Obama Administration Approves Logging In Largest U.S. Rain Forest

[DesertRat]

This week, the Obama administration approved the sale of timber in a roadless national forest in Alaska. The Tongass National Forest is a 17 million acre temperate rain forest in southeast Alaska, which is home to both endangered species and native Alaskan tribes. It is the largest temperate rain forest in the United States.

Alaskan Senators Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich both supported the administration's decision to allow the timber sale, explaining that it would provide jobs to the area's underemployed loggers.

Environmentalists have long criticized allowing logging in national forests as not only destructive, but a waste of taxpayer money.

Much more info. and video here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/16/obama-administration-appr_n_235311.html

[tekisui]

1. What a dumb fucking decision.

[DesertRat]

3. Sounds like a Bush era decision

Such a disappointment. :(

[atreides1]

5. We all need to get use to disappointments

The reality is that this administration will probably fuck up as much as any other one. Get use to living with disappointment, we've still got a long way to go!

[Divine Discontent]

60. Yes, horrible decision - I'm certainly regretting not supporting a true liberal the past couple

times, and will do so going forward...

these people that are gaga over him are nauseating - he's a centrist/center-right politician - this is a liberal website.

[atreides1]

4. Maybe So

But the decision was supported by Alasaka's two senators.

[Blue_In_AK]

26. Yeah, and they both support drilling in ANWR, too.

Both bad ideas, IMO.

[WI_DEM]

2. Well, I'm not happy about this decision.

[Vidar]

6. Another lobby to pander to.

[amitten]

7. WTF? Seriously. This has me pissed. n/t

[stranger81]

43. Ditto. Doesn't sound like change we can believe in to me.

Plus ca change, plus la meme chose.

[scheming daemons]

8. Ok... finally... something I disagree with Obama on

[Political Heretic]

11. That's sad in and of itself.

[scheming daemons]

12. Yep... I'm sad about it

See?

:cry:

[bigwillq]

9. Not very happy with this decision

:mad:

[City Lights]

10. Argh!

:argh: :mad: :grr:

[Thrill]

13. I thought people wanted make work projects?

Now you don't?

[AspenRose]

14. On the surface, I don't like this.

Very disappointed.

[Cha]

15. I know what you mean..

"on the surface"..I would like to know more about it and what decisions went into this..because I know with this admin..they are thinking about it and decisions don't come lightly.

Here's a link to respond to this decision..

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

http://www.whitehouse.gov

[fifthoffive]

16. If you don't like logging

Don't use wood or paper products. Some logging is bad, some is actually beneficial. It depends on the objectives, techniques, adherence to BMPs, etc. Until I know more about the location, the extent of the logging, what they are actually removing, how they are removing it, and how the timber sale is being handled, I'm not in a position to approve or disapprove of this project.

The National Forests were not originally created for preservation, unlike the National Parks. Logging was one of, if not the major reason for their creation in the first place - so the nation could be guaranteed of a permanent, renewable supply of wood.

[PVnRT]

17. Rain forest in Alaska?

:wtf:

[LynneSin]

20. Not all rain forests are tropical. Several temperate rain forest in the NW USA

including Washington State

[BlooInBloo]

21. The Olympic rain forest in WA rules.

[Blue_In_AK]

28. Of course, there are rain forests in Alaska.

There are 100 to 300 inches of rainfall in Southeast Alaska per year. I think that qualifies as "rain forest."

[LynneSin]

18. Again the person who said this is the Obama ADMINISTRATION

Do we know who said this. I'd like to know if they were an Obama appointee or Bush leftover.

[vaberella]

30. The Administration normally has a person who gives their name.

When I hear there's a leak of some news, I'm always taking pause.

[DesertRat]

49. The article states that is was Sec. of Agriculture Tom Vilsack

who gave the approval for the 381-acre clear-cut.

[ChiciB1]

19. Just ONE MORE THING!! Gee, I So Wish This Would Quit Happening!

I really do want to support Obama, and I really mean it! Getting harder these days!

[jmondine]

22. I'm not happy with this decision either, but...

... to call it a Bush era type of decision is inaccurate, in my opinion. Logging in national forests has been standard practice for decades under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Rather than revealing Obama as an extreme right-winger, it just shows again how middle of the road he is, much more than I would like, for sure.

Now, if he was going to allow logging in our national parks, that would be a Bush-like decision.

[CakeGrrl]

23. Both AK senators support it for jobs creation, so

given the economic times, I can see why this is being done.

Cue the "Obama circle jerk" accusations and high-fives...

:rofl:

[uponit7771]

24. *****ANOTHER KNEE JERK POST******* This time by Huffington

Please read TreeGirls response (hit ctrl f at same time and type in treegirl)

I don't know what HP is up to but their sensationalizing is getting stupid

[Blue_In_AK]

25. Boo, hiss!!

Bad decision.

[vaberella]

38. Blue_In_AK can you read post #31 and let us know what you think? n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

45. I'm not a big fan of clear-cutting

and if it's true that several miles of road will have to be built to get to this area, it seems like it might be rather destructive of what is really pristine old-growth forest.

I understand the economics, and I realize that Mark and Lisa have to be supportive of the logging industry in Southeast, so, of course, it's not an easy issue. I just don't like it personally.

[Cali_Democrat]

27. How may people complaining here use wood products such as paper?

Any of you guys have wood furniture? Well if you do, you've likely contributed to the destruction of a poor little woodland creature's home.

Hypocrisy at its finest. :hi:

[uponit7771]

29. Please read my HP link and search for TreeGirl, explains the whole thing instead.

I really whished people would look deeper instead of going all out bashing like these post do.

[BlooInBloo]

31. Would be a lot easier if you just gave us the damn link....

Rather than ask us to search through 3,500+ comments.

EDIT: Here's a link to all of treegirl's comments:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/treegirl?action=comments&display=all&sort=newest

[vaberella]

34. It was kind of punky but I read through them.

I'm not too familiar with this, so her comments were interesting.

[uponit7771]

35. sry, didn't realize I left it out....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/16/obama-administration-appr_n_235311.html

[Cha]

32. I don't suppose you could

cut and paste it over here?

I posted up thread that I wanted to hear more about it and gave a contact link for whitehouse.gov.

If you don't have the time..I'll try to do it before I go to work..thanks.

[uponit7771]

36. here yah go, thought I posted it in link above

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/16/obama-administration-appr_n_235311.html

[Cha]

39. Thanks, uponit..I

missed it.

[DesertRat]

50. That's the same link as in the OP n/t

[vaberella]

37. check out post #31 or a good excerpt below of one of her many posts:

I have spent the last hour reading the comments and have never seen so much misinformation in my life.

These are the facts:

This is not the first timber sale allowed on public land since Obama became president. It is the first on public land in a designated ROADLESS area.
This is a timber sale on National Forest land NOT a National Park.
National forest lands were created to provide products and resources to the American public including wood products, minerals, grazing land etc. Logging, mining, etc is allowed.
National Parks were created for recreational enjoyment, education, and preservation of natural and historical resources. The above activities are not allowed (NO Logging, mining, etc).
There are 53 million acres of National PARK land in Alaska (70% of US total).
There are 23 million acres on National Forest land in Alaska.
See http://www.alaskacoalition.org/Public_lands.htm
The area involved in this timber sale is 381 acres or .00165 percent of the total national forestland in Alaska.
The 381 acres of land in this timber sale is to be clearcut.
The US Forest Service requires reforestation after logging/clearcutting.
The land can and will be reforested.
Logging/clearcutting will not destroy the land, but it will not be able to provide the same habitat for wildlife for many years.
It will most likely be used by new and different wildlife species, since the habitat will change drastically providing completely different sources of food and other resources.

I'm sure a bit of quick fact checking would clear up a lot of her statements.

[Cha]

40. Thank you, Vab! I wondered about this

when I first saw the OP..

"The US Forest Service requires reforestation after logging/clearcutting.
The land can and will be reforested." and all the other FACTS associated with this decision.

I've learned with the Obama admin that there's more than meets the eye and you have to investigate to see what's really going on.

[BlooInBloo]

41. You only have to investigate because so many have made it their goal to whine about Obama...

EDIT: And they care little if the whine is true or lie.

[Cha]

44. Not saying this about

the OP but if the whine is a lie then it makes them look bad so they carry on a la orly taizer, imv..which makes them WORST.

[DesertRat]

51. I've read this sentence 3x and still have no idea what it means

"Not saying this about the OP but if the whine is a lie then it makes them look bad so they carry on a la orly taizer, imv..which makes them WORST."

I'm only interested because I posted the OP.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

46. "The 381 acres of land in this timber sale is to be CLEARCUT..."

CLEARCUTTING -- that means a nice 381 acre bare spot in the Tongass. :mad:

http://www.nrdc.org/land/forests/fcut.asp

Clearcutting means the felling and removal of all trees from a given tract of forest. One forestry expert refers to the practice as "an ecological trauma that has no precedent in nature except for a major volcanic eruption." Clearcutting can destroy an area's ecological integrity in a number of ways..."










Real pretty, huh?

Replanting -- uh huh, do you know how big the trees are they "replant" the area with and how long those trees take to get anywhere near mature?? This area will take many, many decades to recover from what is going to happen.

[lumberjack_jeff]

66. Working forests are like that.

Here in SW Washington, forestry biologists have generally settled on a consensus that clearcuts of up to 100 acres, (provided they do not create islands of mature forests) are the best solution for habitat. Larger than that, and they create barriers for animals, smaller than that and too many roads are required, which get too much traffic. For fish, selective cutting is about the worst, because a lot of disturbed soil and a lot of road use create a lot of sediment.

In my area, one of the bigger problems is that all of the large-log mills have closed, which requires landowners to harvest on a short rotation. It is much better for habitat (and yields more board feet) to harvest 20 acres of 50 year old trees from a 1000 acre forest, than 30 acres of 33 year old trees... but only if you can find a mill who wants to saw 40"+ logs.

The last photo you provided would be an example of how it used to be done in the bad old days. Notice the slides on the sidehill logging roads? Extremely bad for habitat, and wouldn't be tolerated today. My guess is that this photo is at least 30 years old.

A diversity of habitat, and a varied canopy (and young forests are a preferred habitat for some animals) is a good thing.

Forests can be managed in a way that both optimizes the resource, as well as maximizes the habitat value.

That said, it doesn't seem to make sense to me to (re)build many miles of road to get at <400 acres of forest.

[tranche]

33. removed

my post to treegirl comment not as useful as comment above

[vaberella]

42. I have to agree to that. It's quite comical.

I'm a big fan of wood products. However, I'm also a supporter of replanting.

[tekisui]

57. I don't use old growth wood products.

There are plenty of wood as crop sources to turn too, along with recycling than to destroy what is left of pristine forests.

[GreenPartyVoter]

52. But we certainly don't have to do as much logging as we do, and that is the point.

More recycling and the reintroduction of industrial hemp farming would go a long way to allowing more trees to stay in the ground. :hi:

[Cali_Democrat]

55. Absolutely!!!

:thumbsup:

[solstice]

53. Would you use that line if this was Bush?

[tekisui]

56. Bullshit. It doesn't have to come from old-growth forest.

Bull fucking shit.

[Cali_Democrat]

58. Any time trees are cut down, it ruins the habitats of many creatures, even insects

Paper and other wood products come from trees. Animals like cute little squirrels and birds use those trees to live and survive.

ANYTIME trees are cut down, some animals home is being destroyed. It doesn't matter if it's an old-growth forest or not.

Not bullshit at all. Quite the contrary.

I would like to apologize if I shocked you in any way. The truth can be painful. :hi:

[tekisui]

61. Ecosystem.

Ecosystems have livespans. An old growth forest is much more diverse and beneficial to our planet than second or third growth wood plantations. I could really give a rats ass about furry animals, or cute squirrels. I eat cute animals all the time.

I care greatly about maintaining the greatest diversity of species, and their ecosystems. Both plants and animals. An old growth ecosystem cannot be replaced. A pulp and paper farm will be overrun with squirrels, rabbits and deer in a few short years. There is a difference. You've yet to shock me with any truth.

[Cali_Democrat]

62. I think all ecosystems are important

We shouldn't value older ecosystems over newer ecosystems that are teaming with life. I think that's somewhat discriminatory.

[Cali_Democrat]

64. I think you should read this wonderful post...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8532255

Obama saved 2.6 million acres in Oregon, much of it old growth. The acreage in Alaska accounted for 381 acres out of 17 million.

[lumberjack_jeff]

67. I don't think this is old-growth.

It's "roadless" in the sense that the roads accessing the area haven't been used in 20 years.

[IndianaGreen]

47. More of the insuferable 'Change You Can Believe In'.

How about "Socialism: Change You Can Count On?"

We elected a DLC government!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

48. Right now I am positively gagging ---

from having to swallow all that "change". :mad:

[anonymous171]

73. Hey comrade, this is why the US government has National Forests.

They are not national parks.

[depakid]

54. With timber prices at a 20 year low, this deal could have been better timed

How much are those roads going to cost again?

[NYC_SKP]

59. Logging is not new to Tongass... No drama needed on this sale.

Sheesh.

HuffingtonDrudgePost... drama.

Here's a bit of local flavor, from last month, from people who live and work there:

Communities depend on timber program outcome
Letter to the editor

Note: this letter is in response to the letter from Elaine Price printed in the June 10 issue of the CCW, "Logging cuts affect every community member."

The real-life illustration provided by Elaine Price, of the downside to the halt of logging timber from the Tongass National Forest, could not have been better stated.

For the past 30 years, I have worked to sustain, restore and improve the condition of the natural resources across Southeast Alaska with some of the most capable resource specialists on the planet. I have worked on every Forest Plan Revision and Amendment since 1987, and seen countless opponents at the plaintiffs table in court cases repeatedly clamoring for the Tongass to get out of old growth - saying that we need to help local communities move into recreation and tourism economies and get away from dependence on timber.

Well, here we are - the Tongass timber program is just now entering a 15- to 20-year transition phase that will see us move from old growth and roadless areas, into young growth roaded areas on hundreds of thousands of acres. We worked with dozens of groups, including the Tongass Futures Roundtable members and subcommittees, to form the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment. We developed and are implementing the Adaptive Management Strategy for planning and pursuing responsible and reasonable timber harvests that match the capabilities of the local, family-owned mills.

http://www.capweek.com/stories/062409/spe_454037308.shtml

[Cha]

63. The knee jerkers on this thread

would rather spew and gag on their own hate than read the facts.

[lumberjack_jeff]

65. If this is virgin timber of a sensitive ecological value, I'm concerned.

From what I'm reading, I don't think this is the case.

By "roadless" they mean that it was subject to Clinton's moratorium on roadbuilding. Most of the "roadbuilding" is repairing the existing roads.

The current timber sale is for 400 acres.

As my name implies, I don't have a problem with working forests. Well managed stands create a diversity of habitat and a variety of canopy types. If wide riparian management zones are adhered to, clearcuts are kept to 100 acres and less and roads stay on the ridgetops, streams can be well protected. Yes, the people who know all about forests "because I hiked in one once" think it looks ugly. I can live with that.

There is a good argument to be made however, that it makes little economic sense to spend $10 million on roads for a $2.5m timber sale. Better to give $7.5m to the local school district directly.

I do have a strong negative reaction when residents of the urban sprawl get a case of the vapors when the humble, simple folk harvest trees.

[boppers]

68. Hey jeff, got any compromise ideas?

Specifically, non-clearcutting harvesting ideas?

I've always wondered why we didn't harvest in, oh, 20 ft wide swaths, so a great deal of canopy is kept, and over time, the different harvests would wind up with a mix of new and old growth.

It is mostly an economics of scale thing, or a lack of effective technology thing, or a planning issue, or what?

[lumberjack_jeff]

69. The problem with selective harvest, or very small clearcuts...

... is the heavy utilization of the road system. By far, the biggest impact logging has on habitat (in my area) is to fish-bearing streams. Each time a log truck goes over a given piece of roadway, the tires pump out silt and mud which finds its way into the streams (and it's not possible to log a rainforest only when it's dry).

From a habitat standpoint, it'd be better to harvest 100 acres of 75 year old trees than 200 acres of 35 year old ones, (especially if it's divided into 20 separate chunks) - and both yield about the same amount of board feet. But it's important to not put this year's harvest right next to last year's one, for exactly the reason you mention; it's important to create a canopy mix.

[boppers]

70. I'm not sure I understand the road issue.

A logging truck with a load from a large clearcut would pump out as much silt and mud as a logging truck from a selective harvest or small clearcut, wouldn't it?

As far as the board-feet issue, yeah, that makes sense, I'm just trying to think of ways that avoid large clearcuts that aren't as cost and labor-intensive as "only these marked trees, without damaging other trees around them" (I don't know the term, I assume you might... is that selective harvest?).

[lumberjack_jeff]

72. There are two kinds of "selective harvest".

The first is where a forester goes into a forest, and marks the trees he wants a crew to cut down. The intent of this is to harvest the mature trees, and leave the small ones to grow. The challenge with this is not damaging the small trees and thus reducing their value.
The other is also known as "commercial thinning" in which trees are grown to 20-25 years old (in my area this is about a 14" diameter tree) and the trees are thinned from 600 stems per acre or so, down to about 200.
The habitat problem with both these solutions is the heavy use of the roads. To grossly oversimplify, if you harvest a 10 square mile area, the road is only used once every 35 years, vegetation grows in and around the road surface, preventing erosion. If you divide that in half, the road is used twice in 35 years. Vegetation still grows, but it isn't nearly as robust. Harvest the area in quarters, less vegetation... and so on. At some point you reach a point where the road never gets a rest at all; the road is always an open sore leaching sediment into the streams.
Streams are better off if the road experiences 1000 log truck loads one summer, then none for a couple of years, rather than 10 a week for two years straight.
Hundreds of teeny-tiny selective harvests within that 10 square mile area yields the heaviest usage of the road system.
So, modern forestry is about finding the appropriate balance between a diverse canopy, good habitat and minimizing impact to streams.
Aesthetics are a concern only in a PR sense.

[boppers]

74. Thank you.

I think I get it now, I was thinking "per harvest", not "over 100 years of road use".

Since my little brother is a smoke jumper, I tend to think of roads, small cuts, and other "gaps" as good ways of keeping him (and forests) alive, but from what I'm hearing, the bigger problem is one of finding the best balance points. (Yay for having a lumberjack on DU!)

As far as aesthetics go, though, people who find things "ugly" get to vote like everybody else. :P

[anonymous171]

71. HEY GUYS! THIS IS WHY WE HAVE NATIONAL FORESTS!

We don't maintain these places for the scenery.

[IndianaGreen]

75. If Bush had done this, you all be screaming bloody murder

but it was Obama's DLC puke Vilsack that did it, so you all are groveling.

How pathetic!

[anonymous171]

76. Actually I would not. I'm more concerned about Obama's inaction on the economy

I could care less what he does with government RESOURCES.

[grantcart]

77. What percent of the forrest is going to be logged?

[DesertRat]

78. I didn't see a percentage in the article

And I'm too tired right now to do the math.

[grantcart]

80. 381-acre out of 17 million = 2/100ths of 1%

[Bodhi BloodWave]

79. If the poster on another thread is correct its about .002% (as in acres vs the whole thing) n/t