loggers are coming to clear the land behind us

[Hollow]

Doesn't, typically now, a law exist that requires trees which border any water source such as a stream, creek, river, etc. to be left standing under all circumstances ?

Some states do, others don't. Since the property is owned by a timber company they should weather the state has a law or not. The reason some states do not is because all the big timber companies started doing this before before most states passed the regulation and most logger's associations encourage their members to use the practice so it doesn't become an issue and the states start hiring "Harvest Inspectors". The idea behind it is if most harvesters regulate themselves the states won't have to and the timber companies won't have to deal with another bureaucracy.

It's been a long time since I've dealt with any of this but I think the general idea is that if water is still running through a ditch two weeks after the last rain it's considered a stream.

 

[RobertBrown]

Get some of these and spread them around.
Northern Spotted Owl Facts - Defenders of Wildlife
hope this helps.....

 

[powerpace]

Most states have a buffer law for creeks and rivers. I don't know what it is in Washington. Are they doing a clearcut or selective logging? It wouldn't hurt to ask. Hillside or flat? It makes a difference on how they can log it. How big are the trees? If they are 150ft to 200ft+ it is better to take them down and leave smaller ones in the buffer zone.

I know in Oregon and Washington the harvested areas have to be replanted starting the next growing season. A percentage of survival rate of seedlings is the goal.

Around Douglas County. Within sight of my house I can see areas that have been clearcut cut two and three times in the last 140 years. Old stumps 6 ft and more across with the springboard holes showing.

Forests will come down either by fire or man. Look at what happened in Yellowstone a few years back. I prefer harvest to be able to use the timber.

I hope you can resolve your problem without too much disapointment.

 

[TNhobbyfarmer]

I have read this thread, and I'll have to admit to having empathy for bigballer. You guys are a tough crowd. I noticed that he has dropped out, and I certainly can understand. I'm sure he was surprised at the level of animosity.

I think that I agree with the folks that have suggested contacting the owner and trying to work out some kind of arrangement to leave a buffer strip of mature trees. It'll probably cost some $'s but maybe not. They might even be willing to leave the buffer in the interest of being neighborly, probably not but worth asking. You never know until you ask.

Bigballer, if you do make an attempt to work out some kind of arrangement with the land owner, let us know how it goes.

 

[powerpace]

Some areas have minimum size parcels for property size. I doubt that in your area the minimum size would be manageable. The first thing the bank would ask is how much timber is on the property and when do you plan on cutting. Trees in the forest have a monetary value while standing.

In Oregon you pay taxes on the value. We also pay tax for fire protection seperately for forested areas in addition to regular fire protection. It's a whole different ballgame when you have wildfire in 200ft trees on 30% slope.

I have been on both sides of the problem. Farming and Timber. We had property that had been farmed for over 100 years in the Willamette Valley. The city extended the boundarys to include property adjoining. A senior home developement was built. Every summer they would complain about the dust, the noise, the view. The sprinklers watering the crop would keep them awake at night, couldn't we plant some other type of crop, etc..... Soil conditions dictate the crop. Always complaints but when the crops ripened the first few rows were always bare of anything harvestable. Never a thank you. Now that farmed property is all houses and a Walmart next to them. Good riddance. They got what they asked for. No farming next door.

 

[RickB]

Some areas have minimum size parcels for property size. I doubt that in your area the minimum size would be manageable. The first thing the bank would ask is how much timber is on the property and when do you plan on cutting. Trees in the forest have a monetary value while standing.

In Oregon you pay taxes on the value. We also pay tax for fire protection seperately for forested areas in addition to regular fire protection. It's a whole different ballgame when you have wildfire in 200ft trees on 30% slope.

I have been on both sides of the problem. Farming and Timber. We had property that had been farmed for over 100 years in the Willamette Valley. The city extended the boundarys to include property adjoining. A senior home developement was built. Every summer they would complain about the dust, the noise, the view. The sprinklers watering the crop would keep them awake at night, couldn't we plant some other type of crop, etc..... Soil conditions dictate the crop. Always complaints but when the crops ripened the first few rows were always bare of anything harvestable. Never a thank you. Now that farmed property is all houses and a Walmart next to them. Good riddance. They got what they asked for. No farming next door.

Amazing how folks will move into an area and turn it into what they moved away from. Equally amazing how the recently arrived can alter or drive away lawful enterprises that were in existance when the newcomer moved in.
As oppressive, expensive and challenging it is to live in NY, happily we have one of the strongest right-to-farm laws in the country.

 

[MWRR]

This reminds me of a situation I ran into several years ago. I had owned a piece of property for a few years when the adjoining "house and a couple of acres" came up for sale. Right after the new owner moved in he called wanting to buy 10 acres (my property) that adjoined his. He wanted to have a couple of horses. I told him I didn't want to sell my land. He kept insisting that I sell him the property. I told him to call the neighbor on the other side of him or across the road to see if they would sell him some more ground for his horses. He said that he already had called them and they didn't want to sell any land. He again insisted that I sell him 10 acres. I told him to go buy 40 acres of highly productive farm land within a couple of miles and I would trade him 10 acres for 40. He told me I was crazy. I simply said that is my price.
While I had him on the phone I told him that the large pines (on my land) that provided a nice secluded back yard for his house was on my list of ground to clear sometime down the road. I told him if he wanted to keep his seclude setting he needed to plant some pines on his property. It was a little over 10 yrs when I finally got around to clearing the pines. My neighbor and his wife were gone (I didn't know they were gone, it wouldn't have made a difference) the weekend I took the backhoe over and removed all the trees and converted the ground to a hay field. They never said anything to me, but I heard they were pretty upset.

The above mentioned neighbor has since sold the house and moved on. You won't believe the next guy. He called me before he moved in and informed me that he was a big deer hunter and he liked to "manage" the deer population around him. He asked me about leasing the hunting rights to my ground. I said sure, I would be glad to lease him my hunting rights. I told him that it was already leased but he could lease it for the following year. I shot him a price and he said I was crazy. I think he expected me to let him hunt for free.

I have little sympathy for the people that move to the country and buy only a couple of acres with a house but they want to control all the land around them. MOVE BACK TO TOWN!!

 

[ruffdog]

bigballer should plant his own trees and shrubs. That is what I did.

 

[Cat_Driver]

You only have two choice. Spend a lot of time and millions of dollars, or suck it up.
I agree with you 100%, not a great thing to happen to anyone, BUT that's what makes this a free Country.

I mean I don't like people burning the flag, but that's the price of having the freedom to do that.

Sorry, but on the good side, in 30-40 years it will be just like it is today.

This reminds me of a situation I ran into several years ago. I had owned a piece of property for a few years when the adjoining "house and a couple of acres" came up for sale.

Had a neighbor move in next to em constantly complaining about my hedges hanging over on his 10 acres. He was always having me trim them clean on his side and removing 600 ft. of clippings.

No I know I technically at fault for planting the bushed right on the fence and property line, but he was also benefiting from that 600 ft of fence to keep his horses from getting out.

Now understand we're only talking two feet at the most of overhang.

Well one day as he was doing his whining to the wife on his side of the fence I told the wife to tell him that I understand how upset he is so I will be taking the fence and shrubs down. I timed it so the wife was explaing our being a good neighbor by tearing down the shrubs. As they were talking I raised the back hoe up over the top of the shrub and fence and started revving the engine as the stacks blew some black exhaust, he started saying WHAT AHHHH NO, NO, NO , WHAT ABOUT MY HORSES.......

That was 10 years ago and I have never heard a word from him and that two feet of overhang - and it never did bother him again.

Seems he just wanted to be a PIMA.

 

[Pilot]

Bigballer,

I won't rant at you for your concerns about losing the forest. You have been slammed plenty already.

But there are a few things that need clarification.

"Leave a buffer" A buffer would have to be very wide, a couple hundred feet, to be effective for your concerns about a view and runoff. And depending on site conditions and soil type, it could blow down in 2 or 3 years and if much of the stand blew down, the loggers would come back. Turned up stumps are uglier than cut off standing stumps.

As someone said, it could be a thinning. Call the landowner and ask, or at least walk out there and see if individual trees are marked. A good thinning will take out the smaller, crooked, forked and otherwise defective trees. About 1/3 to 1/2 the trees would be marked, maybe more, depending on the stand. And if it's a thinning, it will give you time to plant your own forest, which you might want to do as it will be clearcut in a few years after thinning.

Runoff: Depending on the soil, the quality of the logging work and slope steepness, this could be a fallacy. The biggest factors for runoff are the soil type and the logging job. Natural forest soils are very porous and water infiltrates readily. If the logger runs all over the place with a tractor, there is a good chance for compaction and then you have a problem as the water no longer infiltrates but runs across the soil. If he logs with an excavator, there will be very little compaction (we have measured only 2% of the area compacted after logging with an excavator). Drive around the area looking at clearcuts and look for gulleys. Most of the time you will see water in the ditches coming from skid trails and roads, not where the machines did not run. Much of what you hear in the media about erosion in clearcuts is a bunch of nonsense--depending on soil, logging and slope. As I recall, Washington regulates logging pretty severley and you shouldn't have a problem.

How old are you? After clearcutting in western Washington you'll likely see trees 15-20 feet tall in 10 years. My trees, 17 years on site are 55 feet tall. Likely would grow faster in Washington.

Environmental groups have been very successful at giving clearcuts a bad name. The only thing they claim that is always true is that clearcuts are ugly. But the ugly is temporary.