# Why Can't We Grow Trees Like Carrots & Potatoes?



## Gypo Logger (Dec 5, 2010)

What's wrong with this video?
Doe's it show a complete disregard for the resource?
John

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sWriDiWP3Os?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sWriDiWP3Os?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


----------



## GASoline71 (Dec 5, 2010)

I went to Eureka Productions website... they're a little "biased".

New age hippies...

Gary


----------



## paccity (Dec 5, 2010)

just my two cents


----------



## Steve NW WI (Dec 5, 2010)

Might have something to do with needing a *BIG* digger to get em out of the ground!

Probably be easier to harvest em like corn silage:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6kh04jdxIlQ?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6kh04jdxIlQ?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

BTW that chopper's putting out 825HP!


----------



## slowp (Dec 5, 2010)

You could easily film a movie on what happens when you don't manage the forest. Catastrophic fires are blamed on "climate change" but I imagine there's a correlation with when forest management--salvage of bug kill, stopped. 

People now see the red trees from the highway. The red and dying trees used to get sold, cut and sent to a mill. Not so anymore, on public lands. 
The next step is for a fire to just burn it up. The city people think that is wonderful, the people who live downwind of the smoke don't like it so much.

I could write volumes on emotions and mismanagement, but I won't. My hands would hurt. It isn't just hippies, I call it the environmental industry.


----------



## flushcut (Dec 5, 2010)

I am not a logger, but don't these hippies get the fact that trees are a RENEWABLE resource one of the only ones we have on this planet. It is my understanding that most of the trees being cut are second and third growth, hell maybe even fourth. Why are they so short sided trees like carrots and potatoes need time to grow after being harvested. Sure a clear cut is not pretty but neither is a thousand acre corn field, but guess what it grows back through careful land management. I know i am ranting to guys that know more than I do and make a living off of timber and God bless you for it you help build America. 
I think i read quote on this site tree huggers want to save all the senior citizens and not the children.


----------



## forestryworks (Dec 5, 2010)

Anyone without a forestry degree and/or some experience working in the woods either setting chokers or running a saw shouldn't have a say in forest management.

I don't go around telling lawyers how they should litigate a particular issue or tell doctors that they shouldn't do a specific type of treatment when it really works.


----------



## forestryworks (Dec 5, 2010)

GASoline71 said:


> I went to Eureka Productions website... they're a little "biased".
> 
> New age hippies...
> 
> Gary



Yup, instead of using the term clearcutting, they used deforestation. Those terms are not synonymous and have totally different meanings.


----------



## Gologit (Dec 5, 2010)

Same old story, same old rhetoric. That video is good, but it's dated. What a lot of people watching it won't know is that LP isn't even a player out here anymore. They closed quite a few of their mills and sold the rest to SPI. They also sold off their timber holdings. A lot of small towns in this area still haven't recovered from that.

But the struggle goes on...different names, different faces, different tactics. I don't know of any other industry that has to fight so hard just to stay alive.


----------



## slowp (Dec 5, 2010)

Gologit said:


> Same old story, same old rhetoric. That video is good, but it's dated. What a lot of people watching it won't know is that LP isn't even a player out here anymore. They closed quite a few of their mills and sold the rest to SPI. They also sold off their timber holdings. A lot of small towns in this area still haven't recovered from that.
> 
> But the struggle goes on...different names, different faces, different tactics. I don't know of any other industry that has to fight so hard just to stay alive.



Ranching? Farming? Anything that is hard for the first couple of generations of people who have never lived on or near a farm/ranch/rural place to understand? 

A big timber company up here has been busy subdividing and selling parcels for permanent and summer homes. But this is not a new thing.


----------



## Gypo Logger (Dec 7, 2010)

At the risk of sounding like a tree hugger or leaf kisser, we certainly can grow trees like carrots, just like any other vegetated matter.

The healthiest forests are those stands of uneven age, whereby there is always something to harvest. This I guess is conservation.
Preservation is where nothing is cut, these are called Parks.
Even the most hardcore timber terrorist cannot deny that the resource has been pulped, pilaged, pounded and pilfered with impunity.
It all comes down to proper management and the proper allocation of funds gleaned from the resource.
Most people, even loggers have no concept of how big the resource really is.
Throw into the mix that more timber is lost thru flood, hurricane, landslides, wildfire , bug infestation and land reclaimation, one can see that loggers really have only cut a very small percentage.
Regardless, the stuff is growing and dieing faster than we can cut it down.

We have more trees now they say then we did 100 years ago, although the quality and size is alot less.
I could go on, but it's not all gloom and doom for the resource.
Things just have to be put into proper perspective.
John


----------



## jrr344 (Dec 7, 2010)

I really don't think you need a degree to know how things work or to have an opinion for that matter.


----------



## madhatte (Dec 7, 2010)

slowp said:


> It isn't just hippies, I call it the environmental industry.




That's a good one! I do believe I'll be appropriating that phrase.


----------



## cat-face timber (Dec 9, 2010)

forestryworks said:


> Anyone without a forestry degree and/or some experience working in the woods either setting chokers or running a saw shouldn't have a say in forest management.
> 
> I don't go around telling lawyers how they should litigate a particular issue or tell doctors that they shouldn't do a specific type of treatment when it really works.



Perfectly said!


----------



## forestryworks (Dec 9, 2010)

jrr344 said:


> I really don't think you need a degree to know how things work or to have an opinion for that matter.



There's a lot of people with that kind of mindset that say clearcuts don't work and that they cause erosion :monkey:


----------



## Dave Hadden (Dec 9, 2010)

forestryworks said:


> There's a lot of people with that kind of mindset that say clearcuts don't work and that they cause erosion :monkey:



Surely you aren't suggesting that clearcutting some of the places we did after grapple-yarding developed did nothing to contribute to erosion?

And clearcuts work awesome.......from the companies and logger's points of view.

Not the kindest way to log from everyone else's point of view.

With hindsight it's perfectly clear we did things in a very destructive manner after WWII and the development of powersaws and high-lead logging. The following development of grapple-yarding with its requirement for more roads to be built on steep sidehills made a major contribution to and was the primary cause for many large areas where erosion caused huge problems in streams and rivers. To suggest otherwise is simply not on.
We spend millions of dollars annually just in salmon enhancement trying to mitigate some of the damage done by the careless practises of old.
I've always seen it as the ultimate irony that it turned out that one of our greatest self-propogating resources (forestry) had such an adverse effect on the other great self-replenishing resource, salmon.

Ah well, hindsight is perfect n'est ce pas?

Take care.


----------



## madhatte (Dec 10, 2010)

This article is a few years old, but this is where I work, and this is what we do. This was a photo-op from a prescribed burn last year done with F&W, TNC and our group. Our forest management is a weird little world of its own, and we're pioneering practices which I'm sure will be common in just a few years. I wish I could share more but the Army is weird about Public Relations and I can't post anything not vetted for public consumption.


----------



## joesawer (Dec 10, 2010)

Lol All this time I thought they grow trees like corn in the gulf states. Dang I guess I was wrong.


----------



## slowp (Dec 10, 2010)

And read the above for posts "the problem". One person advocating clear cuts, another saying no, because look what was done in the past. No compromise, or if there is, the enviros will dictate it. 

Clearcuts should not be banned. Nor should they be the only prescription. There's places for them, and places where they should never be. 

Salmon? We spend millions on stream restoration here. You know what is funny? No salmon can make it up the river without being trucked. There are dams blocking the river. Think that might be an "adverse effect"?

We're on the other side of the pendulum. I'll exaggerate but it isn't too far from the truth. We mustn't let one soil particle into a stream or it will kill all the salmon in the world. Now, have you ever seen the color of rivers and streams after a heavy rain? The streams coming out of "pristine" wilderness?
What color are they? We're buffering streams by as much as 400 feet in --THINNINGS. We don't allow stream crossings, we make it darn hard to log.
Then there's the cleaup work. Mulch, seed, subsoiling, waterbars. There's more.

Things have changed. 

If salmon are so endangered, why are we allowing fishing for them? Why are we hearing about record breaking runs on the Columbia? 

Because we no longer clear cut, we have elk living in the valleys year round. They used to just come down in the winter. Now we have to dodge them on the highway year round. A deputy sheriff was killed when he slammed into an elk. 

Huckleberry patches are getting squeezed out by trees. 

The viewpoints along roads no longer have views. I have to mention all the unemployment. The woods used to provide employment for most of our residents. 

Yet, we have the professional environmentalists, who are educated with law degrees, and degrees in fine arts, (examples) and funded by the second generation of city people, telling foresters how to manage the forest. They dictate how to log, but don't know the difference between high lead and a skidder. They don't want to learn, either. 

Rant done for today.


----------



## floyd (Dec 10, 2010)

Well, that 'pristine wilderness" Is generally upstream from some big, old, poorly managed clearcuts.

Anyone recall...cut it low, burn it black, grow it back.

The Devil is in the grow it back phase. At times the timeline between burn it black & grow it back gets extended. That can mean all the topsoil is now glogging salmon spawning beds.

Or in the case of USFS that multiple use thing gets in the way. Reforest a cc then run cows on it. Cows walk down the rows, nip the terminal leader, spit it out, then proceed 9 more feet down the row & deja vu, all over again.

Yup, gross generalizations here. The truth hurts.


----------



## forestryworks (Dec 10, 2010)

Erosion is a natural process. Man can only slow it or accelerate it. Poor road building causes more erosion than a clearcut does.

The lack of clearcutting is unfavorable to species that require full sunlight and open growing conditions. It is these species that make the most money, as they grow faster and provide a quicker return on your investment.

Here, due to the poor quality of our hardwoods, most people clearcut the hardwoods and replant with pine.


----------



## BlueRidgeMark (Dec 10, 2010)

slowp said:


> And read the above for posts "the problem". One person advocating clear cuts, another saying no, because look what was done in the past. No compromise, or if there is, the enviros will dictate it.
> 
> Clearcuts should not be banned. Nor should they be the only prescription. There's places for them, and places where they should never be.
> 
> ...





That's a mighty fine rant!


----------



## BlueRidgeMark (Dec 10, 2010)

slowp said:


> It isn't just hippies, I call it the environmental industry.




Bingo. It IS an industry. It's also an ideology, which makes it very dangerous.


----------



## PB (Dec 10, 2010)

forestryworks said:


> Anyone without a forestry degree and/or some experience working in the woods either setting chokers or running a saw shouldn't have a say in forest management.
> 
> I don't go around telling lawyers how they should litigate a particular issue or tell doctors that they shouldn't do a specific type of treatment when it really works.



I completely disagree. If it were left up to some foresters and loggers we would not have Sequoia National Park or any old growth. Like Slowp said, you need both loggers and environmentalists to find a middle ground. Loggers see forests for profit, others see it as a camping trip with their family or recreation. Finding a way to keep everyone happy is hard, but necessary for a sustainable forest industry. The solid stances on both sides of the issue have caused severe polarization that will lead to an all or nothing scenario. 

Loggers and foresters know the trees, ecologists know the wildlife, soil scientists know the soil, lawyers know the regulations, and hippies know how to live in a tree smoking pot. One person making decisions for large tracts of land could end up destroying the land, no matter who it is. You are assuming that all loggers and foresters are responsible individuals and stewards of the land. We both know that isn't true, just like all environmentalists don't have a clue what they are talking about. 

Now on the other hand, private land owners should be able to do whatever they want with their land as long as it doesn't affect neighboring land.


----------



## madhatte (Dec 10, 2010)

PB, I must respectfully disagree with you. Foresters and loggers are, contrary to popular belief, the first line of conservation. A logger isn't a corporation, and isn't beholden to stockholders. A logger is smart enough to know that if all the trees are gone, there's no work. A forester is in the business of growing and protecting those trees. These are pragmatic and practical people, not emotional ones, and not greedy ones. If you want to be upset with somebody, be upset with the Dow and the NYSE and NASDAQ -- those are the entities which push for more, more, more from our forests.


----------



## PB (Dec 10, 2010)

madhatte said:


> PB, I must respectfully disagree with you. Foresters and loggers are, contrary to popular belief, the first line of conservation. A logger isn't a corporation, and isn't beholden to stockholders. A logger is smart enough to know that if all the trees are gone, there's no work. A forester is in the business of growing and protecting those trees. These are pragmatic and practical people, not emotional ones, and not greedy ones. If you want to be upset with somebody, be upset with the Dow and the NYSE and NASDAQ -- those are the entities which push for more, more, more from our forests.



I see your point, while I am not disagreeing with you, I think you are failing to see my point or I am not making it clear. Not all loggers and foresters are responsible and have the forests interest at heart. Not all people calling themselves "loggers" are what you and I would consider a real logger either. There is no Hippocratic oath for foresters or loggers. 99% of them are probably very responsible but it only takes one person in charge to completely alter the landscape for years or decades. The above can be said for environmentalists too, it goes both ways. They may not be a corporation but they are all businesses that have bills to pay and money to make. 

We are a reactionary society, nothing changes until something bad happens. Poor logging (over cutting) and forest management (preventing ALL forest fires) practices years ago led to legislation in an effort to protect the land. You are obviously a reasonable person, but not everyone has that sense of reason. There needs to be a set of checks and balances so the forests don't get decimated or so under managed that forest fires become extreme. 

Slowp mentioned a pendulum. This is the way I think of the situation, the indiscriminate loggers (and stockholders) on the right and the hippies chained to trees on the left. If either were in charge it would be holy hell, but with an equal amount on either side (and a lot of people in the middle) the pendulum stays in the center. This center is the balance that best fits the needs of everyone. The loggers stay busy cutting trees with proper management and the environmentalists can enjoy a hike without having a raging forest fire destroying their home.



> If you want to be upset with somebody, be upset with the Dow and the NYSE and NASDAQ -- those are the entities which push for more, more, more from our forests.



This is sort of what I am talking about. If a company was willing to pay top dollar for logs but would destroy a waterway in the process, do you think a logger will take the money or a waterway? My bet is on taking the money. Even if a logger didn't take the job, someone with less standards will, logger or not.

My basic point is, not all loggers and foresters are created equal. Just like any profession, there are good ones and bad ones. In order to keep the bad ones from f'n up, someone needs to make sure that the procedures used by good loggers are the standard.


----------



## madhatte (Dec 10, 2010)

PB said:


> In order to keep the bad ones from f'n up, someone needs to make sure that the procedures used by good loggers are the standard.



Fair enough!


----------



## Dave Hadden (Dec 10, 2010)

..



slowp said:


> And read the above for posts "the problem". One person advocating clear cuts, another saying no, because look what was done in the past. No compromise, or if there is, the enviros will dictate it.
> 
> *Given your experinces are in America and mine are in Canada there are some differences for sure, and learning to compromise was something that took some time in coming. Many examples up here.*
> 
> ...




*Take care.*


----------



## Gologit (Dec 10, 2010)

This thread has certainly taken a turn for the better. Lots of good, rational, and well presented viewpoints. I won't join in because, in a way, I agree with all of you...even those who don't agree with each other. 

There aren't any easy answers to all of this. No "one size fits all" solution. I sure wish there was. I've been in the woods for over forty years and I'm no closer to having all the answers than the day I started.

All we can do is to remember that we are, indeed, the stewards of our environment and use the best science, hard won practical knowledge, the best available technology, and the dictates of many years of accumulated common sense.

There's a rule in medicine...it says "First, do no harm". That rule could apply to logging, too.


----------



## Meadow Beaver (Dec 10, 2010)

forestryworks said:


> There's a lot of people with that kind of mindset that say clearcuts don't work and that they cause erosion :monkey:



I would much rather see clearcuts in my area. Looks better then a mountain with its top sliced off.


----------



## PB (Dec 10, 2010)

Gologit said:


> This thread has certainly taken a turn for the better. Lots of good, rational, and well presented viewpoints. I won't join in because, in a way, I agree with all of you...even those who don't agree with each other.
> 
> There aren't any easy answers to all of this. No "one size fits all" solution. I sure wish there was. I've been in the woods for over forty years and I'm no closer to having all the answers than the day I started.
> 
> ...



Bob, there are always more questions than answers, no matter how old you are. New answers cause new questions.


----------



## PB (Dec 10, 2010)

Meadow Beaver said:


> I would much rather see clearcuts in my area. Looks better then a mountain with its top sliced off.



Amen to that. Are you in WV? I don't see how that mining practice is illegal. Removing a MOUNTAIN should be against the law. There are better ways to get at the coal.


----------



## horseloger (Dec 10, 2010)

the clear cutting verses select cutting is not the only thing corp, America has done too this industry its greed has destroyed it in many ways ever tried too sell 2x4 to a contractor cant do it without paying huge amounts of money to get a grade stamp! Most of you know how by using the log scales we have today you and the land owner only get half of the amount of footage that is really in a log.
And insurance company's that require you too have more projective gear than one really needs, that should be a personal choice not a mandatory one!And getting back too the main topic a well managed selective cut will create more jobs as well as a better product! A well maintained woodlot will regenerate in 10 to 15 years with tsi work done at proper intervals! Roads can be built with a more permanent base do too the fact they will be reused again this will help in case of fire tsi work will supply more jobs and as I said the timber will be of better quality so it will be worth more in the long run!Its just like money if you use correctly and do not squander it then it will be there for you and your children


----------



## firewood guy (Dec 11, 2010)

*One 's own observations*

About 20+ years ago, I had a girlfriend in Seattle, WA. I live in CA and we met at a wedding in CA. We hit it off and I flew up to seatac to met her for many times. We had a common interest in hiking and the great outdoors and the beauty of the great outdoors. She took me to I think it was called first beach on the pacific shore and we took a nice long hike through what I thought was the "Primordial Forest" that had never been touched by Man or natural disaster. The diversity of tree species was as it should have been w/ conifers and hardwoods, plus all the understory vegetation. One thing that was curious to me was that there where a lot of low mounds scattered about the entire area. It was just a passing thought as we were enjoying the day and I was enjoying the company of this great gal! Hours passed as we went through the forest on our way to the coastline when we came across a machine-routed wooden sign that stated that "This forest under management by the weyerhouser (sp?) corp. Last harvest date 1930, next harvest date 2010". We were both blown away as you could not believe any other Human had ever set foot in that area other than a few trails to the shore. As you might imagine, my girlfriend at that time was a stout environmentalist, and this experience as well as as others caused her to become more of a conservationist, which I believe is healthy for us all. I know it is ugly to see harvested (esp slash & burn) lands, but I believe with good practices the harvesting of timber is like any other crop... Just with a much longer cycle time. take care of the land ..it will take care of You! But say " Oh don"t touch it!" or else the environmentalists will get their inevitable way and it will all burn down in the next forest fire. How about that for global warming??:chainsawguy:


----------



## firewood guy (Dec 11, 2010)

Yukonsawman said:


> At the risk of sounding like a tree hugger or leaf kisser, we certainly can grow trees like carrots, just like any other vegetated matter.
> 
> The healthiest forests are those stands of uneven age, whereby there is always something to harvest. This I guess is conservation.
> Preservation is where nothing is cut, these are called Parks.
> ...



You are not a "tree hugger" in MHO, probably just right on the mark.


----------



## madhatte (Dec 11, 2010)

firewood guy said:


> Last harvest date 1930, next harvest date 2010



If we're gonna do clear-cuts at all, that's about the shortest cycle that makes sense in this bio-region. Anything shorter fails to address the importance of mid-seral communities in the restoration of soils following disturbance. The "50 years => 2%/Year => Sustainable" formula that big ownerships have been following for the last half-century or so has proven to be a wash. No biggie, Live and Learn. Let's just not forget the "Learn" part.


----------



## forestryworks (Dec 11, 2010)

Down in the Broken Bow, Smithville, and Octavia areas of Oklahoma, Weyerhaeuser, doing even-aged management, harvests their stands on a 32-36 yr. rotational age. Their young stands look like a nice carpet of green.

The USFS, in the same area, manages for uneven-aged management, and they are managing with prescribed fire, an increase in rotational age from 70 - 120 years, and the removal and killing of non-native trees to increase the presence of native shortleaf pines and the native hardwoods.

And then you have the private landowners. Some clearcut and replant with pine, others clearcut and then never manage again, which is a shame, cause the pines can be VERY productive in these parts.

Edit: I wish I knew what the site indexes were in this part of OK. Time for more research.


----------



## floyd (Dec 11, 2010)

USFS has a MANDATE...multiple use. Weyerhauser has no such mandate. 

Their new mandate in PNW is cut it then subdivide & sell 5ac to citiots.

Plum Creek is the king of this trash in MT. More money selling to citiots & turnaround is quicker.


----------



## madhatte (Dec 11, 2010)

floyd said:


> Their new mandate in PNW is cut it then subdivide & sell 5ac to citiots.



That's pretty much my biggest pet peeve right there. They get to make money four times -- timber sales, lumber production, cookie-cutter houses, and eventually land sales... then they walk away from the land now that it's unsuited for anything but suburban sprawl.


----------



## joesawer (Dec 11, 2010)

madhatte said:


> That's pretty much my biggest pet peeve right there. They get to make money four times -- timber sales, lumber production, cookie-cutter houses, and eventually land sales... then they walk away from the land now that it's unsuited for anything but suburban sprawl.



Welcome to progress!


----------



## PB (Dec 11, 2010)

floyd said:


> Plum Creek is the king of this trash in MT. More money selling to citiots & turnaround is quicker.



Not just in MT. They are doing that here in ME around Moosehead Lake.


----------



## hammerlogging (Dec 11, 2010)

PB said:


> Amen to that. Are you in WV? I don't see how that mining practice is illegal. Removing a MOUNTAIN should be against the law. There are better ways to get at the coal.



Just catchin' up to you. I've been working in coal country timber for nearly the last 2 years, not clearing for strip mining, but the peripheral timber. We've helicopter logged, jammer logged, yarders, you name it, and by and large practiced real silviculture, all on land that may well be under a valley fill in a few years.

Its been fascinating. It is a complex issue, and as with timber, there is more to it than one's emotional response. Do I like it, no, but I can't tell you I know just where to draw the line. 

Often the last 20 min. of my drive would be across MTR terrain.

I wish more than anything the beautification committee would make a stop in the coal fields, its rough country and most of those communities could use a real pick me up. 

I done tramped myself today, on to a new gig in a new region so no more coal fields.

MTR:


----------



## 056 kid (Dec 11, 2010)

Meadow Beaver said:


> I would much rather see clearcuts in my area. Looks better then a mountain with its top sliced off.



I got to clear cut about 120 acres of prime red & white oak that was being eaten by gypsy moths out there on Potts Mtn. west of Salem VA. I really wanna go back there to see how things are progressing. Im sure you can barely walk for all the sprouts coming up.


----------



## hammerlogging (Dec 11, 2010)

More MTR (mountain top removal)

Before:





Valley Fill: (it will be vegetated w/ grass)


----------



## 056 kid (Dec 11, 2010)

Is the MTR for mining? As in actually taking the top of the mountain off?

We cut along top ridges for the govt over there at Jerrys Run. Alot of the timber on top was old and small chesnut oak with some red & white oak and a few basses.


Mmm, guess I could have read your above post. . .


----------



## Gypo Logger (Dec 11, 2010)

hammerlogging said:


> More MTR (mountain top removal)
> 
> Before:



Judging by the canopy, that looks like some good timber.
John


----------



## 056 kid (Dec 11, 2010)

Yep.


----------



## hammerlogging (Dec 11, 2010)

Yes, rip off the top of the mountain to strip the coal seams. Dump the spoil in the valleys. Most montains have strip benches where they benched the edges at the coal seams and augered in, sometimes up to 1000' deep, 4' wide, every 4'. So the MTR is just getting the rest. 

There is still lots of underground mining too. There is a lot of coal miner pride around there, though I imagine the comeraderie is a lot stronger underground.

Yes. plenty of good timber, although like most of Appalachia, you can pretty well figure it was ALL clearcut in the late 1800's, then poked around in high grade style in the 50's and again in the 80's. Of course, there's places they couldn't get to, a few places they never got to, but we did...... Plus, there are a whole lot more markets available now for a wider variety of products.

Its site specific, southern and western slopes are pretty brutal, ridgetops can be decent, but your east and north slopes can really be loaded, as well as deep in any holler. I love working deep in a holler.


----------



## Gypo Logger (Dec 11, 2010)

hammerlogging said:


> Yes. plenty of good timber. I love working deep in a holler.


 Ya, so do I, the wood is always tall and usually no branches for 40 ft., with lots of high grade butt logs.
John


----------



## 056 kid (Dec 11, 2010)

A low area or deep hollow full of poplars, O yea! that is a fun time!!
I cut a small stand below Natural Bridge that was growing along the creek on an inside bend.(out of the smz of course!) The surrounding hill sides gave them the perfect setup to get tall and fat.


----------



## FSburt (Dec 11, 2010)

"citiots" Like that descriptive adjective. Learn something new everyday.


----------

