[oregontim]

Someone else remembered pictures of decimated forests after timber companies got through with them. I'd lay odds that's propaganda. The photos are almost certainly of (a) 19th Century logging, when things were a lot different; or (b) domestic stands, with trees raised for the purpose of harvesting, and then logged. In the latter case, the reduced field should be no more surprising than the stubble in a wheat field after reaping.

No, you can’t just wave a hand and dismiss it as “propaganda.” Just take a trip up to Oregon and you’ll see the results of clearcutting — including 21st century clearcutting — all over the hills. From where I live in Eugene, the hills east and west of us are marred by clearcuts like bad haircuts. It’s a lot better than it used to be, but it still happens. And it’s ugly, jarring, and bad for everybody except the landowners whose private property forest lands are worth millions. Lots of erosion to begin with, not to mention the forest ecosystem vs. the left-over remnants.

Clearcutting is the dominant form of logging on private industrial timber lands and state forest land in Oregon. Extensive clearcutting has occurred across hundreds of thousands of acres of privately-owned timber lands for the past century, and continues today.   This has some devastating impacts on our forested ecosystems - converting healthy, functioning, and diverse forests into monoculture tree plantations. 

Clearcutting was also extensive on federal public lands in the 1960s-1980s. Today, most logging on federal public land in Oregon has been focused on thinning or selective harvest and not clearcutting in the past 15 years.

The above is from www.clearcutoregon.com, which is yes, an organization with an agenda; but they approach the issue starting with facts.

Washington, north of us, is much the same, lots of ugly clear cuts scarring the hills.

[oregontim]

Someone else remembered pictures of decimated forests after timber companies got through with them. I'd lay odds that's propaganda. The photos are almost certainly of (a) 19th Century logging, when things were a lot different; or (b) domestic stands, with trees raised for the purpose of harvesting, and then logged. In the latter case, the reduced field should be no more surprising than the stubble in a wheat field after reaping.

No, you can’t just wave a hand and dismiss it as “propaganda.” Just take a trip up to Oregon and you’ll see the results of clearcutting — including 21st century clearcutting — all over the hills. From where I live in Eugene, the hills east and west of us are marred by clearcuts like bad haircuts. It’s a lot better than it used to be, but it still happens. And it’s ugly, jarring, and bad for everybody except the landowners whose private property forest lands are worth millions. Lots of erosion to begin with, not to mention the forest ecosystem vs. the left-over remnants.

Clearcutting is the dominant form of logging on private industrial timber lands and state forest land in Oregon. Extensive clearcutting has occurred across hundreds of thousands of acres of privately-owned timber lands for the past century, and continues today.   This has some devastating impacts on our forested ecosystems - converting healthy, functioning, and diverse forests into monoculture tree plantations. 

Clearcutting was also extensive on federal public lands in the 1960s-1980s. Today, most logging on federal public land in Oregon has been focused on thinning or selective harvest and not clearcutting in the past 15 years.

The above is from www.clearcutoregon.com, which is yes, an organization with an agenda; but they approach the issue starting with facts.

Washington, north of us, is much the same, lots of ugly clear cuts scarring the hills.