Isn't Western Oregon disappointingly "un-wild"? (Grants Pass, Sherwood: how much, live)

[Mini-apple-less]

Aside from the area between Grants Pass and Brookings and some pockets of the High Cascades, there are very few areas in western Oregon that are truly un-spoiled, in my opinion. Clearcuts are everywhere, and pretty much anywhere you go is within at least a few miles of a paved road or town. It's definitely not as unspoiled as the Rockies, British Columbia or even Northern California.

Not to say it's not beautiful in parts, but I find it depressing how much of Western Oregon's forests are missing and how little is actually natural rather than re-grown. And Southern Oregon is a bit better and less unspoiled than the northwestern part of Oregon, which is pretty much entirely developed or semi-developed in some way.

[TheDaveMaybe]

Yea, clearcutting was a bad thing!

[Sherwoody]

One of the reasons I moved here was I thought I would find wonderful clean lakes, rivers and streams filled with wild, natural fish. The reality is shocking really. I don't think there would be ANY trout or salmon here if it weren't for the fish they stock and they are not as fun to catch nor very good to eat. Every other fish species are tainted with mercury and who knows what else.

Lakes, rivers and streams are closed regularly because of toxic algae that has killed pets, even in winter now. If Oregon is this polluted with such a small population and small industrial footprint how bad is the rest of the country?

[Billy_J]

Try Alaska!

[Larry Caldwell]

There are more forests in western Oregon now than there were 150 years ago. We don't know of any time since the last ice age that the area was not cleared for human habitation. The Indians controlled vegetation by burning it. Western Oregon was prairie and oak savanna, except for the rain forest on the west slope of the Coast Range and the parts of the Cascades that were high enough to get mountain rainfall.

[Mini-apple-less]

Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell

There are more forests in western Oregon now than there were 150 years ago. We don't know of any time since the last ice age that the area was not cleared for human habitation. The Indians controlled vegetation by burning it. Western Oregon was prairie and oak savanna, except for the rain forest on the west slope of the Coast Range and the parts of the Cascades that were high enough to get mountain rainfall.

I think that's debatable. Looking at satellite images suggest that as much as half if not more of the northern Coast Range is stripped bare, or covered only in baby trees. I've flown over the Cascades and Klamath Mountains many times and I would say at least 30 percent of the forest is gone.

At best, maybe the total area of tree cover is higher than it was in 1900 (it's certainly more than it was in 1980) but the quality of the forests is quite spoiled compared to say, western Montana or Colorado which is not as profitable as timber.

Originally Posted by Sherwoody

Lakes, rivers and streams are closed regularly because of toxic algae that has killed pets, even in winter now. If Oregon is this polluted with such a small population and small industrial footprint how bad is the rest of the country?

I would say quite a few areas are more unspoiled and intact than here, really. Like I said Montana most definitely is, and still has quite vast wild areas like the Bob Marshall Wilderness and Glacier National Park. Even the Appalachian states have a lot more continguous wildland than western Oregon and Washington.

[KaaBoom]

Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell

There are more forests in western Oregon now than there were 150 years ago. We don't know of any time since the last ice age that the area was not cleared for human habitation. The Indians controlled vegetation by burning it. Western Oregon was prairie and oak savanna, except for the rain forest on the west slope of the Coast Range and the parts of the Cascades that were high enough to get mountain rainfall.

Do you have a source for that information? The Oregon Tribes were fishermen and hunters. I can't think of any reason they would have been trying to control vegetation.

In 1850 the entire population of Oregon was just 12,093. 12,000 people would be an incredibly small footprint on Oregon land. That is 0.3% of the current population. Even assuming that the population had been greater in the past, it was probably never more then 1% or 2% of the current population. I think it's a fair bet that there was a lot more forest land at that time then now. Trying to make an argument that the forests in Oregon were planted by white people, seems to fly in the face of millions of years of natural history.

[KaaBoom]

Originally Posted by Mini-apple-less

I think that's debatable. Looking at satellite images suggest that as much as half if not more of the northern Coast Range is stripped bare, or covered only in baby trees. I've flown over the Cascades and Klamath Mountains many times and I would say at least 30 percent of the forest is gone.

I agree, but I think you are being overly conservative. I'd say that half of it is gone, and the other half is just baby trees. The trees would normally grow to be 500 or a 1000 years old. You would have a hard time trying to find a tree in Oregon that is over a 100 years old today. They are all baby trees.

Add to that all the mining scars, that you can see everywhere. I know most of those are probably old, but it looks like a lot of them are still active mines.

Originally Posted by Mini-apple-less

I would say quite a few areas are more unspoiled and intact than here, really. Like I said Montana most definitely is, and still has quite vast wild areas like the Bob Marshall Wilderness and Glacier National Park. Even the Appalachian states have a lot more continguous wildland than western Oregon and Washington.

Part of the problem I think is that there is so little national park land in Oregon, compared to other states. There is what, one national park in the entire state? Crater Lake is wonderful, but it is not enough. It's also one of the smallest national parks. Given enough time I could see a lot of the tree farm land in Oregon being converted into National Parks with old growth forests. But none of us will ever live long enough to see it happen, even if they started today.

[Silverfall]

Originally Posted by KaaBoom

Do you have a source for that information? The Oregon Tribes were fishermen and hunters. I can't think of any reason they would have been trying to control vegetation.

In 1850 the entire population of Oregon was just 12,093. 12,000 people would be an incredibly small footprint on Oregon land. That is 0.3% of the current population. Even assuming that the population had been greater in the past, it was probably never more then 1% or 2% of the current population. I think it's a fair bet that there was a lot more forest land at that time then now. Trying to make an argument that the forests in Oregon were planted by white people, seems to fly in the face of millions of years of natural history.

Actually the Native Americans did controlled burns. Not surprisingly when you burn trees, natural grass grows in its place. Deer like grass. Open fields of deer are much easier to hunt than forests of deer. You are right that the valley Indians were hunters. They just controlled the hunting scene.

[KaaBoom]

Originally Posted by Silverfall

Actually the Native Americans did controlled burns. Not surprisingly when you burn trees, natural grass grows in its place. Deer like grass. Open fields of deer are much easier to hunt than forests of deer. You are right that the valley Indians were hunters. They just controlled the hunting scene.

OK I found a Wikipedia article on it, but I'm still skeptical. The wikipedia article has numerous [citation needed] and starts with:

"Although there are no written documents describing the intentional, controlled burning of forests, it is believed that the cumulative impact of burning by Native Americans profoundly altered the landscape."

That hardly sounds like indisputable evidence, that Native Americans deliberately set fires to control vegetation. Even if the fires were man-made, how do they know that the fires were not accidentally set? I'm pretty sure the Native Americans were aware of the dangers of wild fires. Since they would have had no way to control the fires, I find it hard to believe that they would have deliberately burned their own land. A forest fire could have easily wiped out an entire tribe.