Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

$20 million/Pine Beetles

blake

blake

Life Member
NEWS!

<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
><st1:State alt=
</st1:State>Montana</ST1:p gets $20 million to combat pine beetles

<st1:City w:st="on">HELENA</st1:City>, <st1:State w:st="on">Mont.</st1:State> (AP) - The <st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> Department of Agriculture is providing $20 million to accelerate efforts to fight mountain pine beetle infestation in <ST1:p<st1:State w:st="on">Montana.</st1:State>
<st1:State w:st="on"></st1:State>
<st1:State w:st="on"></st1:State>
The announcement follows 2009 aerial surveys of the state showing 2.7 million acres of lodge pole pines infested with mountain pine beetle USDA is allocating $20 million above amounts initially provided for forest management and conservation programs in <ST1:p<st1:State w:st="on">Montana</st1:State>.

The money can be used to help address bark beetles U.S. Forest Service spokeswoman Elizabeth Slown says it hasn't been determined how much each of the state's 10 forests will receive.

The money will be used to remove beetle-killed trees, especially in areas frequented by people such as campgrounds. It will also be used to thin areas of thick stands.
<TABLE style="mso-cellspacing: 1.5pt; mso-table-lspace: 2.25pt; mso-table-rspace: 2.25pt; mso-table-anchor-vertical: paragraph; mso-table-anchor-horizontal: column; mso-table-left: right; mso-table-top: middle" class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellPadding=0 align=right><TBODY><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ebe9ed; BORDER-LEFT: #ebe9ed; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #ebe9ed; BORDER-RIGHT: #ebe9ed; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt"><O:p</O:p



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


This post is for informational purposes only.

blake
 
I'm wondering what made you post this news release Blake?

It is sad that in a short 20 years the Forest Service in Montana, like in many western states, went from having a timber program that addressed insect outbreaks such as mountain pine beetle, provided thousands of jobs for small communities, and was profitable ... but now those jobs are gone and we have just another federal government program that is costing taxpayers millions of dollars each year.
 
FarmlandQDM said:
we have just another federal government program that is costing taxpayers millions of dollars each year.
Click to expand...

Which is worse? $20 million to try and fix a major problem or billions of tax payers' dollars spent each year fighting the "catastrophic" wildfires that result from the beetle outbreaks? And the problem goes back way beyond 20 years. 100+ years of fire suppression along with drought has expedited the processes.
 
AZHunter said:
Which is worse? $20 million to try and fix a major problem or billions of tax payers' dollars spent each year fighting the "catastrophic" wildfires that result from the beetle outbreaks? And the problem goes back way beyond 20 years. 100+ years of fire suppression along with drought has expedited the processes.
Click to expand...


My thoughts exactly.
 
just another federal government program that is costing taxpayers millions of dollars each year
Click to expand...

Then allocate some of the Quail and Pheasant banquet funds to head out that direction to supplement along with the RMEF contributions for forest preservation. I don't see much of it at work around here.
 
My point was 20 years ago there was a federal timber harvest program in Montana. Timber sales on federal ground helped reduce beetle outbreaks and large catastrophic wildfires, created good jobs for people in rural communities, and made money for the federal government ... the forest service was a profitable government agency.

Like AZHunter said after 100+ years of fire suppression, coupled with timber harvest suppression due to public opinion, we now have more problems with large wildfires. Throw in the increased urban/wildand interface and we now have very expensive wildfire suppression cost that have increase taxpayer burden.

Management of western forest has two options ... log it or burn it ... you can't stop both like we have or you create conditions for large stand replacement fires that are impossible to stop or are very expensive to stop and burn up lots of homes.

I believe it is more sensible to manage our federal forest to reduce the conditions for wildfires while producing needed private sector jobs, providing wood products to the country, and generating revenue like they use to instead of simply adding to the tax burden ... with good forest stewardship they could make 20 million instead of spending 20 million and accomplish the same result.
 
Last edited:
Farmland, you certainly seem to know what you are talking about with fire suppression (lack thereof) and poor forest management; however, there are still several forests across the west that do have very active timber harvests and can't keep up with the beetle outbreaks. I know that there are still several areas (NFs) of Montanna that have a timber program. Granted, they may not be what they used to be, but they are there. We have at least 3 (maybe 4) NFs in AZ that have an active timber harvest program and the bark beetles are kicking our arses out here. In addition to the 100+ years of fire suppression, overstocking, and drought (all leading to increased competition for limited water) causing severly unhealthy trees, the noticeable lack of a sufficient winter to knock the beetles back has really taken a toll. Where there used to be good cold winters with lots of snow, thus allowing only one life cycle of beetles, we now have long, dry, warm winters that are allowing up to 3 or 4 life cycles of beetles/growing season. The trees just can't keep up and logging and fire (as valid as they are under the right conditions) just can't keep up with the beetle explosion. Wildfire, itself, can further promote beetle outbreaks because trees like Douglas Fir release a pheromone that attracts beetles when they are "injured" by fire. Also, in addition to the native bark beetles that used to be regulated by Mom Nature, we have 5 or 6 (maybe more?) species of non-native beetles, moths, and aphids that are wreaking as much havoc, if not more in some areas, on tree stands. You're pretty much on track, Farmland, but it goes much, much deeper than just poor forest management.
 
AZHunter said:
it goes much, much deeper than just poor forest management.
Click to expand...




I agree ... unfortunately politics and emotions have more to do with forest management in the northwest than science does today ... throw out the NEPA process that shackles most federal timber sales and the Forest Service might actually be a productive agency again ... the NEPA intent was good but it has become a ridiculous mockery of science

Sorry for knocking the agency I assume you work for, I have no experience in the southwest and perhaps it is different there, but I have many years of experience with federal management in the northwest, although I no longer live there, I have several friends in Montana and Idaho that work for the Forest Service and other government and private forest industries. The federal timber programs of the Inland Northwest are a joke compared to what they used to be and it angers me when I realize how much the mismanagement of that agency is costing US taxpayers.

Forest managers of the Pacific Northwest have very effective tools to deal with beetle outbreaks, it is not a complicated problem that takes millions of taxpayer dollars to solve. Doug-Fir trees do not release pheromones when stressed, the alcohol content in their pitch increases when stressed and the beetles are attracted to the alcohol. One very effective technique is to fall "trap" trees during a flight period and the beetles will target these "stressed" trees, once they have laid their eggs, those trap trees can then be removed from the timber stand before the next flight, the logs de-barked and milled into wood products, and an outbreak can be greatly reduced ending the beetles life cycle. These trees where usually sold to pay for the project without costing taxpayers anything. The beetles themselves do give off pheromones though. When beetles first attack a tree they give off an attractant pheromone and once the trees are saturated with beetles they actually give off another pheromone that repels incoming beetles. There are synthetic phermones available for both attractant and repellent. Repellent spray can be applied to trees you want to protect and attractant can be applied to trap trees. These are just a few of the tricks that have been around for many years but they are management techniques that require quick action and the problem the Forest Service is having today is the inability to do anything in a timely manner.

It has become a complicated problem since people have placed politics and opinions above science. Good forest management is difficult for many to understand because most forest cycles are much longer than the human lifespan. Bark beetle epidemics have been around for thousands of years, they are a part of forest ecology, not the end of it.
 
Last edited:
FarmlandQDM said:
I agree ... unfortunately politics and emotions have more to do with forest management in the northwest than science does today ...

It has become a complicated problem since people have placed politics and opinions above science.
Click to expand...
WELL SAID! :way:

No offense taken at all. I work for USFWS in endangered species management/regulatory stuff. I have to work with all the agencies to protect listed species and their habitats. We suffer the effects of the same issues in our decisions. And you are correct in that most programs are not what they used to be. :thrwrck:

I apologize if I offended your knowledge/experience. And thanks for correcting my errors about the pheromones. I'm in 3 days of all day meetings regarding NEPA and a very complicated, complex issue surrounding the Grand Canyon so my brain is a little fried. I spent 3 years helping design a project to protect a very limited species and bark beetles were one of the issues so I learned pretty much all there was to know. It is, in fact, the sap of the damaged tree and then the beetles release the pheromones. I've helped set and check the traps as well as requiring them as mitigation to protect the species/its habitat. Great dialogue!
 
  • Deleted by N/A
Show…
<o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" http:="" iowawhitetail.com="" forum="" images="" smilies="" redface.gif="" border="0" alt="" title="Embarrassment" smilieid="2" class="inlineimg"></o:smarttagtype>You didn’t offend me, this is just a passionate topic for someone that has lived and worked around the forest industry in <st1:state w:st="on"><st1>Montana</st1></st1:state>. Most people on this website probably do not realize how polarizing forest management on federal lands has become in the northwest to the people that live there.<o></o>

Much of what is happening in <st1:state w:st="on"><st1>Montana</st1></st1:state> today was predicted by many professional foresters that were discredited 20 years ago by anti-logging interest. Perhaps the Grand Canyon situation you are dealing with is different but the current state of <st1:state w:st="on"><st1>Montana</st1></st1:state>'s forest health is almost entirely a man made situation as a result of poor management decisions in the past. It is difficult not to be irritated when you read a news release like the one that started this thread and you know this could have been avoided. Now my federal tax dollars will be thrown at the tail end of a problem in the hope of stopping it … and it sucks when you have no choice but to pay for something you tried to warn against.
 
How right you are! Unfortunately, the situation you describe does, in fact, go way beyond Montanna and the Pac NW. We have the exact same issues down here in the SW. The Grand Canyon situation I'm dealing with is a whole other can of worms driven by the Secretary of the Interior. I was simply referring to the nightmare of NEPA, especially on complex issues. Without going into the details and certainly not wanting to start a debate, we are working on whether or not to withdraw about a million acres of Federal land (BLM and FS) from mineral mining entry (driven by uranium) from the Grand Canyon watershed. We are getting pressure from the mining interests, the environmental groups, and the NIMBYs. I'm glad I'm (FWS for that matter) not an actual decision maker. Our main role is to ensure whatever decision is made is in compliance with the ESA.

I can certainly feel and appreciate your irritation. Almost everyday, we are providing input and advice on how to avoid future situations and am frequently ignored and then we end up getting sued (more of your tax dollars wasted) because we didn't do it right the first time (and that's all agencies). Most of the poor management of today could have been avoided if we (as a people) would have had the foresight 100 years ago! Rest assured, you are not alone in your frustration and irritation. If its any consolation, your tax dollars also pay my salary and I do my best to fight the good fight with a fair and open mind every day! We could probably kill a case or two of cold ones talking about what's wrong with the system today and how it could have been avoided years ago...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom