Dispelling Myths About Old-Growth
Excellent testimony was given by Paul H. Beck, Timber Manager, Herbert Lumber Company, Riddle Oregon, to the U.S. Senate on March 13th. His talk was designed to dispel eight myths about old-growth, forestry, and sawmilling here in Oregon. I think he succeeded.
Paul’s full testimony is [here].
Selected excerpts are [here].
Kudos the Paul Beck. He hit every nail square on the head. Whether the Senators understood a word he said is another matter, but I did and I liked every sentence. He quoted Charles Kay on anthropogenic fire, who in turn cited M. Kat Anderson and Stephen Pyne. He explained how modern fires are different and threaten the existence of our forests. He gave the correct prescription for saving our forests through scientific thinning, fuels management, prepared fire, and advanced forest restoration treatments. He clearly described the manner in which a variety of sawmills and wood products manufacturers must play a vital role.
Paul Beck gets it. Please read his testimony. It is filled with the truth.
Comments are welcome here.
by bear bait
by Mary M.
Management of both wildlife and landscapes have been referred to as “art” science, as opposed to the more mathematical sciences which define things such as the exact temperature at which water freezes and what time the sun will rise. Observation
shows that the variables in nature contain almost infinite overlappings and changes in the cyclings of weather, species, soil conditions, etc. and require an alert and flexible perception for our comprehension, which must by the very nature of change remain partial.
As evident in numerous documentations presented here in SOS Forests, the anthropogenic nature of most of our North American forests is profound to the point of a genetic necessity for survival. The unfortunate currently applied agendized ‘look but don’t touch or comprehend’ strategy of agencies and their NGO handlers must by it’s invalid, unseeing nature fail, leaving as evidence the current actual accelerating devastation.
A woman my husband went to school with, Sarah Duemling, manages a forest out of Rickreall, Oregon, which is privately owned by a German company-her husband, who has passed on, was German-in a very open and innovative manner. She gave us a tour of her ‘artwork’ landscape about 6 years ago. It is a forest diverse in age and species. Some areas favoring hardwoods are encouraged and she works to develop local markets for that and the other products. She manages in innovative and unique ways for health, beauty, and sustainable production, like a master gardener.
I refer to this in the present tense as I hope she is still at it, or that her legacy of stewardship continues.
by Dave Skinner
Forestry is an art, dude. A VISUAL art. So, just as I leave “art” to the connoisseurs, those who understand the concept, gee, maybe we should leave forestry to the artistes…
And then we would know Art, and how it is different from eco-porn.
Nice testimony. About fdang time.
What Beck is suggesting is more art than science. Nobody can define art to a point where it can be put into regulation and rule, and that is always the downfall of public art. Some of the public will not like it. Others will rave.
It would be a grand pubic experiment if some civilians who care could be allowed to design a forest management unit. Call them artists, and let them do their thing. Have a defined acreage area, and a maximum and minimum mbf volume to be removed. Let the Sierra Club or Oregon Wild have one to design, and one for Audubon and one for the Riddle Rose and Garden Society. Of course, one for Roseburg Lumber and one for Paul Beck and Herbert Lumber, one for DR Johnson.
And when they are done, have the art juried by a diverse group of critics from different regimes in science, social science, and landscape architecture. I would imagine there will be elements of each prescription that are more favorable to a wide public than others. But you know what you would have gotten? Diversity. In plants, animal habitat, visual, ages, and like a haircut, in time who would ever know what had happened?
I have to wonder if that is really how it all came about oh so long ago. Juried criticism. Stone Age critics. The whiny ones who can’t take change to the avante-garde who wanted to make it busier or more extensive.
Like the old hook tender told me once “Bud!! Do something, even if its wrong! You can’t go forward stuck in neutral!! And all I want to see is assholes and elbows while you’re doin’ it!” I think we had stranded the haulback and the landing crew was putting in a long splice, and we were at the ass end of the road. We went about digging choker holes and moving a block and strap and helping the hook lay out what ever haywire he had back there. We weren’t getting any logs but were damned well gonna be ready when the line was whole again.
Do something… I think that is what Beck is talking about. We are doing nothing. Doing nothing burns the whole of the forest in time. Nothing gets saved. Nothing gets conserved. You get nothing from doing nothing. Even 8th grade educated hook tenders know that.