The destructive recipe – unmanaged public lands with a splash of hot spice

I think you keep misunderstanding what I'm asserting. Sick ? How so ? I agree there are millions of acres of trees. What if we harvest what is there ? Read what I've been posting. Harvest to your heart's content in the areas that are not designated wilderness areas. Get off my butt and get into the forests ? Since May, we've been out practically every weekend. The Salmon-Huckleberry wilderness area around Mt. Hood, Summit Lake near Mt. Hood, and recently did the Barlow Road route to show the kids a route of the Oregon Trail. It was great to be able to teach them about that before going out, and being fortunate enough to show them the actual trail.

In addition to that, we've covered most of the NW coast this summer. As I mentioned, the Nehalem, Nestucca, Trask, Necanicum, and Wilson rivers are some of our favorites. We'll be frequenting the heck out of those in the coming months with the rains and fresh Pacific salmon on their way.

I have literally thousands of pictures from our adventures this summer. That's what we do. We go into the forests. After years of doing that, we've started wondering about the wildlife around us. The trees, plants, etc. It seems like a logical step if you're going to be spending the large amount of your recreational time in those forests.

Now, from the research I've done, the forest fires are a natural part of the forest life. If human lives are at stake, sure put out those fires. But otherwise, many of those species actually require the fires in order to thrive. I haven't even looked into the "spotted owl" assertions made by others HERE, but really, the only animals you typically see are deer anyways.

The bottom line is, if you take something out of those forests, it needs to be replaced. Again, I'm *not* talking about the private lands or the forests with the abundance of Douglas Firs that the loggers like. I'm talking about wilderness areas, such as the Kalmiopsis. And the makeup of those soils is so unique, that it's practically impossible to replace it via human intervention. Let those forests remain unique. If you look on a map, you'll see that it's a small portion of SW Oregon. It's unnecessary to start loggin those areas, even under the ruse of "They just had a fire, mine as well log it all now".

I'm pretty sure that anywhere, if human lives are endangered, they will extinguish the fires. Show me where they allow the towns to burn to the ground, otherwise, I don't really believe that assertion.

Never hugged a tree, and never plan on it.

I read that same article about the new "tallest tree". I agree they should give the coordinates to the tree, but it would be a much better experience for most if they didn't cut down a bunch of trees to make a road to this "tallest tree". Just post the GPS info, and let the folks who want that solitude in the forests go check it out. We'd make the hike, and it would be great not seeing anyone on the way. That's what makes these areas unique. Being able to go for miles, without seeing another human.

The other places in Oregon, you are surrounded by city folks who set up their temporary homes in the forests, and it seems like they brought more from their homes to the forests, rather than going to the forests for what they can provide. You lose the entire feel when you are surrounded by people. We don't go camping to be surrounded by city folks.

And as liberal I think this state is too (they supported Gore/Kerry ugh), still, the recent logging measure for the Clatsop-Tillamook forests went towards the loggers. The measure was to make those forests 50/50, i.e. 50% would be retained for recreation at any time, and 50% would be allowed for logging. As it turns out, it will remain 80/20, meaning at any time, they will be able to log 80% of the forests, and only keep 20% for recreation.

That was my first initial favorite forest out here. I've covered all of the back roads there, and even with the clear cuts, it's amazing.

But still, it's crowded. Super crowded, and if you try to go on a weekday, you'll be flipped off by loggers who think they own the road, and in a sense they kind of do. I'm unsure of the specifics, but I believe the loggers do pay for alot of those road upkeeps, which in turn allow fishermen like me access to those remote areas. But once you have a road there, it gets crowded.

With all of those other forests to log, it just doesn't make sense to go into the Kalmiopsis and log. It's roadless for a good reason, and once you log, you have to make roads there, and then the experience is gone. Even after forest fires, you need to leave the remnants in order for those unique species to survive. How many other places can you take your children to show them the insect eating Darlingtonia plant ?

You are correct. Technically they're not allowed to log there. It's been like that since it was designated "roadless". However, after the Biscuit fire, laws were changed in order to allow logging in the affected areas. However, the loggers made a "mistake" and logged the wrong areas, i.e., they actually did log the eastern side of the Kalmiopsis near Babyfoot Lake. But they shouldn't have been able to log there in the first place, as there are, as was posted here, many other millions of acres to log, rather than a unique areas that folks from all around the world come to visit, just to experience the unique plant life. We drove 400 miles to get there, and plan on going twice a year for the rest of our lives, because it is simply that great of an experience.

"You are correct. Technically they're not allowed to log there. It's been like that since it was designated "roadless". However, after the Biscuit fire, laws were changed in order to allow logging in the affected areas".

Wilderness and Roadless are not one in the same. Wilderness designated areas can NOT be logged. Current Roadless policy allows logging, but Clinton's illegal roadless did not. U.S. District Judge Clarence Brimmer ruled in July 2003 that the 58.5 million acres in Clinton's roadless policy was a "thinly veiled attempt to designate 'wilderness areas' in violation of the clear and unambiguous process established by the Wilderness Act." So Judge Brimmer tossed the policy out the window.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.