On 12/1/95, Bob writes:
>
> On 12/1/95 Glenn Mroz wrote
>
> > In the Lake States, some forests that were severely high-graded as
> > recently as 80 years ago are actually being managed now for the
> > development of old growth characteristics (large tree size. . .
>
> I applaud the attempt to recreate old-growth characteristics in some
> high graded forests. This is a wonderful "experiment" that should
> provide us with a lot of useful information. I would caution,
> however, that large trees that are large through intensive management
> of growth rates are not the same as large trees that are large due to
> centuries of slow growth. I am mostly familiar with old-growth
> baldcypress that has a very tight ring structure. Some large diameter
> second growth baldcypress have very wide rings in comparison. It is
> well known that trees that grow faster do not live as long, so a
> potential problem with "managed" old-growth is that it will probably
> not be old-growth for very long. The dynamics will just not be the
> same.
>
> Should we manage some tracts as old-growth? Certainly. Should we
> preserve some of the little amount of old-growth that we have left?
> Certainly. How can we evaluate the dynamics of "managed" old-growth
> if we don't understand the dynamics of true old-growth because we have
> cut them all down?
>
> BobK
>
Your point is well taken Bob, it's interesting to note that when it comes
to the subject of old-growth, there is an eery silence on the"other side"
of this argument. I truly believe that 80-90% of the uproar over forest
management would cease, if the logging of old-growth would stop.
Clear-cutting of course will always be a problem, but it looks like 10-15
years of lawsuits have begun to take their toll, and the industry is
changing. Why then do they continue their relelentless attacks on
federally owned old-growth? Perhaps it's becuase they've cut all of
their old-growth down, and before they re-tool all of the mills to accept
smaller logs, that want to maximize their investment in large-log
proccessing centers. I'm not a market economist, but to me, the public
outcry and the resulting bad publicity just doesn't seem to be worth it.
Of course, the old-growth must be worth quite a bit of money, because
here in Jackson County Oregon, Boise, Weyerhause, and Medite, just got
themselves an 88% reduction in the assessed value of their private timber
holdings, once they admitted that they'd cut all of their old-growth.
These three companies have seen the assesed value of their land drop from
$50.5 million last year, to $7.5 million this year (the tax burden will
of course be shifted to other property owners). So the obvious question
is, who pays for the devaluation of public lands when our old-growth is
logged? We pay to prepare the sales, build the roads, and replant the
sales, they walk away with the profits. And, in case you believe that
the Forest Service and BLM are careful stewards of our lands, a 1994
audit of the Medford Oregon BLM office by the Interior Department's
inspector general, found that $650,000 in funds that were specifically
marked for reforestation, actually were diverted to other uses such as
buying office furniture, staff salaries, and building maintenance. For
the State of Oregon, over $5.4 million intended for reforestation for
fiscal years 1990-92 were siphoned off for other purposes.
Our old-growth is dissapearing, our federal agencies are sleeping
with the industry, and it's all coming right out of the taxpayer's
pocket. It must stop, it will stop.
Bret Diamond
Oregon, USA
diam9018@tao.sosc.osshe.edu
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0