A local's transect: Blue Lake native contemplates the redwoods after National Geographic trek

Now ain't we lucky. We're all a bunch of stupid rednecks, eating dirt, chasing bugs. Along comes Mike Fay and this girl, they spend eleven months walking and furiously taking notes, now they know everything, and apparently are going to be gracious enough to share this enlightenment with us. My goodness, until I saw them on that there television deal thing, I had to get along wearing caulk boots; now I know I should have been wearing sandals all along! I bet my wife will be pleased when I quit ripping up the linoleum floor in the kitchen. Now if I understand their theory, you make more money cutting big trees than you do cutting small trees. Hmmm, wonder how long it took them to figure that out.

I am going to wager that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people in Humboldt County who know as much (and some of them one hell of a lot more) about the redwood forest than this couple. They accomplished kind of an interesting trek, but that's really all it was. I've spent over thirty years living, playing, camping and working in the redwoods, and I and countles others like me, might have an opinion or two. Maybe never getting busted for tree sitting or gored by an elephant makes me stupid.

Admitted criminals, yet glorified by the TS

I love You Lindsey!!!!!!!!!! so glad your doing so well for yourself!!

Poor Sam, sitting in his sweltering Phoenix hell hole. Perhaps you should come to the coast and cool your brain to release your anger.

What Fay and Holm accomplished was amazing; you saw the show, you said it yourself.

more tresspassing onto property they did not own and were not invited to? and they filmed it?
Every property owner that they crossed onto need to file tresspassing charges against these idiots.

Its a slam dunk , even got the video proof, provided by the suspects ....

Jon Walton wrote:

more tresspassing onto property they did not own and were not invited to? and they filmed it?
Every property owner that they crossed onto need to file tresspassing charges against these idiots.
Its a slam dunk , even got the video proof, provided by the suspects ....

I completely agree. What about private property rights? I doubt these two own any property. If they did, I doubt they'd like people wandering through, either their living room or their back 40. Trespass is trespass.

I would have shot anyone who accesses my fenced property! FknHip

Again. You idiots above are why most of these pages of commentary are an embarrassment.

You all are such a pleasant bunch.

Its obvious that Faye and Holm entered this endeavor with closed minds. They are clearly environmentalists and the Nat Geo article clearly represents that point of view. Their opinions about how redwood forests should be managed are idealistically flawed. I agree that selective logging is advantageous to grow good quality stands of timber. However to re-enter these stands every 10 to 15 years creates disturbance by re-opened roads, watercourse crossings, skid trails. Selective logging often results in the damage residual trees which are prone to further destruction by black bears. Most environmentalists argue that clearcutting causes massive sedimentation to streams as opposed to selective logging. It is true that more sediment may runoff a clearcut than a selection. However much of that sediment is captured within watercourse protection zones and rarely enters the watercourses. The arguement for clearcutting is that harvesting can be accomplished in one shot. That means the roads, watercourse crossings, and skid trails can be put to bed until the next harvest cycle (50 years). There is also the issue of disturbance to wildlife More frequent entries means more disturbance to soil and thus more sediment input to our anadramous streams by re-opening roads and skid trails. More frequent entries also means increased disturbance to wildlife. Selective logging methods are also more expensive. They require more time to harvest and result in more fuel consumption if your worried about carbon emmisions. Maybe Faye and Holm should just stay in the Congo and leave it to our local professionals to decide how redwoods forests should be managed. Furthermore, anyone who wears sandals through industrial timberland is just plain idiotic.

Gotta agree.

Cindy wrote:

<quoted text>
I completely agree. What about private property rights? I doubt these two own any property. If they did, I doubt they'd like people wandering through, either their living room or their back 40. Trespass is trespass.

Why do you think they trespassed along the entire transect? The article only made mention of the incident in which Holm had a restraning order for tree-sitting on PL land, when Fay specifically wanted to visit a large tree-sit.

This was a poorly-written article, in my opinion. You should read the entire National Geographic article, it is excellent and provides a much more in-depth discussion of what sustainable redwood forestry might be.

Ive read the article in its entirety. Selective logging is a great viable way to manage good quality timber. However, the state of california has regulated this industry to the brink of collapse. The costs to harvest timber in this state has forced landowners to use the most cost effective methods of harvesting. This includes clearcutting. Before the armchair foresty experts start spouting about the way redwood forests be managed perhaps they should take a class in economics. The cost of a typical timber harvest plan is approximately 30K and possibly more depending on agency recommendations and additional permit fees. Logging costs account for about 1/2 the cost of the timber volume. Depending on current market conditions, especially now where the conditions are so bad that most logging operations are break even at best, the cost of logging is a significant factor in timber management. Food for thought: The volume harvested in one 20 acre clearcut equates to the volume harvested in 60 acres of a selective harvest. This equates to additional road construction and maintenance cost, permit costs, increased equipment time and fuel consumption. This is the real world folks. Its time to quit with the college professor idealistic fantasies instilled within all you anti timber people. Take some time to reasearch for yourself before hopping on the bandwagon of naiveity.

This crock is right up there with giving out a grant to see if fog gets Redwood trees wet.

Samisanangryperson wrote:

Poor Sam, sitting in his sweltering Phoenix hell hole. Perhaps you should come to the coast and cool your brain to release your anger.
What Fay and Holm accomplished was amazing; you saw the show, you said it yourself.

Angry? No, I even somewhat respect what they did, sleeping in a tent for eleven months (a slight step up from your average tweaker living under any of countless freeway overpasses in the county), and hiking every day. Their "Delphi oracle" attitude of enlightenment on topics ranging from redwood forest ecology and mensuration to footwear grates on me. Other than "it's an eco-freak thing, you wouldn't understand," how is their "work" of any use to anybody?

And notice I don't denigrate Sillett (?sp?); his work in the canopies of redwoods is truly new and unique, and on a completely different level than this "transect."

Joe Blow wrote:

Ive read the article in its entirety. Selective logging is a great viable way to manage good quality timber. However, the state of california has regulated this industry to the brink of collapse. The costs to harvest timber in this state has forced landowners to use the most cost effective methods of harvesting. This includes clearcutting. Before the armchair foresty experts start spouting about the way redwood forests be managed perhaps they should take a class in economics. The cost of a typical timber harvest plan is approximately 30K and possibly more depending on agency recommendations and additional permit fees. Logging costs account for about 1/2 the cost of the timber volume. Depending on current market conditions, especially now where the conditions are so bad that most logging operations are break even at best, the cost of logging is a significant factor in timber management. Food for thought: The volume harvested in one 20 acre clearcut equates to the volume harvested in 60 acres of a selective harvest. This equates to additional road construction and maintenance cost, permit costs, increased equipment time and fuel consumption. This is the real world folks. Its time to quit with the college professor idealistic fantasies instilled within all you anti timber people. Take some time to reasearch for yourself before hopping on the bandwagon of naiveity.

Oh I can't stop laughing. Right here on the TS web blog we have an expert! Mr. Joe Blow! Why just the name you chose is a measure your credibility as a "reaseacher on foresty". Better to be naive than stupid.

So who paid for this ? I bet us tax payers are footing the tab .

Earth and our future generations say, "Thank you!!!" Keep up the good work Lindsey!

Humboldt wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh I can't stop laughing. Right here on the TS web blog we have an expert! Mr. Joe Blow! Why just the name you chose is a measure your credibility as a "reaseacher on foresty". Better to be naive than stupid.

Yeah and the name Humboldt just about says it all. And what do you know about forestry. I have seen nothing credible come from your posts. Maybe its time to put the bong down and make something of yourself.