Blanchard Mountain Needs Our Help!

[+Half-Canadian]

While cruising the northern Skagit area recently in search of cache locations, I noticed a number of signs protesting a proposed logging of Blanchard Mountain. This is the beautifully scenic area east of Chuckanut Drive as you leave the valley and head north up into the foothills of the Chuckanut range.

 

 

There is a website set up with information about the area, the proposed logging, and the current user groups that enjoy this special place -- Friends of Blanchard Mountain. There is also a link listing the various public officials that can halt this proposed logging if there is enough public input -- Public Officials.

 

One of the existing caches that is directly in the path of this development is Oyster Dome.

 

Please email or write to the individuals listed in the link above, and let others know as well. Our voices can help to shut down this irresponsible logging plan!

[+Wienerdog]

Oh no! It just goes on and on doesn't it?

 

Thanks H.C. for pointing this out. When I was an avid backpacker-hiker many years ago we saw this kind of thing coming. It was happening all over the place Not just this area but many. There were very few of us (mountaineers) to fight the cause. Now that geocaching has come about and brought so many people into these wonderful places my hope is that a stronger voice will be heard.

 

We will look into these groups and see what we can contribute.

 

Ms. Wd

[+evergreenhiker!]

Logging?!!!! I've hiked all over that area long before caching. Beautiful area. I guess I'd better Inmywoods up there to do some hiking soon. We will keep an eye out for petitions to sign or whatever. Lost lake is one of my favorite spots and the Oyster Dome is something else!

[+Logscaler and Red]

And just what is wrong with the logging of that chunk of ground?

 

It will regrow. Or would you rather se it just burn and suck money out of your pocket?

 

Or would you rather use steel to build houses with, which when your done, all you have to show for it is a hole in the ground. Regrow iron ore.

 

Yes, I do have a dog in the fight, so to speak.

 

The timber industry pays my way.

 

The timber industry also pays a lot of "hidden" money towards wages, taxes, school bills - I always get a kick out of College students protesting higher tuition’s yet protesting logging the State and National Forest that pay part of the cost of their education - road upkeep, etc that you never hear about. Seek the information and you will be surprised what you will find out.

 

Also, why do you think the roads into these areas are here for in the first place? Let's close and remove ALL the roads built for logging and see what happens to your drive to work.

 

Understand that the United States will need "X" amount of wood fiber per year and it WILL come from somewhere.

 

So let me ask a few questions that relate to this issue.

 

Would you rather do selective logging under strict controls here in the States or have the Third World countries rape their lands with no controls? Which is the greater evil?

 

Which would you rather do to get 15,000 board feet of lumber?

Take out a couple stagnant "old growth" trees that will more then pay for their removal;

that will release nutrients and sunlight for the younger trees;

that open up ground for shrubs and forbs for wildlife to feed on;

that will pay for the replanting of the ground;

that will help towards future reforestation projects;

that will help pay for stream enhancements;

that will help pay for road work;

that will drop a few dollars into the public coffers to help pay for schools;

that will have little impact on the ground;

that will only require three truck trips on the road - giving an average of 5,000 bdft per truck load, etc.

 

OR?

Log 1500 trees with an average of 100 bdft per tree;

that will maybe break even for their removal, putting zero dollars towards anything else?;

that will require hundreds of trips over the ground to harvest them;

that will require impact over hundreds of acres to harvest them;

that will require thousands of gallons of fuel to harvest and transport them;

that will require thousands of more man hours to process them;

that will have more waste to deal with;

etc, etc,etc.

 

Your pockets will have to pay taxes to pay for everything else. Or do without.

 

OR?

 

Ship in 15,000 bdft from Central America, South America, Russia where there is no control over the logging,

road building, reforestation, safety of the workers, etc.

 

Also, I need to ask a few question's like:

 

1) What makes an "Old Growth" Tree?

Species?

Diameter?

Height?

Age?

Location?

Commercial Value

 

2) How much physical ground does it take to make an "Old Growth" Forest?

 

3) How many "Old Growth" Trees does it take to make an "Old Growth" forest.

 

4) Why do people have a problem taking out a second growth Douglas Fir Tree that is 100 years old and 21 + inches in diameter to build homes with yet these same people have no problem removing a Western Juniper Tree that is 1,000 plus years old and 15 inches in diameter to open up a chunk of ground to build a home made of raped over third world country lumber on?

 

5) Why are Western Juniper not on any "Old Growth" list? Or any Juniper Species?

 

Oh, to those "Higher Education" types who protest logging yet bitch about the cost of their education, you can't learn everything out of a book nor by listening to people who have an agenda and will only tell you one side of the story.

 

A couple final points:

In Oregon, schools used to get a lot - (most?) - of their money from timber and very little from property taxes. Now, as I understand it, better then 50 percent of the tax's collected in Oregon will go towards school funding. And that will not be enough.

 

Now that I have said all that, I know I will have made a few (more) enemies - whats new? - but I hope I have also asked a few questions to make you raise an eyebrow and go "huh?"

 

Logscaler.

[+chubby forest monkey]

Hi Logscaler,

 

Thanks for raising some eyebrows. I’d like to respond to some of your questions and comments.

 

I’ve only lived in Oregon for 10 years, I grew up in an area back east that has had rapid sprawl occur in small communities. There is very little public land and high income and property taxes to fund schools, roads and infrastructure etc...

 

OK, now I'm an Oregonian. I am an avid forest recreationist, so like many outdoor enthusiasts, I have come to think of our public land as a special resource because of its beauty and critter habitat. It is difficult for someone like me to think of public land as something that should be generating money. I understand that because we in Oregon are not willing to pay higher taxes, state lands are being increasingly relied upon to generate that income. I also understand that the state benefits from federal land harvested within its boundaries, and that the timber industry that processes the trees generates jobs in rural areas. Me, I would vote to pay higher taxes rather than increase resource extraction of public land.

 

I am surrounded by Weyerhauser land and so spend much of my free time exploring behind the local gates. Every new clearcut that shows up in a patch of forest that I used to explore is emotionally painful to me. But it’s private land- a tree farm and they let me walk in it, so I get over my issues and be thankful they allow walk in access. When I look around, I also notice how fast the trees grow out here and see new forests begin again. I try to conserve paper and wood products and live a low impact life. Logging is part of my life. This is also why an "old growth forest" seems special and rare to me.

 

My idea of “Old Growth” is a complete habitat with mature trees reaching the end of their life and falling to the ground to replenish the soil and provide continued habitat. I disagree that removing these trees will have no impact on the ground. They are not only important for habitat of the living creatures and soil replenishment for future generations, but their removal does cause local damage, often destroying fish waterways. In my neck of the woods, there is only clearcutting- not selective logging- especially when the trees are big. I have seen thinning, but I believe it is just taking out a fraction of same age trees, so the remaining stand gets more light.

 

I think that it is important that people who care question the government and industry in some of their practices. If multi-national timber companies were not continually questioned or monitored we’d run out of forest and some fish and critters. That has happened in many other parts of the world.

 

I don’t understand what you mean by a 1500 year old juniper not considered old growth?! Are you saying these are not protected on public land?

[+Logscaler and Red]

CFM, good to hear from you. Still coming to the Star Party?

 

Lots of answers I can give you but I would rather talk over a campfire or sitting on a bluff looking over the High Desert. I have a magazine I will save you a copy of to read.

 

As for the Juniper question. No protection. Nada. Zip. Zero. The new Pronghorn development in Bend? Ripped out a Square Mile of jumipers. Some where in the 1000 year old range if they where typical of the trees in the general area. But we needed another Golf Course any way, didn't we? What, that makes somethimng like 50 golf course in Central Oregon?

 

Did you know that when doing logging or thinning or stream enhancement on public land, you can cut ANY diameter juniper anywhere it is found yet you can not cut any COMMERCIAL VALUE tree over 21 inches dbh? The COMMERCIAL VALUE tree could be a White Fir that is only 80 years old - or less yet is over 21 inches dbh where the Juniper - NON COMMERCIAL VALUE tree - could be 25 inches and several hundreds of years old. Get the idea yet? Those enviro factions only consider COMMERCIAL VALUE trees. Wonder why? Acres. It is easy to isolate a few pockets of Old Growth Doug Fir and say "Save this Tree!" Juniper? There are tens of thousands of acres of old Junipers but they stick to the things that fit their agenda, not the true facts.

 

As for the fish thing.

 

If you listen to both sides, you will see where neither side has any idea wht their talking about.

 

I asked those same few question in e-mails to the enviro factions and have had ALL me e-mail address blocked by the enviros. Earth First!? Blocked. Serria Club? Blocked. 1000 friend of Oregon? Blocked.

 

Another question you need to think about. What makes people think that the fish runs are dieing off and going to go extinct? They are basing their theory on what? A hundred years of fish runs? Or Less?

What say we ask this question. Can they prove that those fish runs they claim are dying where/are not an artifically high population and the fish runs are now getting back to normal?

 

Just look to the MASSIVE DIE OFF of the Elk on St. Helens this last winter. Why? Toooo many critters for the feed base. Have you ever seen any deer or Elk on those lands behind closed gates? Could it be there is plenty of food? Old Growth Forest support very little wildlife compaired to the life that open forest can.

 

Anyway, lets chat in June. We can even get PMOGUY and MadJack and Bulldog involved.

 

Logscaler.

[+shunra]

I'd actually hoped you'd keep discussing this here...