Home > environment > Coho, Spotted Owl harassment by Green Diamond

Coho, Spotted Owl harassment by Green Diamond

Ever since Simpson Timber changed it’s name to “Green Diamond Resource Company,” a warm, fuzzy feeling green-washes over the ears of any soul who catches the subtle vibrations of that poetic-yet-cynical name.

Or not.

Here’s a snapshot of what Green Diamond is planning for Toss-up Creek. Key elements: endangered species, steep slopes, impaired creek in a watershed that will be clearcut in wet weather.

From thptrackingcenter.org:

THP 1-11-094 HUM (Wiregrass 2012 THP) Green Diamond Resource Company, 112 acres; 80% clearcut, 12% selection, 8% no-harvest logging. Toss-up Creek (HUM: T7N R2E Sec.13, 24; T7N R3E Sec.18, 19, 30). Wet weather operations, moderate erosion hazard, steep slopes up to 55%, impaired 303.d watershed, landslide terrain near units c, d, 6 road related work sites, coho watershed, 5 spotted owls within 1.3mi, trees up to 72” dbh. Estimated public comment deadline: 11/24/11.

  1. Bolithio
    October 18, 2011 at 7:50 am

    Ya, so? This is our economy. You know, the green economy, renewable resources.

  2. Ben
    October 18, 2011 at 8:09 am

    Get serious, Green Diamond is a responsible company and this post is trying to create a problem when there is none. Just another knee jerk anti-timber post.

  3. Cletus Ann Gulchyokel
    October 18, 2011 at 8:42 am

    Yeah, Ben 8:09!! Fuck the water! Fuck the coho habitat! In fact, fuck every living thing except people!! Who needs wildlife? Bring on the “managed” forest, baby…you know, those second-growth redwood trees about as big around as my Uncle Gilch’s neck. Wood is wood, right? Money is money. Yee haw.

  4. Anonymous
    October 18, 2011 at 9:01 am

    Wow Cletusakes so many valid points. Not

  5. October 18, 2011 at 9:03 am

    They got it coming. Give hell Heraldo!

  6. Anonymous
    October 18, 2011 at 9:43 am

    Public comment, ha ha what a joke. Just another dog and pony show before they begin to do anything they want.

  7. Anonymous
    October 18, 2011 at 10:17 am

    Just like this blog which only allows points of view in agreement to its own.

  8. October 18, 2011 at 10:34 am

    Just like this blog which only allows points of view in agreement to its own.

    Oh yes, just like this thread. A virtual echo chamber.

  9. Neanderthal Man
    October 18, 2011 at 10:49 am

    We don’t miss the Dodo Bird, we won’t miss the Owl (and maybe the rest of the other species will not shed a tear for our self-inflicted demise). It is Green and it is a Diamond, that can’t be all bad, can it?

  10. Plain Jane
    October 18, 2011 at 11:23 am

    If comments like 11:17’s weren’t so funny in their delusions, they would have no value at all. It might have a point if it complained that it is unfair that you don’t write their side of the debate for them since, as can be seen at 10:17, sound logic is not their strength.

  11. Bolithio
    October 18, 2011 at 11:35 am

    Ah yes, our good friends at THP tacker. I have spoken with him before, and I dont think his heart is in the wrong place.

    Still, they spin what you are seeing. 50 pages of environmental engineering and mitigation reduced to one paragraph. If you want to see impact, Im sure you do when you just glance at that blurb. How misleading is it?

    90 acres clear-cut (not 112, but i dont blame him for that error). (Not contiguous, but if we mentioned that it is separated into 4 well distributed units, it doesn’t sound as bad)

    Wet weather ops!!! holy cow. They actually have a full winter operating plan that they are applying to the wet weather period (way beyond normal requirements), and have a robust sediment/turbidity prevention plan built in. (Most of this logging plan is not ground based, meaning very little impact in the winter)

    Steep slopes “up to 55%”, thats laughable, considering 55% is way on the lower end of slope steepness…Still, GD pours on the mitigation in these marginally steep areas. Specifically, no ground based ops on slopes over 50%.

    But really, for all you who think this is all a joke and think we just make this shit up, read it for yourself:

    ftp://thp.fire.ca.gov/THPLibrary/North_Coast_Region/THPs2011/1-11-094HUM/20111007_1-11-094HUM_Sec2.pdf

  12. High Finance
    October 18, 2011 at 11:48 am

    Barn Owls are killing & driving off Spotted Owls everywhere.

    Would Cletus & his friend Heraldo advocate the killing of Barn Owls ?

  13. Fact Checker
    October 18, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    Sub-Moron said:
    October 18, 2011 at 11:48 am

    “Barn Owls are killing & driving off Spotted Owls everywhere.”

    …The habitat consists of inhabitable and permanently destroyed sites. It was previously observed (Nee & May, 1992; Tilman et al., 1994, 1997) that destruction of habitat may aid the inferior species and cause the superior species to go extinct. (more)

    http://www.mendeley.com/research/habitat-destruction-and-competitive-coexistence-in-spatially-explicit-models-with-local-interactions/

  14. Rumbustious
    October 18, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    It’s BARRED owls, not BARN owls, that are displacing the spotted owl.

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/The-Spotted-Owls-New-Nemesis.html

  15. October 18, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    Have you seen Maple Creek
    area lately? GD, GD.

  16. High Finance
    October 18, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    For Factless;

    “A New Wrinkle

    Habitat loss may no longer be the primary threat to spotted owls’ survival. ‘There is a new wrinkle in an old problem’ Forsman said. That wrinkle is the invasion of the larger, more aggressive barred owl into spotted owl territory.

    ‘the barred owl either eats (spotted owls), kicks them out of their habitat, or mate sith them.. said Steven Courtney, vice president of the Sustainable Ecosystems Institue in Portland, OR.”

    ” ‘The invasion of barred owls may be the end of spotted owls.,’ Haig said.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_tvspottedowl_2.html

  17. Plain Jane
    October 18, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    What is the relevance? Barred owls are killing spotted owls so we should too? What is driving the invasion of barred owls into spotted owl territory?

    “Overall, declines on federal lands (2.5 percent) were markedly lower than those on state, tribal, and private lands (6.6 percent), which suggest that federal protections may make a difference.”

    Unless barred owls have some way of knowing they aren’t supposed to kill spotted owls on federal land, there’s more going on here than owl wars.

  18. Fact Checker
    October 18, 2011 at 12:38 pm

    Read it again High Liar:

    “…that destruction of habitat may aid the inferior species and cause the superior species to go extinct.”

    It’s about competing species within a dwindling habitat. Loss of habitat WAS the “primary threat”, now it is competing with other species. Your critical reading and thinking skills are pathetic, High Liar.

  19. Fact Checker
    October 18, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    High Finance says:
    October 18, 2011 at 11:48 am

    “Barn Owls are killing & driving off Spotted Owls…”

    Poor High Liar, he doesn’t know a Barn Owl from a Barred Owl. Facts schmacks, Hi Liar is always Fair & Balanced.

  20. retired guy
    October 18, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    Yeah, the spotted owl is history so might as well log wherever, whenever. Coho salmon? who gives a shit. log anywhere, anytime. steep slopes? so friggin what. What’s a little sediment? It’s all good, so log,log, log.

    The almighty dollar wins, the environment loses. Does this sound familiar? Afraid so. HiFi and his ilk are always right, right? Unfortunately, this seems to be the case, and it has nothing to do with what’s best, but more to do with who has the most money and its influence.

  21. Bolithio
    October 18, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    In spite of a very aggressive (for CA) management strategy on GD’s industrial ownership, they have the higher densities of NSOs than other large land bases; private non-industrial, state parks, USFS. Weird.

    Clear cutting does not destroy habitat, it modifies it. A forest, which is a dynamic environment is always changing. Clearing trees, grading, and building a strip mall is actually permanently converting forest. When forests are clear cut, they immediately regenerate with pioneer species, and within about 5-10 years have a understory consisting of dense brush and young trees – creating a habitat regime that allows the wood rat (NSO’s favorate food) to climb to significant number. Edge is diversities best friend, and think what you may about a clearcut, the perpetual edge that exists on industrial ownerships guarantees a healthy food base and foraging habitats.

    Ownerships with large tracks of dense dark forest stands are going to be much less diverse, and ultimately have less owls (due to lack of prey) than forest lands actively managed or where fire is still a natural part of the environment.

  22. Bolithio
    October 18, 2011 at 1:01 pm

    Barred owls are killing spotted owls so we should too? What is driving the invasion of barred owls into spotted owl territory?

    Who’s killing NSO Jane?

    The drive is complex, but the simple answer is the Barred Owl is a generalist, meaning it is very adaptable and has broad habitat preferences. It has been gradually moving west from the east side of the country. NSO are specialists and do not adapt as well.

  23. October 18, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    Want to see what it actually looks like on Green Diamond land in the heavily logged Maple Creek watershed near Big Lagoon?

    Check out these photos taken this summer.

    (note: this is not the Maple Creek of Mad River)

  24. back in the saddle
    October 18, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    If barred owls are mating with spotted owls and the offspring are sexually viable, then they are not different species anymore than an African woman and a Chinese man mating. Discuss.

  25. High Finance
    October 18, 2011 at 3:51 pm

    Caught with your facts down hey Factless ?

    Can the Barred owl be an “inferior species” when it is dooming the Spotted Owl to extinction by eating them ?

    The “relevance”, poor Plain Jane, is that we shouldn’t be destroying our timber industry to protect the Spotted Owl when they are already doomed by being an inferior species.

    Please PJ, try to think once in awhile.

  26. Anonymous
    October 18, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    ” poor Plain Jane” dead giveaway.

  27. Plain Jane
    October 18, 2011 at 4:22 pm

    Are there any species other than man you don’t consider inferior species unworthy of protection, HiFi?

  28. Plain Jane
    October 18, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    Do you really think our timber industry is being destroyed by protecting spotted owls, HiFi? Seriously?

  29. Bolithio
    October 18, 2011 at 5:10 pm

    The spotted owl is destroying the timber industry as much as the industry is destroying owls: Their not.

    —–

    In reality, there is no ‘better’ species. A “bad” species would be best defined as one that has been artificially moved to a foreign environment in which it is disrupting the natural balance. Like Russian Boars or Scotch Broom locally. The barred owl is a more complicated issue because its vectoring across the united states is somewhat natural, in that as habitat became available to its west, it moved in…and this habitat has strung it along, albeit habitat that was likely created or influenced by man.

    Regardless, neither species is more important. They a both doing their thing. The spotted owl was used as a keyword issue to slow old growth logging in WA and OR, and to some degree CA. But 90% of the focus was on the north west forests, not so much CA forests. So 30 years latter we have found that spotted owls are not old growth dependent.

    What about the other native owls? The barn owl, great horned, long eared, short eared, flamulated, saw-wit, western screech, pygmy, and now the barred (got em all?). What about them? Why is the NSOs habitat favored over the other 9 owls? Let alone raptors, landbirds, and mammals. Dynamic habitat is what we need. So the NSO acts as the buffer for larger trees on the landscape. Fine, just dont complain about harvesting near-by after we have protected spotted owls. Other owls have to live too!!

  30. Plain Jane
    October 18, 2011 at 5:19 pm

    I’m no expert, but I believe it’s about indicator species in different environments, Bolithio. Every species has it’s niche and when their niche is destroyed, they can’t survive unless they can adapt and there are myriad other balances that are then thrown out of whack.

  31. jr
    October 18, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    Another indicator species is the Marbled Murrlet seabird that nests in old growth habitat, even more endangered than the Northern Spotted Owl from both the loss of habitat and the growing Corvid population.

  32. Anonymous
    October 18, 2011 at 6:01 pm

    If you don’t think logging displaces wildlife, just drive on a highway by a newly logged area or clear cut. You will find tons of road kill. If not killed on the road the animals are driven into habitat already inhabited by there own species or others. There is only so much space and food.

  33. Anonymous
    October 18, 2011 at 6:02 pm

    HCP. You enviros cried a mud river that private landowners and the habitat could only work with a HCP. Well GD worked for years and spent millions to get a state of the art HCP. Now you enviro whacks are cry’n because you are having trouble suing GD. You dips just never quit. Be careful what you wish for. ROTFLMAO!

  34. Bolithio
    October 18, 2011 at 6:11 pm

    Sure, the spotted owl is a good ambassador for mature forest favoring species, as the murrlet is for old growth redwood. In my unpopular opinion, the MM has spawned all manner of ridiculous mitigation in forestry/logging. Im cynical about NSO policy, but I agree with the concept of protecting various stages of habitat in reasonable amounts which NSO regs effectively do. But marbled murrlet regulations are just silly.

  35. Bolithio
    October 18, 2011 at 6:19 pm

    Thats interesting about road kill near clear-cuts. That would make for a good study. But i’d bet you big money the animals are moving in not out of the recently logged areas.

    I challenge anyone who is interested. Walk through dense closed canopy forest for several days. Then walk along the edges of open-canopied forests and clear-cuts for the same amount of time. Tally the animals and birds you see and hear. Compare and contrast. Farmer?

  36. Anonymous
    October 18, 2011 at 6:45 pm

    Bolithio you are correct when you say that border areas have more species diversity in general but that is not what has got people upset.

    People are not upset at the lack of diversity in clear cut areas. They are concerned that certain precious endangered species cannot survive in clear cut areas no matter how diverse the speciation is. Some species require dense climax forests to survive even if the climax forests aren’t as diverse in speciation.

    The spotted owl is not part of the diversity that clear cutting introduces.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  37. Anonymous
    October 18, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    What a ridiculous conclusion. Moving into a freshly cut wasteland?

  38. anonymous
    October 18, 2011 at 7:41 pm

    Thank you, Simpson Timber aka Green Diamond for turning Humboldt’s lush wet redwood forests into dry acidic pine plantations scabbed with clearcuts. The place will never be the same again!

  39. jr
    October 18, 2011 at 8:29 pm

    As one drives north on 101 at Big Lagoon, one sees several clear cut patches. The clear cut on the south side of the lagoon and east of 101 still has not healed and it was cut in, I believe, 2005. Look east at the Crannell Road exit and the hills surrounding this old company town look trashed. Just look past the “beauty strip” that separates the highway from the clear cuts. Read Derrick Jensen’s and George Draffan’s book “Strangely Like War, the Global Assault on Forests”.

  40. Anonymous
    October 19, 2011 at 7:18 am

    My neighborhood will never be the same after pot growers ruined it. War is hell on so many fronts.

  41. Fact Checker
    October 19, 2011 at 7:30 am

    High Barf said:
    October 18, 2011 at 3:51 pm

    “The “relevance”, poor Plain Jane, is that we shouldn’t be destroying our timber industry to protect the Spotted Owl…”

    Yeah right High Liar. If the people require businesses to conduct their business responsibly, this is “destroying our timber industry”? The sad state of critical thinking skills in America is disheartening.

  42. Anonymous
    October 19, 2011 at 9:02 am

    Where are the logs going? since the housing bubble burst, why is GD cutting when they could be building inventory on their stands. Are they shipping raw logs? The demise of species is collateral damage to many industries’ self induced expansion.

  43. Anonymous
    October 19, 2011 at 9:20 am

    I assumed that all the logs we see traveling into Eureka lately are leaving for Asia as usual. Why would this not be the case with Green Diamond.

  44. October 19, 2011 at 9:21 am

    “My neighborhood will never be the same after pot growers ruined it.” 7:18

    What neighborhood? Akin to saying these old women with their tomatoes in their gardens are ruining our neighborhood.
    Maybe what is ruining your neighborhood is the cost of maintaining
    a war that has displaced education and welfare. Maybe you built prisons when you should have built schools, maybe you allowed your police to get fat while your teachers became gaunt. It isn’t the plant that is the source of your misery, it is the ever-dull mind that created this crap-economy.

  45. Anonymous
    October 19, 2011 at 9:44 am

    If 9:20 is correct and the logs are going to Asia, and the industry includes mill workers, then the industry is suffering more from poor business planning than the protection of species. Right High Colonic?

  46. anonymous
    October 19, 2011 at 9:46 am

    Considering their impact on the area’s natural habitat, transforming the forests into dry pine farms, logging companies should be the ones to pay these new Fire Department service fees the county is demanding from rural landowners. Growers and back-to-the-landers aren’t even a drop in their bucket of damage.

  47. Anonymous
    October 19, 2011 at 10:22 am

    It IS your fault, FAULT. You get the prize for the crappiest attitude.

  48. Anonymous
    October 19, 2011 at 10:24 am

    The old women and their tomatoes didn’t cause home invasion and the continued worry of that throughout the whole block, not to mention the awful condition of the house where the grow is, the lowered value of property around it, the police costs.

  49. Anonymous
    October 19, 2011 at 10:25 am

    Oh yes, I failed to bring up the old women and their tomatoes using the sun for their grow light, and turning off their heat to save energy because they can’t afford it. Pot growers are neither green nor thoughtful.

  50. October 19, 2011 at 10:38 am

    Indoor pot growing is a hybrid economic activity composed of agricultural and industrial elements. As a viable economic activity it produces profits if done efficiently. Indoor pot growing is a job creator. All industrial processes require inputs of energy and raw materials as well as labor to produce their product.

    For instance the chemical pulping process at the Samoa Mill requires a huge amount of electricity as well as fresh water. Since the indoor marijuana industry supports thousands of people in Humboldt County if you were to eliminate the indoor grows completely you would still have to provide industrial jobs for all these people, which would also require inputs of electricity. The “footprint” of indoor pot growing is illusory as that foot print would exist no matter which industry was economically supporting the populace.

    It’s simple, its not rocket science.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  51. Anonymous
    October 19, 2011 at 10:51 am

    Indeed Bill. I wonder what the power use for all the closed down mills were. That is not to say indoor is appropriate where solar can be used, but it does ask about power use and income distribution. The generators run full time and lamps can run in off peak hours.

  52. anonymous
    October 19, 2011 at 10:57 am

    Lumber chumps trying to distract attention away from their impact by passing the buck onto rural residents and marijuana growers? No way, they’re more ethical than that, right?

  53. Anonymous
    October 19, 2011 at 11:01 am

    Getting back to GD, if their rotation is only 50 years, what does that mean when the housing industry recovers and all we have locally is stumps and pecker poles? What will lumber prices be and what about quality? That GD timberland won’t be productive for anything but ocean view subdivisions. Oh…Yeah.

  54. Plain Jane
    October 19, 2011 at 11:04 am

    If they stay true to form, they’ll be demanding to log off all the parks to meet the lumber demand and create jobs.

  55. anonymous
    October 19, 2011 at 11:22 am

    All this talk in Humboldt about “growers”. The worst of the lot are right under everybody’s noses, operating 24/7/365. They grow massive pine tree farms that have already wreaked havoc on the landscape and self-sustainability of humboldt’s forest ecosystems. The logging industry uses so much heavy equipment and energy all the time, in addition to changing the face of the landscape forever. Once they strip the land, they sell it to developers. They ARE Humboldt County’s worst polluters.

  56. October 19, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    The old women and their tomatoes didn’t cause home invasion and the continued worry of that throughout the whole block, not to mention the awful condition of the house where the grow is, the lowered value of property around it, the police costs. 10:24

    No….the drug war did.
    That there is exhorbitant value to those dried flowers is a product of the price-support group otherwise known as the police.
    Think it out, not that tough. Econ 101, eh HiFi?

  57. The Big Picture
    October 19, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    Anyone living in this county 50 years ago, who have observed its tributaries, will tell you how Otters routinely fed in them. Today, there is far less water, few (if any) fish, crayfish, salamanders, reptiles, clams and eels.

    We share the world’s industrial and residential impacts contributing to Earth’s 6th largest extinction event currently taking place.

    Despite all the hubris, humans are completely dependent upon the condition of the natural world, just like the wealthy are completely dependent upon the economic health of every class they rest upon.

    In our world of unbridled greed and deceit, simple truths have become revolutionary…and widely censored.

  58. Bolithio
    October 19, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    PJ at 11:04. Really Jane? You disappoint me when you just jump on the anti-bandwagon.

    If GD sells all their clear cuts to developers, where are the developments and why do they still own 250K acres? Do you people really think about what you are saying? Your narrative in your heads about the timber industry in built on a false premise, created by groups like EPIC. Logging now is nothing like it was 20 years ago, let alone 50 years ago. While there are some who want you to think nothing has changed.

  59. Farmer
    October 19, 2011 at 12:49 pm

    Bolithio,

    I hike all over. A natural eco-tone, like where prairie meets the forest, is a great place to see animals. Clear-cuts aren’t so great for that… If clear-cuts help certain species, than those species should be thriving because most of Green Diamonds land has been clear-cut.

  60. Farmer
    October 19, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    Correction- eco-tones are a great place to see rare animals, clear-cuts are a good place to see deer.

  61. Plain Jane
    October 19, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    I wasn’t jumping on an anti- anything, Bolithio. It’s not like we haven’t heard calls for logging the parks before, increased cutting in the national forests, always more, more, more and when the supply runs short (and it always does) they blame people who want to protect wildlife and rivers, even the animals being protected from extinction.

  62. October 19, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    “Getting back to GD, if their rotation is only 50 years, what does that mean when the housing industry recovers and all we have locally is stumps and pecker poles?” 11:01

    The cost of yesterdays gluttony.

    What can we expect when using clearcut methods?
    We need real foresters to insist on a selective harvest method-
    mixed-age forestry with minimum adverse effect on waterways.
    That means cut out the logging roads and add on a helicopter crew.
    Watershed forestry is hydrology, strip-it (clearcut) and you diminish far more than just your harvest.

  63. Apologist Not
    October 19, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    If we’re going to export our natural resources like a third-world nation, we will continue our economic decline to join them.

    America’s infrastructure, economy and lifestyle was strongest when our natural resources fueled a robust manufacturing economy. No amount of resource exportation can economically substitute for manufacturing.

    The cannibalization, plunder and corruption within an imperial economy has marked their inevitable collapse throughout human history.

    But, there’s no use in explaining the obvious to corporate-apologists who are sadly deluded that they’re benefiting by trading U.S. technological research, free public universities, employment opportunities, universal health care, and the innovation these investments inspire….for the slave-wages of foreign children.

    “Speak truth to power” all you want, they already know what they’re doing, and why!!

  64. jr
    October 19, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    We can also move away from wood framed houses and use steel studs, plastic “wood” (Trex), stone, hay bale, and adobe bricks.

  65. anonymous
    October 19, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    Trollithio says “Logging now is nothing like it was 20 years ago, let alone 50 years ago. While there are some who want you to think nothing has changed.”

    Simpson Timber aka Green Diamond needs to be held accountable for the damage they’ve done, yesterday continuing today, and what will continue into the future exponentially. 250 thousand acre pine tree farm and all the heavy equipment, mills etc. ready to cut them down, process them all kinds of ways, and ship them away.

    Green Diamond is the opposite of environmentally friendly. Simpson introduced Green Diamond as a PR move. Their approach is as Trollithio constantly regurgitates. Fuck you, Bolithio. Green Diamond aka Simpson has and is fucking up the environment. New image, same company.

  66. jr
    October 19, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    Does this make you long for Harry “We log to infinity” Merlo? Interesting side note: the land around the northern and eastern portions of Big Lagoon was deeded to State Parks by Louisiana Pacific, hence it is called the Harry A. Merlo State Recreation Area.

  67. anonymous
    October 19, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    …but thanks anyway, Bolithio, for coughing up to the fact that Simpson/Green Diamond has been fucking up the environment for at least 30 years. You are today what you were back then as well, pish-poshing anybody who points out just how bad logging is harming the planet forever, a little more every day. They need to be held accountable. as any private individual would be held accountable for such widespread and devastating damage.

  68. Anonymous
    October 19, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    2:47 you are a fool. You have lots of company thougfh. Cali is in the toliet and will stay there because of your stupidness.

  69. Plain Jane
    October 19, 2011 at 3:30 pm

    I hate it when people call California “Cali.” Do they call Minnesota “Minnie” and Florida “Flo?” They probably do call San Francisco “Frisco.” Is it really that much effort to say one or two more syllables? California is in the toilet for the same reason the rest of the country is. WTFU.

  70. anonymous
    October 19, 2011 at 3:30 pm

    The word you mean to use is “stupidity”, 3:06. I’m not afraid to point at the problem and its cheerleaders. Been way too long, the damage is already irreversible, they need to be held accountable not only for what they’re doing, but what they’ve done. Too much time has passed, too much damage already. People have been pissed off about it for decades. No more bullshit..

  71. Bolithio
    October 19, 2011 at 3:40 pm

    Jane, the people you are describing – “calling for more” – are not real people. They are Hi-Fi’s. I have yet to come across anyone in the timber industry who seriously thinks we should be logging the last old growth redwoods.

    The ‘real’ call to log national forests serves many purposes. But it requires people to have a honest discussion that isnt obstructed by emotion and ego.

  72. Bolithio
    October 19, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    Deforestation. Desertification. Wastelands. Mass extinction. Pine plantations (lol). Right. Bigfoot and the rapture, too.

  73. anonymous
    October 19, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    Trollithio says: “I have yet to come across anyone in the timber industry who seriously thinks we should be logging the last old growth redwoods.”

    Nobody at all is saying that. You put words in peoples’ mouths in every post. So you come across people in the timber industry and say so with enough regularitity and vocabular professionalism, it can be assumed you “hang out with” them often enough to say such things (we won’t go so far as to say you “work” for them)…

    …so how many people do you come across in the timber industry who think “we” (which doesn’t include me or anybody I know, or anybody complaining about “them”) should stop clearcutting altogether immediately? It’s clearly one of the most ecologically intelligent maneuvers their industry could make. So much so that people all over the world have been up in arms for them to stop clearcutting since the practice began.

  74. Steak n Eggs
    October 19, 2011 at 4:18 pm

    Based upon the above posts, most of you are pretty clueless about modern day forest management and logging, which is a surprise given that its occurring all around you. I guess there is a linear relationship between negative impacts and post-harvest aestatics thus clearcutting is bad and selection is good. Haha

  75. Steak n Eggs
    October 19, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    What, exactly, is “occuring all around you”… “steak n’ eggs”. Tell us something “you” don’t know.

  76. some truth
    October 19, 2011 at 4:58 pm

    I’ve lived within a 300 mile radius of here my whole life. The area never looked anything like photographs taken within a few dacades of my birth. There was a whole lot more lush forest up north, and a whole lot more healthy woods all over the south. Lots of thick, wild ecosystems along the rivers, which flowed strong year round. Every year we’d canoe rivers that are now so low, I’d hardly call them creeks. The climate was definitely wetter, the proof is in the photographs. Photos taken during my childhood show a much wetter climate as well. It’s been pictorially recorded in major movies. The entire coastal climate, Humboldt is not excluded, is drying up. All the virgin open space has been obliterated. All the ancient…contemplate how long several thousand years is…natural habitats have been decimated in the blink of an eye. The impacts haven’t even begun.

    The advent of “Green Diamond Resource Company” by SImpson Timber is as low as it gets when it comes to corporations investing in their image over their practice.

  77. Anonymous
    October 19, 2011 at 5:22 pm

    Janie lives in cali and is a complete foolie.

  78. Anonymous
    October 19, 2011 at 5:51 pm

    Redwoods are renewable if harvested properly. They grow very fast. I believe they could be logged and regrown if there was a good plan. I can’t keep up with them on my property.

  79. jr
    October 19, 2011 at 6:05 pm

    I also do not like abbreviations for cities and states. It is called Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, and California; not L.A., Frisco, Sacto, and Cali. I always spell out “California” because that is is name of our state, not CA or Cali or Calif. The full names are much more descriptive and colorful than any abbreviation can possibly be. So it takes a bit more time to spell it out.

  80. Anonymous
    October 19, 2011 at 6:43 pm

    Anonymous 5:51 how many 2,000 year redwood trees have you grown then cut in the past few years?

  81. JJ
    October 19, 2011 at 10:31 pm

    @anon 4:00 nobody in the forest industry thinks we should stop clearcutting because it would be stupid. It is not the most ecologically intelligent thing we could do. I am a biologist working in the forest industry, constantly arguing with foresters about what we should and shouldn’t do to the landscape. While I don’t think we should clearcut everything, I don’t think that the clearcuts that happen today are as damaging as what I see being postulated in these comments. It’s just way more complicated that than. There is a lot the we don’t know ecologically. I do think in the past we’ve overharvested from the forests, but I think we are on a much better track these days. Are there still improvements to be made? Yes.

    I would love to know where you are coming from to make that claim. Do you have a background in forestry? Ecology? Biology? Botany? Biologically even the clearcuts grow back with great diversity, redwood especially. Should we save patches of old growth? Certainly. Should we save more that is in the landscape now. I think so. Should we stop harvesting this renewable resource? No. Even the biologists that are working out there these days, in academia, private and at regulatory agencies generally don’t see clearcutting as being the easy answer.

    Bolithio, I give you props man. You are the most sane voice on here, keep up the fight for intelligent discourse.

  82. Plain Jane
    October 19, 2011 at 11:27 pm

    It would be stupid to stop clearcutting because it would not be the most ecologically intelligent thing we could do or because it would be less profitable, JJ? What is the most ecologically intelligent thing we could do? What are the benefits to clearcutting? You say clearcutting isn’t the easy answer, to what question? You go from saying old growth patches should be saved and “more that is in the landscape now” (which isn’t clear) to asking if we should stop harvesting, which isn’t the issue, unless you maintain that if there is no clearcutting there will be no harvest.

  83. JJ
    October 20, 2011 at 12:33 am

    Plain Jane, you are usually pretty reasonable. The best thing we can do ecologically is to get rid of almost all of the humans. Yeah, I’m not fond of that idea either. Other outrageous but ecologically intelligent things would be to restore much of our agricultural lands to native vegetarion, pull out of the fertile river flood plains, like the area between fortuna and fernbridge. I know, ridiculous right? How are we going to feed everybody? Thus, the answers to our current predicament are going to be complex.

    Less profitable? Well yes. Selection does end up being less profitable, but highly sustainable. I’m saying that having all of our forests in short rotation clearcutting is dumb, and shortsighted. We should have more of it in reserves, in selection, but still allow some areas to be intensively managed with clearcuts. So, stopping all clearcuts is not the answer to saving our forests.

    I think a reasonable question is how much of our forestland should be maintained in old growth forest. We cannot reasonably maintain all of it in old growth. There will be some percentages of various age classes and uses. I think the current percentage of old growth forest is too low. I think most here will agree. I think we should allow some areas to return to mature and eventuallyols growth conditions. I also think that we can still allow clearcutting in some areas.

  84. anonymous
    October 20, 2011 at 8:39 am

    Stupid comment deleted

  85. October 20, 2011 at 9:00 am

    “I also think that we can still allow clearcutting in some areas.”JJ

    If you harvest in such a way that rain falls directly on soil,
    ie no canopy, then erosion will certainly be a product of your
    harvest.
    Erosion means no salmon, no stable slopes and diminished
    future harvests.
    A big fat screwed tomorrow.

    On the 2nd floor of the County Library (Humboldt Room) photos of yesterdays high-line practices are out front. The forestry industry could spend a generation just dealing with damage from past practice, and still be indebted to the fisherman.

  86. JJ
    October 20, 2011 at 9:28 am

    Anon 8:39 Thanks. As though life isn’t hard enough already. If this is because my views, then f u too. If this is because it would fit my view that our population problem, then if you care so much why don’t you start with you and yours.

    Typically after a clearcut there is still alot of vegetation, consisting of shrubs, and herbaceous layers as well as woody debris, all of which hold the soil in place. Also, the current streamside protection measure do create a buffer between the clearcut and adjacent waters (typically 50-150 feet depending).

    The forest industry is spending a generation dealing with the damages from past practices. What you have to realize is the damaging practices from the past are not typically being implemented today. We used to run dozers right up the creek beds, now we they stay out of them or have Fish and Game approved crossing.

    To all who take my view so hard to swallow, please consider that you are not completely informed on this subject. This is complex and nuanced, we are all constantly learning about ecology and how humans can live sustainably on the planet. For you to latch on to clearcutting so emotionally shows your lack of understanding for the broader issues of society and ecology.

    JJ

  87. Plain Jane
    October 20, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    Okay, JJ. As I understand what you are saying, you pretty much agree that the best thing for the environment would be for people to stop impacting it PERIOD. Of course, that is impossible so the next best thing is to impact it as little as possible. The only difference I can see between what you are saying and what Itsthewater is saying is that you are pragmatic (and your job depends on the logging industry being profitable) and ITW is idealistic. You both agree that clearcutting, even today’s version, is harmful to the environment. The difference is the level of harm you are willing to accept. Right? The middle is determined by the margins. There are those at one end of the spectrum who want no restrictions, “Earth first, we’ll log the other planets later” and the other end who would stop almost all logging like EarthFirst! Then there is the idea promoted by Ernest Callenback’s “Ecotopia” where logging rights are extremely restricted and not for profit. Most reasonable people believe we need logging both for the products and the jobs, but that we should do so responsibly and sustainably. Clearcutting mountains to ship raw logs to Asia might not be the wisest use of a precious resource with negative impacts from extraction on the environment and larger economy (fishing and tourism), but reasonable people’s opinions may differ.

  88. JJ
    October 20, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    Plain Jane, Yes, thank you.

    I find the pragmatic approach best suits my views. I see varying levels of impact creating a mosaic of habitats in the landscape may be the best approach. Thus keep the current old-growth, increase our current reserves to have more old-growth in the future, and manage forests for varying different levels of harvest. With this view there will be some possibly “sacrificial” areas where clearcutting is used, but in my view this is no different the current “sacrificial” areas where we’ve converted lands to monocultures of corn, rice, pasture, roads, houses, parking lots, factories etc.

    There is this misconception that clearcuts are evil wastelands. But there is actually alot of life in the clearcuts as they grow back, more than in town, or a golfcourse.

  89. Plain Jane
    October 20, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    I think calling tree farms forests is stretching it. Where are these increasing reserves? Should we sacrifice some rivers to clearcutting mountain sides or restrict logging on those with likely erosion issues? Land based wildlife can migrate to preferred environments. Fish, unfortunately, can’t move to a new river when theirs is silted up, polluted with pesticides, herbicides and sucked dry.

  90. JJ
    October 20, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    I think blanket statements about tree farms are stretching it. Most of the past clearcuts look like forests to me. We are still dealing with past practices and most foresters understand that are managing for the long-term.

    Yes, the increasing reserves are not there. I’m saying let go of the “abolish clearcutting” and start pushing for increasing reserves.

    Unfortunately, I’m not a fisheries biologist, so I’m not as up to date on the salmonid issues. However, I do know there are buffers around waterways, and road building practices are much better now than 50 years ago.

    The current state of “rivers drying up” is more caused by development and illegal diversions (for local “agriculture”).

    I’ll agree that clearcutting a 2000 acre patch would have significant negative impacts. But what about a 40 acre patch, within a mosaic of other forest types, where they stay out of the creek? My line of thought here is to say that not all clearcuts are equally damaging.

  91. Bolithio
    October 21, 2011 at 8:34 am

    Jane asks: “should we sacrifice some rivers to clearcutting mountain sides or restrict logging on those with likely erosion issues?”

    We dont have to Jane. Or, we already have (restricted logging in various situations). There is a well documented peer reviewed base of scientific studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of buffers on watercourses. If we are talking about sediment, its not clearcutting that is the problem. Its roads and yarding practices that have the potential to input sediment to streams – and these things are not dependent on the veg removal. In other words selection vs clearcut can deliver the same sediment discharges if roads and equipment use are not mitigated.

    Regarding temperature, the laws of thermal dynamics are more or less straight foreword. By retaining overstory canopy within these riparian buffers, an applying no cut buffers along the waters edge, we effectively prevent solar radiation from increasing temperatures.

    There is a widespread misconception that current practices are just as damaging as past practices. There was hardly any implementation of forest practice rules just 20 years ago. Hence Redwood Summer and other big shake ups. But even then, nothing compares to the 1950-1960s era of logging where practices were truly destructive. Or at least clearcuts where indeed often upwards of a thousand acres. No buffers. And heavy equipment was deliberately used in and along creeks and rivers.

    The misconceptions held by the public may partially be the blame of enviornmental groups who spin issues with limited understanding of science….However I place the brunt of the blame on the timber industry itself, for not only the impacts of the past, but more so for being so resistant to change through the 70-80’s.

    So here we are now. The only actions that are treating these legacy impacts from past management is modern logging plans. In that way, even though there is a temporary un-appealing aesthetic effect from logging, it still is the primary driver to recovery of our watersheds. Who or what else has poured millions if not billions of dollars into the recovery? To me, it doesn’t matter how stubborn they were in the past, or if some big corporation would pollute if they could. There not, and now is now.

    If we shut it down here, we will be sacrificing rivers for resource extraction – its just that the rivers will be in other countries. Countries where there are no rules, and the workers and effected communities are much more vulnerable and likely to have tragic consequences for them and the environment.

  92. tra
    October 21, 2011 at 10:37 am

    Wow. Some very thoughtful discussion here and there on this thread. Thanks to everyone who contributed to an informed debate (you know who you are).

    My own view is that yes, forestry practices have improved substantially in my lifetime, but at the same time I think we still have a long way to go before I would call mainstream timber practices “benign” or “sustainable.”

    Overall, I think we’re still asking too much from our forests. We want them to recover and support healthy wildlife populations, we want them to absorb lots of CO2 and create lots of oxygen, we want them to filter our water and provide healthy aquatic habitat, we want them to look nice from the roadside — and of course at the same time, we also want them to cough up a hefty harvest for the timber industry every year.

  93. Moderate This
    October 21, 2011 at 10:57 am

    Wrong, tra, some of us couldn’t care less if the timber industry disappeared. As if humanity couldn’t cope in this day and age. As if the trade off wouldn’t be infinitely better, and everybody knows it. Bolithio doesn’t deserve any attention on this or other forums. He’s a bold faced liar.

  94. Anonymous
    October 21, 2011 at 6:39 pm

    tra , very simple post. You need to read GD’s HCP. Then you will knoiw that there modern forestry pravtices are state of thr art.

  95. October 22, 2011 at 10:13 am

    Clear-cutting is an unnecessary harm to the environment, period. There are ways to have lumber and a functioning forest too.

    See recent photos of GD’s devastating “responsible logging”.

    Clear-cutting dessicates the land and increases air temps, releases large amounts of greenhouse gasses, contributes to flooding during peak flows, removes complex forest structure (think habitat niches), increases fire danger. Companies that predominately clear-cut are also setting up a boom and bust cycle, thereby sacrificing economic security for their less fortunate workers.

    Restoration forestry promotes habitat development, leaves an extensive canopy to shade the forest floor and streams, increases stand complexity, increases avg tree diameters over time, takes less volume from the woods annually than grows. It provides an ever increasing “inventory” of standing timber volume, i.e. more wood stays in the forest than is taken. This approach promotes eco-system recovery and increases opportunities for forest related jobs.

    Why is the timber industry scared of this approach? Maybe it’s because they would have to slow down for years in order to let their “inventory” increase. But that’s the result of the plundering that they’ve already carried out.

    Once a restoration forestry approach is taken, the available timber for harvest would increase for generations to come, until an equilibrium is reached hundreds of years from now.

    Earth First! opposes timber companies who sacrifice the environment for a quick buck. A tree-farm is not a forest.

    One last note; There was hardly any implementation of forest practice rules in the logging I saw in the late 90’s.

  96. Ed
    October 22, 2011 at 10:36 am

    Indeed Farmer. When one inch of rain weighs 0ver 113 tons per acre, the absence of canopy exposes the ground to a huge amount of force. Now multiply that by the yearly rainfall total, taking into account the geology and disturbance factor and one begins to understand the effect clearcutting has on topsoil, slides and water quality.

  97. kudos
    October 22, 2011 at 10:49 am

    Farmer, fantastic.

  98. Bolithio
    October 22, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    Me and Farmer will continue to disagree about the intrinsic nature of a clear-cut. However we at least are able to have a dialogue, something that is needed in this community. To all the people – on both sides of the issue – who continue to stoop to insults and emotional outbursts, its time to grow up.

  99. Bolithio
    October 22, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    Farmer asks: “Why is the timber industry scared of this approach?”

    They’re not, silly! There are 1.9 million acres of forestland in Humboldt county. Of those green diamond represents 20%ish of that landbase. HRC – formerly PALCO – is the other big landowner, and they have gone all selection. The USFS doesn’t clearcut anymore and is actively trying to create late sucessional habitats. Of the timber harvesting projects I have personally worked on in the past 10 years (all non-industrial), less than 5% of the projects were clear-cuts. In fact in the non-industrial world, more and more land has been placed under NTMPs which are selective based long term sustained yield plans for small ownerships.

    With all the resonation about clear-cutting and devestation, it might give someone the impression thats all people do around here!

    Also, whats this “until an equilibrium is reached hundreds of years from now” business? Are you managing pacific yew? Most people would view a 80 year old stand of redwood and think it was old growth.

  100. Anonymous
    October 22, 2011 at 4:22 pm

    He was for it before he was against it silly.

  101. huh?
    October 22, 2011 at 7:00 pm

    Bolithio says: “Most people would view a 80 year old stand of redwood and think it was old growth.”

    Yeah, your industry’s spin relies on the naivette of the people. Non-industrial timber harvesting…how friendly sounding. Looks like big ass machines completely obliterating the forest to me!

  102. Bolithio
    October 23, 2011 at 10:59 am

    Many people incorrectly equate size with age. A redwood tree can be 200 feet tall and 6′ in diameter in 100 years. My point was simply that in redwood types “restoration” to fully stocked stands would not take hundreds of years.

  103. oh.
    October 24, 2011 at 10:26 am

    You have no point, bolithio. You’re logging propaganda.

  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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s