Letter to DNR regarding Reiter and Walker

[japerry]

I'll add, thinning is done on certain units. Many times you'll see DNR call for a timber sale to selective cut various trees (usually alders and other weed-like trees), so the big ones can grow quick to be cut after 50-80 years.

Unfortunately, as other said, the harvesters don't need trail. they just plow over everything and get what they need. Its fairly low impact, as you can see from previous clear cuts its fairly hard to see where the harvester went.

But like Jacob said, it'd be nice to see a cooridor for recreational trails. If we're paying for the trees in the cooridor, perhaps this is a possibility?

 

[luggs]

DONT CRY ABOUT CLEARCUT LOGGING WHEN YOU WHEEL ON OLD LOGGING RIGHT OF WAY MOST THE TIME YOU ARE WHEELING.LOGGERS WHEEL TO AND I LOVE HUNTING IN THE CLEAR CUTS.IT WOULD BE COOL TO HAVE SOME TRAILS THROUGH HUGE OLD GROWTH....UN TUCHED ...JUST WHEELED.AND NO HIKERS JUST HUNTERS AND WHEELERS.:haha::kissmyass:

 

[Ty.]

DONT CRY ABOUT CLEARCUT LOGGING WHEN YOU WHEEL ON OLD LOGGING RIGHT OF WAY MOST THE TIME YOU ARE WHEELING.LOGGERS WHEEL TO AND I LOVE HUNTING IN THE CLEAR CUTS.IT WOULD BE COOL TO HAVE SOME TRAILS THROUGH HUGE OLD GROWTH....UN TUCHED ...JUST WHEELED.AND NO HIKERS JUST HUNTERS AND WHEELERS.:haha::kissmyass:

C'mon now Emit, whatcha got against hikers? You know their trails are the funnest to wheel.:redneck:

 

[SnoFalls]

wait till you see a road used to "thin" by a log skidder. Just think 60,000 lb wheeler with spools and 60 inch tires.

still thinkin low impact?:corn:

It might not have been a 60k skidder, but beefy (at least 20+k). It was winching/dragging 2-3'd x ~30' WRC chunks at will.
Afterwards, I just used a 30hp tractor to smooth it back.

I understand that *my* experience isn't exactly the same as a full-on "harvest" at elbe/walker/reiter.

FWIW, at my place, I *do* have ~45* slopes ...

I was trying to suggest ...
"Skid down a trail" versus "building a road for a truck"

 

[SnoFalls]

I'm sorry, but do yall think that it would be fine for walker/reiter/elbe to be completely stripped of every tree?

The DNR might be able to do exactly that ...

:stirpot:

 

[Binder]

I'm sorry, but do yall think that it would be fine for walker/reiter/elbe to be completely stripped of every tree?

The DNR might be able to do exactly that ...

:stirpot:

The DNR will sell the trees for harvest where they see it appropriate. We will never have input on that.

 

[luggs]

c'mon now emit, whatcha got against hikers? You know their trails are the funnest to wheel.:redneck:

yeah they r ty ...man i love runnin skider...i wish my runner had more (getter) parts .i havent ran a skider the size of what brad chop shop is talking bout....shovel,buncher.you cant really clean up thier impact like we could with a bucket.all i think about ..other then work when im on iron is wheeling.it sucks them guys are just yarding through the trails and not trying to leave them passable.

 

[boardbysled]

It might not have been a 60k skidder, but beefy (at least 20+k). It was winching/dragging 2-3'd x ~30' WRC chunks at will.
Afterwards, I just used a 30hp tractor to smooth it back.

I understand that *my* experience isn't exactly the same as a full-on "harvest" at elbe/walker/reiter.

FWIW, at my place, I *do* have ~45* slopes ...

I was trying to suggest ...
"Skid down a trail" versus "building a road for a truck"

The problem with this is every situation is different. The land manager (also known as a Forester) has to decide whats the most efficiant and enviromentally friendly way to harvest timber from a certain area.

You are not going to be able to use a shovel logging/skidder operation of a lot of the steep terrain that our ORV parks occupy. You have to use high lead style logging. This means that you have to have a stable road and landing for the yarder.

My example of this is the Lower Mainline at Walker. They are punching a road in to allow access for the yarder for the steeper terrain below the trail area. They will shovel log most of the trail area, but a lot of the trail will be lost to road. This is a tough spot for the land manager, but what they decided to do is follow an old grade as to minimize the ammount of soil moved.

To DNR Lands, logging is prioritized over ORV's, while DNR Recreation is primarly focused on ORV's. I like Jakobs idea of if the trees along the trail corridor are payed for, then we should be able to keep them. This is what we should fight for, not different logging techniques or managment techniques, but actually not affecting our trails, by leaving a buffer zone.

Of course there are problems with this. Certain areas would be very tough to log without going into the trail corridor (such as the steeper area below the Lower Mainline trail) Also, we would see a lot more blowdowns/danger trees because the left over trees do not have a rootbase built up to stand up to high winds.

But in my mind, these tradeoff would be worth it to allow us to keep our trails how they were.


Also, DNR cannot and will not cut every tree on thier property. Timber is like thier savings accounts, if they empty it (log it), there will be nothing for the near future. Also, the DNR has to allow stream/creek buffers of ~250 feet so there will always be some trees on DNR land:fawkdancesmiley:

 

[Duck Dodgers]

This is one of the people that did the Reiter hike to show damage...

Here's an article about it... This guy doesn't like us and will continue to fight ORV use anywhere...

Article starts on the bottom of page 3 and continues on page 9...

http://pilchuckaudubon.org/userfiles/file/Profile_april_10.pdf

Funny how the "restoration" work parties are mentioned but he never says who it is that is at those parties. Along with the Forest Watch program...

 

[Rollover]

Bill Lidar supported by Audubon.

Also, I'll be reaching out ot Mike Blackburg of the Audubon society per Mark's request. Hes indicated to me that Bill is just one member, and doesn't necissarly represent the will of the group. If the Audubon society was on our side, it'd be a great help!

Transparency is great, ain't it! :awesomework:

Well, Bill was just awarded volunteer of the year for 2009 as the Society's "quintessential Champion for the Environment" in their May newsletter.

http://pilchuckaudubon.org/userfiles/file/Profile_may_10%20(2).pdf

See page 7, and, while you're reading the newletter see page 8 under "Leavenworth" for whacks at Reiter and Walker Valley.

If you think he's not supported by Audubon you've got another thing coming.

 

[boardbysled]

Welcome! Please introduce yourself in the new member area.:corn:

 

[Money Mark]

If you think he's not supported by Audubon you've got another thing coming.

Let's all save our value time then.....just tell us what you know.:;

 

[boardbysled]

]
If you think he's not supported by Audubon you've got another thing coming.

I've got nothing to add other than.....



















[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RRoCkncvYo[/YT]

:redneck::011:

 

[SnoFalls]

To DNR Lands, logging is prioritized over ORV's, while DNR Recreation is primarly focused on ORV's. I like Jakobs idea of if the trees along the trail corridor are payed for, then we should be able to keep them. This is what we should fight for, not different logging techniques or managment techniques, but actually not affecting our trails, by leaving a buffer zone.

I really appreciate your effort here BTW boardbysled ... I also know you're not alone.
Please if you don't mind, show where in "law" this focus on logging is prioritized above recreation.
I'm trying to understand if this is a "person" (elected or not) making this a priority, or if it's something that "person" is deciding to do (elected or not).

Of course there are problems with this. Certain areas would be very tough to log without going into the trail corridor (such as the steeper area below the Lower Mainline trail) Also, we would see a lot more blowdowns/danger trees because the left over trees do not have a rootbase built up to stand up to high winds.

So, in your opinion their "plan" is likely to be a problem?

But in my mind, these tradeoff would be worth it to allow us to keep our trails how they were.

but they won't will they ...
The harvest will damage/eliminate/reduce the trails that already exist?

Also, DNR cannot and will not cut every tree on thier property. Timber is like thier savings accounts, if they empty it (log it), there will be nothing for the near future. Also, the DNR has to allow stream/creek buffers of ~250 feet so there will always be some trees on DNR land:fawkdancesmiley:

Bet me ... if they can, and hit a shortfall, like CA ... they'll harvest.

 

[boardbysled]

I really appreciate your effort here BTW boardbysled ... I also know you're not alone.
Please if you don't mind, show where in "law" this focus on logging is prioritized above recreation.
I'm trying to understand if this is a "person" (elected or not) making this a priority, or if it's something that "person" is deciding to do (elected or not).

I personally don't know where to find it written but, DNR Lands (a seperate part of DNR) manages, you guessed it, DNR Lands. DNR Recreation, as I understand it, leases trail mileage from DNR Lands. DNR lands primary focus in thier timber lands is the harvesting of timber.

So, in your opinion their "plan" is likely to be a problem?

The problem right now as far as I know is that they do not have a plan in place to maintain the trails during logging, that Lands log the timber then Recreation has to worry about rebuilding the trail.

but they won't will they ...
The harvest will damage/eliminate/reduce the trails that already exist?

The won't eliminate the trail mileage, the trail will only be temporarly down while they log it. Recreation will then have to rebuild the trail. But yes, the harvest will degrade the trail in my opinion, making it less difficult, probably ending up like the Easy Valley Connector.

Bet me ... if they can, and hit a shortfall, like CA ... they'll harvest.

In my opinion, they won't, but what do I know, I'm just a dumb student:redneck:


I haven't done much, just so ya know, the last two weekends have been the first work partys I have ever been to. The real people to thank are The Rainier Ridge Rams, Timber Tamers, and other various people.

Most of the information I have has been learned to me by riding along with Jakob during these two work partys and listening to Jim, the Walker Valley land Chair.

 

[japerry]

You guys are pretty close on target.. just some clarification -- DNRs rules are written into the WAC and RCW. Every official policy they hold are codified here, with RCWs passing through the legislature and WACs going through the department's review board before they become law.
With that said, until 2007, DNR had recreation as an after thought; they're primary goal is fundraising for the various state trust lands. Currently, the best way for them to fundraise is by having timber sales. As long as recreation does not interfere with the primary goal, then it is encouraged on DNR land.
In 2007, the legislature recognized that DNR needed to adapt their focus towards encouraging recreation on thier lands. Because of this, DNR got money from the legislature for Reiter, Yacolt and Atnanum. Unfortunately the legislature stripped away their other budget with NOVA going away. 2007 was much different financially than 2010.

I've been trying to advocate for us purchasing/leasing land that would fulfill their primary goal, which would encourage DNR ot build trail and make money off its users. The more money we bring in with site-based user fees, the more money the trust gets. For example, if Walker Valley was a site-based fee system, I think we could raise enough money over 60 years to expand the trail system to 70-90 miles and give profits to DNR to make up for lost money from trail cooridors. (but they could still perform timber sales)

 

[japerry]

Well, Bill was just awarded volunteer of the year for 2009 as the Society's "quintessential Champion for the Environment" in their May newsletter.

http://pilchuckaudubon.org/userfiles/file/Profile_may_10%20(2).pdf

See page 7, and, while you're reading the newletter see page 8 under "Leavenworth" for whacks at Reiter and Walker Valley.

If you think he's not supported by Audubon you've got another thing coming.

Good points, after reading this article, it does sound like Blackbird is a part of Bill's strategy. Nevertheless, I'm working on drafting editorial letters to be sent out to a bunch of environmental papers... we'll see if anyone accepts them, but its worth a shot.

I hope being at Fairhaven this weekend, and getting some face-to-face time with folks will help as well.

 

[zukkev]

Well, Bill was just awarded volunteer of the year for 2009 as the Society's "quintessential Champion for the Environment" in their May newsletter.

See page 7, and, while you're reading the newletter see page 8 under "Leavenworth" for whacks at Reiter and Walker Valley.

If you think he's not supported by Audubon you've got another thing coming.

Welcome! Please introduce yourself in the new member area.:corn:

X2 Rollover!!!:corn::corn::corn:

 

[Money Mark]

X2 Rollover!!!:corn::corn::corn:

I sent him a Friend request.:redneck: No response.....

 

[Binder]

Well Mr. douschwaffle wasn't at the focus group meeting tonight. This was a non-motorized meeting which might imply he's not interested in what gets built but he's just there to bust the balls of the motorized use sector.:looser: