... those logging roads, after they are done, make it easier for people to hike in and out without getting lost.

TheRedneck

a reply to: lostbook

Also, California is part of the desert southwest. Do you know that it's a natural thing for them to have super droughts periodically out there? You could ask the cliff dwellers like the Anasazi, but the last super drought wiped them out.

Another part of California's problem is that everyone wants to live there. The state is overcrowded.

originally posted by: RazorV66
Maybe you guys should opt out of the USA and join Russia.

A strong, independent Alaska would receive a lot of support from Yukon and BC.

I don't think they would need to join with anyone?

originally posted by: daskakik
What part of "no" is giving you a hard time?

It wasnt clear from your response what you were saying no to and Im still not sure.

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: rickymouse

Yes, I'm just not clear on if clearing tress for roads is the same thing as timber "harvesting." The wildlife impacts are also of concern to me.

Making roads may help to fight fires, but also gives access to people who can carelessly start fires. It also gives more access to hunters and poachers. Is it good? I don't know. For all good there is some bad and for all bad there is some good, it depends on which side of the fence you are on.....in this case it is not a fence, it is a road.

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777
I don't care about the local vs dc thing you keep bringing up. I don't care if the locals control that area or the feds. Makes no difference to me and supporting one or the other wasn't the point of my original post.

Go build the wall and leave the trees alone!

originally posted by: daskakik
I don't care about the local vs dc thing you keep bringing up. I don't care if the locals control that area or the feds. Makes no difference to me and supporting one or the other wasn't the point of my original post.

I get it now you arent really interested in the topic you just dropped in to troll thank you for claryifying.

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777
Actually, I dropped in to do to Lumenari the same thing you were trying to do to me, clear up on which side they stood.

The difference, as I already stated, is that they usually come off as anti-big gov while their post came off as pro-big gov. I on the other hand have never said I care one way or the other.

originally posted by: daskakik

Actually, I dropped in to do to Lumenari the same thing you were trying to do to me, clear up on which side they stood.

The difference, as I already stated, is that they usually come off as anti-big gov while their post came off as pro-big gov. I on the other hand have never said I care one way or the other.

Pointing out that the federal government gains control when a NATIONAL park is established is not pro big governemnt.. that is just what the designation results in.. so its silly to support the national park designation AND complain when DC decides how to manage the land rather tha n yhe locals.

I already explained this to you. Good try though.

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777
Using it as a rebuttal, apparently supporting the designation, to someone's complaint makes it seem like they are on the DC side. That is why I was asking, and I wasn't asking you.

ETA: And the question was rhetorical, just used it to set up the comment that followed.

a reply to: lostbook

I live right in the middle of the Tongass National Forest.

Logging was a normal way of life here back in the 70's. The town I live in was a logging/fishing village and business was booming back then. Not anymore.

Fishing is dying, so logging needs to take place again in order to keep the economy going here. It is very complicated.
We just went through a 3 year drought that ended this year with record rainfalls.
The forest is over burdened with dead timbers, and pine beetles have destroyed much of the timber. I can look out my window and see dead trees going all the way up the sides of the mountains.
It needs to be logged again.

If done correctly there is plenty of wood to go around.

The key is in how they log it all, but it needs to be done.