# 35 year DF cycle nowadays?



## ArtB (Apr 10, 2016)

Have 32 acres near St. Helens, state forest property on 2 sides.

Adjoining state land was clearcut about 33 years ago, noticed this weekend there were survey tapes and 'boundary of bid area' notices on the side of our property. 

There are very few of the trees now over 12" DBH, seems awful soon for another clearcut, have not searched the state web site to see if it is only for thinning though.


----------



## madhatte (Apr 11, 2016)

Odds are that's the boundary for a commercial thin. Not my land, not my sale, so I'm just speculating here, but I'd bet they're going to thin to either a spacing or a basal area, in order to release space between crowns and accelerate the growth of the remnant stand. The bid part is the interesting part. In times of a strong pulp market, that's easy money. This is not one of those times. It's possible that it'll go up for bid more than once before it sells.


----------



## ArtB (Apr 11, 2016)

Thanks for the input, thinning is all that makes sense. 

I have a hard time navigating the WA DNR site for timber sales by location, found a couple of Mayfield thinning locations out for bid but could not find the one bordering me. There is a 'Diamond Jim' clearcut area for bid a mile south.


----------



## madhatte (Apr 11, 2016)

I don't know a lot about their public info, so I can't help you much there. I have heard of some Weyco cuts where they're pulling some low-grade sawlogs out at 35 years but I don't believe that it's widespread, and I can't imagine that it's more profitable than waiting a few years. Really, if I had my way, it would be rare to cut anything less than 75 years old. That's where you start getting most of the low knots grown completely over and some of the vertical growth has slowed down in favor of more structural growth down low. 50 year rotations look good on paper but are neither commercially nor ecologically sound.


----------



## ChoppyChoppy (Apr 11, 2016)

Here 75 years is way too long on a woods. Most trees are dying well before that. 35 years is good.


----------



## northmanlogging (Apr 11, 2016)

i'm voting fer a thin, pretty amazing what a proper thin can do to a stand in just a couple years.

When we moved in up here, some folks had a patch thinned, but left the next door stuff alone, well that was 9 years ago, and last year they thinned the other half, timber on second side is only about half as big as the first side, having started at about the same size.


----------



## Scablands (Apr 11, 2016)

ValleyFirewood said:


> Here 75 years is way too long on a woods. Most trees are dying well before that. 35 years is good.





madhatte said:


> I don't know a lot about their public info, so I can't help you much there. I have heard of some Weyco cuts where they're pulling some low-grade sawlogs out at 35 years but I don't believe that it's widespread, and I can't imagine that it's more profitable than waiting a few years. Really, if I had my way, it would be rare to cut anything less than 75 years old. That's where you start getting most of the low knots grown completely over and some of the vertical growth has slowed down in favor of more structural growth down low. 50 year rotations look good on paper but are neither commercially nor ecologically sound.



Don't tell that to Weyco's shareholders. Isn't 35 years what they were pushing after 50 (and 75 years before that)...?


----------



## madhatte (Apr 11, 2016)

I'm just gonna say "Shareholders ain't Foresters" and leave it at that.


----------



## ChoppyChoppy (Apr 12, 2016)

Scablands said:


> Don't tell that to Weyco's shareholders. Isn't 35 years what they were pushing after 50 (and 75 years before that)...?



Birch and spruce are the marketable timber here and neither have real long lifespans. I'm not a forester, but Ive logged woods logged in the 80s and it's real nice stuff, not rotting out/dying and not too small.

Of course area and species makes a huge difference too.


----------



## Scablands (Apr 12, 2016)

madhatte said:


> I'm just gonna say "Shareholders ain't Foresters" and leave it at that.



Yup.


ValleyFirewood said:


> Birch and spruce are the marketable timber here and neither have real long lifespans. I'm not a forester, but Ive logged woods logged in the 80s and it's real nice stuff, not rotting out/dying and not too small.
> 
> Of course area and species makes a huge difference too.


I don't doubt you at all. This was more of a regional inside joke as the timber companies were fluffing their assets by promoting ever shortened cutting cycles. 35 years is really quick here. From the little reading I've done, Madhatte's 75 year minimum is the general, scientific consensus for the PacNW.


----------



## madhatte (Apr 12, 2016)

Scablands said:


> This just goes to show why we need good people using good judgement doing forest management rather than arbitrary, blanket rules, because what makes sense in one region could make no sense elsewhere.



That's exactly right, and it doesn't help that the Spooted Owl fiasco gutted the industry and the schools did a terrible job of advocating for us, such that we're losing expertise to retirement far faster than we are accumulating it. Us dirt foresters are an increasingly rare breed, and "environmental scientists" are a dime a dozen and are making most of the decisions. It's gonna come to a head here in a few years as WUI concerns regarding wildfires collide with poor forest management practices, and the effect will be a market flooded with junk salvage and no quality lumber. I don't see a way out of it because the public opinion is that cutting trees is evil.


----------



## Scablands (Apr 12, 2016)

madhatte said:


> That's exactly right, and it doesn't help that the Spooted Owl fiasco gutted the industry and the schools did a terrible job of advocating for us, such that we're losing expertise to retirement far faster than we are accumulating it. Us dirt foresters are an increasingly rare breed, and "environmental scientists" are a dime a dozen and are making most of the decisions. It's gonna come to a head here in a few years as WUI concerns regarding wildfires collide with poor forest management practices, and the effect will be a market flooded with junk salvage and no quality lumber. I don't see a way out of it because the public opinion is that cutting trees is evil.



I deleted that part you quoted because I thought it too preachy, but glad you liked it. I'm shocked at the anger over tree cutting. When Weyco sells timberlands as permanent clearcuts for housing developments, there is no anger at all. And no one in the environmental community will demand to know when the Seattle or Bellevue clearcuts will be replanted. 

No one is asking when all of the Palouse farmland will be replanted with trees because after all the trees were removed, none grew back. So, now the fact that the Palouse was ever anything but completely barren is nearly lost from living memory. So, the farmers get a free pass on deforestation. And I say this as being from a family that did the clear cutting - with axes, saws, and dynamite where necessary. 

I would argue that as much or more permanent ecological devastation occurred east of the cascades between clean farming and cattle grazing than ever was done by logging the west side, which seems to recover on its own even from volcanoes. 

It's a strange world. 

But back on track...


----------



## madhatte (Apr 12, 2016)

Read an article in a recent issue of Forestry Source or one of the other SAF publications showing that the greatest rate of deforestation in the US was 18th-early 20th centuries while clearing farmlands in the east. The timber years of the PNW were barely a blip. Since about 1950 we've steadily increased timbered land to where we're about even with 1900 now.


----------



## ArtB (Apr 12, 2016)

_the west side, which seems to recover on its own_
My wife loves to point out to easterners who see a clearcut and moan about 'killing trees' that this side of the cascades alder and DF are basically big 'weeds'., ...........esp alder.

WA state appears to be actually improving their forest management, a few years back I recall all they wanted was your money to do anything with your own land <G>
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/forest-resources/silviculture-state-lands


----------



## Scablands (Apr 12, 2016)

ArtB said:


> _the west side, which seems to recover on its own_
> My wife loves to point out to easterners who see a clearcut and moan about 'killing trees' that this side of the cascades alder and DF are basically big 'weeds'., ...........esp alder.



I was surprised to see the huge amount of alder over there - particularly on the roadsides. I'd whack that stuff down with extreme prejudice. I know it's not the best firewood but I'd take it over ponderosa. And at least it would be under control. Are there regs that prevent people from taking it since so much of it is near creeks/marshy spots?


----------



## ChoppyChoppy (Apr 12, 2016)

Yup strange for sure.

This summer we "logged" a property line around about 80 acres. Owner had it surveyed and wanted a fence put in plus enough clear space to drive a truck around the fenceline.

Well its a woods that's been woods for 100+ years and alot of housing was built up to it. People had sheds built on the guys land, RV parking pads, swingsets, pools, etc. We went around all this, even though could have just dozed it.

We set posts and strung wire.

It upset folks to the point our equipment (excavator and dozer) was vandalized several times.

Just nuts what people think they are entitled to. Put your junk 30-40 ft over your land and somehow it's ok.

Luckily the owner is a lawyer so he sorted it out pretty quickly.


----------



## Gologit (Apr 12, 2016)

I've always favored a five hundred year rotation.


----------



## ArtB (Apr 12, 2016)

update: Apparently for thinning. 

Received from WA DNR:
_I received an email through our PC Region office, Department of Natural Resources in Castle Rock, WA.


It was in reference to your inquiry regarding a DNR parcel located in S11 T11N R2E. The Unit Forester..... asked me to let you know that a boundary line survey was just recently completed for that south (east/west) line of S.11 T11N R2E. A planned Variable Retention Harvest and Commercial Thin is being prepared for upcoming BID in Fall 2016._


----------



## madhatte (Apr 13, 2016)

Gologit said:


> I've always favored a five hundred year rotation.



You know good and well that I'm with you on this one. Let's thin at, say, 75-year intervals, such that we get 1200-yr results at 500 yrs! Forestry is not about the quick returns.



ArtB said:


> _t was in reference to your inquiry regarding a DNR parcel located in S11 T11N R2E. The Unit Forester..... asked me to let you know that a boundary line survey was just recently completed for that south (east/west) line of S.11 T11N R2E. A planned Variable Retention Harvest and Commercial Thin is being prepared for upcoming BID in Fall 2016._



That is exactly what I expected. Variable Retention is currently the most defensible harvest method; it looks forward to at least the next thin entry. It has its flaws, namely that DF doesn't like to grow back under any shade at all, but its major strength is that it makes money now, it leaves trees to make money later, and it leaves trees to stabilize slopes. 

I'm working on a prescription method now that addresses the weaknesses of Variable Retention Harvesting and builds on its strengths. I've got 3 seasons with field crews using it now and have had to almost completely re-write it twice as many times. When I have it mostly figured out, I'll post it here. I rely heavily on my crews to break my procedure and to challenge and refute my assumptions. You'll see them all credited in the acknowledgements. I couldn't do this alone. 

I expect the first cut marked this way to come down in 2019. It'll be another 10-15 years before I can assess how well it worked. I am basing it on a lot of different procedures, most notably "Crop Tree Harvest" from the Northeast.


----------



## ArtB (Apr 13, 2016)

_ It'll be another 10-15 years before I can assess how well it worked_

Hope I'm still around to see how your method works !

Next time I'm down at the cabin I'll take some photos of the stand before the thinning, and some next year after the VRH and thinning.


----------



## bigbarf48 (May 7, 2016)

ArtB said:


> _the west side, which seems to recover on its own_
> My wife loves to point out to easterners who see a clearcut and moan about 'killing trees' that this side of the cascades alder and DF are basically big 'weeds'., ...........esp alder.
> 
> WA state appears to be actually improving their forest management, a few years back I recall all they wanted was your money to do anything with your own land <G>
> http://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/forest-resources/silviculture-state-lands



Easterners? Keep in mind that most environmental extremism is coming from the PNW, and that the southeastern US is the wood basket of not only the country, but the world as well


----------



## Deleted member 110241 (May 27, 2016)

madhatte said:


> You know good and well that I'm with you on this one. Let's thin at, say, 75-year intervals, such that we get 1200-yr results at 500 yrs! Forestry is not about the quick returns.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



About the bold part, if variable retention means what I think it sounds like there is another + side to it, it increases the diameter growth because the trees are getting more space and sunlight. A good thing if you happen to live near a pulp industry...

We have a mandated lowest clearcutting age, depending on site index and location. I think it's 60-65 years for fir, but I'd guess that the average cutting age is about 90 years for fir and maybe 80 for spruce. By that age the forest has been thinned at least once but often twice and in some cases three times.


----------



## Skeans (Jun 4, 2016)

Scablands said:


> Don't tell that to Weyco's shareholders. Isn't 35 years what they were pushing after 50 (and 75 years before that)...?


I thin for Weyco Fibre it's 45+ year cycle.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


----------



## Skeans (Jun 4, 2016)

madhatte said:


> Odds are that's the boundary for a commercial thin. Not my land, not my sale, so I'm just speculating here, but I'd bet they're going to thin to either a spacing or a basal area, in order to release space between crowns and accelerate the growth of the remnant stand. The bid part is the interesting part. In times of a strong pulp market, that's easy money. This is not one of those times. It's possible that it'll go up for bid more than once before it sells.


I would not bet on this they were talking of some clear cuts up around the area for some different trials is what we were told.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


----------



## madhatte (Jun 4, 2016)

Interesting. I'll be curious to see how it works out.


----------

