SHARE THIS SHOW:
ON THE BLOG:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
The TOL Blog
TAGS:
Forest Values
What's the best way to manage — and to assess the value of — a state forest? That's a question currently under consideration in the legislature. House Bill 3072 would allow the state to change the way it defines the "greatest permanent value" for forest lands by emphasizing the economic value of logging in the forest rather than balancing timber with ecological and recreational benefits.
Tillamook and Clatsop County commissioners (who sit on the largest pockets of state forest land) see an increased emphasis on logging as a way to bring more revenue to counties that were cash-strapped before the current global recession. The Oregonian editorial board (and plenty of environmental groups) see the current legislative proposal as the end of a balanced approach to forest management.
This is actually similar to a show we did back in July of last year, when we asked What's an Uncut Forest Worth? (In a sense, the legislature is looking into whether the state should also — and prominently — ask the opposite question: what about if we cut it down?)
Do you live near a state forest? Do you work in the wood products industry? Do you camp or hike in state forests? How do you assess the value of the woods around you?
GUESTS:
- Marvin Brown: Oregon state forester
- Tim Josi: Tillamook County Commissioner and chair of the Council of Forest Trustland Counties
- Bob Van Dyk: Forest policy advisor for the Wild Salmon Center and professor of politics and government at Pacific University
Tagged as: forest · legislature · logging
Photo credit: davidandbecky / Flickr / Creative Commons
-
Old growth forests are necessary to many species, the eagle, owl and many others. If we would rethink our economy and base it on the planets resources instead of the labor of man, the enviroment and many other things would balance. Because of technology now, there will never be enough jobs for all the people.
-
cut down the trees before global warming causes it all to burn
-
Without forests we lose shade, water retention, a natural precipitation cycle, fish, birds, a rich diversity of life and most of all our largest carbon sink on earth. By farming or harvesting our forests we significantly impact and invite fire fuel vegetation, especially scotch broom, and other invasives along with weaker immature nursery grown trees which ultimately leads to heat baked deserts. Forests takes centuries to mature into a state of healthy balance. We do have solutions to replace our growing demands of raw resources. With such a large biodiversity on this very rare planet of complex life we can be farming the annual crop of hemp or using more bamboo to replace the countless products that this human centric species consumes. Unfortunately, we humans are the most invasive species on earth.
Loretta Huston
-
I hike in forests around Oregon and their value to me is inestimable. Most forests should be left alone since we don't have a clear understanding of how logging them will affect the long-term future.
Our money-oriented materialistic obsession is destroying everything of value on this planet. For all our technology and intellect humans are the most short-sighted and unenlightened species on Earth.
As George Carlin opined, Mother Earth might deem humans as a miniscule threat and she will eventually shake us off like a bad case of fleas.
For a less philosophical approach to the question, ask the people of deforested Haiti the value of their forests as hurricanes turn their home into mud near annually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Haiti
Humans can not manage nature successfully. Humans are out of balance with nature and the environment is getting worse.
-
This legislation is a knee-jerk reaction to the economic downturn. It represents a return to abusing state forests. 3072 as amended will not create permanent value, it will destroy it.
Why create thoughtful management plans and then proceed to rape the Earth anyway? Here's an argument to opposition of 3072 with several links:
http://www.pumpclub.org/node/1093
For decades we've sent raw logs overseas. Meanwhile, rural Oregonians begged for timber-related jobs. Why didn't we turn logs into finished products we could sell globally? Value-added products would have supplied sought-after employment.
What was wrong with how we used to do things? Haven't we learned from past mistakes?
Who will purchase Oregon logs and timber products during this global downturn?
-
It's greatly dissapointing that Oregonians are engaged in this conversation again; short term economic gain versus long term gain in forest health and the multiple benefits that result from healthy forest ecosystems;watershed and habitat health.
We can't cut our way out of ecomomic downturns by increasing timber production in our state forests. Counties need to devise other means for sustaining thier economies, and not only rely on high timber yields as the source of revenue. Reversing the current management plan to put timber production first, at the expense of our state forest's social and environmental values is shortsighted.
-
It's greatly dissapointing that Oregonians are engaged in this conversation again; short term economic gain versus long term gain in forest health and the multiple benefits that result from healthy forest ecosystems;watershed and habitat health.
We can't cut our way out of ecomomic downturns by increasing timber production in our state forests. Counties need to devise other means for sustaining thier economies, and not only rely on high timber yields as the source of revenue. Reversing the current management plan to put timber production first, at the expense of our state forest's social and environmental values is shortsighted.
-
Whether you are a logger or a recreationist, rural or urban, the best long-term value of a forest is that of a healthy forest. To mandate board-feet over forest health is the same type of short-sightedness that landed the logging industry in the decline of the 1990's, and the health of our forests and forest animals in rapid decline. Do we, as Oregonians, want to repeat mistakes of the past? Or do we want to create a new forestry paradigm where all citizens are on the same page, trusting our state officials to take good care of our state lands?
-
Greatest permanent value can only be expressed by allowing forests to grow. Forestry throughout Oregon cannont sustain any further increases in "timber production" by any measure! Whether from an industrial, scientific, or academic perspective, forest regeneration will take more than a generation of our children and children's children (if we all make it that far) to "renew" what we have already taken. In addition to this problem created by our apparent collective lack of understanding of the length of time required for tree growth, we have devastated nearly all of Oregon's original forests... Unfortunately, the vast majority of Oregon forest lands which still bear the public title of "forest" have been "converted" from healthy functioning forests into vast managed forest plantations.
All of what we value in Oregon now; ranging from wild rivers to ship traffic, from dam power to the future of fish species, from functioning forests to timber production; all rests on our preservation and conservation of our forest resources in Oregon.
The value of timber cut and sold today shrinks away in the near future to nothing when all that money is gone, and also gone is the capacity of what we have left to continue to provide benefit to all. We need forests for clean air and water, for timber, for fish, for feeling a sense of awe and connection to the Earth, and for the future of our children....
TO discharge the irrelevant attacks and character assassination typically dished out to anyone with an "environmental" view, I will state in brief that I am an Oregon Forester:
I have worked as a root disease surveyor for over a decade in forests throughout Oregon. During that period, I systematically surveyed well over 25,000 acres of Oregon Department of Forestry lands all currently being managed. The survey methods I employed required the thorough investigation of the cause of death of each and every conifer within my survey areas.
I can state with 100% observational certainty that the greatest threat to the future of Oregon forests and to the "greatest permanent good" is most certainly the chainsaw, along with the greedy attitude to MISuse it. Improperly managed, we lose the forest along with the creek the fish the birds and everything else if we focus on nothing but the trees.
-JDR
-
This bill (HB3072) is a full frontal attack on Oregon's agreed upon process for managing state forests. The back-story: the bill was unleashed by rural county commissioners in retaliation for the Department of Forestry's recommendation last fall to reduce cutting. State foresters' own models clearly showed that the Tillamook was being overharvested, so last fall they suggested a slight reduction in harvest. Tim Josi and others decided to enlist politicians to rewrite the statute.
The bottom line: county commissioners "believe" the forest can handle an annual harvest of 300 million board feet. Our state foresters' best science suggests that the cap should be at 150 million. Should we trust the foresters who are interested in sustainability, or should we trust county politicians who are looking for short-term relief from today's economic pressures?
The root of the problem is that Oregon's rural counties have outgrown their funding structure. In order to sustain schools and basic services, counties must push the envelope on timber harvest, thereby risking long-term environmental health to maintain quality of life expectations. Until Oregonians provide rural counties with a new model for funding, there will always be pressure to overharvest.
-
The greatest permanent value of these state forests is their ability to drive local economic engines with a thriving tourism industry, recruited by healthy salmon populations, clean water, recreational access and biological diversity, wildlife viewing and hunting opportunities.
What is the justification for this increase in harvest? I can't find one logical answer to that question.
I encourage everyone to drive deep into the Tillamook and see the aggressive logging taking place, since 2004. Go there. Use the forest. Leave no trace and tell your friends. We can't protect what we don't care about. This is the largest contiguous rain forest in the lower 48 states.
I still hunt, fish and camp in the Tillamook. I shot my first deer and bull elk there in the mid 70's. I've caught salmon and steelhead there since I was 10 years old. I don't hunt the same areas I use to because they've cut the trees, built new roads and opened access to remote areas once worthy of a good hike. The rivers have lost fish habitat and subsequently, the fish. It's sad to watch this happen when we have examples of methods and tools to do better.
Jeff Mishler
-
Additionally, In 2004, nearly 40% of Oregonians voted for a 50/50 plan to permanently protect 50% of the Tillamook and Clatsop state forests for fish and wildlife habitat while allowing sustainable logging practices on the other 50%. The other 60% of Oregon voters voted to retain the current FMP. Measure 34 was out spent 10 to 1 by the timber industry for the most part. Had financial resources been equal, the 50/50 plan might be in place today. During the campaign, Tim Josie and other county commissioners touted the current plan as a "good plan that just needed time to work". Then, ODF's Harvest/Habitat Yield study, initiated at the request of the timber industry, proved the forest wasn't producing the volume originally estimated by ODF. ODF Staff subsequently recommended a reduction of harvest, not an increase. We are currently harvesting both forests at unsustainable levels. Yet timber interests and politicians keep pushing to harvest more in the face of overwhelming science stating, to do so is unsustainable and would compromise fish and wildlife habitat, drinking water and general ecosystem health. Increasing harvest levels for short term gains is a misuse of our resources and the public trust.
Jeff Mishler
-
QUESTION, ANYONE
I'm all for preservation, and always vote for it, well 'cause I think forests are pretty! And I also don't like the idea of the short-term gain and the probable long-term harm. However I do ask (as a shortcut----if anyone knows), because I am not an expert on this topic, and may not spend my time finding out: is this just a sort of "not in our backyard"? For instance, if we restrict logging in Oregon, will logging just occur somewhere else, in a place that is perhaps more vulnerable or with less regulation? Essentially will we leave our forests intact and then pillage other places to supply our demand? Or are there sustainable tree farms somewhere that exist for this purpose---but logging in forests is just cheaper?
I am assuming this has all been discussed before, so if anyone has a link with the answer of how this all works, let me know. Thanks.
-
Scott,
In a sense, all envirnmental protections have the risk of putting pressure somewhere else. Even if you just look at this issue from a monetary perspective, by limiting harvest in our state forests we maintain budget shortfalls for rural counties that have to be made up in other ways.
This bill is really about the Tillamook. The Northwest corner of the state has a large concentration of state forest land, basically held in trust by the state to fund Tillamook & Clatsop counties. Their schools and county services rely on these funds.
State foresters have determined that the sustainable yield of timber from the forest is about 150 million board feet. But the county commissioners have used their political strength to push for higher harvests every year. Josi thinks 300 million board feet is the right number. To your question, there is no other forest that can make up the difference for the counties. If they get less timber, then they get less money.
So, if forests are managed sustainably at the 150 million board feet level, the counties will have to acquire other means of funding to maintain revenue and basic services. It's a system that forces rural counties to over exploit their natural resources in order to maintain quality of life. It made a lot of sense when the county populations were smaller, but they have outgrown the system.
-
Thank you very much for your reply. I guess it doesn't entirely answer my question. But maybe the show will. Or if not, I am going to find out myself.
I guess my question lies in this "local-ism" that seems to be shown so often. Maybe there is nothing wrong with local-ism, but I can't entirely reconcile the concept. Or perhaps it is all we can do, so we just have to do something or start somewhere.
I am interested to know whether there is something about these trees, or the size of the wood, that is only gotten from these older forests? And, will it be gotten in old growth forests elsewhere if not in Oregon. Or are there other options.
-
Forestry is such a controversial topic, that it is rare to hear other than the two end points of the argument. From the Tree Whacker side that we need to cut for the money and the Tree Hugger side that we need to preserve every tree. Well, we really can do both if we go at it rationally. This wouldn't be "logging as usual", nor would it be hands off no matter what.
We must realize that as Amricans and Oregonians we consume an awful lot of wood, paper and energy and it has to come from somewhere! We must cut down our consumption, duh, but what we do consume will come from someone's forest, so it should be from ours, responsibly done, not in someone elses back yard where we don't need to watch and it can "just get shipped here", using more and wasting more, resources.
Also, a bill in the legislature doesn't create a market for newly whacked forests, so we need to consider how our forest operations can provide both forest health and valuable products, through a stewardship approach. There is much to the topic of stewardship, as a philosophy and a way of managing.
I'm happy to discuss specifics.
Yours; Forest Dan (www.forestdan.com)
-
I don't believe I need to walk in the forest to appreciate its most precious asset, which is as an ecosystem and home to innumerable species. Or as lungs to our planet.
Imagine being host in a body where the lungs of the body could be consumed for sustenance, perhaps because of ease? Would you consume this organ, and let the body die? I believe this is an apt analogy.
There are ways to create renewable forests, and a big difference between these old forests which have taken centuries to develop and the renewable ones which takes just decades.
-
The state forests of the north coast are home to some of our country's strongest remaining populations of wild salmon and steelhead. These fish and fisheries are worth millions. The Oregon Department of Forestry has never realistically considered the economic value of these wild, sustainable fisheries.
These fish and fisheries are far too valuable to gamble away for a timber handout. If we lose these wild fish, they will be lost forever.
-
What about the specific cash value of our intact forests for carbon sequestration, which is emerging through carbon offset markets, and will soon be predictably available?
Some estimates on federal forests suggest greater "value" in simple financial terms will be available through carbon credits than through "harvesting" which releases massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
How does consideration and calculation of carbon sequestration value fit in to this state forests picture?
-
Ask Marvin Brown, why, in this FMP, the oldest tree in the forest, outside the riparian areas will never be older than 80 years old. There is no plan to leave old trees on the landscape forever...
-
I'm an avid hiker and backpacker so I spend a lot of time in forests. I rarely visit state forest lands, I'm not entirely sure why. It may be that there is so little of it.My heart says "Don't cut down any trees ever!" But, I know that because there are other people on the planet aside from me, trees do need to be cut for various uses. I hope that there is some way lumber can be harvested without causing too much damage to the ecosystem.
I heard a few months ago that there are lumber yards where piles of logs are just sitting there rotting away because no one is buying them. I don't know if this is true or not.
The book Song of the Dodo is about island biogeography which applies in this situation because untouched forests are "islands" in the sea of human-made "habitats". Many species, plant or animal, need larger habitats then the protected areas provide.
-
Why are we even considering this? There is so much private land not being logged now, since the logging industry can log public land at such a reduced cost. This will not produce as much revenue as strapped counties hope, it simply will help the logging companies. Instead of increasing logging, increase the COST of logging, and as someone else posted, finish the product here in Oregon, providing jobs, added value and removing many of the middle men. Keep the value in Oregon, keep jobs in Oregon and keep the forest sustainable.
-
in 2006 the State AG declared there is no fiduciary responsibility to the counties....
-
I average about 12 driftboat fishing trips a year on the Wilson. The shuttle, bait, lunch at a local restaurant, etc. add up to about $50 per trip. In addition, twice each year I hire a local guide to take business clients at $400 per trip. Some of the friends, family and clients I take enjoy themselves and buy licenses and gear, hire guides and two have invested in new driftboats.
Because of muddy river conditions resulting from new logging roads, I have only taken 2 trips in each of the past 2 years with no paid guided trips. This represents a sizeable loss to the local economy.
Jon Stagnitti - Forest Grove
-
I am a pretty avid hiker, thinking of the trails I frequent I believe most of them are on National Forest land. What recreation areas are at risk here? Is there state forest lands interspersed in the national forest land? I am as disappointed as everyone else, but is the recreation argument really valid?
I was also wondering can we manage each individual forest in a way that isn't either logging or recreation? Instead of clear cutting could we selectively cut?
-
This might be helpful...
http://thetillamook.net/uploads/ProposedTimberHarvestWilson2009_2049_MarchBOF_Version.pdf
-
The recreation argument seems flimsy at best. I think there have to be stronger, logical arguments out there, on why this is a bad thing. Using recreation clouds the issue and isn't integral to the debate.
-
Old forests are the least fire prone. Young forests are the most fire prone. Tim Josi is wrong. Stop with the forest fire fear mantra. The original fires in the Tillamook were started by logging....
-
With the value of timber very low and the cost of energy going up, I think we need to be on our guard against the movement toward burning forest fuel as biomass to create energy.
Biomass electricity generation plants are supposedly considered "sustaninable", but they are very polluting and can open up the gates to real forest destruction and justification for burning more than just by-products or slash.
Let's save our old growth, log smaller trees for wood products and not burn at all. Our forests are Oregon's main attraction to visitors, so let's take advantage of that tourism, plus protect our own quality of life.
-
This discussion seems to be forest products vs recreation..what if the value of the forest is in its wildlife? how do we value that?? Cut out the wildlife and you loose this bodies heart!
-
Puuuuleeease!
Not that old canard about young forests and carbon!
It was only based on one small study in the first place and it has been fully discredited.
Our Oregon forests are some of the world's best manageable carbon sinks - and the older the better, in terms of total carbon storage.
However you come out on the cash, clearcutting is a disaster for the climate.
-
When I think of the Tillamook Forest I think of a bunch of "white trash" riding their ATVs. Which probably play a role in the sedimentation of streams.
-
As a Tillamook County landowner, it's very sad to see our county commissioners, legislators and ODF heading down exactly the same over-cutting path that brought so much damage to our national forests and rural communities in the 1980s. It is precisely the same -- there is always a rationale to cut more.
What's really stunning, considering the annual flooding Tillamook experiences - with increasing frequency and severity - is managing for hydrology and water storage in the Tillamook Forest is absent from ODF's forest plans. With the ODF Board now seeking to explicitly make logging the highest priority, flooding, water storage, summer flows, and water quality will be pushed even further into the background.
I guess they're counting on the Federal FEMA money to pick up the cost of flood damage.
Is this any way to manage a public forest?
-
The amount of harvestable land is not increasing, however we still need to support these communities and sustain healthy forests and streams. We need to more extensively use the harvest rather than harvest more timber, where does timber go these days? The majority is sent over seas, processed, and sold back to us. If we re-established a vertical timber economy it would increase jobs, keep money close, and reduce the need to cut more.
-
Too much of the comment data is about entitlement. Save the steams for me, save the trees for the future, etc.. These are living things that must be managed, not preserved. We have too much federal land that is being mismanaged by undercutting now.
These are State forests well managed by the State for "all of the people of Oregon." The amount of timber harvested each year is monitored by on going checks of annual growth.
No one is talking about where most of the revenue goes,To our most valuable resource, our children. When we are cutting school budgets and laying off too many people, it should be about sustaining our cuts in a renewable resoure, not locking them up.
Young trees gather and store carbon faster than old trees, therefore it is prudent to cut old trees and replace them with young.
-
Simply drive out Highway 26 and open your eyes. Having driven every road over the coast range many times over the last four decades, I have personally seen the carnage that OUR forests are enduring first hand.
I'm not against commercial timber harvest. I live in the middle of commercial timber land. I've worked in the mills and forests, but what is being done in our forests is not just unsustainable, it's irresponsible.
And where are these logs going? The claims of all these jobs is vaporous at best. Here on the west side of the Cascades - the ENTIRE coast range area - the vast majority of small mills have closed long ago. Claims are made, but where are the mills? Drive across the bridge in Longview and look down at the Weyerhaeuser log dock.
Open your eyes Oregon. Get out and SEE for yourself the great the "stewardship" of the "cut it all now" State Forestry/Timber Industry alliance.
-
A correction is badly needed to the State Forester's comment that recreation on the Tillamook State Forest had a value of about $800,000. (He admitted he wasn't sure, and should therefore have refrained).
Just for Tillamook County, the value of hunting and fishing - a good portion of which ocurred on Tillamook State Forest - in 2008 was estimated at $63.4 million. Even if the activity did not occur directly on Tillamook State Forest, the fish and game those activities rely upon are OUTPUTS of Tillamook State Forest - just like the trees that ODF and the politicians are so singularly focused on.
That economic data is found on the state agency ODFW website:
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/agency/docs/Report_5_6_09--Final%20(2).pdf
If ODF"s State Forester is so in the dark about the value of recreation occuring on State Forests, no wonder all other aspects other than "board feet" are so under valued by ODF.
-
Regarding the discussion about logging the Tillamook Forest... why not require that all logging in the Tillamook Forest be FSC certified. that would accomplish several things. (1) would help with the concern re. clearcutting and over logging (2) would provide timber products that would dovetail into the grants from the stimulus $s which lean toward LEED certified projects (3) would open more mills to FSC processing (the mills in general have been slow to respond to FSC logs).
-
As one of your guests commented - forest management is multi-fuctional. A caller asked about value-added products. What is OFD doing to reap the true value of special forest products? Can economic model be developed to replace higher harvest levels with these products?
In the PNW these prducts have tremendous monetary value and help local enconomies and families. I would like to see the forest service agressively explore these products.
-
I own and manage a 55 acre forest in Tillamook County. The proposal to increase the state's timber harvest by 30 million board feet in this economy makes no sense at all. From an economic standpoint, it makes far more sense to let the trees grow until log prices return to their pre-economic downturn levels, then keep harvests within the 150 million board feet/year limit that ODF recommends.
Here's the business analysis for timber sales: It costs about $0.25/board foot to harvest timber and deliver the timber to the saw mill. That number can go up or down, depending on fuel prices, distance to the mill, and competition between loggers. However, that number is pretty stable over time. What isn't stable is log prices.
A saw mill might pay, in today's market, an average of $0.26/board foot for hemlock and spruce. Douglas fir might sell for $0.30/board foot. That means that essentially no revenue is generated from the harvest of spruce and hemlock; harvesting douglas fir yields $0.05/board foot. Harvesting 300 million board feet of douglas fir, as suggested by the proposed rule change, might yield $15 million in today's market. Not much revenue for a whole lot of trees being cut down. Of course, dumping 300 million board feet of timber into a depressed market will push prices even lower, cutting timber revenues.
However, if we look at log prices from three years ago, before the economic downturn, hemlock and spruce sold for $0.43/board foot, and douglas fir sold for $0.65/board foot. Net revenue was $0.40/board foot for douglas fir, 8 times what it is today!
Historical log prices can be found at:
http://oregon.gov/ODF/STATE_FORESTS/TIMBER_SALES/logpage.shtml
We can expect log prices to return to previous values at some time in the future.
Here's what we could do: wait to harvest timber until market prices return to their pre-downturn levels, then harvest 150 (not 300) million board feet. At net revenue of $0.40/board foot, we realize $60 million in revenue. That's four times the revenue for half as many trees cut down.
-- Doc Martin
-
And... cleaned up a bit. I thought I was against the clock, but found out this was prerecorded.
As one of your guests commented - forest management is multi-functional. A caller asked about value-added products. What is ODF doing to reap the true value of special forest products? Can an economic model be developed to replace higher harvest levels with these products?
In the PNW, these products have tremendous monetary value and help stabilize local enconomies and families. As quoted in their book, Nontimber Forest Products in the United States, Jones, McLain, and Weigand cite a study in which it was estimated the value of just one market, floral and Christmas greens, to be $128.5 million in 1989!
Virtually all of the money generated from special forest products is within the informal economy realm . By formulating a model that brings this value into the formal economy, and without alienating those who now benefit the most, harvesters, we can at least alleviate some of the burden placed on tree harvest to fund our counties.
-
Comments are now closed.
there is plenty of forest to allow it to be cut down and used and > it is a renewable resource >. unfortuantely the mind set of some of the sheltered urban mush heads think any tree cut down ruins the environment >>> the state is in need of money >. got to make sure public employees get that pay benefits and retirement none of the rest of us do
further more it will provide jobs for countless illegals who can then send their money to mexico while bankrupting our local hospitals and cashing in on various social programs, and on the week ends drive drunk and sell drugs