This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes
If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Field Notes at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes.
Discussion Topic: Sportsmen Blast BLM, Stump for Trees
From The Oregonian:
Fishing and hunting groups say a Bush administration plan to expand logging on 2.5 million acres in western Oregon could harm fish and prized big game such as Roosevelt elk, blacktail deer and black bear.
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management plan, open for public comment through Friday, would increase clear-cutting on BLM land, reduce wildlife habitat, allow more all-terrain vehicle use and road construction and decrease stream protection, the angler and hunting groups say. . . .
Bob Gerding, a hunter and angler whose family owns 300 acres of forestland outside Philomath, describes the BLM plans as "large-scale clear-cutting."
"There has to be a happy medium," he said. "You can go in and thin a forest, increase the yield and still preserve habitat."
Check out the full story and tell us your reaction.
This is a perfect example of how republicans really support hunters.
Posted by: Jason | January 09, 2008 at 02:30 PM
If anyone is waiting for the NRA to defend hunters on this matter and take a stand against the Bush regime, all I can say is don't hold your breath. There is a reason westerners sarcastically call the BLM the Bureau of Livestock and Mines.
Posted by: Matt Mallery | January 09, 2008 at 02:58 PM
Gotta agree. Although I am an NRA member, I have to say that most of their political op-ed amounts to nothing more than "Drink the Kool Aid and Vote Republican" agitprop.
Posted by: Mike Diehl | January 09, 2008 at 03:27 PM
Why didn't this article include any comment from the BLM. Did the writer just assume that this agency was acting to reduce the amount of fish and game on these lands so therefore, the reasons for cutting this timber didn't deserve mention? I'm just saying that there could be valid reasons for these changes, and the timber harvesting and a responsible journalist would have eceived some input from their side, or said that they refused to comment.
YooperJack
Posted by: YooperJack | January 09, 2008 at 03:31 PM
Has anyone asked somebody in the administration about what's to happen and not just take what "Bob Gerding" has to say as gospel?...
Maybe these trees have a high probability of spreading disease or something if they're all one species. If they're clear-cutting there's probably more of a reason than just profit... Go ahead and ask someone who knows what is actually going on.
10-4 yooper.
Posted by: PB | January 09, 2008 at 06:20 PM
The agency stated (according to the author) that no endangered species (of fish or animals) would be affected. What about the indigenous non-endangered species? I've known since elementary school, and that was a long time ago, that when timber is clear cut on watersheds, erosion is increased and stream dynamics may be drastically changed. Reminds me of that old adage "We're the government, we're here to help!" I do agree with yooper in that both sides of the argument need to be heard.
Posted by: John R | January 09, 2008 at 08:00 PM
I firmly believe that we can log and increase our wilderness through conservation at the same time. Of course current logging practices would need to be changed and clear cut logging won't cut it-no pun intended. Why don't we just log areas that are in a greater risk of forest fire? Normally we'd have to use controlled burning techniques anyway. Also I really like the idea for every tree that is felled another sapling is planted.
Posted by: William | January 11, 2008 at 01:58 AM
Mike D.
I really hope I'm wrong, but when you help elect HRC, and First Weasel WJC has more time to deal with his "magazine capacity" and "assault weapon" ideals, I hope you realize what you've "helped" do and are able to come back on the blog and apologize for the "error of your ways!"
Bubba
Posted by: Bubba | January 11, 2008 at 06:45 AM
Wiiliam
That's a sane policy except that in certain areas, trees have to be clearcut. Those tree species evolved as "catastophic stands". These are stands of trees that can only start out after some large scale event like a fire, tornado or large windstorm. Up here, our Aspen and Jack pine stands originate in this manner. Also, these species need full sunlight so selective cutting won't cut it.
YooperJack
Posted by: YooperJack | January 11, 2008 at 09:51 AM
Bubba, If I thought anyone in the GOP was more dedicated to protecting our civil liberties I'd vote for 'em. This time around it's another "Hold your nose and pull the lever" election.
There's 49 GOP senators in the US Senate. Neither HRC or any other Democrat can pass anything that steps on out 2nd Amendment rights without the willing cooperation of 16 of those GOP Senators. I'm betting that HRC has other fish to fry.
Posted by: Mike Diehl | January 11, 2008 at 11:06 AM
I hope you're right Mike.
Personally, I'm not willing to take that chance!
Bubba
Posted by: Bubba | January 12, 2008 at 06:18 AM
YooperJack, you're right. There are alot of trees that actually do require that controlled burn to reproduce. Perhaps clear cutting is not so bad if it could be limited to certain cases such as the path that logging roads are built on. Of course when most people hear the word clear cut they get a knee jerk reaction.
Posted by: William | January 14, 2008 at 01:58 AM