Home > environment, Land Use > Green Diamond clear-cuts

Green Diamond clear-cuts

Check out this flyover footage of Green Diamond (formerly Simpson) timber lands.

[h/t EPIC.]

  1. the reasonable anonymous
    June 28, 2010 at 2:31 am

    What a fine example of the wonderful job that corporate Big Timber is doing in preserving our forest ecosystems, more proof that large centralized corporate ownership is vastly superior to small, owner-occupied timber.

    As you can see from the film, Big Timber causes no “fragmentation” of the habitat, no new haul roads or cable yarding to “bleed sediment” into our creeks, and you can be sure that those lovely clear-cuts have absolutely no effect on the drying up of our creeks and rivers during the dry months.

    Watching this film has inspired this great idea: Why don’t we make it very difficult, maybe even nearly impossible, for small TPZ landowners to build even a single residence on their parcel? That way they’ll be much more likely to sell off their holdings to Big Timber, yielding all the wonderful benefits of large, centralized corporate ownership that are so clearly shown in this video.

    Those pesky would-be homesteaders and small timberland owners who selfishly insist on harvesting less frequently and more selectively, who have the temerity to decommission old logging roads and improve remaining ones, the ones who have this weird fetish for restoration forestry, responsible land stewardship, local self-reliance and small-scale agriculture — clearly they are the true enemy, and the sooner they can be forced out in favor of Big Timber, the better off the forest will be, right?

    Now we can’t come right out and say that we want to force these dastardly homesteaders and small timberland owners to sell out to Big Timber, so instead, we can loudly complain that the small timberland owners don’t harvest enough timber fast enough, while at the same time raising the spectre of Santa-Rosa-like housing subdivisions cropping up throughout our rural landscape. We can USE the issue of dry-season water scarcity to demonize rural residents, and be sure not to focus on solutions like winter water storage, conservation, and the use of graywater and composting privies.

    We can tell our hard-core enviro supporters that we’re pushing for drastic measures to curtail any new building on TPZ lands, and at the same time run radio ads that tell rural property owners that little to nothing will change with our proposals.

    And since we’ll never win public approval for a policy of straight-out banning all new residences on TPZ lands, we can instead create a de-facto ban by requiring TPZ owners to go through an expensive, time-consuming, onerous, convoluted and highly uncertain discretionary permit process, in which they will have to prove (to county Planning Staff who, conveniently, have already deomstrated their bias against allowing a residence on a TPZ parcel) that their residence will be necessary for their “active management” for timber production.

    That way only the very, very rich will be able to afford to build a house on a TPZ parcel, the value of TPZ parcels will drop like a rock, and many small TPZ owners will be forced to sell out to Big Timber. As a bonus, by reducing the utility of TPZ parcels, we’ll be able to reduce their market value and thereby reduce county property tax revenues by millions of dollars practically overnight (solving the county’s serious problem of having way too much tax revenue).

    And if we succeed in all of this, someday much more of our forests, no longer threatened by those forest-restoring, selectively harvesting small TPZ owners, will come under the enlightened influence of Big Timber, yielding the ecological wonderland shown so clearly in this film.

    Now, if only there was some organization, some movement, some politicians who were either naiive enough or cynical enough to push this agenda….

  2. Nice Stuff
    June 28, 2010 at 6:37 am

    Brainard is hiring 17 people Korbel is putting on another shift Green Diamond is instrumental in providing wood for these facilities they will replant and log them again in 100years the land you are showing in video is 2nd 3rd growth. Inflammatory BS is your right and claim to fame sprinkle some economic truth and it all goes to crap

  3. jack
    June 28, 2010 at 7:03 am

    reasonable anonymous just nailed the whole tpz issue. nice post heraldo and reasonable. truth, science, findings, and unbiased planners should be our guide. sadly politics and opinions drive policy at the planning department and board of supervisors.

  4. Green Fart
    June 28, 2010 at 8:08 am

    Your Reasonableness you have spent a couple of months building creds as a “middle of the roader” but finally here comes the money shot. Your true self has been revealed you developer bad boy. Nice job though there are only a few professional spinners in Humboldt with your skills.

  5. Chainsaw Fred
    June 28, 2010 at 8:17 am

    That’s fine as long as it’s not near my cabin. JOBS FIRST!! HIPPIES GO TO HELL.

  6. Plain
    June 28, 2010 at 8:26 am

    9 Billion acres of trees on earth,,Cut e’m , re-plant and get on with jobs.

  7. Anonymous
    June 28, 2010 at 8:27 am

    RA is right on. green, do you see any other it will play out if you make the forest basically off-limits? only a few benefit from this: wildcalifornia.org – project of Resource Legacy Foundation, big timber, and rich people. since the RLF and big timber are basically rich people that leaves two.

    the large timberland owners have testified the new policies will have detrimental effects on their finances and RLF has been purchasing vast tracts of land – all they need is some locals to push policies through while they fly “under the radar” and pick up the devalued timberlands for a song. and you guys are worried about arkley?

  8. the reasonable anonymous
    June 28, 2010 at 8:52 am

    Oh, Thanks, Green Fart, I forgot that very important point in my plan above: Anyone who disagrees with it shall be labeled a “developer.” Better yet, we’ll use the phrase “greedy developer” whenever possible.

  9. Bolithio
    June 28, 2010 at 8:56 am

    Here we go. Seriously. Whats the problem? Just whining about clear-cuts? TRA long rambling post insinuates allot of stuff that is not true about industrial logging. Mabee in the 60s, but not now. Clear-cutting does not de-water creeks. In fact, vegetation removal increases peak flows. See all those stream buffers in the video? There are heaps and heaps of studies proving that those buffers prevent sediment inputs, ensure bank stability, and maintain cool temperature. Roads still may cause the biggest concern, but I guarantee that the road conditions on industrial lands are much more likely to be hydrologically disconnected from watercourses and otherwise neutral on the landscape.

    EPIC fools people into thinking that its a free for all out there. They dont tell you about the constant active regulation, from pre-harvest review to the post harvest monitoring. These companies spend millions each year to correct potential problems on roads, identify and remove active erosion sources, and put to bed old failed road systems from the past.

    The rural non-industrial landowner does none of these things – unless forced – and is likely drawing large amounts of water directly from impaired watersheds, opening up old shity skid roads from the historical era to use a primary roads, driving them all winter, and on and on.

    Furthermore, the assumption that selective logging is less frequent is totally false. Selection systems by their nature are designed to occur more often, in 10-20 year intervals. Clearcuts or other evenaged strategies are on 40-80 year rotations. There is a age-old forestry debate about this: Twice a century disturbance, or every decade: You decide.

    My point is, EPIC is intentionally deceptive (just look at their campaign to “save ancient redwoods” at RG, sucking money from people like a evangelical circus), and the land you see in the movie is much more healthy and functional as habitat for forest life than people want to admit.

  10. Green Fart
    June 28, 2010 at 8:56 am

    I like the idea of people living out on the land. Our Native People, our hillbillies, our pot growers, our counterculture back to the landers, settlers, small farmers, cranky libertarians etc. have created a unique Humboldt lifestyle that should be treasured and preserved. It is part of what makes Humboldt Humboldt. I think that in general small landholders do make good stewards of the land.

    Problems do arise though when people pull too much water out of streams, or log in ways that are damaging to everyones environment. There must be some balance. Look at the foothills of the Himalaya to see the effects of overpopulation in a rural setting.

    We have compassion for our hill people, redneck or hippie it doesn’t matter. Of course our hill culture should be supported instead of thwarted by the county government, and the hill people will have to understand that they cannot subdivide infinitly. The problem is you developers are trying to squeeze into the tent of compassion along with legitimate hill dwellers. You are trying to use the legit concerns of the hill folks to enable your agenda of destructive suburban sorawl. It won’t work.

  11. Plain Jane
    June 28, 2010 at 9:09 am

    Well said, Green Fart.

    “You are trying to use the legit concerns of the hill folks to enable your agenda of destructive suburban sorawl. It won’t work.”

    Are you referring to HumCPR?

  12. the reasonable anonymous
    June 28, 2010 at 9:12 am

    Anon 8:27,

    Wildcalifornia.org is the website of the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC) which has been around for decades, and certainly it would be unfair to refer to them as “a project of the Resources Legacy Fund.” In fact, it has been SoHum’s homesteader / back-to-the-lander cohort who has provided the backbone of EPIC’s support for all those years.

    EPIC does a lot of great work, including this video that in fact does a great job of showing just how pervasive Green Diamond’s clear-cuts are. At the very end, it also points out the MacKay Tract, where Green Diamond would like to create a huge subdivision. These are issues that tend to unite environmentalists, whatever our positions on the GPU, and I applaud EPIC for putting this video together and getting it out there for the public to see.

    Now I couldn’t resist poking some fun at the Option A fanatics, many of whom may not have considered the potential unintended consequences of a policy that severely restricts TPZ owners from building a house on their parcel, including the very real potential to push more TPZ land into the hands of Big Timber.

    But it was not my purpose to attack EPIC as an organization or detract from their video. We may disagree on some of the GPU issues, but I’m not one to hold grudges or throw the baby out with the bathwater, so I’ll continue to support the good work that the folks at EPIC and NEC and HWC do, while at the same time I will continue to let them know when there are policy areas where we disagree. I would recommend the same approach to everyone.

  13. the reasonable anonymous
    June 28, 2010 at 9:17 am

    “Clearcutting does not dewater creeks. In fact vegetation removal increases peak flows.”

    Peak flows? Peak flows aren’t the problem. Our peak flows are during the winter when there is plenty of water in the creeks. The problem is that the clear-cuts expose the earth, drying it out and reducing groundwater that is stored there and that seeps into our waterways through the summer.

  14. the reasonable anonymous
    June 28, 2010 at 9:25 am

    Green Fart,

    I’m going to assume you are sincere in your beliefs, but I’ve gotta say, you’re way off when you describe me as a “developer.” I’ve never built a house for sale, never subdivided anything, and the last thing I’d want to see is more “destructive suburban sprawl.” Insisting that anyone who disagrees with you must be a “developer” who wants “destructive suburban sprawl” is a pretty weak style of argumentation, basically an ad hominem attack.

    I understand the argument that developers are trying to “squeeze into the tent of compassion along with legitimate hill dwellers,” and I’m sure there is some truth to that, but frankly I am neither a developer, nor do I live on a hill. (And by the way, how exactly would you propose to separate “legitimate hill dwellers” from illegitimate ones? I think you need to unpack that concept a little, and think it through a bit more.)

  15. Anonymous
    June 28, 2010 at 9:29 am

    “Option A fanatics?”

    RA, really? Calling people fanatics is not the most “reasonable” way to engage people of differing opinions.

  16. Green Fart
    June 28, 2010 at 9:33 am

    I never said you were a developer. I was complimentary about your abilities. You are a virtual Paladin of the Word Press. You are worth every penny they pay you.

    Kudos.

  17. the reasonable anonymous
    June 28, 2010 at 9:37 am

    Green Fart,

    No one is suggesting “subdividing infinitely.” My main concern is that small landowners be allowed to build at least a single residence on their parcel, without an onerous bureacratic burden. Most of these parcels are in the range of 160 acres, not exactly a crowded situation. Subdividing parcels is a whole different issue, and there are already numerous barriers to a lot of subdividing being done.

    As I have alluded to numerous times, there are very real and do-able ways to reduce the impact on dry-season water resources, and we should be focusing on finding ways to support and incentivize those solutions, rather than USING the water issue as an excuse for why rural property owners shouldn’t be allowed to build a home on their parcel.

    Finally, I would just note that every landscape is unique, and Humboldt is not the foothills of the Himalayas. The carrying capacity of a rural area in a desert is quite different than that of a rural area in a boreal forest, or an area of rich alluvial soil, etc, etc, and also depends on available technologies and culture. So while I agree with your overall point that there are ecological limts, I disagree with your choice of analogy.

  18. the reasonable anonymous
    June 28, 2010 at 9:40 am

    “You are worth every penny they pay you.”

    You may not realize it, but you just called me worthless!

    I’ll bet Heraldo’s getting a kick out of this; he too is often accused of being a paid blogger.

  19. Filibuster
    June 28, 2010 at 9:59 am

    The idea that removing trees dewaters creeks in the dry season is not correct. The major loss of of water from a forested watershed is due to evapotranspiration — evaporation from wetted surfaces and loss use of water (transpiration) by vegetation. Conifers can easily transpire 35 – 50 inches of water a year. Typically tree removal leads to an INCREASE in streamflow, including dry-season streamflows, providing that the stream channels have not been appreciably affected.

    Typically about 55-60% of annual precipitation is returned to the atmosphere by evapotranspiration.

    As Bolitho pointed out, peak streamflows in winter will typically increase after logging, because 1) there is less evaporation from wetted surfaces of vegetation (interception) during and after storms, because there is less surface to wet (20 to 30% of precipitation can be intercepted by conifers), and 2) the rate at which water sinks into the soil (infiltration) is often reduced due to soil compaction and disruption of the litter layer. This leads to more flow over the ground surface during storms, and thus more sediment going into streams.

    Now if stream channels have had a substantial amount of sediment delivered to them due to logging, surface streamflow may decrease. The water sinks into the filled-in bed instead of flowing over the surface. Sediment problems due to logging — and especially to associated road-building — are much more significant and long-lasting than those related to changes in the water balance.

  20. anadromous
    June 28, 2010 at 10:31 am

    Here we go again. After discussion seeking “middle ground” or perhaps even “consensus” (see the Healthy Humboldt GPU Testimonials postings) RA jumps right back into the fray with more spin that undermines working respectfully toward solutions.

    But even with all the spin, i think you have touched on a significant point of discussion. You admit clearly that residential values are tied into TPZ land value. The problem being when the land is worth more than the trees (in economic terms) the land gets effectively converted to other uses (i.e. suburban sprawl or rural residential estates that only those financially endowed can afford). Take a look at Eel River timberlands, or Barnum for that matter – chunked up and sold off valued for the residential use. Take a look at Washington and Oregon where safeguards were not installed to conserve their working forests (check out http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2009/12/when_the_lands_worth_more_than.html ). Tell me how a sustainable forester is going to be able to afford TPZ land to manage for forest products and forest ecosystem services/values if the prices continue to climb based the lands’ development potential.

  21. the reasonable anonymous
    June 28, 2010 at 10:33 am

    Maybe you’re right about some or all of what you’re saying, Filibuster, I don’t claim to be an expert on hydrology. But I would point out again that increasing “peak flows” during the wet season is really not a particularly valuable thing, there’s plenty of water in the creeks and rivers at that point anyway.

    And while I’m sure transpiration due to vegetation is an important factor, I can’t help but notice that walking through a shady mature forest in summer it is a lot more damp than walking through a clear-cut where the sun has baked the ground dry.

    I have seen, up close and personal, several small feeder creeks dry up quite noticeably after a large area around them was clear cut. Perhaps that was an exception, or caused by some hidden factor, but it sure seemed like the timing (beginning the year after the clear-cut) was suspicious and that the lack of shade must be a factor. There is no housing or pot grows or other development above this clear-cut, so I’m hard-pressed to explain the sudden loss of dry-season flow in these creeks in any other way. Do you have an explanation for this phenonmenon?

  22. the reasonable anonymous
    June 28, 2010 at 10:36 am

    Anonymous 9:29,

    A fair point. “Option A fans” would have sufficed. However, those who are so devoted to their position that they can’t seem to believe that anyone could disagree with them without being a paid tool of developers, well that does seem to be approaching “fanaticism.”

  23. Bolithio
    June 28, 2010 at 10:38 am

    Now to add to Filibuster; the sediment effect from veg removal is offset by the establishment of riparian buffers. As you can see in the movie, all of the significant watercourses have stream buffers. Within these, the retention of overstory canopy, understory canopy and vegetation, and the treatment of any exposed soils resulting from operations have been proven time and time again to mitigate adverse sediment inputs.

    In the past, not only did we not have effective stream buffers, there was rarely efforts to stabilize bare soils, and approaches to watercourse crossings were usually big time sediment bleeders.

    That was the past.

  24. the reasonable anonymous
    June 28, 2010 at 11:10 am

    anadromous,

    There’s plenty of spin to go around, and its interesting that you only seem to object to provocative language coming from me, not from others like “Green Fart.” Could it be that your bias is showing as well?

    Look, my original 2:31 post WAS meant to be provocative (and hopefully somewhat humorous) and I certainly employ a polemical style at times. Note the subtitle of this blog: “Provoking Humboldt County since 2006.”

    Be that as it may, as you know I’m certainly happy to engage in straightforward debate on the policy options and their consequences when others are willing to play that way (all too seldom, sadly).

    If you wish to engage in this way, perhaps you could take a few minutes to respond to my 4:16 and 4:37 comments on the previous thread:

    https://humboldtherald.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/baykeeper-gpu-testimonials/#comment-108518

    https://humboldtherald.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/baykeeper-gpu-testimonials/#comment-108519

    Meanwhile, I’ll respond to the substantive parts of your comment on this thread:

    “You admit clearly that residential values are tied into TPZ land value. The problem being when the land is worth more than the trees (in economic terms) the land gets effectively converted to other uses (i.e. suburban sprawl or rural residential estates that only those financially endowed can afford).”

    Except that I don’t see much of either of these problems on small TPZ parcels here in Humboldt. The large proposed suburban sprawl developments we are facing right now and in the near future are Foster-Gill, the 1,400 unit SmartSprawl development planned in the Cutten/Ridgewood area, and the proposed Green Diamond subdivision of the MacKay Tract.

    In neither case are these small TPZ holdings that are proposing to have one house on each existing parcel, to the contrary, they would be true “suburban subdivisions” at the edge of town, where existing parcels would be cut up into many small pieces for residential use. So that’s where the real suburban sprawl subdivision is being proposed, and it has nothing to do with small TPZ landowners who wish to build a single residence on their TPZ parcel.

    “Tell me how a sustainable forester is going to be able to afford TPZ land to manage for forest products and forest ecosystem services/values if the prices continue to climb based the lands’ development potential.”

    Small TPZ ownership is actually great for “sustainable forestry” because owners/residents are not so interested in the short-term value of harvesting as much timber as quickly as possible, as seems to be the case with the coporate-owned clear-cutting Big Timber companies. The presence of a house and three-acre homesite on a 160 acre parcel does nothing to prevent sustainable logging from being done on the rest of the land, and since the owners are generally more connected to our community, have a sense of ownership and stewardship of their piece of land, sustainable logging practices including less frequent and more selective harvesting is a good fit. Sustainable foresters do not n ecessarily have to own the land they log, and indeed small TPZ owners do contract with such foresters to help manage their timber. In my opinion, the logging that takes place on small TPZ holdings looks pretty good compared to the collective track-record of PL/MAXXSCAM, Green Diamond (Simpson), SPI and others.

    By the way it seems to me that the upswing in TPZ values in remote parts of Humboldt durign the ’90s and ’00s (which has now stalled out according to realtors and listings) is largely due to the utility of this land as places to grow our #1 cash crop, marijuana. And with something approaching Full Legalization perhaps only months away, it seems extremely likely that demand for these remote properties is going to drop significantly in the coming years. Aside from this Prohibition-fueled land rush, there just isn’t that much demand for these remote TPZ parcels for residential use.

    Furthermore, even if the Legalization Initiative doesn’t pass, making it very difficult to get a permit for a residence on these parcels does nothing to stop the ganja growing, since the large commercial growers aren’t concerned about getting permits anyway. So putting up barriers to the relatively small number of people who are actually interested in building permitted dwellings on these lands seems to me to be both unnecessary and a step that will penalize the wrong group of people.

  25. Anonymous
    June 28, 2010 at 11:23 am

    “There’s plenty of spin to go around, and its interesting that you only seem to object to provocative language coming from me, not from others like “Green Fart.” Could it be that your bias is showing as well?”

    You are the only one claiming to be “reasonable”.

  26. the reasonable anonymous
    June 28, 2010 at 11:28 am

    Bolithio at 10:38,

    That’s all fine and well, but I can tell you that from my observation, these “buffers,” while helpful for mitigating sediment issues (and an improvement on clear-cutting right up to the creeks and rivers), are still not enough to prevent real damage from being done.

    You refer to “significant” watercourses, but all those supposedly “insignificant” ones feed into the larger ones. I’ve seen plenty of recent clear-cuts that go right across many smaller watercourses, with plenty of silt bleeding into them from new roads, cable-yarding operations, and herbicide-soaked wastelands, and from there this silt presumably is washed into the larger “significant” watercourses and onward into the rivers.

    And these small buffer areas do nothing about the sun and wind drying out these small watercourses, and all the land feeding these small creeks as well as the larger ones. Maybe there’s something I’m missing here, but “seeing is believing” and from what I’ve seen it sure does look like the clear-cuts dry out the land and reduce the amount of water that seeps into our creeks in the dry season.

    By the way, I remember well just a few short years ago when PL/MAXXSCAM was always claiming that the erosion, siltation and all kinds of other ecological damage was only caused by the poor practices of the post-war logging boom or “legacy logging.” And now, a few years later, there are plenty of folks who will admit the damage done by MAXXSCAM’s liquidation logging over several decades, while claiming that current logging practices are no longer a problem.

    And I suspect that in another decade or two, Big Timber will be pointing back at the lasting effects of today’s crazy-quilt of clearcutting to blame for continuing problems, while assuring us that the latest euphamism for clear-cutting is no longer a problem. From my point of view it seems like a continually receding horizon of responsibility where its all the fault of those poor ignorant loggers of yesteryear, while today’s practices are held up as the shining example of sustainability. So you’ll have to forgive us for some skepticism when it comes to these rear-view-mirror claims of Big Timber.

  27. the reasonable anonymous
    June 28, 2010 at 11:31 am

    You’re the only one claiming to be “reasonable.”

    Well, if true, that’s certainly a sad state of affairs. Anyway, I think I generally am quite reasonable, especially when others engage similarly. But I don’t claim to be perfect in my reasonableness, which, by the way, is in large part in the eye of the beholder. And finally, its not really about me, or my style of argumentation.

  28. anadromous
    June 28, 2010 at 11:50 am

    RA,
    Just saying that, especially if it’s such a “small number of people who are actually interested in building permitted dwellings on these lands” why not ensure that TPZ properties be maintained and valued for their resource potential rather than for residential use? Give existing small TPZ landowners who want to live on their land the option to rollout of TPZ or demonstrate active management for timber or forest ecosystem values.
    I will address the other points in time…

  29. think about tit
    June 28, 2010 at 11:59 am

    the reasonable anonymous says “yeah it’s sorta bad but…” and admits to seeing lots of it but but but “bla bla bla” followed by the typical “if only…” ammounting to a one-sided “why can’t we all just get along?” yet followed by a heaping tablespoon full of “but look at what THEY’RE doing!”

    Get it together, guy. Everything you’ve said has been said over and over and over and over again for decades. Homesteaders are not the issue. Other issues are not the issue. Deforestation is an issue. They’re not replenishing anywhere near what they’re taking. Choke on that fact. It takes 100 years to grow back a 100 year old tree. You’re a stupid dipshit. Now you might say “namecalling will never get anything settled”. I don’t give a fuck with regards to you, you’re a stale brained idiot. The proof is in everything you’ve written in this thread.

  30. Bolithio
    June 28, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    They’re not replenishing anywhere near what they’re taking.

    False.

  31. think about tit
    June 28, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    Bolitio, you are wrong. You couldn’t be more wrong. Do you have two eyes on your head connected to a brain or are you just listening to what certain peoples are telling you? Happy smiles and charts and graphs?

  32. Bolithio
    June 28, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    TRA – first, I want to say that we are on the same page when it comes to the TPZ housing issue. We may read between the lines a little differently, but we are closer that further.

    I too spend lots of time in the woods. Your right about solar radiation being the primary factor for elevated temperature. However, the classification system we use when defining watercourses, and the levels of protection we assign to the various stream types are based on biological factors. If a stream does not contribute measurable flows to a higher order watercourse after June 1st, it simply doesn’t effect the temperature of downstream watercourses. Nor do these streams provide nutrients, woody debris, or sediment.

    Ive never heard of wind drying up streams.

    Simply removing vegetation does not immediately mean that there will be increased sediment loading. The concentration of water into watercourses is the primary cause for down-cutting and mass wasting. This concentration is almost always tied to roads and skid trails, specifically where they cross or near streams.

    The good thing we have going for us here, is that alterations in vegetation are short lived. Increased light to the forest floor is always is followed by a rapid response in growth from understory vegetation. This traps potential sediment movement from overland flow.

    I dont suspect that timber companies will reflect back on this current era with blame for problems. Instead, what I see, is us reflecting on this era (which really began in 2001) as the one where watershed effects (temperature, sediment) began to have net positive impact as result of timber harvesting operations. In the future, 2-3 decades from now, most of our legacy impacts will have been either fixed or stabilized naturally, and these timber harvests will have a neutral effect on watersheds. We just are not going to see the serious active erosion sites that we once had anymore. If by bad circumstance they are created, there is a firm regulatory system that ensures timely mitigation of this.

    The bigger picture, and more long term issues on the Klamath and Eel River will continue to be ones of Dams, water diversion, and agricultural run-off. Fishing is the biggest issue facing salmon, not habitat.

  33. Bolithio
    June 28, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    I said:

    “Nor do these streams provide nutrients, woody debris, or sediment.”

    These seasonal streams can and do transport sediment, as opposed to nutrients, woody debris etc.. The point is that the seasonal streams typically do not provide these things (including sediment) to critical habitats. There are situations where a seasonal creek drains directly to a fish bearing stream for instance, and this has to be addressed on a site by site basis.

  34. kateascot
    June 28, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    “firm regulatory system”…bs!

  35. Bolithio
    June 28, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    You obviously have never filed a THP, been on a logging job, or been a landowner who had to file years of post opp monitoring with CALFIRE, WQ, and DFG.

  36. Steak n Eggs
    June 28, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    Try this…go out on any of the numerous County roads that cross through Green Diamond’s timberlands and observe the turbidity of the stream at the crossing underneath the road. Do this during the middle of winter during a peak storm event. Compare this with the amount of turbidiy generated from private rural parcels, ranches, and particularily the County’s unpaved road system. The difference is pretty obvious.

    Those of you equating watershed impacts (sediment and temperature effects) with industrial forestry (clearcutting) are so far off its laughable. The impacts are out there; its just not where you want them to be.

  37. Spongy Morel
    June 28, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    Looks right to me. This looks to be responsible forestry. It’s not necessarily pretty but no harvest of anything ever is. It’s all renewable and if you focus on what’s remaining and not the cuts, you see many different aged forest regrowing at different stages.

    Oh, and Nice Stuff the reason for more hiring at Brainard and another shift at Korbel is in part because they shut down the sawmill in Orick last year and have shifted operations over to Korbel.

  38. kateascot
    June 28, 2010 at 1:42 pm

    how, if regulatory systems are in fact working, did Salmon die in the Klamath or the Eel become full of predator fish?

  39. kateascot
    June 28, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    also; why is it still necessary for tree-sitters to continue saving what are supposed to be protected trees from being cut?

  40. kateascot
    June 28, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    if all logging were to cease, and we were to become a nation (or county) that reduces, reuses and recycles wood we could live well for a generation or 2. Greed has destroyed our natural resources to varying degrees since industrialization, time to clean up our act of consuming and begin more stewardship planning for future generations.

  41. High Finance
    June 28, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    Gee, to hear some people talk you would think that those trees will never grow back.

    The radical preservationalists seem to worship trees instead of remembering they are just plants.

  42. Oldphart
    June 28, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    All of you living in wood built houses, please leave the room.

  43. Anonymous
    June 28, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    “Gee, to hear some people talk you would think that those trees will never grow back.”

    In many many places they don’t grow back.

  44. Bolithio
    June 28, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    how, if regulatory systems are in fact working, did Salmon die in the Klamath or the Eel become full of predator fish?

    The Klamath is complicated cookie – but the water diversions up stream are the main relevant reason salmon are impaired in that watershed. Historically, the strip mining that occurred hands down has had the longest detrimental effect on the river. Most of the tributaries of the Klamath run very cool, which is evidence that these streams are not influenced by logging.

    The Eel is also complex, and the introduction of exotic fish has nothing to due with logging, past or present. Water diversion will remain an issue on the eel as long as there are dams.

    also; why is it still necessary for tree-sitters to continue saving what are supposed to be protected trees from being cut?

    What? LOL That reminds me of a job I worked on years ago for PALCO and there were tree sitters in these huge second growth (defiantly looked sort of like an old grwoth), anyways, the funny thing was is that they where in an “out area”, meaning that the trees where not even proposed for harvest. Hilarious!!

    If tree sitters really wanted to save important forests, they would migrate to Siberia, Brazil, or other places where there are truly destructive practices taking place right now.

    if all logging were to cease, and we were to become a nation (or county) that reduces, reuses and recycles wood …

    We would find right away that we need wood. We would ultimately preserve our resource here, but would be forced to acquire new material from abroad – from places where there are little to no regulation, not to mention the footprint required to get the product here.

  45. Bolithio
    June 28, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    In many many places they don’t grow back.

    Give us three examples. Go:

  46. High Finance
    June 28, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    To the loggers out there, why do we cater to these idiot tree-sitters for months & years?

    Why doesn’t the logging company just immediately ring the tree when they sit in one? I heard that causes the tree to die eventually & then we could just ignore the sitter.

  47. Anonymous
    June 28, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    Lebanon, where after three harvest cycles there was no more top soil to support the once vast cedar forests.

    North Africa, you know the story.

    Easter Island, again, you know the story.

    Any place west of the Rockies called “cedar creek”, “pine meadows”, “beaver creek.”

    Redwood Valley in Mendocino, as an example of many areas that once supported redwoods in Nor. Cal. but does no more.

    Logging can cause impacts to micro-climates and soil structure that is often unrecoverable, especially after multiple harvest cycles.

  48. kateascot
    June 28, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    hf…exactly why CalTrans must keep hands off Richardsons Grove! Human life is worth more than a tree? Human life is equal to a tree?

  49. kateascot
    June 28, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    Capitalists parading as Free and therefore promoting Democracy have very cleverly made humans actually believe that they understand ALL THINGS and know better than we mere consumers what is best for every living thing from toilet paper to pharmaceuticals and onward to how to drill for oil and GMO’s. WAKE UP!

  50. Bolithio
    June 28, 2010 at 4:06 pm

    HF – geese man. For one, timber companies are business of growing live healthy trees. Two, they are interested in their reputation with the community, including the environmental community. Lastly, as a forester, I want to see an improved reputation and relationship of trust with the community. This was taken for granted in the older days, and as anyone knows, repairing a reputation is much harder than ruining it. So by working with people who are interested, even fanatically, the forest we all end up at a better place.

    If they were dicks about it, how can they expect to gain peoples trust? The fact that they dont do that is testament of how they intend on being here for the long haul.

  51. Steak n Eggs
    June 28, 2010 at 4:14 pm

    Anon 3:45: It would be interesting to study nutrient levels in the soil of managed lands and parklands and see if there is a measureable difference.

    The pre-European fire frequency for the majority of the redwood coastal belt was certainly at least 100 years, and therefore these forests evolved with periodic fires. The so-called “all-aged” unevenaged redwood forest occurs sparingly, only on the highest sites and in select micro-climes.

  52. think about tit
    June 28, 2010 at 4:18 pm

    Yes, Bolithio, it’s clearly within your intentions to…regain the people’s trust. To…repair your company’s reputation. Fortunately, the dividing line between talk and action isn’t lost on all of us.

  53. Anonymous
    June 28, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    What % of redwoods are left? Isn’t it about 5%. Yeah, logging is replacing 100% of cut trees. Right. What % of redwood logged trees are being replaced with redwoods?Industrial logging is like any other large corporate endeavor–$$$, and that’s about it. The only reason they do a short shrift of anything mirroring what was there before their industrial taking is because they are required to do a modicum of it. End of story. I’ve personally seen the silver salmon run on the Elk River turn into shit. The large runs of salmonids on the Eel, same thing. The Klamath, Trinity etc., etc. I know logging isn’t the only problem, but it can’t be denied it is a large part of it. As I’ve indicated on this site before, if $’s are involved, $’s win and the hell with anything else. Truly sad.

  54. Bolithio
    June 28, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    Ya 5% of the redwoods are left. They have been replaced with…with…spaghetti! and oh shit, WALMART is COMING!!!! RUN!!!!

  55. think about tit
    June 28, 2010 at 4:56 pm

    …as Bolithio reveals yet more of his winger politics in an attempt to “lighten the mood”.

  56. romeo
    June 28, 2010 at 5:12 pm

    Simpson/Green (washers) Diamond hid in the shadows of PL for decades. Sue the f&*k out of ’em! What’s the hold up?

  57. Anonymous
    June 28, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    “Anon 3:45: It would be interesting to study nutrient levels in the soil of managed lands and parklands and see if there is a measureable difference.”

    It has been done, and there is.

  58. Bolithio
    June 28, 2010 at 5:49 pm

    What’s the hold up?

    They are not breaking any laws.

  59. think about tit
    June 28, 2010 at 6:00 pm

    Yep, they constantly lobby to keep their kind of rape legal.

  60. think about tit
    June 28, 2010 at 7:38 pm

    I would trade my same income in a heartbeat to be paid full time planting saplings and installing rainwater cisterns in areas of clearcut to begin instant rejuvination of the forsts. I’m fully qualified and passionate about it. Where’s this type of revolutionary practice? Will some knucklehead like reasonable anonymous who tries too hard to be some sort of middle-of-the-fence neutralizer of matters chime in with knowitall falsisms? Will Bolithio draw up some charts and graphs but ignore the money and practice?

    Look at the video above, especially the arial at the end, check out the diagrams of deforestation all over the internet and bask in the light of the truth: the logging companies…as much as they want to say they’re promoting healthy forests, are cutting trees down as fast and often and with as much quantity as allowed by law. The proof is right in front of everybody’s eyes anytime of any day that they’re not working to rejuvinate the land they scalp as fast as they could…it’s not part of their profit formula.

    Kateascot made a very intelligent point completely glazed over by other posters pretentious sciences and analogous intellectualisms. There could exist a revolution of practice, but the money chain is very strong and people like Bolithio will fight tooth and nail to keep it that way by skewing numbers, dodging facts and fast-talking PR as long as people like him are paid to. Revolution is what needs to occur within the industry and until then, the current pressure on the timber industry to change needs only to increase.

  61. think about tit
    June 28, 2010 at 8:25 pm

    the song in the video above is beautiful genius…here’s another, not quite as good for the mood but fits the subject very well:

  62. mayfly
    June 28, 2010 at 8:37 pm

    We humans are NOT in charge. Earth is a closed system. We will have to flee this beautiful planet and guess who will make the escape? The richest, most powerful, of course. (Some believe that time is about 70 years away.) You can’t just keep tilling the same ground or harvesting forests without paying back nutrients. How can we be so short-sighted? And arrogant!

  63. The Monitor
    June 28, 2010 at 9:16 pm

    The best explanation I have read on the two current theories on logging were in the last October issue of National Geographic. One is the Green Diamond method. They are the environmentally sensitive repackaged Simpson Timber, lest we forget. The redwood article is on line. It is a good primer on how best to proceed in logging here. Education is the forerunner of a good argument.

  64. kateascot
    June 28, 2010 at 9:16 pm

    1% of Redwoods exist…..I have a poem on my wall by Roy Zarruchi about how wild this Northwest Coastal Area used to be…in it Roy says you could smell the salmon in the crick before ya got there….before logging, now predators are protected and all the game is gone.
    Foresters had no sense until protesters made them think about more than what they wanted. Loggers nearly made Redwoods extinct and just about all the wildlife along with the trees have suffered. Corporate capitalism stinks!!!

  65. kateascot
    June 28, 2010 at 9:24 pm

    Time to quit logging Redwood trees, it’s time is over. Reclaim used old Redwood, there’s an industry to begin in Humboldt. Yeah i know that’s not gunna happen but one can dream.

  66. the reasonable anonymous
    June 28, 2010 at 9:34 pm

    anadromous says: June 28, 2010 at 11:50 am
    “RA,Just saying that, especially if it’s such a “small number of people who are actually interested in building permitted dwellings on these lands” why not ensure that TPZ properties be maintained and valued for their resource potential rather than for residential use? Give existing small TPZ landowners who want to live on their land the option to rollout of TPZ or demonstrate active management for timber or forest ecosystem values.”

    Sorry for the delay in responding. It was a magnificent day and I had lots of work to do outdoors. But now I’m in for the evening and will take some time to address your points.

    The *relatively* small number of people who could be adversely affected by some of the proposed changes to permit requirements for building a home on their TPZ parcel may number in the hundreds, maybe even a thousand. Small compared to the overall population, and small compared to the vast acreage we’re talking about, but I’m just not comfortable saying: Well it won’t affect MOST people, so why not just toss this minority of folks overboard. I’m especially unwilling to do this in light of the fact that there doesn’t seem to me to be any compelling reason to cause them this harm when they’ve done nothing wrong, bought their property under a particular set of rules and understandably have an expectation that the rug won’t be pulled out from under them, legally speaking (and no, uninformed environmentally-oriented “good intentions, stubborn dogmatism, and outsized political ambitions don’t count as compelling reasons…at least not to me).

    As far as forcing TPZ owners who want to build on their TPZ parcel to “roll out” of the TPZ program unless they are able to afford to “demonstrate their active management” for timber harvesting or ecosystem values (read: expensive THP, and/or ecological studies, various experts, RPF, lawyer, time, possibly an appeal in court, and still with a great deal of uncertainty of result), I just don’t see where that would really benefit anyone, nor the forest ecosystem, nor the timber economy over the long run.

    Look, under the current system, if you have a 160 acre TPZ parcel and put in a single residence and a few outbuildings on a 3 acre homesite, you will be taxed at the full residential rate for the house and 3 acre homesite, same as anyone else. Meanwhile the 157 acres that are still growing timber (and guess what, the trees still grow even if you haven’t spent tens of thousands of dollars and a few years to prove your “active management”), those 157 acres will be taxed at the TPZ rate. Again, to summarize, the residential part is taxed as residential, and the timber part is taxed as timber. Hey, a system that actually makes sense: Imagine that!

    This seems pretty darn fair to me, and it serves the TPZ goal of not overvaluing the actual timberland as if it was residential, leading to further incentives to subdivide. And since it is still under TPZ and therefore taxes are deferred until the eventual harvest (which, yes, could be in 50 or 100 years) you’re not forced to overharvest, overfrequently in order to pay your taxes. As you may recall, that was one of the principle reasons for the TPZ system in the first place.

    Under your suggested system, if you want to live on your TPZ land and don’t have the big bucks to engage in an expensive and uncertain discretionary process, your other choice would be to “roll out” of the TPZ designation, and then you’ll be paying residential taxes on 160 acres, even though your homesite is only in reality 3 acres and the other 157 acres is still growing timber. Well that isn’t realistic for anyone but the super-rich, so again that’s really just another back-door way to restrict non-super-rich TPZ parcel owners from being able to live on their land.

    So if you can’t afford to go the expensive and uncertain discretionary permit route, and you can’t afford to just keep it as TPZ with no residence and buy some other residential parcel and build your home there, and you can’t afford to “roll out” and pay the full residential taxes on the 157 acres of remaining forest in addition to the regular residential taxes on the home and 3 acre homesite, then what are your choices? Well here are the main ones I can think of:

    (1) Sell your parcel, most likely either to Big Timber or else to a super-rich person who can afford either the expensive bureaucratic process for the discretionary permit, or can afford to “roll out” of the TPZ designation and pay full residential taxes on all 160 acres. RESULT: More TPZ parcels going into the hands of those with the deep pockets — Big Timber and super-rich would-be “estate” and “trophy home” owners. Not good from an environmental standpoint, not good from a social justice standpoint.

    (2) Try to subdivide the parcel and sell a piece to pay for your discretionary permit ordeal or (at least for a while) help to pay your residential-rate taxes after “rolling out.” RESULT: More subdivision of parcels, more land taken out of timber production and reduced “forest ecosystem values.” Not good, not good, and not good.

    (3) Harvest more, do clearcuts instead of selective logging, harvest sooner than would be ideal, and use the proceeds from the earlier-than-ideal harvest to fund your discretionary permit ordeal or residential taxes after subsequently “rolling out” of TPZ parcels. RESULT: More destructive logging practices, more frequent harvest, more clearcuts and less selective harvesting, and — the real nightmare — lots of people clear-cutting as much of their land as allowed, then “rolling out” of TPZ designation shortly thereafter. Very bad indeed.

    The fact is that the TPZ system ain’t broke, so let’s not break it in the process of “fixing” it. Honestly I think the main motivator here is resentment caused by the mistaken but widespread belief (parroted by many uninformed Option A fans and shrewdly implied by some of their more cynical “leaders”) that TPZ owners can somehow build a house on their land and get a big TPZ tax break on the house and homesite. In one version of this myth that is making the rounds among uninformed Option A True Believers I have spoken to, “as long as the TPZ resident doesn’t harvest, then the TPZ owner never pays taxes on their house at all.” Yes, lots of True Believers actually believe that is the current system.

    In my opinion, Healthy Humboldt’s first radio ad takes advantage of this public misconception (on purpose, I believe) to stoke resentment of TPZ residents by implying that these people were getting some sort of sweetheart deal on the taxes on their home and homesite. I find that once I explain to people that the TPZ owner who builds a house is taxed at normal residential rates on that house and a 3 acre homesite, and will pay normal TPZ taxes on the the timber when it is eventually harvested, most people have no problem with that. And why should they?

  67. the reasonable anonymous
    June 28, 2010 at 10:17 pm

    Greetings Bolithio,

    I can tell you have far more technical expertise on these issues than I do, so I’m inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt on many of your points, or at least concede that I can’t prove you’re wrong even in some cases where I’m pretty sure I’m right.

    However, at the same time, you sound like you are an “insider” within the industrial forestry milieu, and this may in some cases be shaping your views in ways that may tend to lead to a somewhat overly-optimistic view of current practices, the same way that MAXXSCAM foresters and various “-ologists” of 25 years ago also believed that their “state-of-the-art” practices at that time were harmless.

    So I’m just going to offer you some of my admittedly non-expert observations and I’m going to question some assumptions and conclusions that I don’t understand or am not persuaded by. I can’t promise that your replies will convince me, but I do promise to read and consider any responses you offer…

    “…the classification system we use when defining watercourses, and the levels of protection we assign to the various stream types are based on biological factors. If a stream does not contribute measurable flows to a higher order watercourse after June 1st, it simply doesn’t effect the temperature of downstream watercourses.”

    I think these rules are just not complied with as uniformly as you believe. I have seen several local unnamed tributary creeks which, for years, always flowed steadily well into July or even early August, and that then were surrounded by a clear-cut that went right up to those creeks, equipment was run across some of these watercourses, logs were dragged across them, etc. Then for a number of years AFTER the clearcutting they dried up MUCH earlier, even in years with higher-than-average spring rains. I guess maybe someone could look at their overall size and flow and categorize them as “insignificant,” but when adding up lots of “insignificant” watercourses of that sort, eventually it seems to me that the effect is significant. A small watercourse may empty into a creek that is not considered “biologically important” according to forest practice rules because, for example, the receiving creek is not a “fish-bearing” stream, but eventually that same water will (or will not if its dried up) make its way into a larger waterway, then a larger one still, and eventually that water is going to contribute to the flow and the water temperature that is important to fish and other wildlife. So I don’t know if the problem is the definition of “insignificant,” the way this definition is applied out in the field by certain timber companies or their contractors, whether lack of enforcement is an important factor, or what the problem is, but what I do know is that the reality I see “on the ground” doesn’t always measure up to the standard you’re describing here.

    “I’ve never heard of wind drying up streams.”

    Well it seems like a matter of common sense to me: Sun + wind = evaporation, Shade + protection from wind = less evaporation. Is that controversial?

    “The good thing we have going for us here, is that alterations in vegetation are short lived. Increased light to the forest floor is always is followed by a rapid response in growth from understory vegetation. This traps potential sediment movement from overland flow.”

    Again, that’s what SHOULD happen, in theory, but I’ve walked through clear-cuts 5 or 10 years old and seen, along with SOME vegetation, also lots of open, dusty, eroding, gullying and sun-baked soil. Is this due to overuse of herbicides, or the general loss of topsoil, or other factors? Again I don’t know, but if it comes down to “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes,” for now I’ll just have to go with what I actually see.

    “In the future, 2-3 decades from now, most of our legacy impacts will have been either fixed or stabilized naturally, and these timber harvests will have a neutral effect on watersheds. We just are not going to see the serious active erosion sites that we once had anymore. If by bad circumstance they are created, there is a firm regulatory system that ensures timely mitigation of this.”

    I certainly hope you are right and we’re all worrying for no good reason, but I suspect that you’re being a bit optimistic, especially in the area of “there is a firm regulatory system that ensures timely mitigation of this.” I think we the public need to keep the pressure on in order to make sure that (a) we don’t backslide into the even worse practices of the past, and (b) we continue to move closer to the point where not just in theory, but in reality, “timber harvest will have a neutral effect on watersheds.”

  68. the reasonable anonymous
    June 28, 2010 at 10:25 pm

    Well that’s about it. In addition to some time on this blog thread this morning and this evening, I put in a 9+ hour day doing some pretty physically taxing (at least for me) work outside and I’ve got to unwind a little and then hit the sack.

    I will check back in here tomorrow morning to see if there are responses from “anadromous” and “Bolithio” or anyone else who is interested in engaging in meaningful discussion on these issues.

    By the way, “anadromous,” I am genuinely interested in your response to:

    https://humboldtherald.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/baykeeper-gpu-testimonials/#comment-108518

  69. the reasonable anonymous
    June 28, 2010 at 10:32 pm

    OK one last quick thing:

    I think the misunderstandings/misstatements about how “few” redwoods are left is that people are confusing the percentage of OLD GROWTH redwood acreage that remains (a few % of the original acreage) with the overall acreage of redwoods, of which there are still millions of acres (second and third growth). To me the sensible thing is to not cut down any more Old Growth, and to recognize the ecosystem & habitat value in allowing some very significant amount of second and third-growth redwood forests to reach an Old-Growth-like state of maturity. Just my 2 cents on that…now I’m really going to log off for the night!

  70. June 29, 2010 at 7:01 am

    Who gave these capitalist title to these lands? These are “Public” lands. Why does the money from our resources go into the hands of a small group of people, while our infrastructure crumbles, and there isn’t even enough money to take care of the sick and infirm? Why are the trillions of dollars or oil profits going into the coffers of foreign companies? What moron thinks this is ok? California is laying off teachers; Exxon/Mobil is making billions in profits from its offshore extractions. and California doesn’t see a dime?
    Capitalists are traitors stealing the wealth of the country while making sure there is no employment East of Asia, and all the small-minded can do is scream about “their” jobs. What about the country? Why isn’t that wealth public money? I’m sure some propagandized pawn will try to justify a company’s investment as the reason it’s ok. but we subsidize those investments.
    Its grand larceny on a huge scale; Oil, timber, coal, silver, gold, copper, you name it, and all the wealth is transferred to private individuals who then take our money and use it against the people of the country they’re stealing from.
    And most people are so programed they will vehemently defend their own disenfranchisement, while condemning anyone who dares to question theirs, much less fight against it.

  71. Plain Jane
    June 29, 2010 at 7:14 am

    “Personally, I’m in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions of society have to be under popular control. Now, under capitalism, we can’t have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level–there’s little bargaining, a little give and take, but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward. Just as I’m opposed to political fascism, I’m opposed to economic fascism. I think that until the major institutions are under the popular control of participants and communities, it’s pointless to talk about democracy.”

    Noam Chomsky

  72. Bolithio
    June 29, 2010 at 7:47 am

    TRA –

    I was grossly simplifying the “rules” so I didn’t have to write an essay on a blog. lol I will not refute your observations. Im sure that watercourse classification calls have been missed out there. If a watercourse is pumping water in late summer, it is clearly a stream which should have a riparian buffer. What we call Class III creeks, are those that act as sediment transport, but do not support most types aquatic organisms (i.e. cadis fly, salamanders). Those generally do not require shade canopy for protection.

    The June 1st thing actually comes from the EPA TDMLs for our various rivers, where they have assigned pollutant allocations to help agencies implement recovery plans. For example, if the river is listed as temperature impaired, the TDML generally states that the target of natural shade conditions is 85% effective shade canopy on all streams that have flow after June 1st. It is June 1st becuase it is the critical moths of the summer that really count for impaired systems like the Eel. Smaller tributaries generally do not contribute water (cold or warm) into the system during the critical period – and thus their discharge is considered insignificant. (The stream itself is not insignificant per say, it holds intrinsic value and, as you pointed out, there are potential cumulative effects when you consider a while watershed)

    As far as some of the negative impacts you have observed (sun baked soil, lack of veg), I wont doubt you. Certainly there have been and will be impacts. The more inland you go, especially out of the redwood belt, and the considerations to soil and vegetation are different. Just remember, almost the entire county was clearcut from the mid 1950s to the 1960s. And while we know the problems this caused, we also know that the vegetation, trees and all, returned. The clearcut you walked through may have had some displaced soil, possible intentionally if it was mechanically site prepped for planting. Depending on the amount of burning that took place, yes you may see some “baked” soil – but return to that same place over time and observe it change. Ill bet it grows faster that you will expect.

    And TRA: I may be sort of an “insider”, but Im not a company forester. I generally do forestry for non-industrial land owners. Most of whom incidentally live on their TPZ parcels. =) I defend timber on these blogs becuase 1) I like to debate, and 2) green renewable resources are part of our future and misconceptions about logging need to be cleared up. There is a new school of forestry and logging, and while struggling to survive at times, it is defiantly the common denominator at this point.

  73. Bolithio
    June 29, 2010 at 8:01 am

    The issue of over “what remains” is confounded by groups like EPIC, who employ people who dont really understand forest ecology. You can not have a quantified percentage of remaining old growth becuase there is virtually no baseline data. We can say that “most” of the virgin forests (pre-white) have been harvested. The remaining “old growth” is mostly protected in parks.

    In the scientific community, we dont like to use words like old growth, or second/third growth. These terms are not only politically charged, they dont really define things well. For instance second growth implies that the previous forests where the only trees that have ever existed. There have been hundreds of thousands of different forests through time in this area. Pollen studies conducted in the north fork eel have revealed that just 200 years ago the watershed was mostly oak woodland, with a 10% Douglas-fir component. Now, it is 85% Douglas-fir. These fir stands are “virgin” stands. If you walk through them, you will not see any stumps. Point, the environment is constantly changing.

    What is the value of “old growth”? Simply its age? Does an old tree always provide habitat structure for “old growth dependent” species? The answer of course is no. The USFS has a classification system to stratify age/size classes of forests, and to consider the structural component with stands as they decay with age. This eliminates the need to define things in terms of “X growth”. Believe it or not, some redwood stands have been logged 4-5 times.

  74. Pitchfork
    June 29, 2010 at 8:33 am

    Bolithio is pomp-ass wind bag forester paid to quack on command by Green Diamond, SPI or who’s ever payin’ the bills. Great way to use your extensive education and experience, being an industry hack!
    HiFi never disappoints ….a 1000 year old tree is “just a plant”. Right and Wal-Mart is just another store!
    Sarah is really dumbing down the right.

  75. think about tit
    June 29, 2010 at 9:35 am

    AND THEY’RE OFF Ladies and Gentlemen, full blast out the starting gate with naysaying and backwards reasoning. Reasonable anonymous continues to admit there are problems but in his race to be a bastion of impartial logic chooses to race the same infinite grey zone that’s been beat to death for decades. Bolithio is still running strong, folks!!! He wants us to believe his science is on our side, the alternatives are unfeasible and that we should direct our attention elsewhere….

    Yes, ladies and gentlemen…people can go to the moon, half of all men women and children on this planet carry cordless videophones, we’re communicating via digital wireless encyclopedias in the comfort of our own homes YET IT’S STILL IMPOSSIBLE FOR LOGGING COMPANIES AND BUILDING MATERIAL MANUFACTURERS TO REVOLUTIONIZE THEIR INDUSTRIES!!!!!! What a race!!!!!

  76. think about tit
    June 29, 2010 at 9:47 am

    “old growth” doesn’t work well for Bolithio’s science…hmmmmm….

    …how do you loggers calculate the effects your industry has, and continues to have on our climate, locally and globally? That you say timber companies are replenishing as much as they take is such a mega-lie you can’t be taken seriously at all.

  77. High Finance
    June 29, 2010 at 9:51 am

    Calling people names doesn’t make you right Pitchfork, it just makes you a nasty person.

  78. think about tit
    June 29, 2010 at 10:06 am

    …it doesn’t make you wrong either, high finance aka dumbshit. You can thank me to be through with this topic. Money talks as usual. Money talks a lot. Money tells other people how to talk. Money knows what’s best for you. GOOD DAY MORANZ.

  79. Anonymous
    June 29, 2010 at 10:22 am

    Natural resources are finite resources. Redwoods grow slowly so you can’t cut them a second time for how long? An earlier blogger indicated that it’s only the old growth that have been decimated, duh. Geez, what’s wrong with these folks. If the industrial loggers had their way, ALL the old growth would be gone, after all, think of the money that would be made. Sad. Cut all the trees, kill and catch all the fish, get all the oil, whatever. Money, money, money. HiFi and his ilk would be in hog heaven. Just try to imagine if the corporations and other money grubbers would just slow down and look at the long range ramifications of their profits. Sad.

  80. Oldphart
    June 29, 2010 at 11:22 am

    It may be fun to call other people names, but adds nothing to the discourse. Dumbass.

  81. longwind
    June 29, 2010 at 11:47 am

    Hey Pitchfork and tit-thinker,

    Bolithio is game to talk with people who seem to be proud of their ignorance. I’m glad he doesn’t take you as seriously as you take yourselves.

    As a long-ago treesitter, I’ve watched the evolution of the forest products industry with mixed feelings. Protesters and hippie-types created so-called sustainable forestry, which really was pretty sustainable as long as hippies were selectively logging for cool lumber, but with success it became as fraudulent the USDA’s corporate Organic standards that keep trying to certify irradiated toxic sludge as Organic fertilizer.

    But horrible as good ideas get when they’re hijacked by profit centers, there’s no disputing that corporate organic food is better for the planet than corporate food that makes no gestures toward planetary or human health. Industrial forestry too has, on the one hand, corrupted the definition of sustainable, and on the other hand hugely increased recognition and mitigation of problems caused by logging.

    Real sustainable forestry would only very rarely clear cut at all, for example. But modern ‘sustainable’ forestry makes much smaller clearings than used to be normal, and as the Green Diamond forest flight shows, distributes the ages of the clearcuts across broad landscapes to help reduce cumulative impacts. Trees do grow back, though soils are depleted. Road management has immensely improved. Even narrow uncut stream buffers are a big improvement over, say, driving your ‘dozer up the crick like they used to.

    It’s just ignorant to pooh-pooh demonstrable progress, which isn’t to say there’s no room for more. But if you don’t want to learn what you’re talking about, it’s just pooh-pooh in, and pooh-pooh out. But that stuff is fertilizer, not art!

  82. High Finance
    June 29, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    What has amazed me these last few years, is how angry & nasty lefties all seem to be.

    You would think that, since they are firmly & totally in charge of Sacramento for years and 1 1/2 years ago they took charge of every level of the federal executive & legislative branch, they would be all smiles.

    Yet posters, like Pitchfork & Think About it are the norm for lefties and not the exception. Others like annonymous 10.22am continuously misrepresent what conservatives say instead of being debating honestly.

    Some say that it is because they have a sense of inferiority & feel they cannot debate like adults. Others say it is because they have a lack of grace & manners. I don’t know, but it is curious.

  83. think about tit
    June 29, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    longwinded and high fine-ass…I’m talking about cumulative and current operations. What do you think is the magic moment of reality? You can talk about new medicine and wear ribbons all you want, the cancer will still kill you. Polar politics do not apply.

    I’ve been at it for a very long time too. Why is it that people in favor of more immediate change and less waffle talk are the ones who are told by you oh-so-grounded types to see things differently? The industry only changes with a government gun to its head. Why deny that. Why? Why gloss over downright sleazeball tactics like Simpson’s name change and similar PR stunts? Numbers are fudged, topics dodged and I’M supposed to reconsider my thinking?

    Everything you’re saying has been said for decades. Do you not comprehend this? Why aren’t YOU talking about how the industry could and should change? Wouldn’t that be better for everybody? Yes. Your own politics and your own incomes will not have it. It’s 2010 and you still gripe about “hippys” for crying out loud.

    You gotta wake the funk up. Nice talk is what big industry across the board is heavily investing in right now. PR, green logos and shiney happy people in their commercials. Change is only as mandated. YOU COULD HELP but you want to tell me I’m full of shit. Politely. Fuck that.

  84. High Finance
    June 29, 2010 at 12:37 pm

    Non Sequitar Tit.

    I guess you’re not going to help me understand why you and your friends are so nasty and lacking in class or manners, especially when your side controls everything everywhere are you?

  85. think about tit
    June 29, 2010 at 12:43 pm

    You haven’t demonstrated any will to get tit before, High Finance etc. On the contrary, you’re like a perpetual troll. You live here too, right? It’s our side. You stupid fucking retard.

  86. the reasonable anonymous
    June 29, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    HiFi:

    Others strike you as “angry & nasty?”

    Check your potkettleblack situation, dude.

  87. High Finance
    June 29, 2010 at 1:09 pm

    Anybody with any sense would be angry at what is happening to our country by your side.

  88. the reasonable anonymous
    June 29, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    Oh, I see, you’re anger and nastiness is justified, others are not. Now it all makes sense. Carry on.

  89. Plain Jane
    June 29, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    Because, don’t you know, it’s ALL Obama’s (and consequently liberals’) fault. If McCain would have won the election we wouldn’t have all these problems which didn’t exist until 1/2009. His party destroyed the economy and he’s blaming us because we haven’t fixed it despite his party’s refusal to do anything but stamp their feet and yell, HELL NO! How can you have any sort of honest debate with the people who apparently even lie to themselves?

  90. the reasonable anonymous
    June 29, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    HiFi’s insistence that the “other side” “controls everything everywhere” is pretty funny. Apparently he’s never heard of the filibuster, or Senate holds on nominations, or the conservative-majority US Supreme Court, or Blue Dog Democrats, or Republican-controlled governorships and state legisltures, or the rule in Sacramento requiring a supermajority to pass tax measures, just to name a few of the factors limiting the ability of “governing” Dems to carry out their policy initiatives.

    Assuming HiFi’s “my side / you side” stuff refers to the Republicans and Democrats, well, certainly the Democrats have the Presidency, a good-sized majority in the House, and a majority in the Senate that would be considered quite strong if it were not for the filibuster situation, where Republicans can block anything they choose to unless the Dems can get 60 votes for cloture. And according to most observers, Republicans are expected to pick up a number of seats in the House, and probably some in the Senate.

    So the lock on power by Democrats that HiFi seems to believe is already in place really isn’t a lock at all, and Republicans have plenty or money and infrastructure and favorable media outlets and so on, so they have plenty of opportunities to make gains in the coming years.

    The real problem the Republicans have is the direction of their own party. If they continue down the paranoid road of “birtherism,” Obama-is-a-Secret-Muslim, Death Panels, Obama-Caused-the-BP-Oil-Spill-On-Purpose, Mexican “Invasion,” Global-Warming-Is-A-Hoax, and all the rest of that conspiracy nonsense, if they keep pushing the Drill, Baby, Drill stuff even in the face of the BP disaster, and accusing Obama of “Shaking Down” BP, and if they continue to take their cues from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, and continue to put forward “leaders” like Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Joe Barton, Michael Steele and the rest, well they will have nobody but themselves to blame if they continue to slide deeper into minority-party status.

  91. Anonymous
    June 29, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    HiFi’ a friggin riot. Whether he wants to admit it or not, the monied interests are in charge. Take a look at the recent Supreme Court decision re: campaign contributions, just for starters. Look at big oil, big pharma and the insurance industry. Just where he gets off on asserting that the liberals are in charge is unbelievable. Money is in charge HiFi, money is in charge. Both political parties are guilty. Liberals basically want a level playing field where decisions are based on the better good, while conservatives pretty much care about the bottom line, regardless of the result. It’s that simple HiFi.

  92. Bolithio
    June 29, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    LOL Im glad I was in the woods today =)

    Bolithio is pomp-ass wind bag forester paid to quack on command

    Hilarious!!

    Hey, whats a wind bag?

  93. Bolithio
    June 29, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    Cheers Longwind. Hopefully people can learn that is about coming together. The more we can offer as individuals, the more likely we are to progress as a species. Our culture of division is a major stumbling block on this road.

  94. really think about it
    June 29, 2010 at 6:50 pm

    Cheers to you Bolithio and bla dee bla shake hands and kiss babies and bla bla bla. In ten years you’ll be saying the same thing, having neither conceded any wrongdoing on your contemporary industry nor mutually contemplated any great advanced that could be made sooner than later.

    You are a smarmy business man, nothing more.

  95. Bolithio
    June 29, 2010 at 7:20 pm

    mutually contemplated any great advanced that could be made sooner than later.

    lol Ill be contemplating this for a long time…
    brilliant!

  96. really think about it
    June 29, 2010 at 7:28 pm

    what’s disgusting is, if you were paid twice what you are now to do so, you’d argue against everything you’ve written here. omglolwtf

  97. kateascot
    June 29, 2010 at 7:32 pm

    Hey man, it looks to me like we’ve forgotten that there are more than 2 sides to the American dilemma! You act like rival high school teams. Politics has become a show or a circus. The G20 says we’ve (Americans) have got to cut our deficit in half, that means the poor just took a blow that many will never recover from. You think you’ve got social problems like homelessness now? Homeless populations will double within 3 years at this rate if not sooner!
    The depression we’re in didn’t happen the day Obama took office it began the day we went to war in Iraq. The oil rigs didn’t begin their dirty profit making enterprises when Obama took office, look at the 8 years Bush, by his own admittance, had oil on his mind all along. Halliburton could care less along with BP about common folks, we’re expendable, they want THE MONEY!!!!
    Democrat or Republican you’re screwed right along with the rest of us and until we start working together in our communities to shore up the affordability of basic human existence all of us will pay dearly during this next wave of out of control natural disasters (hurricanes hitting the Gulf Coast spewing chemicals inland) and budget cuts.
    These petty “it’s the Dems….no it’s the Reps” will get us nowhere! We are Americans! We must come together through these hard times. We’re being destroyed from within by our own petty attitudes and half witted excuses, we’re all to blame for letting a minority of elite wealthy people play monopoly with tax payer money! Focus on them and get rid of them and take our country back to the people where it belongs! Boycott!!!!! Protest!!!!!! THE BANKS GOT BAILED OUT WE GOT SOLD OUT!

  98. really think about it
    June 29, 2010 at 7:54 pm

    The sad thing is, kate, the internet is not the place change is going to happen, and the wealthy elite know it. I’ve talked straight faced politics and processes since its inception on all fronts. The discussions always come full circle. This exact thread has been repeated countless times on countless sites, and will again. I’m at the point where I refuse to even pretend it won’t for the sake of changing a mind that won’t.

    Bolithio, High Finance et al say “come together” but have already made their minds up as much as anybody else. The “discussion” is a matter of human nature, but the dividing line in matters like this is who’s making money and how. Then thing get a little clearer, and the voices tone rings a bit more true to their intentions.

  99. really think about it
    June 29, 2010 at 7:56 pm

    and yes…the recent corporate bailout is about as big of a middle finger the government and big business can give to the everyday working class population of the whole world. If people don’t “get it” after that, there’s little hope for them as individuals. It’s not a left/right government at all…

  100. kateascot
    June 29, 2010 at 8:34 pm

    7:54….change is taking place on the internet…when we walk out on the street and see that what we’re talking about IS REALLY happening many people will remember these conversations and say huh! We aren’t talking about things that we’ll only be seeing on tv, we’ll have trouble right here in river city! Personally each one of us is going to be asked to put our lifestyles on the line for what we believe is right. Yes it’s going to get that bad…..

  101. High Finance
    June 29, 2010 at 10:06 pm

    More big bad corporate speak.

    Are you aware that corporations employ almost half of all US workers?

  102. June 29, 2010 at 10:28 pm

    Ballad Of A Tall Tree

  103. kateascot
    June 30, 2010 at 12:01 am

    are you aware that capitalism is often thought of as Democracy? It is not! It’s allowed within a Democracy but is NOT the only economic system available to humans. Obviously there are some horrible problems with this system. And are you aware that 20 yrs ago if we were to reach higher than 5 percent unemployment we were considered entering a depression. Unemployment is at 14-19% if you count those who are not on unemployment benefits any longer but not working! Since big corporate takeovers in the 80’s we’ve lost jobs in the US and available affordable housing as well…..life is NOT better when you’re on the losing end of the deal you and people like you have made with the devil high finance. I didn’t buy into the system. Never had a credit card as I worked for a living and lived within my budget. Paid my taxes and have retired with no debt. I live a simple yet interesting life and have made it through hard times because of the community of deep spiritual people around me who honor all that we’ve been blessed with in creation. Credit, debt and insurance show a lack of faith in anything more than money. This country is blinded by money and getting cold and mean-spirited as our leaders punish the poor and out of work for their failures. Capitalism IS NOT Democracy, it is a faulty system of economics.

  104. Bolithio
    June 30, 2010 at 6:39 am

    Its interesting how humans have this affinity for apocalypse. Its almost like people yearn for the end of everything. It also sounds like some people feel empowered by knowing that we will soon be corporate slaves, and that they must do everything to stop it. Or, the earth is on its last legs and stopping logging at all costs. Or Jesus is coming and I must save as many people as possible.

    Yet as a species we are obsessed with life, and strive for immortality. Its one of the strangest dilemmas we have. We simultaneously poison the system with toxins – while extending our lifespans way beyond what is ‘natural’. Still, the ball is rolling somewhere, and I dont think there is any stopping it. So if the world ends in 2012 I have to say it been great! Or if I wake up in 1984, well, they cant own my imagination – so freedom will prevail. Or more likely, we will find ourselves at tremendously old ages looking at the world, which seems very much like it did (now), with a lot of worked up youth proclaiming that we are all about to die. And we will say; finally!

  105. really think abou tit
    June 30, 2010 at 8:58 am

    That’s all well and said, Bolithio, but the youth-to-elders of 50 years ago were looking at a different landscape than today…literally. And even more different 50 years before that…literally. And 50 years before that, an astronomical difference compared. Stick to the real, not the talk, and maybe you see how unrelated 99% of this jibbajabba is? Nobody’s wanting the apocalypse…it would be a good idea to stop chopping up the landscape sooner than later, don’t you agree? What will be your next “but…”?

  106. longwind
    June 30, 2010 at 10:54 am

    Speaking of real, our redwood world looked one hell of a lot worse 50 years ago than it does now. There was more old growth than now because it was accessed mostly by clear-cutting through it. There was much more rampant destruction, with no effective protection outside of state parks, and virtually no concern for downstream consequences despite catastrophic flooding, declining fisheries, fouled air and unstable communities.

    Do you not know any of this? I realize I’m wasting my time with you, but I hope other readers may be interested in the truth of things. Things change. So should our understanding, if we want to keep understanding.

  107. time to open your eyes
    June 30, 2010 at 8:59 pm

    longwind:

    http://tinyurl.com/2d2yj43

    understand?

  108. longwind
    June 30, 2010 at 10:08 pm

    Yes I do. I’m wasting my time. Remember the last time you learned anything?

  109. longwind
    June 30, 2010 at 10:17 pm

    I’m sorry, I shouldn’t be nasty to you. Green Diamond isn’t cutting any old growth. There isn’t any old growth on private land in Humboldt left to cut. It’s not what we’re talking about. Do you mean to say we shouldn’t cut anything?

  110. Anonymous
    June 30, 2010 at 10:54 pm

    it is important to show the public the pictures of a fragmented forest but where to from here? what about a long term vision for our forests (and ag lands and communities?

  111. I see you
    July 1, 2010 at 10:07 am

    “longwind” (hmmmm) you should direct your inquiries toward Bolithio. “Old Growth” is merely semantics and doesn’t come close to recognizing the countless former non-chainsawed incarnations of the land.

  112. longwind
    July 1, 2010 at 10:29 am

    “I see you” (whaa?):

    Of course that’s true, as Bolithio and others have said. That’s one of the reasons why I was impatient with the irrelevant old growth map last night.

    It’s difficult to have discussions and make sense on several levels at once, talking with different people at the same time. But we do have to meet each person at their own level. It’s a bitch all right.

  113. tinkerbell
    July 3, 2010 at 12:39 am

    No trees. No jobs.

  114. Really THINK about it
    July 3, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    Before you knew how to speak your native language, you “knew” how to speak. The knowledge was unlocked. There are things you don’t yet know, but will…things that your mind already understands. You know that deforestation is a severe problem, that industrial practices need dramatic reinvention, that our open space is diminishing and that every aspect of the environment is on the decline. You “know” immediate change is possible. If you don’t, it’s only because the understanding isn’t unlocked in your mind. I can’t provide the word keys to unlock the knowledge…I hope you continue to look at the biggest picture and eventually realize what the real roadblocks are. I refuse to support anything less than what can be and NEEDS to be done. I hope someday you feel the same way…sooner than later.

    Have a nice weekend!

  115. mayfly
    July 3, 2010 at 7:56 pm

    The climate of Woodland, Washington changed dramatically after clear-cutting along the Columbia was finished. It’s windy as hell there now. Ask any of the old timers.

    I grew up in Arcata. We used to have a lot more heavy fog here. Trees hold fog.

    Why do we need 7000 more homes in Cutten? What will people do for work that will finance the mortgage?

    Why can’t America stop being a war machine ? We sell more weapons to foreign countries than any other nation.

  116. July 19, 2014 at 1:53 pm

    Interesting Read

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s