Logging Tongass National Forest

gbflyer

WKR
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
1,591
I live on the edge of it. Hunt and fish there a lot, on the North end anyway. It’s huge. The old growth along the shorelines is the reason we don’t suffer from the huge die - offs of Sitka blacktail like they do at Kodiak when there’s a tough winter. Yes you will kill some deer in the clear cuts if you can beat your way in somehow but they are not good habitat.

There are vast clear cuts already. They are on Native corporation owned lands. The ones conducted on Federal land were limited to 160 acre blocks. Feds left buffers around watersheds. The Native timber was legal to export overseas while the federal was not. Logs from Native lands were loaded on a ship and sent to Japan, some were milled while underway. Some say the Native corporations sold out cheap, and now many have nothing but stumps to show for it. There are a lot of FS roads that lead to Native owned lands. One can draw their own conclusions on that subject. Many of the roads in the area I am familiar with (which is not near civilization such as the POW road system) have been what the FS classified as “stored”. That means that culverts and bridges have been pulled, water bars cut, and the alder has taken them over. Very few are maintained, and the ones that are have no access other than landing craft or barge. It will cost more to open the roads than build new ones, which averages around $500K per mile to build FS spec road. In the vast majority of it, one is not gonna jump in the truck and go drive around is the point.

I am all for selective logging. I don’t believe with the cost of transportation and development that we are going to see a new logging boom in Alaska. It is not competitive with Canadian timber. I also don’t want to see the old growth raped. Although much of it is over mature, as someone said above, there’s a lot more to it than the trees. Probably best not to mess with it.
 

Marbles

WKR
Classified Approved
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
3,711
Location
AK
I live on the edge of it. Hunt and fish there a lot, on the North end anyway. It’s huge. The old growth along the shorelines is the reason we don’t suffer from the huge die - offs of Sitka blacktail like they do at Kodiak when there’s a tough winter. Yes you will kill some deer in the clear cuts if you can beat your way in somehow but they are not good habitat.

There are vast clear cuts already. They are on Native corporation owned lands. The ones conducted on Federal land were limited to 160 acre blocks. Feds left buffers around watersheds. The Native timber was legal to export overseas while the federal was not. Logs from Native lands were loaded on a ship and sent to Japan, some were milled while underway. Some say the Native corporations sold out cheap, and now many have nothing but stumps to show for it. There are a lot of FS roads that lead to Native owned lands. One can draw their own conclusions on that subject. Many of the roads in the area I am familiar with (which is not near civilization such as the POW road system) have been what the FS classified as “stored”. That means that culverts and bridges have been pulled, water bars cut, and the alder has taken them over. Very few are maintained, and the ones that are have no access other than landing craft or barge. It will cost more to open the roads than build new ones, which averages around $500K per mile to build FS spec road. In the vast majority of it, one is not gonna jump in the truck and go drive around is the point.

I am all for selective logging. I don’t believe with the cost of transportation and development that we are going to see a new logging boom in Alaska. It is not competitive with Canadian timber. I also don’t want to see the old growth raped. Although much of it is over mature, as someone said above, there’s a lot more to it than the trees. Probably best not to mess with it.

Good points.

Due to the rule that timber harvest on public land must be profitable for the operators the public will give the logging companies more dollars per board foot than the company earns from selling it. So, there may be a logging boom as we the people have promised there will be a profit regardless of operating cost.
 

slvrslngr

WKR
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
900
Turning the Tongass into toilet paper is stupid and short sighted and it's already been proven to be unprofitable. Only a few people might benefit from logging there as those trees will be sent whole to Japan or China as the Alaskan pulp mills are closed. The Tongass and it's old growth are a national treasure and should be protected. We can and do grow pulp trees elsewhere for far less. Those that think old growth forests are dead are grossly misinformed, those big trees are the life blood of the temperate rainforest, providing food and shelter for the brown bears to the slugs that call it home. The deer don't need clear cuts for food, they do just fine with the alpine/old growth/beach ecosystem they've adapted to. I'm not against logging per se, but it's not necessary for us to cut down every tree just because they're there.
 
Joined
Jan 6, 2014
Messages
919
Location
AK
I am thankful and blessed for the time I've spent in the Tongass. There are many good points being made in this thread, and people with much more intimate knowledge of the Tongass than I have offered great perspectives. The Tongass is one of the last intact temperate rain forests in the world, have we not learned anything from our mistakes of the past? Logging it is not good for this unique environment and the resource development motivations are marginal at best. Leave the Tongass alone.

L91vud1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Messages
71
In the National Forests of southern Appalachia, anti tree cutting groups have almost entirely ended logging with a few minor exceptions. Does anyone know if similar resistance in the Tongass would stop the old growth cutting there?
To be clear, I am very much pro logging in our National Forests back east but an old growth temperate rain forest is a very different matter.
 

gbflyer

WKR
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
1,591
Good post. I think a lot of Alaskans have forgotten what was going on before the roadless rule. Old growth was either being turned into pulp in Ketchikan, or exported across the Pacific in the form of saw logs. Either way there was little gain to the local economy.

I’m not sure that’s 100% accurate but I agree in principle. As stated earlier, any log export had to come off of private property. And they exported a lot. There were some big shareholder payouts in those days. But, they didn’t save any of it.

Silver Bay Logging was one of the top 5 largest employers in the state at one time. Also, more people had jobs in Sitka when the mill was running than they do now by a long shot. Times were good. The place has become the haves and the have nots due to not much work and property values skyrocketing because a bunch of rich folks like their islands and the nice public boat harbors to keep their yachts.

Don’t get me wrong though, I’m not for mopping up the rest of the old growth. I agree there’s no sense in it.
 

mwebs

WKR
Joined
Sep 2, 2018
Messages
387
Location
ID
Seems silly that a group of hunters can’t get behind saving an intact, old growth ecosystem and would rather destroy it. Do we seriously think humans know what creates better habitat and that destroying an ecosystem that these animals have lived in for centuries is better than letting it remain natural? Tons of places to log, that have already been, just leave it alone and hunt it the way it is.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2016
Messages
2,674
Location
West Virginia
Always funny to listen to guys compare Indiana, Montana, etc. to the Tongass and the old growth found there.

Clearcuts in some places and in some forest types are a good thing for wildlife, forest succession, etc.

But, as has been duly noted, comparing hardwood forests in Indiana, or a clear-cut in Idaho, Wyoming, and other Interior West States to the Tongass is ridiculous.

Also, old growth in SE Alaska, or anywhere else for that matter, is not a "dead ecosystem" ...not even close.
What’s even more funny is people who change the narrative of a topic.

I’ll stand by my statement that diversity is much higher in young succession of any forest type, versus old growth. It’s Forest ecology 101.

Science says that. It’s indisputable.
 

Marbles

WKR
Classified Approved
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
3,711
Location
AK
What’s even more funny is people who change the narrative of a topic.

I’ll stand by my statement that diversity is much higher in young succession of any forest type, versus old growth. It’s Forest ecology 101.

Science says that. It’s indisputable.

Show me the science. As you say "science... It's indisputable."

100% logging greatly reduces biodiversity, 50% logging reduces biodiversity as well, but less so.

40 years after selective logging species diversity remains less than in unlogged areas.

Logged sites did not recover native species diversity 150 years latter.

Best I can find to support your position is that selective logging at 1% intensity can increase biodiversity (that is taking 1 mature tree out of every 100)

Notice, I did not cite potentially biased sources such as Sierra Forest Legacy, so I expect you not to cite sources from the timber industry.

Now, this article discusses flaws in the research into logging and biodiversity. However, it does not dispute a reduction in biodiversity, it only disputes the severity of that reduction. There is a lot packed in, so worth reading.

So far it looks like you should request a refund on that ecology 101 class. However, as I have yet to see your sources, I will reserve judgement as I lack expertise in ecology.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Messages
26
Location
North Pole, AK
Hopefully it's done with up to date science and in a sustainable manner. Was there last year and deer hunting was shit. Wolves are taking over. Hopefully clear cuts and more foot traffic will curtail this
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2015
Messages
98
What’s even more funny is people who change the narrative of a topic.

I’ll stand by my statement that diversity is much higher in young succession of any forest type, versus old growth. It’s Forest ecology 101.

Science says that. It’s indisputable.
Bullshit.
I am hardly anti-logging and have spent most of my career on the private side of the timber industry. But your statement is flat out incorrect.
 

Clarktar

WKR
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
4,174
Location
AK
Show me the science. As you say "science... It's indisputable."

100% logging greatly reduces biodiversity, 50% logging reduces biodiversity as well, but less so.

40 years after selective logging species diversity remains less than in unlogged areas.

Logged sites did not recover native species diversity 150 years latter.

Best I can find to support your position is that selective logging at 1% intensity can increase biodiversity (that is taking 1 mature tree out of every 100)

Notice, I did not cite potentially biased sources such as Sierra Forest Legacy, so I expect you not to cite sources from the timber industry.

Now, this article discusses flaws in the research into logging and biodiversity. However, it does not dispute a reduction in biodiversity, it only disputes the severity of that reduction. There is a lot packed in, so worth reading.

So far it looks like you should request a refund on that ecology 101 class. However, as I have yet to see your sources, I will reserve judgement as I lack expertise in ecology.
I'm guessing he is thinking about edge effects. Same argument I hear when people promote timber removal etc for ski areas. Doesn't hold much water..

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 

Glory

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Sep 29, 2015
Messages
240
Location
Craig, Alaska
You got to stop believing headlines. The state of AK has been pushing hard for an exemption to roadless. Trump administration is willing to play ball, and rightfully so.

There are so many checks and balances to any timber sale on federal land, that it will hardly result in a clearcutting of the Tongass. If anything, it will allow them to spread the effort out a bit away from existing roads so they stop harvesting timber in the same areas. I spent my entire day today hunting spectacular old growth, directly from a logging road. There is still tons of old growth left, even in areas with roads.

If you have been to POW and hunted a logging road, thank the timber industry. We have our issues to deal with, and roadless going away isn’t one of them.
 

brocksw

WKR
Joined
Feb 27, 2015
Messages
1,361
Location
North Dakota
Show me the science. As you say "science... It's indisputable."

100% logging greatly reduces biodiversity, 50% logging reduces biodiversity as well, but less so.

40 years after selective logging species diversity remains less than in unlogged areas.

Logged sites did not recover native species diversity 150 years latter.

Best I can find to support your position is that selective logging at 1% intensity can increase biodiversity (that is taking 1 mature tree out of every 100)

Notice, I did not cite potentially biased sources such as Sierra Forest Legacy, so I expect you not to cite sources from the timber industry.

Now, this article discusses flaws in the research into logging and biodiversity. However, it does not dispute a reduction in biodiversity, it only disputes the severity of that reduction. There is a lot packed in, so worth reading.

So far it looks like you should request a refund on that ecology 101 class. However, as I have yet to see your sources, I will reserve judgement as I lack expertise in ecology.
Wv mountaineer is scouring the Googlesphere for ANYTHING that proves you wrong. YOU JUST WAIT!

I dunno about you guys but I think this logging is a great idea. Science and common sense be damned. Not only do we get to trust private industry to tip toe around one of the best salmon fisheries in the world, but we also get to give our hard earned tax money to the same private sector via subsidies...all so they can turn around and sell the timber to china at a profit....because they couldn't make a profit if we didn't pay those subsidies. Sounds like the american way to me! This is a win win! In all seriousness, the Tongass doesn't have any salmon... That's all fake news. Clear cut it all and bring the wildlife back!
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2016
Messages
2,674
Location
West Virginia
Show me the science. As you say "science... It's indisputable."

100% logging greatly reduces biodiversity, 50% logging reduces biodiversity as well, but less so.

40 years after selective logging species diversity remains less than in unlogged areas.

Logged sites did not recover native species diversity 150 years latter.

Best I can find to support your position is that selective logging at 1% intensity can increase biodiversity (that is taking 1 mature tree out of every 100)

Notice, I did not cite potentially biased sources such as Sierra Forest Legacy, so I expect you not to cite sources from the timber industry.

Now, this article discusses flaws in the research into logging and biodiversity. However, it does not dispute a reduction in biodiversity, it only disputes the severity of that reduction. There is a lot packed in, so worth reading.

So far it looks like you should request a refund on that ecology 101 class. However, as I have yet to see your sources, I will reserve judgement as I lack expertise in ecology.
Any and every forester on the face of the earth knows young successional growth is the foot stool to ecological diversity. It is forest ecology 101. It’s what is taught in any accredited university. And, it’s what we see while working in the woods that verifies that scientific certainty.

In simple terms, It’s why burns often become wildlife magnets. It’s also why young succession is such a boost to ecological diversity.

Now, if you look hard enough, you’ll probably find an internet source that says toxic waste dumped in the woods has benefits.

We aren’t talking about clear cutting the whole place. Creating an even aged forest.
 
Last edited:
Top