Pure speculation on my part -- Two fold.Bosterson wrote:Meanwhile, what exactly does this mean, and is it a good thing or something that threatens the strength of the Gorge's wilderness designation? His reference to the "value of the timber" makes me think it's a bad thing. Is "reforestation" something that's even necessary?
[Oregon Republican congressman Greg] Walden, a former chairman of the House Resources Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, said the Gorge’s status as a National Scenic Area means there are barriers to quick reforestation. That’s a problem, he said, because timber with any potential monetary value could end up going to waste if crews can’t begin the work of replanting burned areas quickly.
“What I hear is that if this were state land or county land or private land, the land managers would be in right away,” Walden said. “Too often on our federal lands, the process is such that it could take a year or two, and by that point you’ve lost the value of the timber. And so you lose the financial resource that we need to be able to pay for the restoration work.”
First is the bureaucratic process of doing almost anything fed-wise? Paperwork/studies/etc, "experts" from DC and the time required to complete all of that (think about the Columbia River Crossing, I guess?)? As opposed to Oregonians managing that themselves?
Secondly on potential timber value -- maybe there is some value to fallen/damaged timber that has a timeline of value. For example, if the fallen/damaged timber is harvested within 6 months, some/much/most of it could be salvaged for various wood products (paper? timber? yard mulch?). As time passes as rain and critters take their toll, the wood becomes worthless for wood products.