Tongass National Forest policy in Alaska (Craig, Klawock: living in, trailer, wealthy)

[akck]

Originally Posted by Barkingowl

So who is cutting the timber? Also when a forest is surveyed as to its potential for catching on fire, ....?

Ah, it's a little too wet here for that to be a big problem. Most fires happen in the interior where it's dryer.

[Barkingowl]

So after an area is cut does the FS replant it with the same variety of trees?

[Barkingowl]

Originally Posted by akck

Ah, it's a little too wet here for that to be a big problem. Most fires happen in the interior where it's dryer.

I should have known better. I was thinking about Oregon. When my wife & I visited a few years ago some of the area north of Bend was on fire. What are the threats to the forests there other than logging & if the threats are disease &/or bugs, how much lead time does the FS have to isolate the problem area?

[Alaskagrl]

Originally Posted by Barkingowl

So who is cutting the timber? Also when a forest is surveyed as to its potential for catching on fire, or for damage from bugs or disease, does the FS go through the same process for determining where permitted individuals can go to cut firewood?

Feds usually contract out; the days of having our own timber cutting crews have disappeared. But sales are so few and far between on fed land now, can't keep many companies going. Cruisers/surveyors still tend to be in-house.

Yes; if a forest is damaged or fire-prone, a whole new set of rules is in place for how the public can use it...including firewood use. I know some Western forests encourage public firewood cutting in down/dead areas. However, there's also risk involved. Sometimes they tell people to stay out; if someone's chainsaw ignited a dead stand, OH CHIT!!

Here in rainy SE AK, people can cut any wood, including live wood, for firewood in most areas; not in active sale areas, of course, and they prefer you cut dead/down wood. So...good wood near roadsides/easy accessible areas gets gobbled up pretty fast.

[Alaskagrl]

Originally Posted by Barkingowl

So after an area is cut does the FS replant it with the same variety of trees?

In Western/southern forests, yes, most of the time. In fact, some seasonal migrant workers make pretty good $$ hand-planting pine seedlings down south. I have done it; it's kind of a cool skill; use a special spade, cut a small trench, put seedling in, tamp down seedling. all day long in the tick infested forests of Minnesota--that's where I learned.

Here in Alaska, it is cost-prohibitive and unnecesary to plant cedar/spruce; it grows so damn fast we are the envy of other places.

[Barkingowl]

What does the FS think about International Biosphere Reserves? Are there any in Alaska & if so are the rules for cutting different?

[Alaskagrl]

I'll tell you what I think of them; it's another way to "grab" land under the pretext of "multiple use" and then make sure that it's only used for recreational purposes.

Oh sure, it looks good; it looks like they provide for "commercially sustainable" economy, etc., but that is all window dressing, I can pretty much guarantee. This is just the same as what happened when we were required to create EIS documents and Forest Plans; "multiple use" now just means-- open for tree-hugging recreation use ONLY. Now that we opened that door, the environmental groups just want more and more areas closed, restricted use, etc. I can rattle off 10 examples in my area right now.

Not sure what the FS thinks but I believe our current forest leadership would probably be pretty leery of this; we already designate many areas as Wilderness, which is the same thing with actually MORE protection. All the sentiments in the Bio-Reserve blurb I read are already in place in these areas, and in experimental forest areas. This Bio-Reserve concept looks to open the door for too much "selective" use that would alienate everyone from hunters, OHV riders, and others that are out there EVERY DAY, not just on weekends during the summer.

Sorry to be cynical; I've just seen this in action too many times in my career already. I've been part of the sale planning process, the appeals process, and I just can't believe the hoops the US gov't has to jump through to manage our own land. SOme of them came about for good reason; others are BS.

[Alaskagrl]

As of right now, Biosphere Reserves are right where they belong; in National Park/state park areas. These are areas already set aside most specifically for human enjoyment, study and recreation.

National Forests, on the other hand, are much larger areas of land which should be truly "multiple use" whether some users don't like what other users do (OHV riding) or not, as long as it doesn't actively destroy large areas of the forest. These areas are our national public land and should be kept as free as possible from restrictions on use.

These areas are, additionally, lands with commercial resource value that we NEED to keep viable.

[Barkingowl]

Originally Posted by Alaskagrl

Sorry to be cynical; I've just seen this in action too many times in my career already. I've been part of the sale planning process, the appeals process, and I just can't believe the hoops the US gov't has to jump through to manage our own land. Some of them came about for good reason; others are BS.

I happen to think that the biosphere designation is BS. The article I read about them says that they are supposedly under the control of the country that they are located in, but they seem to be regulated by the UN. If they are placed off limits to everyone who would use & enjoy them, then what is their status? How does biosphere status differ from wilderness status?

[Sarkar]

Having observed so-called "timber harvest" all over southeast Alaska for several years, most recently Prince of Wales Island, my opinion is it borders on criminal activity due to mismanagement by the Forest Circus

First of all the good timber was cut in the 70's and exported to Japan in the round, which means logs not processed...ie, jobs lost.

That is no longer allowed, not because the Forest Circus finally figured out it was poor practice....they weren't smart enough for that.

The timber that remains today is very poor quality. Very very little is of the quality to produce decent lumber.....its pulp quality at best, for paper products

Timber harvest is heavily subsidized by the US taxpayer....the Forest Circus operates at a huge loss...that started from day-one, long before litigation became a big part of their budget. The current litigation is necessary because the Circus fails in just about everything they attempt, except for buying new vehicles regularly with your money, in fact I'd go as far as to say the entire FS needs a total face-lift

The FS recovers absolutely nothing from a timber sale in the way of actual revenue.
They actually pay the logging companies to re-plant and they also pay them to put in whatever roads are required to get access to the "timber harvest"...when the job is done the logging companies have actually been paid to cut your tress...

The words "timber sale" is simply to give the impression that something is actually being sold and the Forest Circus has something to show for their effort...nope, not so.

Here is your typical "timber harvest" practice in all of southeast Alaska thanks to your Forest Service, and you paid for this..

These pictures are at Prince of Wales Island......the Forest Circus has two large facilities on POW, one in Craig and one at Thorne Bay with parking lots fulla new vehicles, boats, and many year-round employees at taxpayers expense and they do very little...

Your taxpayer dollars being totally wasted.....