Judge Blocks Timber Sales in Three States

AP ^ | 1/9/6 | GENE JOHNSON

[calex59]

You don't know what the f**k you are talking about. Old growth needs to be logged right along with the rest of the forest. We take care of our forest in this country and have since the early 1900s. The lumber industry in this country was doing fine until the idiotic liberals stepped in with their plan to ruin America and we are letting them get away with it thanks to dumb sh**ts like yourself.

[calex59]

The sequoias in Yosemite are not usable for timber. They are too brittle. The redwoods on the coast are usable for timber and should be harvested. Trees are a crop, they can be regrown. If you don't understand that you understand nothing.

[MonroeDNA]

Take her out!

[schu]

Sir, I was not engaged in a conversation with you about this topic, yet your 2 posts to me were filled with insults and invective. Not sure what the problem is, but if you want to engage in a civil discussion, then please do so, otherwise please refrain from posting to me.

schu

[John O]

Sorry, my concern is not with harvesting timber, my issue is with harvesting old growth

so how is old growth different from second growth and why shouldn't we harvest that crop?

[RockinRight]

OK, so wait, we can't sell WOOD now?

[schu]

Harvesting old growth is not necessary, there is plenty of second growth, only about 5% of the old growth remains. If you follow the thread, many mills today are not well equipped to process the larger old growth logs, hence the yields are much lower.

Finally, I live here, amongst this "crop", I love the outdoors, do a lot of hiking and climbing. I would prefer that areas in and around MRNP, the North Cascades NP, the Olympics NP not be clear cutted to the stump. If you are not from here, come and visit, hike to the top of Mt St Helens or take a drive on the west side of the Olympic Peninsula and see what it looks like.

I am not anti-logging, anti-forest products, I have made a living for a long time in that business. There is plenty for everyone.

schu

[John O]

While I'm sure that the old growth forests are beautiful (We have a small stand near here that is old growth ) You still haven't answered the question.

How is old growth different from 2nd growth and why shouldn't we harvest that crop?

[schu]

Old growth is original growth, has not been yet harvested. 2nd growth is just that, planted after first harvest. Some would have a more concise definition, and forester takes exception, that's fine, I am not a professional.

Old growth has higher value, clearer lumber, higher quality wood in some cases. Weyco and others have developed and planted genetically modified tress that grow faster, but sometimes the wood is not of the same quality. Cedar is a great example.

Have you been to WA or Oregon?

schu

[schu]

Opps, sorry, with respect to why not harvest old growth, refer to previous post, harvesting old growth is just not necessary. Those that want to cut down the last of this stuff make enemies of folks like me who are their supporters. But that is often the way life works.

schu

[John O]

Old growth has higher value, clearer lumber, higher quality wood in some cases

So if it's better quality wood, why not harvest it?

I've been to the Seattle area and across the sound to Bremerton. Not too far into the woods.

[John O]

harvesting old growth is just not necessary.

But it's better quality wood. If the use has a need for that level of quality then why not use the wood. Trees are a renewable resource and other than a few select specimens (Normaly the largest or most unusual or oldest) there's nothing significant about old growth. The second growth trees will get that big someday and the present old growth trees will eventually die. Might as well harvest them while the wood is still good.

Those that want to cut down the last of this stuff make enemies of folks like me who are their supporters.

I guess I still don't understand your desire to preserve them. How are they more valuable standing than as someone's house or furniture?

[schu]

I grew up in Chicago, felt the same way - its a natural resource, let's use it to make money

Having lived here for 15 years, I no longer hold that view. To reiterate, we have plenty of timber, the small amount of old growth left is not needed.

From an economic semantics standpoint, the marginal value of old growth over 2nd growth is not greater than the aesthetic value of pristine wilderness with old growth forest.

sschu

[John O]

From an economic semantics standpoint, the marginal value of old growth over 2nd growth is not greater than the aesthetic value of pristine wilderness with old growth forest.

Now you're getting through to me. As long as that old growth is on public lands (Parks, preserves and such) I'd probably agree. That is, if the economics were really marginal. If that old growth was on private land then it's totally up to the landowner whether to cut or not.

Have a great one.

[schu]

Yes, we are talking about public lands since it is a sale.

Private lands is another subject, not interested in going there! But private land owners should have more latitude in how to use their resources IMHO. It is also true that the private landowners do a better job with replanting and maintaining their lands.

Appreciate the civil discussion.

schu