Help prevent rampant logging on USFS lands- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 84 of 84
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,417

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mike Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,289
    Thanks, Woody. IF anybody clicks over to the feedback form, please note that the form letter can be personalized. There was some stuff in it I did not agree with, so I changed it- mostly all good, but you can personalize....

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,417
    The main thing is folks take the time to comment now. Customize is good, but if folks are short on time the stock email form is good.


    [QUOTE=Mike Brown;11573490]Thanks, Woody. IF anybody clicks over to the feedback form, please note that the form letter can be personalized. There was some stuff in it I did not agree with, so I changed it

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 450VoltsDC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Brown View Post
    Thanks, Woody. IF anybody clicks over to the feedback form, please note that the form letter can be personalized. There was some stuff in it I did not agree with, so I changed it- mostly all good, but you can personalize....
    I'm not informed enough to revise but put off by the seeming emphasis (a metaphor?) on Salamanders and little of the Forestry issues delineated in the Alliance page preceding.

    Can you or Woody provide guidance? I'd like to have a voice.
    IT'S CRACKERS TO SLIP A ROZZER THE DROPSY IN SNIDE

  5. #5
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,612

    Help prevent rampant logging on USFS lands

    Done and thanks, woody.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    239
    - I like the simplification of the new management areas, so good on them for that
    - Do look at the maps before panicking, a lot of area we know and love are still proposed to be unsuitable for logging
    - However WAY too much area is designated 1 and 2A (the only two classifications open to logging).

    The linked articles do use a lot of puff language, like "Forest Service is proposing industrial-scale logging" (nope) "instead of protecting popular backcountry recreation destinations" (nope, designated backcountry is still off-limits to logging) and "new proposal would inevitably increase logging" (that remains to be seen. since logging is done at a loss, they need funds to log, lol...just like road building. something they're getting a lot less of these days). Also each logging project would still have to go through the usual EA and public comments process.

    Rather than these generic comments, I think it would make sense to sit down and look at the maps, and think about which *areas* should be off-limits to logging, rather than just complaining about logging, habitat loss, and climate change in general. Trees grow back, sequestering carbon, so I don't even get that part of it. But new roads suck, and logging in heavily used scenic and recreation areas sucks.

    Some initial thoughts about the Pisgah district:
    - WTF with 1 and 2A all along the Black Mountain trail and down to the S. Mills. That should all be backcountry or at least 2b. Black/Clawhammer are special.
    - There should be much bigger buffers along the Blue Ridge Parkway. 2b doesn't even come down to Farlow Gap, for example.
    - I'd like to see a lot more 2a changed to 2b or even some designated backcountry around the Fish Hatchery. Can you imagine logging around Butter Gap or Long Branch? Ugh.
    - Why isn't the entire Art Loeb/Mountains to Sea corridor buffered?

    They're gonna log, we can't prevent that. I think focusing on the really special & important areas for comments might be my strategy.
    -

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 450VoltsDC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    186
    "...since logging is done at a loss, they need funds to log,"

    What is the need?- Is there an ecological imperative that drives harvesting certain areas at a loss?

    Why is it uneconomic? -Vast areas of forest land are harvested annually with considerable profit.

    If there is a need, either ecological or financial, why doesn't the Forest Service hire or bid the projects to companies that are in the for-profit logging business?

    "They're gonna log, we can't prevent that."

    Apparently, in 230 odd years of Liberty a great deal has been forgotten.

    If it isn't in our best interest, of course we can prevent it. There are abundant judicial means to prevent the theft of public property and Civil Disobedience to keep legislative and/or judicial bodies from misappropriating that property.

    If it turns out that the WNCA has indulged in puffery for the sake of their own agenda then this is a fools errand. But if not, I can think of few higher callings than preserving such a treasure as The Pisgah National Forest.
    IT'S CRACKERS TO SLIP A ROZZER THE DROPSY IN SNIDE

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mike Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,289
    This is a mtb forum, right?

    Ok, just checking.

    On the form, I removed all language related to designating current roadless areas as wilderness- that would mean, for example, not being able to ride Laurel Mountain anymore.
    I added comments about preserving roadless areas for all recreational users, including mountain bikers.
    I added a comment about instead of investing money in logging, investing money on maintenance of current trails and roads and, if there's any money left over, investing in development of expanded recreation.

    Do NOT get me wrong- I am not anti-Wilderness and believe mtb's should be banned from existing Wilderness. I also believe that we should not be forced out of areas we already have access to and actually use by Wilderness expansion.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    211
    People get what they vote for.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,417
    I am in Bend OR till next fall (and maybe permanent) so somewhat out of touch. Others will have to provide more details and it looks like several have.



    Quote Originally Posted by 450VoltsDC View Post
    I'm not informed enough to revise but put off by the seeming emphasis (a metaphor?) on Salamanders and little of the Forestry issues delineated in the Alliance page preceding.

    Can you or Woody provide guidance? I'd like to have a voice.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by 450VoltsDC View Post
    "...since logging is done at a loss, they need funds to log,"

    What is the need?- Is there an ecological imperative that drives harvesting certain areas at a loss?
    I'm not saying that they need to log, but that they need funds to log. The whole process is too onerous for logging in the mountains to be profitable. It's not anything like logging on flat private lands, where it is profitable. Selective logging can be one tool to restore forests that were borked by earlier clearcutting or invasive species or such, but it's costly.

    Quote Originally Posted by 450VoltsDC View Post
    "They're gonna log, we can't prevent that."

    Apparently, in 230 odd years of Liberty a great deal has been forgotten.

    If it isn't in our best interest, of course we can prevent it.
    I'm not saying that it can't literally be done, but I'm solidly convinced that recreation users (of which mountain bikers are only a small part) are not nearly numerous or well-organized enough to muster the political pressure to put more than a dent in the Forest Service's plans around here. Even groups like the WNCA struggle to have an influence. I support them, but they have no choice but to resort to a little "puffery" in an attempt to get people motivated to do *something*.

    I am not in support of designating more wilderness, but the Backcountry management area seems to be a nice designation, and I'd advocate for it in a lot more of both Pisgah and Nantahala.

    The maps and actual plan information are here.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    746
    Email Sent! Thank you for posting this thread.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by 450VoltsDC View Post

    What is the need?- Is there an ecological imperative that drives harvesting certain areas at a loss?
    .

    Native wildlife require early successional growth and pasture land for survival. If you do not know what early successional growth is, it is the short growth thickets that begin to grow when sunlight can reach the forest bed and begin to grow back. (Picture below) These thickets provide browse (food) at their level all year long whereas large hardwood canopies do not. A long time ago, prior to the development of WNC, wildlife had numerous areas and farms to roam thus allowing plenty of access to food sources, but as of late (meaning in the last 50 years) farms are being developed as are the areas surrounding our national forests, thus effectively creating a 'pen' phenomenon for this wildlife on our largest tracts of public land. Accompanying that, we have not managed said forests for their survival even though in theory, they are penned there. If the sun cannot reach the forest bed, food in terms of browse, cannot grow. If they cannot grow, species such as grouse, deer, turkey, etc, starve and die off. There has been a HUGE decrease in terms of wildlife in the last 40 or so years on our public lands because of this and thus logging needs to absolutely be a priority for the necessary survival of this wildlife on our national forest lands. We need a balanced ecosystem, not one that is simply our playground.

    Help prevent rampant logging on USFS lands-earlysuccessionalforesthabitat.jpg
    Last edited by WNCmtnman; 11-17-2014 at 07:32 AM.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mike Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,289
    Thanks for your thoughtful post. My biggest issue is with the idea of new road construction and opening up new areas for timber harvest, not the activity of timber harvest itself. I also want to see the USFS require timber contractors to be better environmental stewards during harvest operations.


    Question: Would the goal of improved habitat be obtained if the USFS were to create and maintain more wildlife clearings such as those in Mills River valley?

    I'd be interesting in seeing a plan that, using existing roads, would have selected timber harvests that in turn created permanent wildlife clearings. That, to me, seems to be a way to work with all sides of the issue and maybe improve habitat for the long-term.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Brown View Post
    Thanks for your thoughtful post. My biggest issue is with the idea of new road construction and opening up new areas for timber harvest, not the activity of timber harvest itself. I also want to see the USFS require timber contractors to be better environmental stewards during harvest operations.


    Question: Would the goal of improved habitat be obtained if the USFS were to create and maintain more wildlife clearings such as those in Mills River valley?

    I'd be interesting in seeing a plan that, using existing roads, would have selected timber harvests that in turn created permanent wildlife clearings. That, to me, seems to be a way to work with all sides of the issue and maybe improve habitat for the long-term.
    In theory, yes. What they did at Trace and Brushy Ridge is a start. On most state maintained lands, the State has actually taken it a step farther and gone to zones that are planted with clover, radishes, etc, along with sustainable logging. The issue there is those type of food sources typically only benefit deer, whereas most fowl require thickets where they can feed and nest away from predators. Permanent zones that are maintained solely for the purpose of wildlife would be outstanding but still need to be fairly widespread to benefit every reach of federal land and the herds that make those reaches their home. I do agree on the selectiveness of the contractors as I have seen first hand how water sources and wildlife habitat can actually become worse due to poor land management. Controlled burns are also necessary in allowing the new growth to replace those that are not producing. Long before helicopters and hot shot crews, if lighting created a fire, it just went, thus naturally enriching the land.

    I understand that such is not beautiful to look at, but it is a necessary in allowing the longterm survival of our wildlife and an all around benefit to the ecosystem as a whole.

  16. #16
    Support Pisgah Area Soba
    Reputation: Logover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    858

    News 13 view of issue

    News 13 view of the issue. Go to web page to see video.
    Plan Would Open 700,000 Acres To Logging - WLOS - Asheville Top Stories - ABC
    Pisgah Area Sorba - Web Site Communications
    http://www.pisgahareasorba.org/

  17. #17
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Done
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  18. #18
    Support Pisgah Area Soba
    Reputation: Logover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    858

    We the people ... Smoky Mountain News.com

    Another good article in Smoky mountain news with Pisgah Area Sorba mentioned.

    Forests for the future: First glimmers of forest plan draw polarized reactions
    Pisgah Area Sorba - Web Site Communications
    http://www.pisgahareasorba.org/

  19. #19
    Laramie, Wyoming
    Reputation: alphazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,941
    Just because there is no logging doesn't mean that the forest will remain in an untouched state. Trees are a renewable resource and should be cut and replanted.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by alphazz View Post
    Just because there is no logging doesn't mean that the forest will remain in an untouched state. Trees are a renewable resource and should be cut and replanted.
    Most wildlife biologist have said that in mature hardwood forests where food is only seasonal, such as all of Western North Carolina, for Wildlife it is optimal for 10% of that to be Early Successional Habitat (ESH). It was realized in the early 80's what was happening and it's effect on Wildlife within the USFS land in North Carolina and plan was devised in 1987 to get us to 10%. That plan never made it due to a lot of the misunderstanding we are going through today. Today, ESH is only at .6%, which is severely detrimental to our wildlife habitat and their overall prospects.

    There has been a lot of half truths and misleading headlines put out by media sources with this new plan, and I just want you guys to understand it's benefits and how the plan will executed. They aren't going to clear cut 700,000 acres. They are simply going to open up 700,000 acres as an area in which they could execute what is most likely a 30 year plan. From what I have read, they are looking at 1500 acres per year for 30 years, totaling 45,000 acres total. Now, that doesn't mean you will see 45,000 bald acres. It's just the total over 30 years that will, over those 30 years, begin to reestablish itself in what is known as Successional Growth detailed by the graph below. Notice the late stage as being the mature growth which consumes 99.4% of our forests in the Pisgah and the Nantahala. Now, notice which areas are designated as 'Feeding Cover' and 'Brood and Nesting habitat'. That is considered ESH. Mature tracts of timber have a relatively open understory due to crown closure and sunlight not reaching the forest floor. This causes a lack of food and increases predation from lack of escape cover. Overall, there is just too much stacked against native wildlife and their overall survival because they have very little sustainable food, and not enough cover to evade predators and create nesting grounds. It is a very, very sad state.

    Help prevent rampant logging on USFS lands-forest_succession.gif

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by WNCmtnman View Post
    There has been a lot of half truths and misleading headlines put out by media sources with this new plan
    What an understatement. The amount of FUD is astonishing, comparable to the "they want to stop you from photographing the wilderness!" nonsense a few weeks ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by WNCmtnman View Post
    They aren't going to clear cut 700,000 acres. They are simply going to open up 700,000 acres as an area in which they could execute what is most likely a 30 year plan. From what I have read, they are looking at 1500 acres per year for 30 years, totaling 45,000 acres total.
    Exactly. And not only that, they aren't "opening up" that much acreage since much of it is already considered suitable for timber production from the 1984 plan. I'm not sure what the diff is, but it's not all 700k. That hasn't meant that it's all gotten logged since 1984, though. Far from it.

    The implication from the media is that, as soon as this gets approved, logging companies will pour in from every corner of the country with chainsaws blazing. But in reality, each and every logging project that *might* take place still requires the whole NEPA study/draft plan & alternatives/comment period/decision/appeal process, and each one must be tailored specifically toward the area in consideration.

    Think of it like zoning. Just because a city has zoned an area doesn't mean that every acre within that zone instantly gets developed. It means that *when* new projects are proposed, they must meet certain restrictions appropriate for that zone. Each new construction requires a separate purchase, construction contract, permits, etc. It's really no different for logging projects. And since logging in the mountains is so much more expensive and difficult than the flatlands, you have contracts that never even get picked up because the return just isn't there for the logging companies.

    Not only that, but the new - much clearer - "management areas" (zones) differentiate between Timber Production (where logging could be seen as their main designation, perhaps), and Timber Management, where logging would only be used as a tool to bring them toward their Desired Conditions.

    Furthermore, what about the fact that they're proposed a number of logical new Special Interest areas totaling 6600 acres that would not be suitable to timber production at all, but currently are? These include a number of "wow, this place is cool" spots across the mountains that don't fall into the another-boring-oak-forest-on-a-shallow-ridge category. We all know that not every part of the forest is the same around here.

    I'd like to see more added to that list, and I'd like to see more added to area 4 – Significant Recreation and Heritage Corridors (Art Loeb and Mountains to Sea Trail). I'd like to see more backcountry. But overall, I do see this new plan as positive. It's certainly more clear.

    And finally, what *if* they could somehow lower the barrier a bit in places that are now open to timber production, and make a little money to spend on the infrastructure in the rest of the forest? Would that be so bad?

    Watching this unfold is just astonishing.

    And finally:
    Quote Originally Posted by WNCmtnman View Post
    Overall, there is just too much stacked against native wildlife and their overall survival because they have very little sustainable food, and not enough cover to evade predators and create nesting grounds. It is a very, very sad state.
    To all those who ask "well didn't wildlife do just fine before we started 'managing' the forests', and why does it need us now?" The answer is yes, of course, but they relied on wildfires to create openings before, which we now suppress, so we have to find ways to keep openings in the forest to keep certain wildlife population at its *historical* levels. We've already intervened, so now we have to keep intervening or it all goes pear shaped really fast. (This applies to so much more than wildlife management, by the way - think invasives).

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbwnc View Post
    What an understatement. The amount of FUD is astonishing, comparable to the "they want to stop you from photographing the wilderness!" nonsense a few weeks ago.



    Exactly. And not only that, they aren't "opening up" that much acreage since much of it is already considered suitable for timber production from the 1984 plan. I'm not sure what the diff is, but it's not all 700k. That hasn't meant that it's all gotten logged since 1984, though. Far from it.

    The implication from the media is that, as soon as this gets approved, logging companies will pour in from every corner of the country with chainsaws blazing. But in reality, each and every logging project that *might* take place still requires the whole NEPA study/draft plan & alternatives/comment period/decision/appeal process, and each one must be tailored specifically toward the area in consideration.

    Think of it like zoning. Just because a city has zoned an area doesn't mean that every acre within that zone instantly gets developed. It means that *when* new projects are proposed, they must meet certain restrictions appropriate for that zone. Each new construction requires a separate purchase, construction contract, permits, etc. It's really no different for logging projects. And since logging in the mountains is so much more expensive and difficult than the flatlands, you have contracts that never even get picked up because the return just isn't there for the logging companies.

    Not only that, but the new - much clearer - "management areas" (zones) differentiate between Timber Production (where logging could be seen as their main designation, perhaps), and Timber Management, where logging would only be used as a tool to bring them toward their Desired Conditions.

    Furthermore, what about the fact that they're proposed a number of logical new Special Interest areas totaling 6600 acres that would not be suitable to timber production at all, but currently are? These include a number of "wow, this place is cool" spots across the mountains that don't fall into the another-boring-oak-forest-on-a-shallow-ridge category. We all know that not every part of the forest is the same around here.

    I'd like to see more added to that list, and I'd like to see more added to area 4 – Significant Recreation and Heritage Corridors (Art Loeb and Mountains to Sea Trail). I'd like to see more backcountry. But overall, I do see this new plan as positive. It's certainly more clear.

    And finally, what *if* they could somehow lower the barrier a bit in places that are now open to timber production, and make a little money to spend on the infrastructure in the rest of the forest? Would that be so bad?

    Watching this unfold is just astonishing.

    And finally:


    To all those who ask "well didn't wildlife do just fine before we started 'managing' the forests', and why does it need us now?" The answer is yes, of course, but they relied on wildfires to create openings before, which we now suppress, so we have to find ways to keep openings in the forest to keep certain wildlife population at its *historical* levels. We've already intervened, so now we have to keep intervening or it all goes pear shaped really fast. (This applies to so much more than wildlife management, by the way - think invasives).
    You hit it on the head.

    Wildfires were a very common occurrence that could consume hundreds if not thousands of acres before the days of human suppression. We have literally done nothing in the last 40 years. I don't blame people for their misunderstanding because there has not been a lot of education on the matter.

  23. #23
    ready to ride
    Reputation: mattnmtns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    859
    What worries me the most is this will be the catalyst that add more acreage to Wilderness areas. While I am not inherently against it, and I am inherently against it restricting more trails from bicycles.
    Sent via my heady vibes from the heart of Pisgahstan

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by mattnmtns View Post
    What worries me the most is this will be the catalyst that add more acreage to Wilderness areas. While I am not inherently against it, and I am inherently against it restricting more trails from bicycles.
    Agreed. I really like the Backcountry designation. Like wilderness-ish, but without the bike restrictions. Allows some logging for the purpose of making it more backcountry-like, but not timber *production*. And doesn't restrict chainsaw maintenance/mechanized trail work.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 450VoltsDC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by WNCmtnman View Post
    You hit it on the head.

    Wildfires were a very common occurrence that could consume hundreds if not thousands of acres before the days of human suppression. We have literally done nothing in the last 40 years. I don't blame people for their misunderstanding because there has not been a lot of education on the matter.
    Thanks to both of you.

    Discussions like these are necessary to arrive at informed opinion, especially when the Mt. Bike community only get's involved when it feels threatened. But that's human nature, really.

    The question was asked early on, not entirely facetiously, " this is a Mt. Bike Forum, isn't it?" and that indicates a prevailing attitude. It's tough for participants to have stewardship of the resource that supports our sport, our passion, when the sport itself is all about speeding through and overcoming that resource.

    Discovering Early Succession Habitat here has answered questions I've long had including 'who's gonna clean up after the Brushy Ridge Loggers' and why are WNC Deer so darned small?'
    IT'S CRACKERS TO SLIP A ROZZER THE DROPSY IN SNIDE

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,417
    Here is an update of potential impact excess logging could have on the trail system in Pisgah district. FS has a long history of converting trails into roads for timber extraction, that happened this year with the Brushy Ridge project in Mills River area.

    Wild South - Support Our Work

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mike Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,289
    Exactly, Woodman. Again, thanks. Your attention to these matters from a-far is truly appreciated.

  28. #28
    Dig it!
    Reputation: 2bfluid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    710
    A few things to consider:

    1. Logging is not near as profitable as most think. I have been paying the exact same price for lumber from local sawmills for over a decade. The demand is actually very low at the moment. The USFS makes little to no money on these projects in Pisgah. I was told that by a member of the USFS that the goal was not really to make a profit but to provide a service (to industry).

    2. Comparing game species numbers to when logging was unchecked, rampant, and clear cut by entire drainages is pretty ludicrous. Not to mention that these areas are only great for hunting these games species for a few years. Once the brush gets too thick its much harder hunt, and once the stand gets to 20 plus years its back to the "biological desert" for hunters. At that point the canopy is reestablished and a lot of times the area has the feel of a monocrop. Just look at the vicinity north of the Bracken Mountain trail just across the USFS property line. This take is pretty short sited IMO.

    3.The USFS does controlled burns every single year and this helps wildlife, and tones down the argument about how natural fires used to keep things in check. More controlled burns and less logging, maybe?

    4.WNCA wanted the USFS to put forth a plan that would make it easier and less controversial when logging operations were proposed. This could have been done by protecting the better, more sensitive, or scared places (like old growth). This plan actually removes the protections for a lot of areas that had already protected by the USFS.

    5. I have not confirmed this but I was told that 4 out of the 5 major saw mills in the region were owned by Chinese companies. So its not like the profits are staying in WNC. Yes, some jobs are created.


    6. But this is the most important issue to MTBs. Once the area is designated to be managed for timber production good luck getting new trails established. Trails per USFS rules require a 100' buffer and only two crossings for extraction equipment (per a certain area). Forget the fact that 100,000 folks could use those trails over the life of that timber stand, but the USFS is more concerned about the two weeks every 50+ years the loggers are working.

    7 million people a year visit Pisgah. Mountain Biking continues to gain popularity at a staggering rate and will only increase with better bikes, youth cycling leagues, bike parks etc. Trail user group conflicts are only going to become more frequent and I expect that Mountain Biking options will become more limited with time. With out new trails, Pisgah may eventually get a whole lot smaller for mtbs. I hope I am wrong about that.

    Not to mention the whole wilderness expansion issue. We as a group, want roadless designations, not wilderness designation for most of Pisgah.

    This plan just begs for more controversy moving forward.


    If you have legitimate questions about this plan call Josh Kelly, the public lands biologist, at WNCA and ask him. He is a great guy and will discuss any part of this plan with you as in depth as you would like to go. He is also very busy so try to be concise.
    Should you do more trail work?

  29. #29
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodman View Post
    Here is an update of potential impact excess logging could have on the trail system in Pisgah district. FS has a long history of converting trails into roads for timber extraction, that happened this year with the Brushy Ridge project in Mills River area.

    Wild South - Support Our Work
    I rode out there the other day. What f'ing mess.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by 2bfluid View Post
    Not to mention the whole wilderness expansion issue. We as a group, want roadless designations, not wilderness designation for most of Pisgah.
    If I'm not mistaken, it'll be hard to get more roadless designation since that analysis was already done and has some strict definitions. But right now (the plan revision) would be the time to get Backcountry designation, which is the same "management area" laid over most roadless areas. Just a small point to consider when sending comments.

    Also, Backcountry != Wilderness, so it's OK for bikes.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Banjopickin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    625
    Alot of talk about impact and future usability etc. etc.

    My question is who/what organization is out there being a voice for mountain bikers?

    PAS?

    In all seriousness a million internet forum discussions doesnt equal one person actively participating in the discussion with USFS and other user groups. Who and what are OUR voice in the mix?

    I mean this in a seriousness not sarcastic way because I would like to help keep Pisgahs trails open for shreddage, let alone hiking, fishing, and general activities of a rad nature.
    On your left!

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ridn29s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    671
    What insanity....

    Next time you are in downtown Brevard take a look north/northwest at the high ridge - everything you can see up to the ridge line is within the 'Suitable for Logging' designation. Awesome, I'll have a front row seat to the devastation! It'll do wonders for the tourism industry. </snark>
    many gears, some pies

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodman View Post
    Here is an update of potential impact excess logging could have on the trail system in Pisgah district. FS has a long history of converting trails into roads for timber extraction, that happened this year with the Brushy Ridge project in Mills River area.

    Wild South - Support Our Work
    That's a conservation group, not very bipartisan, don't you think?

    Here is a great piece from the Transylvania County Times.


  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mike Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,289
    WNCmtmman- the fact is that corridors that people think are trails can be used as roads for timber extraction, ruining the corridor as a trail for many years to come. Wash Creek is not a trail anymore, it's a timber extraction road. Sidehill in Bent Creek used to be one of the best trails there- it's a road, nothing else now. It's also what I mean by having contractors take care of the work site after they leave. And yes, I know the trail was probably cleared as timber extraction road originally, but that does not mean it needs to continue to be used as such.

    I've been arguing for years and years (including when I was on the board) that one of the main advocacy points PAS should focus on is to re-classify corridors that are used as trails as such instead of as roads so that they cannot be used for future timber extraction.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Brown View Post
    WNCmtmman- the fact is that corridors that people think are trails can be used as roads for timber extraction, ruining the corridor as a trail for many years to come. Wash Creek is not a trail anymore, it's a timber extraction road. Sidehill in Bent Creek used to be one of the best trails there- it's a road, nothing else now. It's also what I mean by having contractors take care of the work site after they leave. And yes, I know the trail was probably cleared as timber extraction road originally, but that does not mean it needs to continue to be used as such.

    I've been arguing for years and years (including when I was on the board) that one of the main advocacy points PAS should focus on is to re-classify corridors that are used as trails as such instead of as roads so that they cannot be used for future timber extraction.
    And it's kind of contradictory to the the fact that most trails in question are so because of prior logging. We want to reap the benefits yet completely disregard why they are here in the first place.

    As for what I was saying last week, this is a good read.

    "Harvesting currently only occurs on 1,500 acres annually, so the fear over extensive logging in the future is unnecessary,” he said.

    USFS provides more info on timber planning - News - Mobile

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,023
    Why log at all? So hunters can shoot more animals and a few individuals can cash in on trees? Are those the benefits? Why log what is essentially the only reason many people live here? Believe me, I never would have moved here if it wasn't for the forests, and there is no reason for a public school teacher like me to stay here if those forests go away. Not that anybody gives a crap about my residency, but I can promise I'm not the only one. I'm getting very tired of the politics around here. Self-serving, entitled trash with no interests in the good of society. End of rant.

  37. #37
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Why log at all? So hunters can shoot more animals and a few individuals can cash in on trees? Are those the benefits? Why log what is essentially the only reason many people live here? Believe me, I never would have moved here if it wasn't for the forests, and there is no reason for a public school teacher like me to stay here if those forests go away. Not that anybody gives a crap about my residency, but I can promise I'm not the only one. I'm getting very tired of the politics around here. Self-serving, entitled trash with no interests in the good of society. End of rant.
    I have lived all over this country and I assure you the politics everywhere "Self-serving, entitled trash with no interests in the good of society".

    As far as the reason to log, I understand what they claim they are trying to do and logging can be good if done correctly. However, doing it correctly is counterproductive to doing cheaply and profitably. As we all know they are only concerned with doing it cheaply and profitably.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ridn29s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    671
    Mike, the most recent US Topos reflect exactly the opposite - many OLD corridors which haven't been used in decades are suddenly reappeared as numbered roads. I've walked more than a dozen of these, some in quite remote sections and some with 2' diameter trees right in the middle. It saddens me to think of these as wide roads used for tree extraction.
    many gears, some pies

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,417
    Got any photos?

    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    I rode out there the other day. What f'ing mess.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ridn29s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    671
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    I have lived all over this country and I assure you the politics everywhere "Self-serving, entitled trash with no interests in the good of society".

    As far as the reason to log, I understand what they claim they are trying to do and logging can be good if done correctly. However, doing it correctly is counterproductive to doing cheaply and profitably. As we all know they are only concerned with doing it cheaply and profitably.
    Actually, it's entirely possible to log sustainably and profitably. Sadly the USFS doesn't seem to have any desire to do it that way because it's much easier to just cash out the raw logs and be done with it. But that's why they need access to 700,000 acres, because you don't make nearly as much money on just the logs.
    many gears, some pies

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,417
    His letter notes that recreation hotspots are already protected, he is referring to developed recreation areas such as picnic areas and campgrounds. Trails are not protected in any way and often are made into roads for timber projects. Many examples of this down through the years.


    Yes, I trust conservation organizations that have forest ecologist on staff more than 1 hunter who writes an opinion piece in the Trans Times and has a long history of supporting logging because it is good for game species.

    Quote Originally Posted by WNCmtnman View Post
    That's a conservation group, not very bipartisan, don't you think?

    Here is a great piece from the Transylvania County Times.


  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,417
    FS actually loses money every year on logging projects. Some projects make $ but as a whole the agency loses money. Part of that is due to all the EA work and legal work for each and every timber sale.

    Quote Originally Posted by ridn29s View Post
    Actually, it's entirely possible to log sustainably and profitably. Sadly the USFS doesn't seem to have any desire to do it that way because it's much easier to just cash out the raw logs and be done with it. But that's why they need access to 700,000 acres, because you don't make nearly as much money on just the logs.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ridn29s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    671
    Quote Originally Posted by 2bfluid View Post
    A few things to consider:

    1. Logging is not near as profitable as most think. I have been paying the exact same price for lumber from local sawmills for over a decade. The demand is actually very low at the moment. The USFS makes little to no money on these projects in Pisgah. I was told that by a member of the USFS that the goal was not really to make a profit but to provide a service (to industry).
    USFS gets very little money to 'run' the forest, so they log to generate income. This is an example of austerity run amok. Properly fund the operations of the forest and don't extract resources at a loss just to pay the bills.


    Quote Originally Posted by 2bfluid View Post
    5. I have not confirmed this but I was told that 4 out of the 5 major saw mills in the region were owned by Chinese companies. So its not like the profits are staying in WNC. Yes, some jobs are created.
    The Chinese know the profit is in the finished product - generated bit by bit by adding value to the raw product. That's why they get into the business at the mill and then take the logs home to finish and reap the profits. To really benefit the region it should be required that the logs are finished to some significant part of their full finished value IN THE REGION THEY ARE LOGGED, something like 65-80%. A chunk of the manufacturing jobs (think furniture industry) that were lost in the last 30 years were doing just that. Logging is supposed to benefit the local economy because we 'pay' the cost of carrying that much land as such a low tax base.
    many gears, some pies

  44. #44
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,951
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodman View Post
    Got any photos?
    No

    The trail itself was fine but the view from the parking lot was horrible.

    They did take the last 100 yards of trace out which was a pretty section with a few good jumps. That kind of pissed me off but I rarely ride it anyways.

    I admit, I don't know everything about proper logging to benefit the forest (in fact, I know very little). However, I can't see how clear cutting sections is at all beneficial. Proposing to do 70% of the forest this way is very saddening even if it is over time.

    In my opinion, the only concern we should have with our state in national forests is to preserve them. Viewing them as a profit source should not even remotely be a concern.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Snototter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodman View Post
    Got any photos?
    Not my pictures but saw them on the book of faces. Top pic is looking down Wash Creek(new LTR reroute to the right at the bottom of the downhill). Bottom picture is about .25 miles from Trace Ridge parking lot down the upper section of LTR.

    Help prevent rampant logging on USFS lands-img_0353.jpgHelp prevent rampant logging on USFS lands-img_0354.jpg

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ridn29s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    671
    I know the USFS loses money, but as I said - it's possible to not lose money. Lot's of what the USFS wants to do - build/maintain roads, kill vegetation, etc... is paid for by the logging. Since they don't get adequate funding for necessary infrastructure they resort to logging at a loss (but less of a loss than just paying for the infrastructure). The whole system is whacked. In the end they aren't incented to turn a profit.

    It would be better to properly fund the necessary infrastructure budget up front (from congress), then develop sustainable programs that feed revenues back into the system. The most sustainable forestry practices are centered on getting big business OUT of the woods and getting smaller local business INTO the woods. Big business is all about shareholder value - i.e getting the most $$$ out of the least effort. That's entirely unsustainable when applied to extractive industries.
    many gears, some pies

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Why log at all? So hunters can shoot more animals
    Wow! Such an ignorant statement. Outdoorsmen, even the native Americans, long utilized these woods before recreational bikers and hikers. I think both sides should have an equal say. I have heard the argument that hunters could still hunt without logging and I say that Bikers/Hikers could still do so without cutting trails. Being able to do it and what is optimal, are 2 different things. Being on both sides of the argument, it just sickens me how so many have no interest in bi-partisanship. They solely do not want their trails touched, which is understandable, but still stonewall on the areas they do not entertain because 'they don't want to look at the immediate product'.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by Snototter View Post
    Not my pictures but saw them on the book of faces. Top pic is looking down Wash Creek(new LTR reroute to the right at the bottom of the downhill). Bottom picture is about .25 miles from Trace Ridge parking lot down the upper section of LTR.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0353.JPG 
Views:	100 
Size:	153.5 KB 
ID:	941043Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0354.JPG 
Views:	136 
Size:	128.4 KB 
ID:	941044
    And it's ugly, no doubt, but isn't even a year into it's regrowth cycle.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    239
    They're now taking comments on the proposed wilderness expansion areas. You can send your comments in by mail, email, or use this interactive mapping/commenting tool:
    National Forests in North Carolina - Home

    A few of the proposed areas make sense. Like the Lost Cove area, for example. Or the additions to Linville Gorge and Middle Prong areas.

    Others, however, do not. I'm looking at Daniel Ridge, Cedar Mountain, and South Mills here. It's not that I'm worried about these ones *actually* making it through to wilderness designation. But what is strange to me is that, if these areas fail to make the cut for Wilderness, large parts of them are proposed for management area "1" (suitable for timber production). As if there is no middle ground. I am ENTIRELY in support of these particular areas being put into the Backcountry management area, which recognizes their wild and roadless characteristics, but not wilderness.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,023
    Quote Originally Posted by WNCmtnman View Post
    Wow! Such an ignorant statement. Outdoorsmen, even the native Americans, long utilized these woods before recreational bikers and hikers. I think both sides should have an equal say. I have heard the argument that hunters could still hunt without logging and I say that Bikers/Hikers could still do so without cutting trails. Being able to do it and what is optimal, are 2 different things. Being on both sides of the argument, it just sickens me how so many have no interest in bi-partisanship. They solely do not want their trails touched, which is understandable, but still stonewall on the areas they do not entertain because 'they don't want to look at the immediate product'.
    Native Americans hunted for food and survival. I don't care about hunting or hunters, because I don't need to drive a big truck and shoot animals to be a man. I care about preserving the forests and mountains for future generations. Clear-cutting does not preserve the forests, nor does it benefit trail users, which are the majority of forest users. The problem is that both sides aren't equally represented. The Conservative representation in this area is oppressive and self-serving, and in this instance supports shooting things in the name of sport rather than taking more humane things into consideration. Why should everybody lose the beauty of the mountains so a smaller segment of the population can have an easier time killing things? Doesn't seem to be a fair trade to me, but I guess that's just my ignorance showing.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    66
    I really appreciate the various POVs in this thread, and the minimum of flaming. Here is a link that was in the Asheville Times. It contains some USFS contact info at the bottom.

    Forest Service starts with Bluff to win trust

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: motomike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Snototter View Post
    Not my pictures but saw them on the book of faces. Top pic is looking down Wash Creek(new LTR reroute to the right at the bottom of the downhill). Bottom picture is about .25 miles from Trace Ridge parking lot down the upper section of LTR.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0353.JPG 
Views:	100 
Size:	153.5 KB 
ID:	941043Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0354.JPG 
Views:	136 
Size:	128.4 KB 
ID:	941044
    To be honest , that kind of looks cool to me. Not often you get to see more than 50 feet through the woods around here.

  53. #53

  54. #54

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    224
    I rode out to Courthouse Falls today with Lorie Stroup and Patrick Scott, both employed by the USFS, to photograph the new bridge on Courthouse Creek and learn about why they invested so much in it.

    They both thanked the T-Times for running the guest column written by David Whitmire, and were irritated at the WLOS spin on the topic.

    Whitmire is not just a hunter with a linear thought process. He rides mountain bikes, and is interested in multi-user forest practices. He was also the first mountain bike guide in Pisgah, sometime in the late 80's or early 90's.

    Nobody in the Ranger office is trying to kill vegetation, clear cut the woods or greedily shut down recreation.

    I'm more concerned about mountain bike races in the rain destroying my favorite trails than I am about logging.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,417
    "I rode out to Courthouse Falls today with Lorie Stroup and Patrick Scott, both employed by the USFS, to photograph the new bridge on Courthouse Creek and learn about why they invested so much in it."

    Got any photos of this new said bridge? And what was the answer as to why they did invest so much in it?


    "Whitmire is not just a hunter with a linear thought process. He rides mountain bikes, and is interested in multi-user forest practices. He was also the first mountain bike guide in Pisgah, sometime in the late 80's or early 90's."

    David is indeed a good guy and I agree somewhat well rounded in his use of the forest. But I do stand by my statement that I trust the conservation organizations in the area and have spent quality time with several of the forest ecologists that these groups employ. The USFS has foresters on staff, and that is very different from a forest ecologist.


    "I'm more concerned about mountain bike races in the rain destroying my favorite trails than I am about logging."

    I completely agree, this should be an area of concern and looked at with the same level of scrutiny.
    Last edited by Woodman; 11-26-2014 at 01:21 PM.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,417
    Quote Originally Posted by motomike View Post
    To be honest , that kind of looks cool to me. Not often you get to see more than 50 feet through the woods around here.
    Yes you can see more than 50'. If they cut all the trees down, you could see Greenville from the Blue Ridge Parkway. The question in my mind is should you be able to see more than 50'? That is not what the southern forest are suppose to look like.

    For some reason, the look of logging bothers me way more in the SE than anywhere I have traveled. Maybe it is due to the quality (or lack there of of) of the project that I see in so many timber sales in the SE. Maybe it is due to the amount of rain we get in western NC and increased erosional effect of lack of vegetation. That is what I see in these provided photos. No vegetation means significant run off on the landscape and the effect that will have on close-by trails is real. It is what we call trail tread watershed.

    Lots if timber activity going on here in Bend, but fuels reduction is a big thing here. Not a lot of rain here so no real effect of forest thinning and increased run off.

    It would help also if they protected the trails better (but they give no respect). In reality the serious problems we see in trails in the east is that they started life as timber extraction routes (not designed to be long term use as recreational trails).

    Was in UK for 3 weeks in 2009 and saw much larger clear cuts there than I have ever seen in the US. But trails were protected and in fact done so well it was fun to ride though these large cuts. You focused on the trail (and the fun) and not the logging. They did leave a much cleaner landscape than anything I have seen in the SE.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Help prevent rampant logging on USFS lands-img_9706.jpg  

    Help prevent rampant logging on USFS lands-img_9734.jpg  

    Help prevent rampant logging on USFS lands-img_9737.jpg  


  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ridn29s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    671
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodman View Post
    "I rode out to Courthouse Falls today with Lorie Stroup and Patrick Scott, both employed by the USFS, to photograph the new bridge on Courthouse Creek and learn about why they invested so much in it."

    Got any photos of this new said bridge? And what was the answer as to why they did invest so much in it?


    "Whitmire is not just a hunter with a linear thought process. He rides mountain bikes, and is interested in multi-user forest practices. He was also the first mountain bike guide in Pisgah, sometime in the late 80's or early 90's."
    These are from several weeks back, right after they got it across the creek but before the guardrails. I've got more from 'in-progress' earlier in the project. I'd gone out several times to check it out.

    Help prevent rampant logging on USFS lands-dsc_9251.jpgHelp prevent rampant logging on USFS lands-dsc_9254.jpgHelp prevent rampant logging on USFS lands-dsc_9255.jpgHelp prevent rampant logging on USFS lands-dsc_9249.jpgHelp prevent rampant logging on USFS lands-dsc_9250.jpg
    many gears, some pies

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,417
    Did the old one wash out, or this was needed as an upgrade for the large log trucks pulling logs out as part of that timber sale? Has the logging started? Have not been back ion there for years.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ridn29s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    671
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodman View Post
    Did the old one wash out, or this was needed as an upgrade for the large log trucks pulling logs out as part of that timber sale? Has the logging started? Have not been back ion there for years.
    Not washed out, but was in bad shape on each end (gaps between bridge and road) and was way too low. It was pretty much the same kind of bridge that washed out at Daniel Ridge and it would jam up exactly the same way when it rained hard.

    I'm sure the size of the bridge is partly due to the planned project up there. The work they plan will require some significantly large equipment and it's going into some really remote areas with quite old road beds to 'recover'. I'll head up that way anytime if you want a tour, it's both walking and riding to get into the remote areas.
    many gears, some pies

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,417
    Thanks for the offer of a tour, but I am in Bend OR till fall 2015 (and good chance of a more permanent move here after we return to NC).


    Quote Originally Posted by ridn29s View Post
    Not washed out, but was in bad shape on each end (gaps between bridge and road) and was way too low. It was pretty much the same kind of bridge that washed out at Daniel Ridge and it would jam up exactly the same way when it rained hard.

    I'm sure the size of the bridge is partly due to the planned project up there. The work they plan will require some significantly large equipment and it's going into some really remote areas with quite old road beds to 'recover'. I'll head up that way anytime if you want a tour, it's both walking and riding to get into the remote areas.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Native Americans hunted for food and survival. I don't care about hunting or hunters, because I don't need to drive a big truck and shoot animals to be a man. I care about preserving the forests and mountains for future generations. Clear-cutting does not preserve the forests, nor does it benefit trail users, which are the majority of forest users. The problem is that both sides aren't equally represented. The Conservative representation in this area is oppressive and self-serving, and in this instance supports shooting things in the name of sport rather than taking more humane things into consideration. Why should everybody lose the beauty of the mountains so a smaller segment of the population can have an easier time killing things? Doesn't seem to be a fair trade to me, but I guess that's just my ignorance showing.
    Wow! Ignorance abound! First off, have you ever hunted the National Forest? There are no trophies, there are no large herds, it isn't easy to access. Most people who endure the rigors of hiking backcountry USFS land only to kill a small deer that weighs 100 pounds and then ruck it out of woods, do so because they need to eat or want to eat naturally, as does all of us. Don't try and paint the image of hunting as a negative one by placing it in the shadow of the 'Native Americans'. The necessities of life haven't changed since the Native Americans. We all still need to eat. Simply because you would rather buy organic meat from Whole Foods doesn't take away the back end production of harvesting those animals. Just because you are too big of a coward to go harvest your food and would rather censor yourself to the factors involved in the harvesting of food, and would rather paint 21st Century hunting as men with 4x4's and a power grab complex, doesn't make how you eat any more noble. As for the 'smaller segment' garbage, hunters are not the smaller segment, they just have a smaller voice, 'a la the media not wanting to give them a voice. I would almost bet that hunters in WNC, would equally number any bikers that live here, not those who make this area a destination. I am not going to trump a local's voice over those of someone who only travels here for the weekend. As for the rest, why should locals who have been hunting for generations in these mountains, have their rights suppressed by an invasive minority? I know what you'll say to that, 'well we aren't taking away your right to hunt'. I agree, but you are making it more difficult by suppressing natural catalysts (Forest Fires) that did happen during the period of 'Native Americans' as well as preventing artificial catalysts from happening. That would be like me saying, 'well I am not taking away your right to ride bikes, but we aren't going to allow the cutting and maintaining of trails'. It really places a new meaning on what your 'right' is versus what is optimal, doesn't it?

    This land is for the recreation of us all, not just you. If you don't like hunting, then don't partake in it. If you don't like seeing areas that are selectively logged, then ride different areas.... but don't for one second think that you should just be able to waltz into an area that most of our great grandfathers hunted before you were born, and suddenly make it your domain to control while demeaning and placing eccentric labels on a certain class of people. Hunters don't do it you, and they certainly expect the same in return.

    And one last note, these areas that you don't want cut simply because of how it looks, would be highly beneficial to the wildlife that inhabit those areas. I find it hilariously sad that you would advocate to completely negate an opportunity to do something beneficial for the species of WNC, under the guise that it would attract more hunters to kill those species. It makes perfect sense. Let's allow the entire existence of these animals in WNC, to just completely starve off altogether, just so hunters won't be allowed to effectively manage a thriving population, on the contrary.

    Here is the latest article from a NCWRC biologist. This is about what is beneficial to them, which will in turn be beneficial to hunters, but don't let that blind you to the root cause which is their overall habitat and existence.

    Wildlife needs limited thinning of USFW properties in NC, biologist says - North Carolina Sportsman
    Last edited by WNCmtnman; 12-01-2014 at 10:37 AM.

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    305
    tl; dr, but you may well be right.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,023
    Quote Originally Posted by WNCmtnman View Post
    Wow! Ignorance abound! First off, have you ever hunted the National Forest?

    Is this a trick question? What did I say that would make you question my hunting experiences?

    Simply because you would rather buy organic meat from Whole Foods doesn't take away the back end production of harvesting those animals.

    I have nothing against hunting for food. Taking away valuable resources to do it doesn't make sense.

    Just because you are too big of a coward to go harvest your food and would rather censor yourself to the factors involved in the harvesting of food, and would rather paint 21st Century hunting as men with 4x4's and a power grab complex, doesn't make how you eat any more noble.

    I'm not painting anything. It is what it is.

    As for the 'smaller segment' garbage, hunters are not the smaller segment, they just have a smaller voice, 'a la the media not wanting to give them a voice. I would almost bet that hunters in WNC, would equally number any bikers that live here, not those who make this area a destination. I am not going to trump a local's voice over those of someone who only travels here for the weekend.

    Tourism is keeping Transylvania afloat. Take away those weekend visitors, and you're out of a job.

    As for the rest, why should locals who have been hunting for generations in these mountains, have their rights suppressed by an invasive minority?

    What rights? Where is the right to hunt on public land a protected right?

    I know what you'll say to that, 'well we aren't taking away your right to hunt'. I agree, but you are making it more difficult by suppressing natural catalysts (Forest Fires) that did happen during the period of 'Native Americans' as well as preventing artificial catalysts from happening. That would be like me saying, 'well I am not taking away your right to ride bikes, but we aren't going to allow the cutting and maintaining of trails'. It really places a new meaning on what your 'right' is versus what is optimal, doesn't it?

    Well, actually, this would be taking away trails. Don't let obvious facts stand in your way, though.

    This land is for the recreation of us all, not just you. If you don't like hunting, then don't partake in it. If you don't like seeing areas that are selectively logged, then ride different areas.... but don't for one second think that you should just be able to waltz into an area that most of our great grandfathers hunted before you were born, and suddenly make it your domain to control while demeaning and placing eccentric labels on a certain class of people.

    Recreation for all is correct. Not just hunters. It sure sounds to me that you want that control to feed your sense of entitlement. I'm not being demeaning. I'm just calling it like I see it.

    ... Hunters don't do it you, and they certainly expect the same in return.

    That's exactly what you're doing, is it not?

    I find it hilariously sad that you would advocate to completely negate an opportunity to do something beneficial for the species of WNC, under the guise that it would attract more hunters to kill those species. It makes perfect sense. Let's allow the entire existence of these animals in WNC, to just completely starve off altogether, just so hunters won't be allowed to effectively manage a thriving population...

    Natural balance of resources and wildlife. Why create an artificial habitat to artificially increase the size of the deer population? Hmm... For hunting, right? Don't people want to hunt to control the deer population? Why increase it to limit it?

    ... which will in turn be beneficial to hunters...
    Calling me ignorant doesn't make you right. Insult my intelligence all you want, but you're the one blind to what this is really about. I apologize for taking up so much space. If anybody wants to throw more insults at me, please pm me.

  65. #65
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,612

    Help prevent rampant logging on USFS lands

    Quote Originally Posted by WNCmtnman View Post
    Wow! Ignorance abound! First off, have you ever hunted the National Forest? There are no trophies, there are no large herds, it isn't easy to access. Most people who endure the rigors of hiking backcountry USFS land only to kill a small deer that weighs 100 pounds and then ruck it out of woods, do so because they need to eat or want to eat naturally, as does all of us. Don't try and paint the image of hunting as a negative one by placing it in the shadow of the 'Native Americans'. The necessities of life haven't changed since the Native Americans. We all still need to eat. Simply because you would rather buy organic meat from Whole Foods doesn't take away the back end production of harvesting those animals. Just because you are too big of a coward to go harvest your food and would rather censor yourself to the factors involved in the harvesting of food, and would rather paint 21st Century hunting as men with 4x4's and a power grab complex, doesn't make how you eat any more noble. As for the 'smaller segment' garbage, hunters are not the smaller segment, they just have a smaller voice, 'a la the media not wanting to give them a voice. I would almost bet that hunters in WNC, would equally number any bikers that live here, not those who make this area a destination. I am not going to trump a local's voice over those of someone who only travels here for the weekend. As for the rest, why should locals who have been hunting for generations in these mountains, have their rights suppressed by an invasive minority? I know what you'll say to that, 'well we aren't taking away your right to hunt'. I agree, but you are making it more difficult by suppressing natural catalysts (Forest Fires) that did happen during the period of 'Native Americans' as well as preventing artificial catalysts from happening. That would be like me saying, 'well I am not taking away your right to ride bikes, but we aren't going to allow the cutting and maintaining of trails'. It really places a new meaning on what your 'right' is versus what is optimal, doesn't it?

    This land is for the recreation of us all, not just you. If you don't like hunting, then don't partake in it. If you don't like seeing areas that are selectively logged, then ride different areas.... but don't for one second think that you should just be able to waltz into an area that most of our great grandfathers hunted before you were born, and suddenly make it your domain to control while demeaning and placing eccentric labels on a certain class of people. Hunters don't do it you, and they certainly expect the same in return.

    And one last note, these areas that you don't want cut simply because of how it looks, would be highly beneficial to the wildlife that inhabit those areas. I find it hilariously sad that you would advocate to completely negate an opportunity to do something beneficial for the species of WNC, under the guise that it would attract more hunters to kill those species. It makes perfect sense. Let's allow the entire existence of these animals in WNC, to just completely starve off altogether, just so hunters won't be allowed to effectively manage a thriving population, on the contrary.

    Here is the latest article from a NCWRC biologist. This is about what is beneficial to them, which will in turn be beneficial to hunters, but don't let that blind you to the root cause which is their overall habitat and existence.

    Wildlife needs limited thinning of USFW properties in NC, biologist says - North Carolina Sportsman
    Easy now fella, your biased agenda is showing.

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Calling me ignorant doesn't make you right. Insult my intelligence all you want, but you're the one blind to what this is really about. I apologize for taking up so much space. If anybody wants to throw more insults at me, please pm me.


    Is this a trick question? What did I say that would make you question my hunting experiences?

    Oh I don’t know, you’re very abrasive opinion?! Are you telling me that you have such based off of something you don’t understand?

    I have nothing against hunting for food. Taking away valuable resources to do it doesn't make sense.

    Who is taking away valuable resources? Hardwood forests naturally fell and replenish themselves, but we’ve taken that into our hands as well.

    I'm not painting anything. It is what it is.

    It is what you say it is. Big difference.

    Tourism is keeping Transylvania afloat. Take away those weekend visitors, and you're out of a job.

    My job isn’t based off of tourism and I live in Henderson County, but Transylvania did just fine prior to manufacturing being demonized and run out of town. Besides, I could care less about what is keeping Transylvania afloat. It still isn’t valid basis to suppress the voice of locals.

    What rights? Where is the right to hunt on public land a protected right?

    Executive Order 13443. It's also what lays the foundation for being able to manage wildlife habitat on federal lands. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007...df/07-4115.pdf

    Well, actually, this would be taking away trails. Don't let obvious facts stand in your way, though.


    No it wouldn’t but way to spin the context of my original comparison, anyway. Go back and read it again.

    Recreation for all is correct. Not just hunters. It sure sounds to me that you want that control to feed your sense of entitlement. I'm not being demeaning. I'm just calling it like I see it.

    Riiiigggghhhhtttt, because the group asking for less than 1% of all federal land in WNC, to be managed for their sake after it was promised to them in the 80’s, is the group ‘wanting control and feeling entitled’. Did you read that before you posted it? I would say the group whose trails also only inhabit less than 1% of the same land, demanding control of all of it when 95% of the land being discussed, wouldn’t even fall within their concern as it pertains to trails, is the group ‘wanting control and feeling entitled’. I think calling it ‘like you see it’ is 100% correct because you surely aren’t doing so based on facts.

    That's exactly what you're doing, is it not?

    No, I haven’t insulted any biking community with silly monikers or stereotypes. I am a biker but also a sportsman.

    Natural balance of resources and wildlife. Why create an artificial habitat to artificially increase the size of the deer population? Hmm... For hunting, right? Don't people want to hunt to control the deer population? Why increase it to limit it?

    ‘Why create an artificial habitat’. That’s an easy answer, because we suppress the natural processes that enrich their habitat, naturally. We have done so for over 50 years and have neglected their habitat for over 50 years. ‘Why control it to limit it’. That is essentially what we are doing when we refuse to take control and enrich a habitat that we haven’t allowed to be done so naturally or artificially.

    A little education on the subject other than what you read from shock jocks and sensationalized stories, would be greatly beneficial to you.

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by mbmb65 View Post
    Easy now fella, your biased agenda is showing.
    If being an equal, non-biased voice for both parties while attempting to not allow opinions to be formed off of misinformation, is an agenda, then gladly, LET IT SHINE!

  68. #68
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,612

    Help prevent rampant logging on USFS lands

    Quote Originally Posted by WNCmtnman View Post
    If being an equal, non-biased voice for both parties while attempting to not allow opinions to be formed off of misinformation, is an agenda, then gladly, LET IT SHINE!
    Initially, it seemed that this were true. However, as this topic has progressed, and particularly in your post from the other day, you show a pretty clear disdain for bikers, even though you claim to be one, which I found odd.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 450VoltsDC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodman View Post
    Thanks for the offer of a tour, but I am in Bend OR till fall 2015 (and good chance of a more permanent move here after we return to NC).
    Not about moving Logs or People, it's all about moving Trout! Or is it?

    New Bridge Opens To Cross Creek - Brevard NC - The Transylvania Times
    IT'S CRACKERS TO SLIP A ROZZER THE DROPSY IN SNIDE

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,417
    The new bridge will no doubt be better for fish and other water species, but indeed will be good for big olé logging trucks pulling out timber.

    Quote Originally Posted by 450VoltsDC View Post
    Not about moving Logs or People, it's all about moving Trout! Or is it?

    New Bridge Opens To Cross Creek - Brevard NC - The Transylvania Times

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by mbmb65 View Post
    Initially, it seemed that this were true. However, as this topic has progressed, and particularly in your post from the other day, you show a pretty clear disdain for bikers, even though you claim to be one, which I found odd.
    I AM A BIKER! It isn't the community, I have a disdain for bikers who post ignorant stereotypes like mountainbiker24, and do nothing to help people form unbiased opinions based off of unbiased information. I showed nothing but respect and a levelheadedness until that comment. I will always be a Sportsman first, heck, it's because of hunting and fishing in the backcountry, that I even got into mountain biking. I am sorry if I came off as abrasive towards bikers in general, I am not. I've said plenty of times that I have saddled this topic because I have investment in both sides, I would just like to see both sides work together rather than have folks spew their ignorance about once side. That is all.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mike Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,289
    Try this link about what defines a dialogue vs. a debate.

    NCDD Resource Center » Dialogue Versus Debate

    There are no "winners" in a dialogue. Finding common ground is the goal. Assumptions are revealed for re-evaluation. Introspection of one's own position occurs. There's more than that...click on the link. We need more dialogue, not debate.

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ridn29s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    671
    Quote Originally Posted by 450VoltsDC View Post
    Not about moving Logs or People, it's all about moving Trout! Or is it?

    New Bridge Opens To Cross Creek - Brevard NC - The Transylvania Times
    If it was all about the trout they should have been a lot more careful about the downstream sediment deposits resulting from the construction activities.

    Help prevent rampant logging on USFS lands-dsc_8884.jpg
    many gears, some pies

  74. #74

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    239

    Yikes

    Does anyone have deets on why IMBA-SORBA and PAS are supporting National Recreation Area status for those areas, something that *literally* requires an act of congress, rather than just designating those areas as a management area more suitable like Backcountry (which could be done immediately as part of this plan)?

    I don't see any new Wilderness nor National Recreation Areas standing a snowball's chance in today's congress, let alone the increasingly conservative one that will be in place by the time this gets around. As a result, these areas will probably fall into a management area that allows timber production by default.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mike Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,289
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbwnc View Post
    Does anyone have deets on why IMBA-SORBA and PAS are supporting National Recreation Area status for those areas, something that *literally* requires an act of congress, rather than just designating those areas as a management area more suitable like Backcountry (which could be done immediately as part of this plan)?

    I don't see any new Wilderness nor National Recreation Areas standing a snowball's chance in today's congress, let alone the increasingly conservative one that will be in place by the time this gets around. As a result, these areas will probably fall into a management area that allows timber production by default.


    It's not a detail, J, but logic tells me that the NRA (Hah!) designation makes sense because it's close to permanent. A backcountry designation, if I understand correctly, is simply an administrative decision that could be reversed at any time. I'd rather see this issue addressed for the long-term so that we don't end up in a "same song, different verse" scenario for the umpteenth time...

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Brown View Post
    I'd rather see this issue addressed for the long-term so that we don't end up in a "same song, different verse" scenario for the umpteenth time...
    I agree. It's just that the bar is so high for congressional designation. I really hope IMBA-SORBA has a better reading on the likelihood of something like that actually happening than I do. Davidson River (including the Daniel/Laurel/Cedar proposed wilderness additions) is such an obvious candidate for a higher level of protection than they're proposing.

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mike Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,289
    If those areas become Wilderness, it would have a hugely negative impact on our local economy. Personally, I would want to see PAS/IMBA/SORBA explore bringing a class action lawsuit against the USDA; how is it not blatant discrimination to re-designate popular areas so that the most frequent trail users would no longer have access? I, and most people I know, would become the biggest trail poachers ever. I also think it's incredibly two-faced for the local environmental groups, with whom PAS has allied in the past, to turn around and betray the MTB community by supporting an increase in Wilderness designations. What a bunch of garbage.
    Rant over. Please submit comments, people. I need to calm down before I submit mine. Otherwise, I'll be debating, not dialogue-ing...

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,417
    Backcountry designation is within the LRMP developed by the USFS, and would be in place until a new LRMP was developed. LRMPs are in place for 20 or so years. NRA, or National Conservation Area is a federal designation by Congress and offers much more permanent protection. Both could happen at different times, we should support both avenues of protection.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Brown View Post
    It's not a detail, J, but logic tells me that the NRA (Hah!) designation makes sense because it's close to permanent. A backcountry designation, if I understand correctly, is simply an administrative decision that could be reversed at any time. I'd rather see this issue addressed for the long-term so that we don't end up in a "same song, different verse" scenario for the umpteenth time...

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: upstateSC-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,488
    Made the cover on the G'ville News today...forest-service-logging-plan-draws-criticism
    Also, anyone else see logging trucks at Dupont?
    Not the best sight in the world.
    Niner Jet 9 RDO, Scalpel 29, XTC 650b, 04 Stumpjumper FSR Pro, Trek Rigid SS - No suspension, no gears....no problem

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ridn29s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    671
    make sure to check the link at the bottom...

    https://my.usgs.gov/ppgis/studio/launch/24175
    many gears, some pies

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    22
    why are you people up in arms about timber production?

    the forest and its ecology was ruined by poor, for lack of a better word 'management,' way back when when all the people cared about was production and sales. poor understanding of international trade has brought in invasive pests that have decimated whole populations of species, and wildfire suppression created an imbalance in the natural way of things.

    now, these people with degrees in sustainable forestry/biology/woodland firefighting/etc. are out there working full time for middle class wages because they love the woods/wildlife and want to see them protected.

    I want to know why you think its some shady agenda. why aren't you up in arms about walmart and mcdonalds paving everything they can and paying people dirt? or up in arms about the pay for teachers in nc? why is this your call for public action?

    is it because you have stuck your heads in the sand with regards to the real world and now that your asheville bubble may pop you're finally pissed off? get a grip people. you don't know what you are talking about.

  83. #83
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,612

    Help prevent rampant logging on USFS lands

    Not you again. This is a mountain bike forum. The issue at hands has an impact on mountain biking. Get it? And how did you surmise any ones opinions on Walmart and teachers wages? Is it because you've got your head up your arse and know not what you speak of? You're ineffective and offensive. Still.

  84. #84
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,612

    Help prevent rampant logging on USFS lands

    Quote Originally Posted by Weight_of_Sound View Post
    why are you people up in arms about timber production?

    the forest and its ecology was ruined by poor, for lack of a better word 'management,' way back when when all the people cared about was production and sales. poor understanding of international trade has brought in invasive pests that have decimated whole populations of species, and wildfire suppression created an imbalance in the natural way of things.

    now, these people with degrees in sustainable forestry/biology/woodland firefighting/etc. are out there working full time for middle class wages because they love the woods/wildlife and want to see them protected.

    I want to know why you think its some shady agenda. why aren't you up in arms about walmart and mcdonalds paving everything they can and paying people dirt? or up in arms about the pay for teachers in nc? why is this your call for public action?

    is it because you have stuck your heads in the sand with regards to the real world and now that your asheville bubble may pop you're finally pissed off? get a grip people. you don't know what you are talking about.
    I forgot to quote your vitriol. My above post is in response to you.

Similar Threads

  1. Rampant 2013
    By DoubleK in forum Banshee Bikes
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-20-2012, 11:19 AM
  2. Bracken Mtn to USFS lands connection
    By Woodman in forum North & South Carolina
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 07-30-2012, 03:35 PM
  3. What is possible on USFS lands
    By Woodman in forum North & South Carolina
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-16-2012, 03:38 PM
  4. Hammerschmidt on a rampant?
    By kitejumping in forum Banshee Bikes
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-17-2011, 09:43 AM
  5. Some Rampant lovin' going on...
    By hampstead bandit in forum Banshee Bikes
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-16-2011, 05:09 AM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.