Post by: Fishcrazy82 on November 14, 2014, 07:12:00 AM
Post by: Skillet on November 14, 2014, 07:21:53 AM
Which state-owned land parcel(s) are you referring to? :dunno:
Post by: bobcat on November 14, 2014, 07:26:55 AM
Post by: Skillet on November 14, 2014, 07:31:09 AM
And (to the best of my knowledge) they don't spray herbicides in the cuts. Critical to growth of browse that supports strong deer and elk populations.
Post by: timberfaller on November 14, 2014, 07:58:27 AM
But even they have succumbed to the PC crowd and Evio-wacko's :bdid:
I'll try and find my book, put out by the State of WA back in the early 1900's about the vast "renewable resource" they were in charge of and HOW to make it so for generation after generation! :yike: And give the title, you still might be able to find it somewhere. :dunno:
Loaned it out to a College Prof. and almost didn't get it back :bash: He'd never heard of such a thing! Put out by the state that is talking up the Renewable resource!
Post by: grundy53 on November 14, 2014, 08:24:02 AM
They sell timber here on the west side too. But DNR clearcuts are much smaller in size than Weyerhaeuser and other private timber companies.The DNR cuts in the areas I frequent are actually pretty big. Same size as weyco's if not bigger.
Post by: grundy53 on November 14, 2014, 08:26:39 AM
So is it only on the east side of the state that the DNR decided to rape the state land?Short answer. Yes. The state is severely strapped for cash. I'm happy they decided to actually make some money on their own as opposed to just taxing us more. Improving habitat while their at it.
Post by: grundy53 on November 14, 2014, 08:27:40 AM
:yeah:They certainly do spray their cuts.
And (to the best of my knowledge) they don't spray herbicides in the cuts. Critical to growth of browse that supports strong deer and elk populations.
Post by: bobcat on November 14, 2014, 08:27:48 AM
Post by: Skillet on November 14, 2014, 08:39:11 AM
Post by: Curly on November 14, 2014, 08:41:23 AM
To my knowledge, DNR tries very hard to protect wildlife habitat. I think they do a much better job than most of the private timber companies. :twocents:
Post by: logger on November 14, 2014, 08:48:58 AM
Post by: grundy53 on November 14, 2014, 08:58:04 AM
The state follows the letter of the law and then some when it comes to habitat, They are in the business to create revenue first and foremost, recreation is a afterthought for the most part. I do think the feds could take a lesson from them in forest management then maybe we could get the national forest back in production of both timber and animals.:yeah:
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 14, 2014, 09:00:04 AM
:yeah:
And (to the best of my knowledge) they don't spray herbicides in the cuts. Critical to growth of browse that supports strong deer and elk populations.
Not true, at least not here on the wetside. One of our members was driving by a DNR clearcut as it was being sprayed by a helicopter.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 14, 2014, 09:01:49 AM
The state follows the letter of the law and then some when it comes to habitat, They are in the business to create revenue first and foremost, recreation is a afterthought for the most part. I do think the feds could take a lesson from them in forest management then maybe we could get the national forest back in production of both timber and animals.
Letter of the law is pretty interesting when we're talking about herbicides. Because there's almost no oversight on the regulations and because many of the sprayers are unaware of the prohibited combinations, the letter of the law becomes very blurry.
Post by: logger on November 14, 2014, 09:06:11 AM
Post by: _TONY_ on November 14, 2014, 10:17:41 AM
:yeah:
And (to the best of my knowledge) they don't spray herbicides in the cuts. Critical to growth of browse that supports strong deer and elk populations.
They do spray them...
Post by: dibbs on November 14, 2014, 10:33:31 AM
I've heard it suggested that herbicide applications may be linked to hoof rot in elk, but I have not seen the data to support this. I would agree that DNR harvests have changed in the past 10 years from risk tree/selective logging to maximixing volume/value removal with a single stand entry.
I don't believe that the DNR is harvesting on a sustainable basis, but that is just a gut feeling. I believe the agency is "liquidating" assets, but am sure they will provide data that supports the harvest levels. ALSO, harvest levels in areas with large wildfires and total destruction SHOULD drop due to less volume available- but they dont. :yike:
Post by: Skillet on November 14, 2014, 10:58:00 AM
:yeah:
And (to the best of my knowledge) they don't spray herbicides in the cuts. Critical to growth of browse that supports strong deer and elk populations.
They do spray them...
:tup: Thanks for pointing out I was wrong about this a third time in this thread. A few more times and I might just learn something. :chuckle:
Post by: h20hunter on November 14, 2014, 11:01:21 AM
Post by: chad s. on November 14, 2014, 11:14:22 AM
I imagine there will be more so called "raping" of state land now that that class size initiative has passed. How else can they possibly reduce class sizes unless there are more schools built?
To my knowledge, DNR tries very hard to protect wildlife habitat. I think they do a much better job than most of the private timber companies. :twocents:
Do you know what a portable is?
Post by: Skillet on November 14, 2014, 11:18:15 AM
Your wrong. Do I win a prize?No. The prizes go to the person just before and just after you, per the precedent.
Post by: Tbar on November 14, 2014, 11:29:28 AM
Post by: woodswalker on November 14, 2014, 12:02:34 PM
Dibbs (or anyone with knowledge on this) do you think the high rate of harvest has anything to do with land grabs by different conservation groups(eliminating working forests for various reasons)? I also see land grabs by certain municipalities. It also seems that they lose on checker board consolidation with big timber companies. Do you feel these are contributing to increased harvest (beyond sustainable levels)?
Partly, Lots of the groups buying up lands want to take it out of timber production, dont want homes/businesses built on it and want it locked up except for "Special Folks" who would get the available permits. So after spending 40-70 years growing trees, the timber companies want some return...as the land is being "sold" at bargain basement prices by strongarming and threats of lawsuits by "Conservation Groups" to tie up the harvest....thereby stripping the timber companies of both the timber revenue AND more cash to the attorneys. Lose-lose deal for them...so take the timber and then sell the land. OR they sell it BEFORE investing a TON of money in maintaining the land for 20-40 years and losing it after all that but before its harvestable.
Post by: Curly on November 14, 2014, 12:02:58 PM
I imagine there will be more so called "raping" of state land now that that class size initiative has passed. How else can they possibly reduce class sizes unless there are more schools built?
To my knowledge, DNR tries very hard to protect wildlife habitat. I think they do a much better job than most of the private timber companies. :twocents:
Do you know what a portable is?
Yes I do.
A large percentage of school funding comes from timber sales. I would think that even if portables are used, they will be paying for them with timber sale funds. :twocents:
Post by: Ingwe on November 14, 2014, 12:49:11 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on November 14, 2014, 06:25:11 PM
Post by: Booman2 on November 14, 2014, 07:46:36 PM
WRT the "land grabs" by conservation groups, I have been personally involved with two purchases of private timberland that were in various stages of harvest and which the owners wanted to sell. This could have been to a developer or another buyer. In both cases I have knowledge of, the land was purchased by a group of conservation organizations who wanted to protect it from development and protect habitat for fish and game. In both cases (3 large parcels in various locations) the land agreements insure that the property will be open to outdoor activities by the public, including hunting and fishing. The largest parcel consists of recently clearcut forest land and is (or soon will be) replanted and managed as a working forest that will have timber harvest.
I am almost certain that none of the involved parties were involved with any lawsuits or other adverse legal actions and, in fact, the transfer was a win for both sides.
Post by: fishnfur on November 15, 2014, 08:00:53 PM
So is it only on the east side of the state that the DNR decided to rape the state land?
So this is how the thread starts. No information, no specifics, just a random rant. Stir the pot and see what happens.
How do you end up talking about school class sizes and herbicide spray programs based on this statement? Perhaps he/she was just complaining about feller-buncher tire marks across the clear-cuts.
Woodswalker - that's a lot of big statements without any substantiation. I'd love to see some data or proof to justify your arguments about big biz and environmental groups. I agree conservancy groups are trying to grab up some land, but how can that be a bad thing? Your kids or grandkids will benefit from having that land out of timber production. Big game needs old growth too.
Regardless of what the original intent of the thread was, I think DNR is doing a pretty good job in satisfying the monetary needs of the state while being pretty good stewards of our public land. Not perfect, but pretty good. If it was me, I would spray the herbicide immediately after the cut is done then require the replanting take place by the next spring. I could complain endlessly about the alder plantations which require plantings every six feet, then thinning around year six. The thinning slash is dangerous to big game animals and leaves those 40 -100 acre cut areas almost unusable to wildlife and hunters for another decade, until the slashed alder melts into the ground. Regardless, I think DNR is doing a pretty good job on minimal funding.
Post by: GameHunter1959 on November 15, 2014, 08:13:43 PM
:yeah:
And (to the best of my knowledge) they don't spray herbicides in the cuts. Critical to growth of browse that supports strong deer and elk populations.
They do spray them...
:tup: Thanks for pointing out I was wrong about this a third time in this thread. A few more times and I might just learn something. :chuckle:
LOL....oh trust me; 3 times is nothing. The Hunt Wa experts will chastise you for another few pages, until the next member is wrong. Then it is on to the next one. All in good fun.
Post by: bearpaw on November 15, 2014, 08:54:03 PM
So is it only on the east side of the state that the DNR decided to rape the state land?
So this is how the thread starts. No information, no specifics, just a random rant. Stir the pot and see what happens.
How do you end up talking about school class sizes and herbicide spray programs based on this statement? Perhaps he/she was just complaining about feller-buncher tire marks across the clear-cuts.
Woodswalker - that's a lot of big statements without any substantiation. I'd love to see some data or proof to justify your arguments about big biz and environmental groups. I agree conservancy groups are trying to grab up some land, but how can that be a bad thing? Your kids or grandkids will benefit from having that land out of timber production. Big game needs old growth too.
Regardless of what the original intent of the thread was, I think DNR is doing a pretty good job in satisfying the monetary needs of the state while being pretty good stewards of our public land. Not perfect, but pretty good. If it was me, I would spray the herbicide immediately after the cut is done then require the replanting take place by the next spring. I could complain endlessly about the alder plantations which require plantings every six feet, then thinning around year six. The thinning slash is dangerous to big game animals and leaves those 40 -100 acre cut areas almost unusable to wildlife and hunters for another decade, until the slashed alder melts into the ground. Regardless, I think DNR is doing a pretty good job on minimal funding.
I agree, of all the entities I see logging their lands, I like the DNR forest practices about the best. Logging benefits a lot of wildlife, but I do hope they keep the herbicide spraying to a minimum.
Post by: csaaphill on November 15, 2014, 09:17:38 PM
They planted these pondarosa pines a years ago now you can't walk through without haveing to almost crawl through.
SO ya some selective harvesting would be good.
from what we've found out during the complex and school fire areas that were choked with trees are now pretty open except scrub brush. If they selective harvest then if a fire does break out it doesn't completly clear out the area like it did/does.
Post by: fishnfur on November 15, 2014, 11:09:30 PM