The Other Oregon Story (Oakland: construction, landlord, club)

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell

You should go outside once in a while. The PNW still has 10.3 million acres of old growth, and 5 million acres of that is in Oregon.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/rsl/publicat...h-ca-or-wa.pdf

It's an uphill battle to educate the "woo generation" about things they are sure they already know all about. GMOs are bad. We have logged all our forests. Essential oils have healing properties. Vaccines are bad for you. If it's not one thing it's another. The fact remains, the most dangerous thing to rural lifestyles is urban prejudice.

From that article, the amount of old growth on Federal lands was reduced from 50% in the 1930s to 20% in the 1990s. That's for the entire West Coast. We know that most of what is left is in California. And that is just Federal land. Old growth was completely mowed down on private land.

Cutting down thousand year old trees is great for the economy in the short term, but once they are gone, they are gone.

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell

That's the typical urban mindset, promoted by people who have never set foot on the land and have no idea that a 40 year old tree that burns up is wasted wealth. Multiply those trees by 100 million and you owe rural people a lot of money. Assess every Portland resident $10,000 a year and we could call it even. You are rich. You can afford it.

I live here. I set foot on it all the time. This is what Oregon is capable of producing. This one was blown down in a windstorm. The others have all been cut down. Every single one of them. Future generations will only see them this way. Dead laying on their sides. That's what sucks about your idea that trees are just a product that should be farmed.

[Terryj]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz

From that article, the amount of old growth on Federal lands was reduced from 50% in the 1930s to 20% in the 1990s. That's for the entire West Coast. We know that most of what is left is in California. And that is just Federal land. Old growth was completely mowed down on private land.

Cutting down thousand year old trees is great for the economy in the short term, but once they are gone, they are gone.

I worked in the logging industry for a few years in my younger days, I can tell you this, about the only time old growth timber is cut is on a clear cut. Old growth timer makes very poor lumber, the wood most likely suffers from speckle rot, most of the logs wind up just going into the chipper. These trees often suffer from a few different types of disease and they are a PIA to log. When felling one of these trees one has to be very careful due to rot in the middle of the tree. Most logging companies don't like harvest old growth due to their lack of any value, but once they are cut they have to be hauled out of the woods. So no, old growth timber is not very good for the economy. Second growth and third growth timber has the best value per board ft.

[Yankeemama]

Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell

It was a (probably futile) attempt to educate urban Oregonians about how ignorant they are of things that happen outside of the city limits, and how much damage they do with their prejudice and arrogance.

Ahhh... I see. The goal of educating through insult and judgement... good luck.

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by Terryj

I worked in the logging industry for a few years in my younger days, I can tell you this, about the only time old growth timber is cut is on a clear cut. Old growth timer makes very poor lumber, the wood most likely suffers from speckle rot, most of the logs wind up just going into the chipper. These trees often suffer from a few different types of disease and they are a PIA to log. When felling one of these trees one has to be very careful due to rot in the middle of the tree. Most logging companies don't like harvest old growth due to their lack of any value, but once they are cut they have to be hauled out of the woods. So no, old growth timber is not very good for the economy. Second growth and third growth timber has the best value per board ft.

They clear out all the old growth so they can start tree farming. Which is why stuck with nothing but a landscape of baby trees ready to be harvested. It's great for business, not so great for people who actually appreciate nature.

[Larry Caldwell]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz

They clear out all the old growth so they can start tree farming. Which is why stuck with nothing but a landscape of baby trees ready to be harvested. It's great for business, not so great for people who actually appreciate nature.

Except they did not clear cut all the old growth. Oregon still has 5 million acres of it left, an area the size of the state of Connecticut. You are similar to many of the "read it on the internet" environmentalists who develop an irrational hatred of logging, even though it can be done with no environmental damage, and in fact has to be done to maintain wildlife and plant habitat.

[Larry Caldwell]

Originally Posted by Yankeemama

Ahhh... I see. The goal of educating through insult and judgement... good luck.

Do you really feel insulted? Maybe what I have been saying was factual. It's awkward to realize you have been wrong for so many years, isn't it?

[Yankeemama]

Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell

Do you really feel insulted? Maybe what I have been saying was factual. It's awkward to realize you have been wrong for so many years, isn't it?

Oh, Larry. I couldn't possibly be insulted by you as I have always known your posts are judgemental but it's hilarious how you are blaming urban dwellers for every problem in rural Oregon. Isn't that the topic of this thread?

[annoyingcherry]

Originally Posted by Terryj

I worked in the logging industry for a few years in my younger days, I can tell you this, about the only time old growth timber is cut is on a clear cut. Old growth timer makes very poor lumber, the wood most likely suffers from speckle rot, most of the logs wind up just going into the chipper. These trees often suffer from a few different types of disease and they are a PIA to log. When felling one of these trees one has to be very careful due to rot in the middle of the tree. Most logging companies don't like harvest old growth due to their lack of any value, but once they are cut they have to be hauled out of the woods. So no, old growth timber is not very good for the economy. Second growth and third growth timber has the best value per board ft.

I have not worked in this industry, but something about this does not seem right. Loggers are desperate to clear worthless old growth so they can plant a crop that won't be ready for 30 years?

Also, I've heard woodworkers say old growth wood is superior to plantation grown, more durable (they are actually looking for old growth logs at the bottom of lakes that were cut decades ago).

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell

Except they did not clear cut all the old growth. Oregon still has 5 million acres of it left, an area the size of the state of Connecticut. You are similar to many of the "read it on the internet" environmentalists who develop an irrational hatred of logging, even though it can be done with no environmental damage, and in fact has to be done to maintain wildlife and plant habitat.

5 million down from 15 million in 1932, and if people like you had your way we wouldn't even have that. You want to revive the logging industry and cut down what is left. In the interest of forest fire prevention of course. If we don't have any forest, we won't have any forest fires. Like throwing the baby out with the dirty bath water.