The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

[Mad Machinist]

Because of my education, I have been contacted both on list here and off list to explain some things. So here is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

When it comes to the whole Endangered Species thing one thing to keep in mind is more often than not, these species have become endangered not by the actions of the individual, but by the actions of many of the fish and game management in the area in question.

As was being talked about in another thread over the delta smelt, one of the primary drivers of their decline was the introduction of both the striped bass and the introduction of both the northern largemouth bass and the Florida-strain largemouth bass, which are apex predators in their natural environment.

I know it is claimed reduction of water is the primary driver of their decline, but there is no way that this is possible due to California's past drought history. Nice little article concerning that here California drought: Past dry periods have lasted more than 200 years, scientists say - San Jose Mercury News So if the lack of water has caused this, then by all rights, the delta smelt should already be extinct due to past droughts that were much worse.

Here's some light reading on what happens when non-native fish are introduced into other waters.
https://www1.maine.gov/ifw/fishing/pdfs/IllegalFishIntroductions11-28-20101.pdf
Largemouth bass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, the fight to save the delta smelt is over. It was over the day that the striped bass and largemouth bass were introduced. Like I said, we could flush the entire Great Lakes down the Sacramento and San Jaoquin and it won't make a damn bit of difference until the striped bass and largemouth are COMPLETELY removed. This is simple predator/prey relationship 101.

Anybody want to guess what would happen if someone tried to destroy the sport fishing industry for striper and largemouth in California? Lots and lots of money there.

Now onto the whole overstocked forest thing.

To make this simple, I am going to use some simple numbers. If an acre of ground has 150-200 trees per acre that use 100,000 gallons of precipitation per year and the "normal" precipitation is 1,000,000 gallons per year, we have more than enough water to maintain the aquifer recharge and runoff for the local streams. Now bank storage also comes into play here, but I'll get into that in little bit.

As I was saying, if the tree density is changed, the amount of water left for the rest changes also. So if we have 1500-2000 trees per acre now and the precipitation is the same, we are left with nothing for aquifer recharge and for runoff for the local streams thus affecting the local flora and fauna.

When precipitation is reduced with that stocking density, an extreme fire threat is created due to ladder fuels (the smaller trees that are not fire resistant). adder fuels allow the fire to climb up into the tree canopies and "crown out". When a fire "crowns out" it takes on a life of it own including creating it's own weather patterns that feed into the fire causing what is called a "hard burn".

All soil types have an oil in that during a "hard burn" cause the surface of the soil to vitrify (turn to glass). Water runs straight off of this as it cannot soak in and gains velocity. When that velocity hits and area that is not vitrified, it start s an erosive process that washes a rather heavy sediment load into the local streams thus affecting the local flora and fauna.

Increased sediment loading also leads to substrate armoring of the stream bottoms wherever the stream slows down enough to let the sediment settle out. Substrate armoring is the settling of suspended sediment into the cracks and crevices of the stream bottom. If stream flow is reduced long enough, the sediment becomes "armored" so aquatic species cannot use it to reproduce or create homes.

So when logging was destroyed in many areas, a ticking time bomb was started.

Now bank storage is the water that soaks into the banks and surrounding areas from the local streams. Some of this also trickles down into the aquifers. Bank storage is also able to maintain stream flows in times of reduced precipitation, but only for a limited time. Once the water in the bank storage is gone, it takes quite a bit of time to recharge it. The ticking time bomb again.

Where we are now is that ticking time bomb has finally went off. And many groups are doing whatever they can to deflect the blame wherever they can, such as suction dredging, as this will destroy many of them.

More later. I'm getting carpal tunnel from typing here.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[timberjack]

Great facts...l have often said if someone sat down and quantified all the loss in terms of habbitat, animal life and money brought on by environuts ---first no logging, then let it burn, then you are limited in fighting fires in wilderness areas so the fires get a real foothold----the results would be staggering.
You could make a great commercial,,flushing billions of acrefeet of water out of resivoirs,,durning millions of acres ,,closed sawmills,,unemployed loggers,,chared forests....enviros destroying what they claim they protect,,,all the while keeping us from our land. How many billions of board feet have gone up in smoke?

 

[timberjack]

Oh i forgot,,when a forest fire like the rim fire and others burn how much carbon is released into the atmosphere increasing "global warming" (i dont believe in that b.s.) but ,,the enviros give us all the ammo we need to defeat them if we just had the funding and time to work on it....

 

[Mad Machinist]

And for the next installment, we'll talk more about the effects of overstocking on our forests.

In our forests ,we have a limited level of nutrients and precipitation. When we have the proper stocking levels, this is typically not a problem. Trees don not have to compete for the needed things to survive. This means that they use more carbon dioxide in growing thus affecting our current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

However, when the stocking density gets to high, the trees have to compete for those needed things and they become stressed which leads to an rather unhealthy forest that is susceptible to many things, including pine beetle infestations which can lead to forest wide die offs. This can be seen in various areas across the country. Eventually the pine beetle will die out when there are no more pine trees for them to infest, but why wait when we can restore the forests now.

Some info on the pine beetle including unsuccessful "attacks". Mountain Pine Beetle

And I have read all the studies on how logging increases the chance of a forest fire and it is total crap. If small stuff is laying on the ground, then it is no different than a low intensity burn that theses forest have evolved to withstand and actually need to survive. One thing that is never mentioned in all of these studies is that when it comes to returning nutrients to the soil, the most effective part to leave is the smaller branches, stems, and leaves or needles.

There is a solution that can be implemented, but I fear it will not be due to the fact that it does involve people making their livings off the land again. And if that does happen, I do believe that the eco's understand that they will be in serious trouble as far as trying to run everybody but them off the land so to speak.

Here's a short video of one of my favorite solutions. Purpose built equipment to remove smaller trees while putting a lot of people back to work. If this plan would be followed, we could mine, prospect, and do a lot of other things without any worry about "harming" anything.


And yes, I am a huge proponent of keeping things small, including mining. Small operations mean small impacts. One thing you'll find is that when someone relies on the land to make a living, they tend to take care of the land.

If anyone has any questions or needs some more in depth information, then by all means please ask. I will post up scientific studies that back up exactly what I say. I have access to all the same information that the eco's do and it is quite surprising that there is just as much info against them as there is for them.

On to other things that effect us.

 

[Mad Machinist]

Found what I was looking for:

New Research Links Forest Thinning to Water Gains | Articles | Erosion Control
Scientists Propose Thinning Sierra Forests to Enhance Water Runoff | UC Merced

So if this is done, we will have no effect on the environment as small miners as it will solve a lot of problems. All of this leads to increased runoff for the local flora and fauna. The increased runoff will also lead to increased evaporation rates which will lead to more rain which lead to less drought. If the water isn't locked up in the overstocked forests, then it has to go somewhere

 

[Mad Machinist]

And for this installment let's take a look at suction dredging and the environmental benefits of it.

According to the eco's the small amount of sediment that is kicked up is deadly to aquatic life. Well, surprise, surprise, the US Bureau of Reclamation thinks otherwise.

Nice little documentary on the removal of the Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams on the Elwha River and the benefits that the sediment will have on the ecosystems and the spawning of the salmon. Salmon may be tough, but the are not going to move golf ball size rocks with their tails to spawn. I know it is a little long, but worth the watch as quite a bit of info is shared concerning sediment and it role in the environment.



Forgot to add that there was some 20,000,000 cubic meters (yes that is million) of sediment behind those two dams that was released with their removal.

Here's some more info on the damage the eco's have done concerning sediment. Remember erosion and sediment is bad, m'kay.

Geologists quantify, characterize sediment carried by Mississippi flood to Louisiana's wetlands -- ScienceDaily

 

[Mad Machinist]

And here you can see what happened to all that sediment:

World?s Largest Dam Removal Unleashes U.S. River After Century of Electric Production

It washed down river and created habitat or other creatures. Who'da thunk sediment creates habitat

And here we see that a little over a week after the dam removal was finish and 20 million cubic meters of sediment was down the river, the salmon have already started to return. So much for sediment being detrimental to aquatic life.

World?s Largest Dam Removal Unleashes U.S. River After Century of Electric Production
Salmon found in upper Elwha River for first time in more than 100 years | Q13 FOX News

Anybody else starting to wonder why the attack on suction dredging is going into overdrive?

 

[Lanny in AB]

Very informative, and thanks for taking the time to post it.

Nicely done!

All the best,

Lanny

 

[Mad Machinist]

Here's another one I wanted to get up earlier but class work took precedence.

Elwha River on Wash. Olympic Peninsula being reclaimed by nature | OregonLive.com

Only 40-50% of the expected sediment has made its way down the river.

Scientists wondered if the salmon and steelhead would survive in the turbid, murky waters. It turns out they are surviving and spawning just fine in the tributaries despite the current sediment loading that is WAY above normal.

On snap, I think I just heard a few eco heads explode.

 

[Mad Machinist]

So you guys over there better warm up your pens for FOIA requests on the current information on this.

 

[Mad Machinist]

Since I couldn't sleep because I had something bugging me about this, I figured it out. So here is the coup de grace.

After a little research, I found out that both the signal crayfish and the red swamp crayfish have been introduced into the Bay Area. Not a good move as far as native species are concerned. But there is a bit of a silver lining to that I'll get to in a minute.

In fact research has shown me that there once was a commercial fishery for crayfish and to a point there still is a commercial fishery for crayfish in California. In fact, they even require a license for it.

Here's a little more info on the damage they can cause. I don't often cite UC Bezerkly so pay attention please. Fighting the Bay Area Invasion of Signal Crayfish By JOE EATON Special to the Planet. Category: Election Section from The Berkeley Daily Planet

And yes, crayfish do catch and eat minnows like the delta smelt among other things.

Given the fact that there once was and still is a commercial fishery there for crayfish, it would indicate that they are doing rather well.

Now that silver lining I was talking about that is also a coup de grace.


Crayfish are one hell of an indicator species as to the health of a river system since they are VERY intolerant of pollution other human generated fouling of their environment like sediment. Crayfish

So as long as you have a healthy crayfish population, there is very minimal to no pollution in that area. I an area is "polluted" crayfish are among the first to go. They will die off long before any fish.

 

[fowledup]

Mad Machinist- "As was being talked about in another thread over the delta smelt, one of the primary drivers of their decline was the introduction of both the striped bass and the introduction of both the northern largemouth bass and the Florida-strain largemouth bass, which are apex predators in their natural environment.

I know it is claimed reduction of water is the primary driver of their decline, but there is no way that this is possible due to California's past drought history. Nice little article concerning that here California drought: Past dry periods have lasted more than 200 years, scientists say - San Jose Mercury News So if the lack of water has caused this, then by all rights, the delta smelt should already be extinct due to past droughts that were much worse.

Here's some light reading on what happens when non-native fish are introduced into other waters.
https://www1.maine.gov/ifw/fishing/p...1-28-20101.pdf
Largemouth bass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, the fight to save the delta smelt is over. It was over the day that the striped bass and largemouth bass were introduced. Like I said, we could flush the entire Great Lakes down the Sacramento and San Jaoquin and it won't make a damn bit of difference until the striped bass and largemouth are COMPLETELY removed. This is simple predator/prey relationship 101."

Not to mention the pumps themselves have done a good job of making Smelt puree' over the years. We are a smart enough people to move water from a high mountain reservoir to the suburbs of LA but cant figure out how to keep fish out of a pump intake. Many problems, but as usual in great "blanket spank" fashion, it's easier to legislate everything else to oblivion rather than fix the root(s) of the problem . As I"ve said before we are indeed a stupid people!

 

[triple d]

To Me it all comes down to greed. They will do anything or say anything.Very few truth"s or fact"s. To get funding. Period

 

[GoldpannerDave]

And for the next installment, we'll talk more about the effects of overstocking on our forests.

In our forests ,we have a limited level of nutrients and precipitation. When we have the proper stocking levels, this is typically not a problem. Trees don not have to compete for the needed things to survive. This means that they use more carbon dioxide in growing thus affecting our current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

However, when the stocking density gets to high, the trees have to compete for those needed things and they become stressed which leads to an rather unhealthy forest that is susceptible to many things, including pine beetle infestations which can lead to forest wide die offs. This can be seen in various areas across the country. Eventually the pine beetle will die out when there are no more pine trees for them to infest, but why wait when we can restore the forests now.

Some info on the pine beetle including unsuccessful "attacks". Mountain Pine Beetle

And I have read all the studies on how logging increases the chance of a forest fire and it is total crap. If small stuff is laying on the ground, then it is no different than a low intensity burn that theses forest have evolved to withstand and actually need to survive. One thing that is never mentioned in all of these studies is that when it comes to returning nutrients to the soil, the most effective part to leave is the smaller branches, stems, and leaves or needles.

There is a solution that can be implemented, but I fear it will not be due to the fact that it does involve people making their livings off the land again. And if that does happen, I do believe that the eco's understand that they will be in serious trouble as far as trying to run everybody but them off the land so to speak.

Here's a short video of one of my favorite solutions. Purpose built equipment to remove smaller trees while putting a lot of people back to work. If this plan would be followed, we could mine, prospect, and do a lot of other things without any worry about "harming" anything.


And yes, I am a huge proponent of keeping things small, including mining. Small operations mean small impacts. One thing you'll find is that when someone relies on the land to make a living, they tend to take care of the land.

If anyone has any questions or needs some more in depth information, then by all means please ask. I will post up scientific studies that back up exactly what I say. I have access to all the same information that the eco's do and it is quite surprising that there is just as much info against them as there is for them.

On to other things that effect us.

This is a very interesting thread. I am a chemist but I took some graduate level biology courses. One dealt with forest succession, in that as a forest aged, the dominant tree species changed. In the climax forest (we were taken to a small area that existed close to the university), there was surprisingly little underground because the crowns of the dominant old trees blocked out the light. And yes, the tree density was considerably less than many forests we see today and take for "normal." BTW, I took this course decades ago before the radical environmentalists took control of such courses.

We also learned that man often wanted other tree species (not the climax species) due to economical value, like pines grown for wood, pulp, etc. This led to changes. Not only were the trees planted closer together, but harvesting usually was not by thinning, but clear cutting.

All this to say replanted forests were often much more dense compared to what nature would have ended up with. I remember that very distinctly because we could actually walk through the climax forest without a great deal of hindrance from undergrowth.

 

[Mad Machinist]

This is a very interesting thread. I am a chemist but I took some graduate level biology courses. One dealt with forest succession, in that as a forest aged, the dominant tree species changed. In the climax forest (we were taken to a small area that existed close to the university), there was surprisingly little underground because the crowns of the dominant old trees blocked out the light. And yes, the tree density was considerably less than many forests we see today and take for "normal." BTW, I took this course decades ago before the radical environmentalists took control of such courses.

We also learned that man often wanted other tree species (not the climax species) due to economical value, like pines grown for wood, pulp, etc. This led to changes. Not only were the trees planted closer together, but harvesting usually was not by thinning, but clear cutting.

All this to say replanted forests were often much more dense compared to what nature would have ended up with. I remember that very distinctly because we could actually walk through the climax forest without a great deal of hindrance from undergrowth.

In some areas, yes it was changed. In most cases I tend to deal with the West because it is were I live. Here's a copy of the Woolsey Inventory done in 1903.

Changed Southwestern Forests: Resource effects and management remedies (part 1 of 3)

As you can see the larger trees have returned for the most part. The 1910 inventory is most often cited as the "historical condition". And it is often attacked as inaccurate due to logging in the area at that time. BUT if any eco wants to tell me that a small group of guys with horses, axes, and hand saw cut down all the large trees in Arizona across several million acres, I'll laugh at them. Especially considering it is going to take 15 years for the 4 Forest Restoration Initiative to restore just 2.1 million acres of the Apache Sitgreaves national Forest. And this is with MECHANIZED equipment.

One of the reasons so many cattle ranchers settled here was the lush herbaceous understory here in the mountains. This is highly suggestive of an open canopy, not the current conditions.

After the Wallow Fire here in 2011, oat grass was planted across the burn scar instead of native grasses. Kinda defeats the point of ecosystem restoration doesn't it?

 

[Mad Machinist]

Back to our regularly scheduled program.

There are several other indicator species in the waters of California. However, it can be claimed that these recovered as a result of the dredging moratorium. That is why I think that the commercial crayfish fishery is the best option to fight back against the lunacy being spread by the eco's.

Here's another excellent indicator: Hellgrammites (Gesundheit!) | The Roaming Naturalist

And they are like cocaine to trout. They cannot resist them.

Class work is done for the day, so I can focus my attention on this today. Stay tuned for some more information.

 

[GoldpannerDave]

In some areas, yes it was changed. In most cases I tend to deal with the West because it is were I live. Here's a copy of the Woolsey Inventory done in 1903.

Changed Southwestern Forests: Resource effects and management remedies (part 1 of 3)

As you can see the larger trees have returned for the most part. The 1910 inventory is most often cited as the "historical condition". And it is often attacked as inaccurate due to logging in the area at that time. BUT if any eco wants to tell me that a small group of guys with horses, axes, and hand saw cut down all the large trees in Arizona across several million acres, I'll laugh at them. Especially considering it is going to take 15 years for the 4 Forest Restoration Initiative to restore just 2.1 million acres of the Apache Sitgreaves national Forest. And this is with MECHANIZED equipment.

One of the reasons so many cattle ranchers settled here was the lush herbaceous understory here in the mountains. This is highly suggestive of an open canopy, not the current conditions.

After the Wallow Fire here in 2011, oat grass was planted across the burn scar instead of native grasses. Kinda defeats the point of ecosystem restoration doesn't it?

Well, I think we are both coming from the same position--current tree density is way too much and actions have consequences. One of those consequences is that even less water available today in California.

I really don't know much about the SW forests; my course was taken back east. However, I also remember that there is more forest east of the Mississippi today than in 1900. I have no idea what the data is for west of the Mississippi or just the SW US.

 

[Doubter in MD]

I'm not trying to be argumentative but I am not getting the whole tree thing. If an acre of forest can only support 150-200 trees, how did all of the additional trees get there? I mean, if we weren't around I'd guess that the number of trees able to be supported in an acre of land would be determined by nature, not man.

 

[GoldpannerDave]

I'm not trying to be argumentative but I am not getting the whole tree thing. If an acre of forest can only support 150-200 trees, how did all of the additional trees get there? I mean, if we weren't around I'd guess that the number of trees able to be supported in an acre of land would be determined by nature, not man.

My guess is (and I am not a biologist) is that naturally the forest supports that number. Left alone, nature thins them out. Man can increase it substantially, with the resulting increase in water and nutrients taken up. The early picture shown in Mad Machinist's post above show trees quite thin. Back in 1910 no one was into overplanting trees. As MM noted, cattlemen wanted the openness under the trees so grass would grow for the cattle to feed on.

HTH.

 

[releventchair]

I'm not trying to be argumentative but I am not getting the whole tree thing. If an acre of forest can only support 150-200 trees, how did all of the additional trees get there? I mean, if we weren't around I'd guess that the number of trees able to be supported in an acre of land would be determined by nature, not man.

Nature will maintain one way or another though stunting growth often follows a boom. Second growth and seedlings under dense canopy grows high and spindly to reach for light and much of it dies .
Depending on species trying to reach the canopy, brittleness results in tops breaking off in high winds and dead trunks falling . Some areas becoming a pile of jackstraws ready to burn joining the dead saplings and duff on floor. More fire fuel. Burning leaves or duff often leaves little evidence on trees. It burns fast with nothing to feed on and a slight breeze keeps it following unburned fuel on floor.
Seeing is believing but yearly burns in some areas leave a park like setting of nice green. (I'm not saying that is how every place should be.)
Some sites shown on the idiot box during fire fights show brush from a foot to a few feet high. Dry tinder right up near homes. Not a good mix but sunlight works it's magic where it can.
Forests can be managed multiple ways. For deer, those big mature trees (with obvious exception of mast producing ones during years and seasons they do produce) don't allow the short growing species or the cover they prefer. For numbers of trees those big ones(some that are prized for veneer and large dimension lumber) don't offer sunlight to seedlings or second growth on the forest floor to allow any great size to occur and no or reduced growth results below them. Savannas offered oak areas at one time. Worked for a variety of plant and animal lives.
Pulpwood can be grown denser. Second growth following becomes very dense/thick following clear cutting of multiple soft wood species. Oak slashings are thick too but competition means over time only a percentage survives and the rest become food for the floor or fire fodder. Just depends on the management/owners goals long and short term and incidence of fire if any. More fuel each year,either for a long season or if not on floor it can accumulate for years.
Controlled burns annually better than a natural one after several years,maybe. Sites after a fire recover in time.Some with a different dominate specie for a while. Some thrive if rain is sufficient. Some degrade severely. Ash can be a curse or a blessing.
As an interesting note,eastern part of the country old growth trees showed fire scars at regular intervals before Euro influenced management. Not from lightning but from natives clearing the understory. In the fire process too is something I would cheer and applaud at times; fire kills ticks.
Jackpines need fire for cones to release seeds. A way to not waste young stuff trying to grow where chance is minimal but also providing insurance of species survival should a fire happen. Natural thinning through competition for sunlight after would result in lots of dead fire fuel making a repeat more possible.
Fine specimens in an unmanaged wood lot or forest can be the exception.
Here where logging was big in the eighteen hundreds the second growth, mostly un managed in private properties, resulted in forests in areas of too tall trees due to competition and now windstorms make for great hazards, and more fuel on the deck/floor. What breaks down into the loam from previous decay of limbs trunks and leaf litter benefits the growing medium.
But after winter thaw and before spring green up fire hazard is very real with multiple unplanned burns not uncommon. This in a non drought area/climate. No Santa Anna winds to accelerate drying, and feeding bonus air to fires.