I Wonder Thread- Do You Know What it's About?

[Gypsy Rose]

Mtn Mollie's "I wonder" thread is an amzing journey down one of our last true wilderness trails.

This trail is in danger of being closed to the public because of lack of use. If more people were to use it- camp and ride, it could be kept open.

Check it out- there is much history, and beautiful pictures to be seen.

Someday, I would love to go visit one of America's last wild places, like the Old Lolo Trail.

http://www.baywindfarm.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38

[WashingtonBay]

Good reminder - I changed the title of the thread so it is a little more descriptive now. :)

[mtnmollie]

This trail is in danger of being closed to the public -

because of past Forest Service management.

But I have a great relationship with our current special Forest Service supervisor- and
I have high hopes the tide will turn.

Someone must be watching this thread- it has over 2,000 hits. :cowboy:

Someone just sent me a pm-

do you suppose they are afraid to post in the thread? :cowboy:

Might step on holy ground or something?

[mtnmollie]

Good reminder - I changed the title of the thread so it is a little more descriptive now. :)

Thanks Bay-yer the best! :cowboy:

[mtnmollie]

Carla needed a link to remind her to check back in -


Wow. I did open this thread when it was just a pic or two, but had no idea it had turned into all of this.


Thank you so much for taking the time to share all of this with us!

Your welcome Carla. :cowboy:

[mtnmollie]

G/R I did the same thing in my Wild Horse thread. I built something and then added another room.

A poem and then a story-

I never know where I am going - he he .

[gaited07]

I'm for any and all support to keep our trails open. Too much land has been gobbled up for commercial/residential. We need our trails, our way to history. To travel the routes of yesteryears and see the land like it SHOULD BE, FREE!

[mtnmollie]

Yep! Maybe we should start a
Are we loosing trails thread?

Every National Forest in the nation has lost trails to roads.

We need more roads-maybe? not?

[gaited07]

Yep! Maybe we should start a
Are we loosing trails thread?

Every National Forest in the nation has lost trails to roads.

We need more roads-maybe? not?

There was one on horse.com. Qh trail rider was the big supporter of this thread.
A lot of people don't realize the importance of our trails and what is happening to them. If its not in their backyard they don't see it or really care about it but the truth is, if it is happening in my backyard, its a matter of time before it spreads to yours and all our equine friends across the USA.
Riding in an arena is fine but please keep our heritage alive with open lands to roam.
We as a strong group of trail riders can ban together and keep our trails open.

[mtnmollie]

Yes! good post gaited. WE could all target a problem area once a month or once a week with letters.

Together we are stronger than one.

Writing letters does make a difference.

No one answered my stupid question on pg 24 of my I wonder thread.
I wonder why ?


So - this is a stupid question- but- do you all want to come see
1) a live green forest?
2) or a clearcut forest?
3) or a burned up forest?

You can see all three on the Lolo Trail but number one is loosing ground every year.

If number one is our most valueable asset, maybe we should protect it?

Horse trails and trees? A rare find on National Forests?

[Jump The Moon]

I wish we had as good as, and as many trail-rides as you all do in the US.

[Gypsy Rose]

No one answered my stupid question on pg 24 of my I wonder thread.
I wonder why ?


So - this is a stupid question- but- do you all want to come see
1) a live green forest?
2) or a clearcut forest?
3) or a burned up forest?

You can see all three on the Lolo Trail but number one is loosing ground every year.

If number one is our most valueable asset, maybe we should protect it?

Horse trails and trees? A rare find on National Forests?

Why a live green forest, of course!

[gaited07]

Yes! good post gaited. WE could all target a problem area once a month or once a week with letters.

Together we are stronger than one.

Writing letters does make a difference.

No one answered my stupid question on pg 24 of my I wonder thread.
I wonder why ?


So - this is a stupid question- but- do you all want to come see
1) a live green forest?
2) or a clearcut forest?
3) or a burned up forest?

You can see all three on the Lolo Trail but number one is loosing ground every year.

If number one is our most valueable asset, maybe we should protect it?

Horse trails and trees? A rare find on National Forests?

I'm for the green forest.

[mtnmollie]

I wish we had as good as, and as many trail-rides as you all do in the US.


Where do you live? England?

[mtnmollie]

I'm for the green forest.

Yes! Green forests! That gets my vote too!

In Idaho forest health is clear- cuts and burned up standing dead trees-
I just dont get it.

I like my green forset.
I wish I could keep my forest green forever. :cowboy:

[Gypsy Rose]

Get rid of the forests, and everything will die- plant, animal and human.

[mtnmollie]

The spring creek is dryed up at Cayuse after the burn, and all the wildlife is gone.

[Gypsy Rose]

That's what I mean, lol!

[Remali]

This is a great thread Gypsy Rose and mtnmollie!!

[mtnmollie]

Thanks Renee. :)

Trees protect watersheds too, prevent floods and

who can live without water?

Water from the Rockies flows into rivers east and west of the Continential Divide- and provide for water in cities and states far from the source at the headwaters.

Seems protecting the headwaters would be wise; for the Nation.

[Gypsy Rose]

But the bigwigs who sit behind their desks all day don't realize it, and think they know what's best.

Someone ought to be able to make them get off their butts and see what American wilderness is all about!

[mtnmollie]

Starting fires in America's forests is what is on the agenda- it is not just happening in Idaho- Range mag. did a piece on burning the forest near the Grand Canyon. They sure made a mess there.

How sad and we taxpayers pay for it.

[mtnmollie]

Standing dead timber is a fire hazard.

http://www.baywindfarm.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=266&pictureid=2412

[mtnmollie]

The second time it burns it looks like this and then it takes men and towns with it. After the second fire, it may still be in brush 100 years later.

http://www.baywindfarm.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=265&pictureid=2576

[mtnmollie]

Brush from the 1910- 1930 fires. The green timber across the creek is sceduled to be burned. This is because the forest is "too thick," and green timber is a fire hazard in Idaho. If we can't log it, we burn it. After we burn it, we may log it like we did the Wendover Ridge timber sale in roadless during the Lewis and Clark bi- centinneal.

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee150/mtnmollie/PagodaRidge-%20Hung2/P5110013.jpg

[Gypsy Rose]

GREEN timber's a fire hazard? What about all the dead trees they leave?

[WashingtonBay]

No one answered my stupid question on pg 24 of my I wonder thread.
I wonder why ?


So - this is a stupid question- but- do you all want to come see
1) a live green forest?
2) or a clearcut forest?
3) or a burned up forest?


I don't think anyone wants to see a burned up forest, but some of that is natural process we can't prevent in those drier forests.

I like green forests, and I understand clearcut forests. I ride in both, and all stages of growth in between. This is timber country. National Forest, like State forest and private forest should be available for harvest, or it should be made into a National Park, IMHO, where they would not log and would let it burn.

What is your feeling on logging mollie? Does this forest have value as timber? Why are they burning it instead of logging it off and replanting?

[vicklynn]

I was wondering the same thing WB. Why not log and replant?

I like a nice green forest with trails.

[WashingtonBay]

I'm waiting for mollie to answer that, but in the mean-time I'll guess. It might be that it's not marketable for whatever reason, too remote or too slow growing. Here in Western Wa, timber can be grown and harvested in about 40-50 years. I think there, it takes trees a lot longer to grow to a harvestable size, and at great risk of loss every fire season.

[mtnmollie]

I don't think anyone wants to see a burned up forest, but some of that is natural process we can't prevent in those drier forests.

I have a friend who is pro natural fire.
Buundary Peak burned, and it was natural.
WE spent alot of taxpayer money making sure the fire did not burn the good timber ground across the ridge. It would have been cheaper to just put the fire out when it was small.

The 2000 fire at Lolo Pass was started by timber harvest folks lighting a burn pile in August- which got away.


I like green forests, and I understand clearcut forests. I ride in both, and all stages of growth in between. This is timber country.


I live in a timber town. I have good friends who harvest timber.
Our National Forest - the Clearwater has roaded timber country- and roadless back country.
I am against timber harvest in roadless.
Our timber producing units must produce sustained yield, (by law.) I am for sustained yield. My neighbors need sustained yield. We do not have much timber left- unless we go into roadless or cut immature trees; because we have not managed the roaded timber harvesting units in sustained yield.

High elevations were never going to be clearcut to protect watrersheds.
I am for protecting watersheds.

National Forest, like State forest and private forest should be available for harvest, or it should be made into a National Park, IMHO, where they would not log and would let it burn.

The National Forests we want logged should be sold to timber companies- or just sold to the highest bidder. The US. Government is a lousy businessman- and timber harvest is a business. National Forests were created to protect the west from clearcuts- cut and run timber companies- like what happened in Michigan - way- way back when.

I ride my horse on timber company land, state timberland, Federal timber land, (which is not managed in sustained yield as required by law- and wild roadless. Mostly I stay out of wilderness. I wish roadless would stay wild and roadless.

What is your feeling on logging mollie?

Logging is a business. I like buying timber to build with.
I like my neighbors to be able to eat and pay taxes.
My neighbors are nice people.

Does this forest have value as timber?

Most roadless on National Forests is roadless because of poor timber.
All timber in roadless is poor timber that I know of; poor timber compared to what has been cut from 1970 - 1980.


Why are they burning it

for forest health-
they leave standing dead timber to prevent fire- and
our burn program will increase; every year.

Also for elk feed? But none of this makes sence to me.

I wish they would re- burn the standing dead timber their burn programs created.
WE drop ' ping pong" balls out of helecoptors and start fires on our forest.

I wonder how much burning and clearcutting our forest can stand?

instead of logging it off and replanting?

Much of our logged forest was clearcut for forest health, as documented in The Lochsa Story by Bud Moore. Many clearcuts from the 1980's on our forest is in brush- it was never replanted.

If we had selective cut our cedar groves, then we would still have cedar groves, instead of replaced by pondrosa pine young forest.

Our forest also logs up to and across watersheds. They clear cut from the top of the ridge to across the watershed and stopped, on one timber sale unit near Musselshell.

Logging is a skill and a science- the way that we live.
Most of our loggers are out of business now.

There is a right way, and a wrong way to log.

Three years ago we logged ten acres on our place.
The logger told me, "In 15 years you can harvest again,"
and he said, "No private land owner can afford to devalue their land by clearcutting it."

Thank you for your questions Bay.

[mtnmollie]

I'm waiting for mollie to answer that, but in the mean-time I'll guess. It might be that it's not marketable for whatever reason, too remote or too slow growing.

Roadless in Idaho can not be harvested for profit. Too remote.

It takes 100 years or more to grow a tree of marketable size in Central Idaho;
on our good timber ground.

When trees that are 300- 600 plus years old are harvested from 1960- 1980-
we wil never see those again. When one selective cuts old growth forest remain. When one clearcuts they are lost forever.



Here in Western Wa, timber can be grown and harvested in about 40-50 years. I think there, it takes trees a lot longer to grow to a harvestable size, and at great risk of loss every fire season.

They decided to begin burning our forest in about 2000. I have been here since 1988 and there were no fires untill then. In 2000 and 2003 stories are told about how the Forest Service would not let fire fighting units put the fires out.

1) They hired us to go to fight the fire and made us sit on the roadside.
2) Army guard came and they would not let them land the helicpotor or get water out of the creek.
3) Timber company had a bulldozer to plow a fire line and the Forest Service told them no.

These are just stories I hear at camp fires in my backcountry where I live. Not documented you know. I think we are crazy, here in Idaho. LOL.

We even clearcut our National Forest campgrounds here in Central Idaho.

[WashingtonBay]

I have a friend who is pro natural fire.
Buundary Peak burned, and it was natural.
WE spent alot of taxpayer money making sure the fire did not burn the good timber ground across the ridge. It would have been cheaper to just put the fire out when it was small.

The 2000 fire at Lolo Pass was started by timber harvest folks lighting a burn pile in August- which got away.

I don't think I'm pro or anti natural fire, I think fire just IS. Our eastern slopes are dry and there are fires every year. It is like the weather... something we can count on if not predict with a great deal of accuracy exactly when and how much.


I live in a timber town. I have good friends who harvest timber.
Our National Forest - the Clearwater has roaded timber country- and roadless back country.
I am against timber harvest in roadless.
Our timber producing units must produce sustained yield, (by law.) I am for sustained yield. My neighbors need sustained yield. We do not have much timber left- unless we go into roadless or cut immature trees; because we have not managed the roaded timber harvesting units in sustained yield.
I think we're getting better at sustained yield, but these things have long life cycles and it takes time to catch up.

Wanting to keep places roadless means you want to limit access to fight fires, harvest timber in a better management plan than just letting it burn, and perhaps just as important, it means limiting access to the public. Access is access. If you want access kept open for you to ride in, you need to think seriously about whether a better political strategy would be to support access for all kinds of outdoor recreation.


The National Forests we want logged should be sold to timber companies- or just sold to the highest bidder. The US. Government is a lousy businessman- and timber harvest is a business. National Forests were created to protect the west from clearcuts- cut and run timber companies- like what happened in Michigan - way- way back when.

I ride my horse on timber company land, state timberland, Federal timber land, (which is not managed in sustained yield as required by law- and wild roadless. Mostly I stay out of wilderness. I wish roadless would stay wild and roadless.

Logging is a business. I like buying timber to build with.
I like my neighbors to be able to eat and pay taxes.
My neighbors are nice people.
Again this is about access. Private timber companies who bought that land would be under no obligation at all to save your trail or provide you access or trail maintenance. Public forest does not have to mean poorly managed.

I've also ridden on private as well as public timber land, and the private timber access is very limited, the trails very spotty and primitive and there is no trail construction or management at all. There are no rules about where you can ride or what kind of traffic (motorized or non-motorized) is allowed on which trails. On the other hand, in our state forest, trails are constructed and maintained, drainage and footing is improved, trails are named and categorized for motorized, non motorized or foot traffic only so these groups do not conflict, bridges and culverts are put in to protect streams and make the trail accessible to more people and the public has free access to it. Areas are logged as they mature and replanted the following season.

I'm all for private forestry, but Weyerhauser and others are not the only employers and suppliers of timber. Also there are small private operators who rely on contracted timber sales on public land for their livelihood. I understand that the govt isn't exactly known for the most efficiency in business, but efficiency of harvest is not the only public interest in play. Public forests have a place. I would argue one of the purposes that is perhaps most important is to provide the public with access to wild places to ride, hike, camp and hunt. And to preserve things like your lolo trail.
Riding working timber in Capital Forest.... Logged and replanted 3-4 years ago, young trees visible.

http://www.baywindfarm.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=117&pictureid=788

http://www.baywindfarm.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=117&pictureid=750

There is a right way, and a wrong way to log.

Three years ago we logged ten acres on our place.
The logger told me, "In 15 years you can harvest again,"
and he said, "No private land owner can afford to devalue their land by clearcutting it."

Thank you for your questions Bay.Indeed there is a right and wrong way.

15 years is not enough time to harvest forest again... maybe Christmas trees. :)

[mtnmollie]

There is access in roadless- just not motorized access. :cowboy:

We put fires out in roadless many years ago by hiring drunks in Spokane to walk our trails in to the fires. Walk is one way for access to occur, historically. (Tales of the Clearwater- by Sam Swayne.)

I don't think I'm pro or anti natural fire, I think fire just IS. Our eastern slopes are dry and there are fires every year. It is like the weather... something we can count on if not predict with a great deal of accuracy exactly when and how much.

When fires occur- a decision is made on if we should let it burn or put it out.
WE have put out fires on National Forests for 100 years.

Pro natural fire means let it burn-

We need a new language for our new forest policy. :cowboy:

Pro natural fire also means anti- Forest Service starting fires.

Smoley the Bear does not know if he should burn up the woods- run- or put fires out any more.

Timber harvest trees grow faster where you live.
Do you get more rain too?

[WashingtonBay]

Yes, we get a lot more rain. Our forest on this side of the mountains rarely burns. It's just too wet.

[WashingtonBay]

http://www.baywindfarm.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=117&pictureid=788

I wanted to post this picture again to point out that you can see all kinds of timber in various stages in this picture. The recent cut in the foreground of course, but beyond that you can see other areas with trees that are 10-20-40 years old. It's interesting to ride our trails, every year they change. We come around a corner and the big trees have been logged over winter, opening up the view of the bigger picture we rarely get to see. And then we watch the young trees grow up again. Always something happening in a working forest.

[mtnmollie]

That looks like good timber management Bay.

Here is IMHO bad timber management. Clearcut before 1988- no replanting-
steep slope- very little re- growth. This is not re- harvestable in 100 or 120 years-
slow growing timber at this altitude; poor timber - re- producing ground.

Clear-cuts here cause flooding from fast snow melt too.

Our water quality in timber lands is below Federal and state standard.
In roadless our water quality is good unless degraded by plan-ed -let it burn- fires; like Shotgun Creek watershed.
.
http://www.baywindfarm.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=50&pictureid=365

[mtnmollie]

Also I see you are riding trails in your cut over forest.

We ride roads we share with motorized users- motorcycles- 4- wheelers and full sized rigs. Our trails are in roadless.

About half our forest is roaded and about half is not; or roadless.

A small sliver on the south is wilderness.

[WashingtonBay]

Always good to keep in mind though, mollie, that even as we look at the scars of man on the land, it is not so different than what mother nature would do. Yes, I see a cleared area in your picture, but I also see some standing timber and some young growth. In effect, I see the full life cycle of a forest happening in the picture.

We'd like to think that without us, it would all be green, but it wouldn't. There would still be fires, there would still be slides and floods afterwards, there would still be some trees that survive and still be some species of wildlife and forage that DEPEND on that cycle of life to survive.

Old growth is often touted as the epitome of what we should protect, but the truth is, an old growth forest is a fairly dead forest, like an old neighborhood that has aged, all the children grown up and moved away, and all that remains are the old people... no young ones playing in the yards, none of the noise and activity that a mixed neighborhood provides. It's dark and old and full of decay. It does not provide the kind of forage the black bear or the deer or the elk need. It supports itself, and not much else. Oh yeah... it supports owls.

http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/mshnvm/education/teachers-corner/global/images/life-begins/01-msh02-lg.jpg

Taken from here: Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument - Education Resources (http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/mshnvm/education/teachers-corner/library/life-returns01.shtml)

It takes a fire, or a volcano, or a windstorm, or a logger, to open it up so new growth and diversity can come back to the area and survive. The method doesn't really matter to the outcome.

Some see us as the villain all the time, but I'm not sure that's fair. Our effect is also 'natural'. It can be bad, but it can also be good, for us, for the forest, for the wild things that live in it.

Here, in the wet NW, we have real old growth. Trees a whole family can't reach around with their arms outstretched. These trees are 400-500 years old and even older. But they have not been here forever, nor will they be here forever now. They'll die and fall in time, from old age or disease or high winds come winter. Some will become our homes. There were others before it and there will be others after it. A tree is not a permanent thing, whether we would like it to be or not. It has a life span, like we do.

One old tree stands out among younger timber and lush undergrowth in Capital Forest:

http://www.baywindfarm.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=117&pictureid=2776

[WashingtonBay]

Also I see you are riding trails in your cut over forest.

We ride roads we share with motorized users- motorcycles- 4- wheelers and full sized rigs. Our trails are in roadless.

About half our forest is roaded and about half is not; or roadless.

A small sliver on the south is wilderness.

Our forest is split in half - half of it is open to motorized off road vehicles, and half is for non-motorized, hikers, riders, mountain bikes.

Both have trails that are maintained and kept open by a combination of DNR and prison work crews and volunteer adopt-a-trail programs by local chapters of the BCH or other groups.

[mtnmollie]

I like my old growth trees in my special place. The feel in the old growth forest heals wounded hearts and broken spirits. But not all old growth is alike- our old growth cedar forests are unique.

In Lebon - near Israel- they cut their cedars down long ago- brush grows in a hot climate that once was a wet cool cedar forest; long - long- long ago.

Near Burns Oregon, all trails are open to 4- wheelers, motorcycle- horse and hiking- except the small sliver of wilderness. Multipule use trails they be.

I am so glad I do not live there.

half is for non-motorized, hikers, riders, mountain bikes.

I had a broken arm from a mountain bike horse encounter. They are fast and silent.

Both have trails that are maintained and kept open by a combination of DNR and prison work crews and volunteer adopt-a-trail programs by local chapters of the BCH or other groups.

We have a trail oblit/closure plan in Central Idaho. BCH helps Forest Service on the Nez Forest south of us close trails. Strange management I'd say. Planned fires help close trails too.

But we are opening motorized trails in roadless- :rolleyes:

.

[mtnmollie]

Our forest is split in half - half of it is open to motorized off road vehicles, and half is for non-motorized, hikers, riders, mountain bikes.



Is your entire forest open to timber management, or only a part? About half of Idaho's National Forests are in timber management.

[WashingtonBay]

I like my old growth trees in my special place. The feel in the old growth forest heals wounded hearts and broken spirits. But not all old growth is alike- our old growth cedar forests are unique.

Every place has something unique about it. And hopefully locals who fight to make sure people recognize those things and preserve them.


Near Burns Oregon, all trails are open to 4- wheelers, motorcycle- horse and hiking- except the small sliver of wilderness. Multipule use trails they be.

I am so glad I do not live there. I don't like to ride mixed-use areas that allow motorized vehicles, most of the private forest trails are like that, it's a free-for-all. No rules.

I had a broken arm from a mountain bike horse encounter. They are fast and silent.
Not totally silent. Bay hears them. We share our trails with mountain bikes, and there are very few problems. Horses learn to hear them coming and stop short of blind corners. There are clear rules of right-of-way and good relations between the groups. They are allies to continued access, not enemies.

http://www.capitolforest.com/sitebuilder/images/IMBA_sign-211x260.jpg

This site is put together by a local mountain biker: Friends of Capitol Forest Washington - etiquette (http://www.capitolforest.com/trailetiquettepage.html)

We have a trail oblit/closure plan in Central Idaho. BCH helps Forest Service on the Nez Forest south of us close trails. Strange management I'd say. Planned fires help close trails too.

But we are opening motorized trails in roadless- :rolleyes:

.Well, I wish you luck in continuing to fight for improvements. I read your other thread and had some questions and thoughts about what you wrote, but thought here would be a better place to compare and contrast how things are here versus there.

[WashingtonBay]

Is your entire forest open to timber management, or only a part? About half of Idaho's National Forests are in timber management.

This is State forest, not National. It's all working timber. I'm not exactly sure how the National forest compares here. We may be in the same region even, and the management strategy may not be all that different.

[mtnmollie]

WE have state land for timber management in Idaho. 100 % of the state land in timber management is for timber. There is no trail management on state timber land. It is a free for all with no rules or enforcement. But it is not a problem because we have very little use. I very seldom see other trail users.

Our state timber land is in 60 year harvest sustained yield rotation. They are still cutting trees older than 100 years- but no tree will live to see 61 years on our state land when they begin to run out of old trees.

The loggers want to harvest trees that are 100 but they must obey the rules- set by a few in charge. A tree doubles in growth from 60 to 100 or 120. The best math is to harvest at 100 or 120 on good timber growing ground.

[mtnmollie]

I read your other thread and had some questions and thoughts about what you wrote, but thought here would be a better place to compare and contrast how things are here versus there.

Any more questions? :cowboy:

[WashingtonBay]

None now. I've got to get up and get some chores done. :)

Our logging cycle is about 40-50 years for the most efficient turnaround of timber quantity versus return on investment.

I support good logging and timber management 100 percent. As we continue to see growth in population, the best way to keep timber lands in trees is to make it profitable for them to stay that way. Saving them because it looks pretty can only hold so much value. There is only so much land we will set aside for that. Setting it aside to farm trees for a living, well, that makes it worth while for it's own sake. More acres of trees will survive if we let them be a crop, not a thing to covet.

For recreation, for habitat, for timber. It beats strip malls and subdivisions.

[mtnmollie]

"None now. I've got to get up and get some chores done. "

Me too. :cowboy:

[mtnmollie]

Did you see the money can not be eaten thread?

http://www.baywindfarm.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1058