Sometime we win...National Forests and Wildlife Refuge

If you want to win on public forest land you have to support thinning and logging. That is the only way to create proper spacing and fire resilience.

RoyandLynne,
Using the most extreme type of harvesting which would be a clear cut, there is a tremendous about of viable seed left in the seed bank. Many of the shrubs and smaller deciduous trees will resprout and take hold after logging. Wind and bird deseminated seeds also add to diversity. Modern clearcuts are limited in size. The species diversity in PNW West Side forests is very high even after clearcuts.

wildtoad wrote:
Always seems that people want us to use renewable resources but cry when other people try to harvest renewable resources. Trees are renewable, harvesting trees provides jobs, resources to build houses. It is far better to allow controlled harvesting than uncontrolled forest fires. Regardless, nature will backfill the area anew.

But the problem is, you can't replant a forest. They replant a tree farm with only marketable trees and we lose the diversity that makes a forest.

Forests provide watersheds where a large part of the population gets their water supply. Overland flow in forests is rare and has not been documented. A forest accumulates large amounts of organic matter in the surface soil horizon. Often there is a duff layer of several inches or much more. These layers act like a sponge to absorb water and release it slowy. Even a clear cut forest has a very large root mass in the surface 3 feet that holds the soil mantle in place. It lasts for approximately 7 years before it decays. A forest canopy intercepts rainfall impact. So does the slash left even after clean up and slash disposal.

dave54 wrote:
... improve wildlife habitat, forest health, fire protection, watershed improvement, et al. Sometimes clearcutting is the best way to achieve the objectives...

Excuse me for being skeptical. A few here also said clear-cutting is good for wildlife and watershed but failed to explain how or why.

How can watershed be improved when there are no more roots that will hold water and soil rushing down on the streams?

Or, why when forest were untouched by men in days past have abundance of wildlife as if wildlife are immobile and won't move to forest and it's periphery if the conditions are not favorable to them.

Yosemite,
Clearcut logging, mining and oil and gas are absolutely viable under Multiple Use. I have worked with all of these types of projects for 35 years. They have a rigorous environmental review process. The National Environmental Policy Act is being streamlined with regard to timber sales, so that we can start harvesting at levels much closer to the Annual Allowable Cut under sustained use.

There is no such thing as Big Bear NF. You might be refering to the Angeles NF. Near urban areas, with lower timber potential like those around Los Angeles, more emphasis is given to outdoor recreation than in other more productive and remote timber producing areas.

Clearcutting is mostly used west of crest of the Cascade Mountains and in Alaska.

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

dave54 wrote:
National Forests were initially created to be logged sustainably.

"No national forest shall be established, except to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States…" -- Organic Administration Act of 1897.

Good logging is beneficial to the forest and wildlife, improves watersheds and fisheries, increases biodiversity, and improves the resiliency of the forest to catastrophic disturbance.

Except clear-cut logging, mining and oil extraction violates the multi use principles. I don't think RVers will want or be permitted to do camping in their concessions.

Again, Big Bear National Forest approach of low impact, local small operations of selective harvesting can co-exists with camping and does not degrade the watersheds.

Individual tree selection (selective harvesting, in your words) is appropriate only in certain situations, and inappropriate in most. In certain conditions clearcutting (or one of the variations) is the best harvest method. Depends upon the tree species, site conditions, and the reason for the harvesting. National Forests are not harvested solely to make money for the treasury or make money for the loggers. That is actually forbidden by law. All harvesting now has a ecological benefit behind it -- improve wildlife habitat, forest health, fire protection, watershed improvement, et al. Sometimes clearcutting is the best way to achieve the objectives, sometimes other harvest are better. The purchaser and the treasury may make some money on the harvesting, but the underlying reason is for the benefit of the forest and local communities.

The Forest Service does scarcely any clearcutting anymore due to public misunderstanding of forest ecology and sound forest practices. This is another example of public opinion and emotion running opposite of good science. Too bad, because almost forest ecologist and forest scientist are clamoring for increases in forest harvest levels on public lands, including more clearcutting. The Forest Service in Region 5 (basically California) is currently harvesting only 5% of the sustained yield level. The rest is burning up.

There is no Big Bear National Forest. Did you mean the Big Bear District of San Bernardino National Forest?

I do concede mining is tough to work work into multiple use. The 1872 Mining Act takes precedence over the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act in many ways. OTOH -- How much of the computer or device in front of you right now did not originally come out of a hole in the ground? Or your RV? Not too many of us want to life a lifestyle with no mined products at all.

Of course, camping (recreation) is only one of the multiple uses of National Forests. In concept, all are equal and should have equal weight in management decisions. Tough to implement when every user group insists they should get priority over all the others.

dave54 wrote:
National Forests were initially created to be logged sustainably.

"No national forest shall be established, except to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States…" -- Organic Administration Act of 1897.

Good logging is beneficial to the forest and wildlife, improves watersheds and fisheries, increases biodiversity, and improves the resiliency of the forest to catastrophic disturbance.

Except clear-cut logging, mining and oil extraction violates the multi use principles. I don't think RVers will want or be permitted to do camping in their concessions.

Again, Big Bear National Forest approach of low impact, local small operations of selective harvesting can co-exists with camping and does not degrade the watersheds.

National Forests were initially created to be logged sustainably.

"No national forest shall be established, except to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States…" -- Organic Administration Act of 1897.

Good logging is beneficial to the forest and wildlife, improves watersheds and fisheries, increases biodiversity, and improves the resiliency of the forest to catastrophic disturbance.

The other thing that logging provides is access to the forest for recreation and fire suppression. If fire crews need to dropped in they have limited capacity and resources.
Managed logging is a good method of wildfire prevention.