Senate Bill 270
West Virginia
Senate bill 270 was introduced at Governor Justices request. It would allow very limited logging on State Parks. It would allow for 4 trees per acre or up to 1/2 of merchantable timber per acre to be harvested. A lot of the timber in our parks are mature. By allowing this it will allow for more diversity in the parks. Mature forests are good for certain wildlife but like a barren desert for others. By creating a more diverse Park it will allow for a more diverse variety of Wildlife especially songbirds. It will help open the canopy to allow more sunlight to hit the forest floor resulting in better understory for some wildlife and wildflowers. A lot of visitors go to the parks to view wildlife. By providing a more diverse habitat that will provide for more and different wildlife species than are already there.
Any income will be earmarked to stay with the Park system. The Park system has over 50 million of dollars of overdue repairs, maintenance, and upgrades. This will help with that and require less money from the States general fund.
Anyone can go to WV Legislature bill tracking website and read the bill. If you agree with this please call the Governors office at 304-558-2000 and let them know you support SB270 and also let your Delegate and Senator know as well. Every call is important
Will do. Thanks for the heads up.
West Virginia is 50th in tourism dollars. We are at 4 billion, Kentucky 8 billion, and Ohio at over 20 billion. The average tourist spends 2.5 days in West Virginia. The national average is 4.5 days. We are within an 8 hour drive of half of the United State's population.
Our state parks are in need of 50 million dollars for infrastructure deficiencies. Our state park's forests are at old growth, which is not good for wildlife. Wildlife prospers with a diverse forests. One needs to look no farther than the Monongahla National Forest to see lack of game due to late stage forest growth with minimal early successional habitat. Visitors do not see game because the age of the forest is not compatible with healthy game populations. Ruffled grouse have almost disappeared and deer are near record lows.
Senate bill 270 is a chance to create a diverse forest while funding our state parks. SB 270 allows for select timbering on our 6 largest state parks. The timber operations consist of no more than 25% of a state park over a 20 year time period. No more than four trees per acre!
1\3rd of revenues will be held back to allow for reseeding wildlife areas accessed via cinder trails. Wildlife viewing will be possible because there will be wildlife where there currently is minimal. No viewsheds or areas of higher human usage will be logged.
Currently, 17 of 25 eastern states already manage timber on state parks. We need to find ways to support our parks. If not, we run the risks of public jewels being lost. This is a responsible, highly regulated opportunity to reinvest in our parks.
Please call members of the senate natural resource committee, senate finance and the governors office at 304-558-2000 in support of sb270.
Thank you.
You need to let your friends and family know about this - several save the forest groups are posting on social media how bad this bill is. I saw last night where several friends like their post on FB and I explained things to them as to what is really happening- they were surprised - plus I told them to read the bill and see that these groups were sort of stating half truths.
Lots of people think logging is a bad thing. They have no idea the good that it does for the wildlife.
Well, I guess I'm the odd man out here, but how will those logs be transported out of the park areas? On big noisy trucks on the main roads I would suppose. I have yet to see logging operations that are relatively quiet and neat and leave no ugly mess. I personally do not want to go to a park where I hear the sound of chain saws, trees cracking and crashing to the ground and have to deal with big log trucks driving through the park roads. Most of the parks only have one or two ways in and out not to mention the bulldozing of roads to get the logs to staging areas for transport that will have to be used. I am not a tree hugger, but I have problems with this issue. I do understand the financial need and the connection to wildlife habitat, but are they going to be able to do this very disruptive operation without it being a negative experience for park visitors? If so, how will they keep the sound of chains saws and crashing trees and huge trucks rumbling through the park roads from being a nuisance? I have experienced this very thing in other state parks and it pretty much ruined the experience for me. I guess I will agree with John McCoy in his Woods and Waters column in today's Gazette Mail, he points out that a 100 acre tract with mature hardwoods would allow loggers to take possibly 400 trees as long as not more than half of the saleable trees are taken. That's a lot of trees on 100 acres.
John points out that the current state code states that "parks were created to preserve scenic and aesthetic areas for the public. Note the word 'preserve'. The bill being considered would change it to "maintain', a less definite term." John's article is entitled "Cut trees, but not in state parks."
Something to think about.
One problem I see is it would have to be closely monitored because loggers seem to take more than they are supposed to and we have to be careful about who does it, it should be low bidder instead of good old buds to whoever is in charge. This happened to us in some county property that had timber cut off of it.
90% of the parks already have the logging road infrastructure needed to remove the logs David. The woods that many of these parks reside in once were logged heavily. High graded too. Which is why so much hollow beech exist there as example. And, why many faint dozer trails still exist there. The hiking trails weren't hand dug in most cases. Yes, it would require the inconvenience of hearing it but, you won't be allowed around it while under practice. So, your eyeballs won't hurt too bad. It's like everything else in life. It is a compromise. And, it would be heavily regulated if it ever happens.
I haven't read the whole bill but, the cold hard truth is at 4 trees per acre, it will never happen. A logger could never survive on that requirement nor, could a timber company put forth the investment to harvest in these areas, for such a huge loss in return. They both get paid based on the volume they produce. And, their costs are high as is. Add state bureaucracy on top of that and, 4 sequoia tree per acre wouldn't pay for it. Much less many of the buckeye, beech, and magnolia stands that make up a large percentage of our park forests.
It sounds good and it had to start somewhere in a bill form. But, make no mistake, no industry forester or any logger would touch a sale set up with those guidelines. So, as is, you need not to worry about your view shed or, the audible offense of chainsaws you speak of. It simply is not monetarily possible. God Bless men
I guess I don't have a lot of faith in the "heavily regulated" part of the proposal. We are dealing with the state government after all, and frankly there have been enough mess-ups in that area to make me skeptical. Remember the careful monitoring of our water supply? Once those trees are gone, they are gone and the mess remains. Well, I guess we'll see.
David that goes along with what I said about the regulated part.
I've spent a fair amount of time in a government regulation jobs for forestry and Mining, as well as a private industry forester harvesting timber on state and national pubic lands. It is heavily regulated on these lands. Whether you realize regulations existence or not, it does exist in levels meant to preserve. Not conserve. And, because your eyes tell you that isn't the case, doesn't mean that is the case.
Trees grow back. They aren't lost and many of the trees that encompass the 78% of our forested state, are simply stump sprouts from logging past. Even those trees you suggest will never return, make up that statistic. So, it isn't as if they will be lost. It's a renewable resource. And the exact same tree that gets cut, will grow again if you cut it before the roots die.
Logging is rarely cosmetically appealing. However it serves a very distinct purpose for forest ecosystems. Our state parks are forests too. And, many of those forests are teetering on the brink of being permanently damaged by neglect. We can fix it or keep going as is. Which will favor only the emotional heart while doing very little positively for the forest ecosystem in these parks.
Well that makes sense. I honestly don't know enough about it to comment.
I'm going to have to agree with Dave on this one. I have no expertise with logging issues, but I know what I've seen. I understand the selective part of it and the regulation. I watched the logging operations at Parchment Valley in Jackson County and it was a disaster. It was not a selective cut, but was supposedly done by a reputable logging company and they agreed to lots of requirements. But they wanted to get those log trucks as far back in the woods as they could, so they cut roads all over the sides of those hills. They were suppose to clean up and leave things a certain way. Doesn't look like that happened to me. Brush piles, big root balls, partial trees, the list goes on. Basically no clean up. Which doesn't allow for easy replanting. Now we have huge areas of thick underbrush that you can't even walk through. They even left so many pieces of trees that it's extremely hard to even walk through some areas. There are some areas just covered in weeds and tall grasses that look like you could walk right through, until you try. Under that grass are hundreds of 2 foot to 4 foot long pieces that are 6-10 inches thick. Good way to break an ankle. I know this is just one example, but it certainly left a bad taste in my mouth for logging.
I think that the people at Parchment Valley should hold the responsible for cleaning up that mess if that is what they agreed on. I wouldn't want that either after a logging operation came through.
So I can't believe my eyes? Hmmm
It amounts to the way the contract is/was written ,no contractor logging or otherwise is going to do 1 thing more than a contract states. For example have a inspector and written agreement with sawmill that the logs belong to you not the logger and he gets zero until you and inspector agrees that he has complied to contract . Be specific about EVERY single detail in language that everyone can understand . So it was on Parchment valley to see that it was done correctly .
So the way I see it , if state parks are logged correctly , with private ( not state inspectors) to make them comply to a well written contract to comply environmentally all is good. But if you let the state get their political fingers involved in it you have a mess.
When I timbered my farm in winter of 03/04 I had a contract that specified what species and what size trees to be removed. What size tops they could leave, made sure BMP was followed. I even got to pick what type of seeds I wanted in skid road and type of fertilizer. I only took ash, popular, and hard maple 18 inches dbh and above. I left all oak, hickory, walnut, and cherry. Some areas were cut heavier than others. Logging crew did a great job. One of the best decisions I’ve ever made. Of course, it was a cut to improve game habitat and it worked. As a side benefit I was able to pay off the farm, build a cabin, and buy a Polaris ranger.
Another thing I failed to mention is that the logging roads opened up a lot of area that was difficult to get to. When I was younger it wasn’t hard to walk sidehill along a 45 degree angle hill but now that I’m older it’s a lot nicer and easier to walk a road or trail to get to a lot of areas. Deer and turkey use the roads to travel too, not to mention it’s 90% easier to get a deer out of the woods.
Greg, sounds like you did it right and came out well on that arrangement.
Thanks, it worked out well. We bought the first part in 1990 and the second farm next door in 1994. We then had a Forest Stewardship plan done on the farm which let us know what we had and to guide us over the next 20 years on how to best manage the timber. I tweaked it a little to favor wildlife habitat over maximum income. I was offered over a hundred thousand for my red oak, but I wanted to keep it for Mast and to keep big mature trees in the landscape. Other than losing an occasional tree they just continue to add value over the years and add esthetic value to the forest. I think the point is to work with a certified forester and develop a short and long term plan for the forest to develop into what you want. We just had a new Stewardship plan done to help guide us for the next 20 years if we live that long. LOL. I also had a QDMA biologist evaluate the farm to help tell me what I was doing right, what I was doing wrong, and to give me ideas and information on things I didn’t know about to further enhance the habitat. I’ve found out that it’s first best to get good professional help to develop a plan first then stick with it.
Problem is in the details or fine print as always. I completely and totally understand responsible foresting harvest but this bill is not that. It's the answer to when government gets involved and sees dollar signs before understanding what is right. Gobbler took specific timber of his property but this bill is about " merchantable timber" which in the real world is oak, hickory and hard woods etc. All other trees are pulp wood basically. When these trees are predominantly timbered what is left is maple, gum, poplar trees which grow quicker will be the dominant tree of the wood lot.
I know several foresters who all agree this is a BAD bill and hope it doesn't pass. Well actually they do because they will make good money as well as the state in the short term but it will be bad news long term for wildlife, sportsmen and women and out of state tourists.
And no I'm not against responsible forestry and every one agrees the National Forest is in dire need of some. But this is about STATE lands including, Blackwater forest, Cathedral State Park, Virgin Hemlock Coopers Rock, etc all will be available under this bill.
I am about to timber my 900 acres in the mountain. I am going to do it like gobbler did. It is being done for the hunting. I am going to be honest about that. With the proceeds I can go to the midwest and Idaho and Montana to hunt big bucks.
JR, have you got a Forest Stewardship plan done yet? Check with forestry division. It’s a plan that shows what you have and how to manage it per your desires. You can get reimbursed for 75% of plan.
Those trees and such left hand is talking about, likely had no markets. Remember, NAFTA KILLED American timber markets. And, the by products market created by logging. So, what companies have survived, can no longer be so indiscriminate about the pulp species, size, form, etc.... Pulpwood now has t be straight, sound, and certain species to qualify for being merchantable. So, there is no where to take a lot of what most people think is waste. When you pile it all up, you have just as many people telling you that what you are doing is wrong. And, when you leave it lay for nutrient transfer back to the soil, you have the other group saying you wasted it.
Also, often times, many landowners, private and public, want piles and want liberalized distribution. Piles create habitat for nesting ground birds, rabbits, etc... So, once again, you get back into the random looking, not being what you see kinda deal.
And, sometimes loggers do not do their job and, foresters do not ensure they do. Once again, as a guy that does this for a living and, has done it on these lands, rest assured that wouldn't happen on a state park, state forest, or any public land. Regardless of what you think you are seeing.
David, I'm not trying to insult you. I'm trying to say maybe you don't know as much about what you are seeing as you believe you do. Or, in the case someone didn't do their job, maybe you are concerned it will happen in a state park. All I can say to that is it won't.
Left Hand, deciduous forests don't get replanted. Because the stump sprouts will simply over take the planted seedlings and kill them. As far as the waste you say is there, refer to the paragraph talking about merchantable markets. As far as the 6 to 10 inch chunks covered by the tall grass and vegetation, that was a wood bridge built to ensure the skidder did not cause ruts that would long term negatively affect that area. It's a common practice when protecting the water shed and water table. No, it isn't pretty but, it works and, it is affordable. Profit margins in hardwood lumber will not support coal mining practices concerning bridges, gravel, etc... So, we use what we have on hand to protect water quality. And, as far as the roads, rock is expensive. VERY expensive. Building road is EXPENSIVE. VERY expensive. To the tune of around $50,000 per mile. So, I promise that the landowner's likely wanted those roads or, the timber company would have saved a ton of money by paying the logger $5/MBF more to skid it farther, then pay to build all those roads and rock them.
Coop, merchantable timber is anything with a monetary value. It is true that if some form of this bill passes, desirable species will be cut. Economics demand it. But, good forestry practices will see the non-desirable species removed along with them. That's simply good forest ecology. And, you can bet the state forests and parks will have that as top priority.
God Bless men
I believe this bill is not written in the best interest of wildlife, sportsman or tourism. It's written in the best interest of making a quick buck and the heck with anyone else. The state government is playing on the thoughts of wild life conservationist and sportsman believing they will ignorantly believe that this is a good thing. But if you read the actual bill and read between the lines this is a horrible bill! Doubt me call a forester!
Your elected officials see a cash cow and think the public is all in for more revenue without being a tax added to them. They think the sporting world will support it to! It's a bad bill that I I think should go down in flames.
I believe this revenue will not be protected under the RP act and will eventually find it's way into the general fund but that's just my humble opinion. I fully trust my government to do the right thing. Just ask any Indian if they believe that also.
Coop, the Bill was written to get the proposal on the table. And, in no way stands a chance to pass and be in-acted as is. It simply will not happen. Economics were not in the writing of this Bill. Not one ounce of it. Yes, I'm sure the state would love to have the revenue but, who ever wrote the bill is likely trying to spoon feed the idea at this point. That or, they know not one thing about Timber Management.
There is an excellent article in the Gazette-Mail today Feb. 12 (you have to read it in the on line E edition) written by an experienced forester setting forth several reasons the proposal is a bad idea from the standpoint of forest management. Sure worth a read.
