FLY Posted April 15 Posted April 15 On 4/8/2025 at 4:57 PM, RedHawk454 said: no one cares, get over it. This a forum dedicated to BiGFo0T Says the guy with the wild claim of humans deforesting the great plains with fire. 1
DirtRoadYaya Posted April 22 Posted April 22 Being Loggers by trade, I am happy to see our own resources being put to use. Also as someone lives very near the unmanaged forested land I am also grateful. I only can speak to my own area and experiences. I really don't believe it will impact Bigfoot here. We have so much wilderness and Park lands that there is plenty for both. JMHO. I have to remember when forming opinions only know what I know and don't know what I don't know. 1 1
georgerm Posted May 3 Posted May 3 Here are some google facts that need to be considered before we can answer the question. What's the question: Should the USDA cut 112 million acres of national forest in one year? How often should they cut this much? Google facts "The US Forest Service manages approximately 193 million acres of land, encompassing 154 national forests. While the exact amount of harvest for any given year is not specified, the agency's activities related to forest management, including conservation efforts and timber harvesting, impact the land's composition and utilization," google "Approximately 43 million acres of the US National Forest system are suitable for timber production, representing about 35% of the total 191 million acres managed by the US Forest Service. However, only a small fraction, about half a percent, is harvested in any given year. The remaining 65% of the forested land is designated for non-timber uses like wilderness, recreation, and environmental protection," GOOGLE No, BLM land is not the same as National Forest land.The BLM manages approximately 31.4 million acres of forested land, with around 16% or No, BLM land is not the same as National Forest land. Specifically, in western Oregon, the BLM manages 2.4 million acres of productive forests. google The age of a lumber trees in the United States varies depending on the species and region. In the U.S. South, trees like Southern yellow pines are typically harvested after 20 to 25 years. In the Pacific Northwest, trees like Douglas-firs and western hemlocks can live and be harvested at 40 years or longer. Some oak species in Illinois, for example, can reach financial maturity at 40-60 years. How can the United States Department of Agriculture (Forest Service) cut 112 million acres of national forest, when only 43 million acres are available for timber? Answer?
georgerm Posted May 4 Posted May 4 Here are some google facts that need to be considered before we can answer the question. What's the question: Should the USDA cut 112 million acres of national forest in one year? Google facts "The US Forest Service manages approximately 193 million acres of land, encompassing 154 national forests. (this is not all timber land) While the exact amount of harvest for any given year is not specified, the agency's activities related to forest management, including conservation efforts and timber harvesting, impact the land's composition and utilization," google "The percentage of national forest land suitable for timber harvest varies significantly by forest and region, but generally ranges from about 9% to 26%," GOOGLE This amounts to about 18% of USDA land is suitable for timber harvest .18 x 193,000,000 =about 34,740,000 acres of USDA land is suitable for timber harvest. Let's say 35 million acres are suitable for timber harvest and all the trees will be gone in one year. No, BLM land is not the same as National Forest land. The BLM manages approximately 31.4 million acres of forested land, with around 16% or No, BLM land is not the same as National Forest land. Specifically, in western Oregon, the BLM manages 2.4 million acres of productive forests. google The age of a lumber trees in the United States varies depending on the species and region. In the U.S. South, trees like Southern yellow pines are typically harvested after 20 to 25 years. In the Pacific Northwest, trees like Douglas-firs and western hemlocks can live and be harvested at 40 years or longer. Some oak species in Illinois, for example, can reach financial maturity at 40-60 years. Can the United States Department of Agriculture (Forest Service) cut 112 million acres of national forest over a 1 year period? Answer? no 1
david75090 Posted May 5 Posted May 5 In my opinion, if they want to manage the forest, they need to release more beaver out into the wild and let them manage the forest like they did before people nearly wiped them out. 1 1
Catmandoo Posted May 5 Posted May 5 On 4/8/2025 at 10:56 PM, norseman said: Homo Erectus was using fires well before 1.5 million years ago in Africa. Cooking meat on fires was very well established in Homo Sapiens by the time they crossed the land bridge to the new world. Along with many other species of the genus Homo. And Native Americans did use fires as a tool. They made habitat for the ungulates they like to eat better. Crossing the land bridge had challenges in finding fuel for fire / cooking. It is not uncommon for peoples of high latitudes to eat raw meat. Early Arctic explorers learned to burn bones from the 'locals'. Native Americans torched the prairies to provide a short term nutrient blast to the soil that helped new green shoots grow. Many 'modern' people have lost track of natural ways that have evolved over millions of years. Re-read about the wisdom of the pines. Check out Serotiny with respect to 'fire-mediated serotiny' and Pyriscence and the importance of fire. The next time that you are wandering in a pine forest and see a cone on the ground that is closed up and has not released seed, leave it alone. If you pick it up, you will be slimed by really good pitch. 1
georgerm Posted May 5 Posted May 5 13 hours ago, david75090 said: In my opinion, if they want to manage the forest, they need to release more beaver out into the wild and let them manage the forest like they did before people nearly wiped them out. The concept of timber production on Negative Impacts: Tree Damage: .Opens in new tab Beavers often cut down trees in riparian zones, which can damage timber stands and potentially impact forest regeneration.
georgerm Posted May 5 Posted May 5 (edited) 14 hours ago, david75090 said: In my opinion, if they want to manage the forest, they need to release more beaver out into the wild and let them manage the forest like they did before people nearly wiped them out. Hello David. The concept of timber production on millions of American lands managed by the Forest Service is to get the most wood from lands that are suitable for growing Douglas Fir, hemlock, pines, and some hardwoods. Trump wants to increase timber production. "The US Forest Service manages 193 million acres of land, encompassing national forests and grasslands. Of this, approximately 43 million acres are considered suitable for timber production." google How many more millions of acres does Trump want to put in timber production? "According to google: Negative Impacts: Tree Damage: Beavers often cut down trees in riparian zones, which can damage timber stands and potentially impact forest regeneration." Most beavers chew down trees in or next to swamp land which probably won't diminish timber production. I wonder if beavers wander into timber land next to swamps and kill timber trees? Beavers build dams that cause creeks to rise and possible possibly flood acres of timber trees in some areas which probably kills commercial grade trees. Please find more on this subject? Edited May 5 by georgerm
FLY Posted May 5 Posted May 5 18 hours ago, david75090 said: 18 hours ago, david75090 said: In my opinion, if they want to manage the forest, they need to release more beaver out into the wild and let them manage the forest like they did before people nearly wiped them out. What they need to do....
georgerm Posted May 5 Posted May 5 On 4/6/2025 at 11:14 PM, norseman said: The federal forests around me need thinning badly. Fires get worse every year. I welcome this news. Norseman accurately touched on this important issue which is national forest thinning that will be managed partially by the Forest Service. "Forest thinning is one of the most important tools land managers have to reduce the frequency and intensity of wildfires. Through thinning, land managers can remove surface fuels such as brush and dead, dying, or weak trees that would feed a growing forest fire," google. Thinning is an expensive process when cutting brush and small understory trees for 193 million acers of timber land is a daunting task. We are talking about hiring vast hand labor crews to cut dry brush and small trees so the forest floor is void of brush and wood that is fuel for the next mega forest fire. Before moving on, we need to clarify some confusing statements from google. Statement 1: "US Forest Service does not manage 112 million acres by themselves. Statement 2: "They (Forest Service) manages a total of 193 million acres of land mostly with three other federal agencies. 112 million acres is the acreage within the National Wilderness Preservation System, which the Forest Service administers a portion of. Additionally, a recent emergency situation determination by the Secretary of Agriculture affected 112.6 million acres of National Forest System land, not necessarily the entire acreage under Forest Service management," google "The National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) is a network of federally designated wilderness areas managed to preserve their natural condition and provide opportunities for recreation and scientific study. Established by the Wilderness Act of 1964, the NWPS includes over 800 wilderness areas across 44 states and Puerto Rico, encompassing more than 112 million acres. These areas are managed by four federal agencies: the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management," google. The Forest Service manages a total of 81 million by themselves. They partially manage 112 million acres with three other federal agencies. This equals 193 million acres of land that the Forest Service has a hand in. The 112 million acres is the acreage within the National Wilderness Preservation System, which the Forest Service administers a portion of and it's not the total acreage they manage. Additionally, a recent emergency situation determination by the Secretary of Agriculture affected 112.6 million acres of federal lands. On 4/6/2025 at 7:07 PM, RedHawk454 said: Following Trumps directive, the usda is going to allow the logging of 112 million acres of national forest across the USA to increase timber production. The claim that the Trump administration is making is that it will reduce forest fires and (so they say). This is primarily being done to increase timber production with ZERO consideration of the effect that this will have on the woods in the USA. I’m worried that this will have a negative impact on the BiGFo0Ts that are still alive. It was the unregulated logging the 18 and 1900’s that drove them to isolation.. Protect our forests Land of Sasquatch Dont tread on me! Trump is going to have an uphill legal battle with the Forest Service, National Park, the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park Service since they are probably firmly grounded with federal lands that they manage. I'm sure federal wildlife biologist know and have documented bigfoots and they keep the knowledge buried. Bigfoot is sly and smart and will survive forest management programs unless all 193 million acres is clear cut. 1
david75090 Posted May 8 Posted May 8 Beavers bring back wetlands, help reduce fires. Beavers were part of the overall health of the forest, not with an eye toward making money off of logging. What we're seeing now with the fires, is what happens when you mess with the balance of nature by removing a critter of importance, ecologically, not economically.
Will Posted May 8 Posted May 8 2 hours ago, david75090 said: Beavers bring back wetlands, help reduce fires. Beavers were part of the overall health of the forest, not with an eye toward making money off of logging. What we're seeing now with the fires, is what happens when you mess with the balance of nature by removing a critter of importance, ecologically, not economically. Maybe a small part but the biggest problem is civilization’s previous critters in charge of government refuse to manage forests. Hopefully the new admin can turn that around.
norseman Posted May 8 Admin Posted May 8 15 hours ago, david75090 said: Beavers bring back wetlands, help reduce fires. Beavers were part of the overall health of the forest, not with an eye toward making money off of logging. What we're seeing now with the fires, is what happens when you mess with the balance of nature by removing a critter of importance, ecologically, not economically. How does a beaver stop a fire on a ridge? Or stop pine beetles? Or mistletoe? Or blister rust? What happened during the trapper days was tragic. Just like the buffalo. But at least where I live we have beaver in the valleys. They mainly target cottonwood trees.
Arel3 Posted May 9 Posted May 9 Isn't there also regulation, law, that forces logging operations to plant so many trees for the amount that they harvest? I'm aware that concept would have a multi-decade turnaround until new trees are grown. But isn't that the case? If it is then, in the long run, it's a step being taken to make things better for the country.
Backdoc Posted May 9 Posted May 9 People will debate the best way is to handle forest management. I want to pivot to the idea of What effect increased forest management activity might have on potential bigfoot sightings? We know in Bluff Creek in 1967 the area of the creek bed was swept open from a previous flood pre-1967 This made it easier to have the PGF encounter. The result was a more open space than what might have been had the flood not happened. Harder to Bigfoot to hide if he/she wanted to eat fish or take a drink. Nature has started long ago to reclaim the PGF area to somewhat of a Pre-flood status. Logging crew and forest activity will have some effect on a bigfoot sightings because it some unknown way it will effect Bigfoot behavior. Maybe migration pattern changes. Maybe the activity creates fear driving animals away but it could just as easily cause short term curiosity attracting animals or Bigfoot. I am assuming that effect would drive Bigfoot away from the activity. I have absolutely no way to prove this. We know when mankind builds into the outskirts of the town they start to have encounters with animals who might have been living there. In some case this results in wild animals who would normally live in the woods quietly to go through your trash. I don't know if Bigfoot is attracted to any old pizza boxes or thrown away left overs, but if that is the case, it doesn't seem to create Bigfoot sightings around the trash like it does Bear sightings. I wonder if in the short term activity in the forest creates some draw from Bigfoot to the area. We could even imagine the logging crews of Lyle Loverty could have actually attracted Patty to the area. My guess it the result would be to repel Bigfoot. With this new proposed forest activity, we are going to find out.
Recommended Posts