How bad is deforestation in Oregon? (for sale, houses, land)

[iPwn]

From what I've seen on Google Earth and when I've been through the mountains, I'd say about 30% of the forest is gone.

[bluebird39]

Much of what my look "gone" from Google earth has lots of replanted trees that are not mature yet. Logging slowed way down in the 90's. Also, in some places there aren't trees. Don't confuse deforested with a meadow or dry South facing slope. Also, there's plenty of places that are different habitats than you may be looking at, like Oak savanas. There's still plenty of forest left in Oregon.

[adbak]

I saw the same thing and wondered the extent of the deforestation. Hopefully it's bark is worse than it's bite and that in many of the "clearings" it's just light green from the young leaves of reforested trees. I understand that there was a large decline in American logging a while back due to cheaper imports from Asia, iirc.

[mermaidmichelle]

google earth can be OLD. I was looking at the picture of my house the other day and I'm positive it is over 1 year old. I'm reasonably certain it is over 3 years old.

[desertman]

although it may look like deforeatation, oregon is number one in replanting and we have plenty of forest. just go wander around and see how easy it is to get lost. more of a problem with our forest is bug infestation. lots of debate on that. crowded forests, single speicies, poor managment through the 50s to the 80s. things are evolving, but on a whole our forests are healthy and abundent

[Metlakatla]

From my place in SE Alaska, I can't look in any direction without seeing a clearcut. In Oregon..there are trees.

[John Shaft]

We're plumb out of trees. I cut the last one down on my morning walk today.

[haggardhouseelf]

There might be some information here for you: About Oregon Wild — Oregon Wild On the left side of the page, you can click on "Forests and Old Growth" that might be interesting.

[BLAZER PROPHET]

As I travel around my state I see evidence of a tremendous amount of deforestation. Too much. Some of it is the fault of the deforesters and some from the whacko environmental groups who blocked the cutting of trees that needed to be cut and that forced the deforesters into areas they should have not been.

Both sides worked hard to do what was worst for the environment.

[Smiled]

It grows back. We do a pretty good job of keeping forestry within reasonable limits - the old "cut and run" days are mostly gone. We fail a bit in allowing steep slopes to be harvested, with the result that we have big landslides that wipe out salmon-spawning habitat for a few years (the silt buries the gravel). The forestry term for clearcutting is "regeneration harvesting." In a clearcut, you'll find more deer, less elk. It's a mixture of private and public land you're seeing on Google Earth. The private land can be clearcut whenever; it's taxed at a higher rate if not replanted to standards. The state forest, national forest, and BLM lands are offered for sale in somewhat more prescriptive ways. For example, the Oregon Forest Plan attempts to recreate old-growth conditions on the forest by harvesting in patches and harvesting selectively. Clearcutting is only to be used in cases of disease, or in small places where a meadow would result (for some time). As for Blazer Prophet's comment... well, I worked very hard with the Department of Forestry to help find a balance - which we tried to do with the OFP.

It would be delightful if some of the stimulus money could find its way to Central Oregon to clear out the small trees that resulted from fire suppression. The natural state of that forest is parklike, with sparse growth of very large trees, and frequent fires (95% started by lightning, hundreds every year) that clear the understory. Since people began building houses in the forest, they wanted fire suppression (so did the timber companies and the Forest Service). They've since discovered that was incorrect management.