# Boak Logging



## forestryworks (Jan 17, 2010)

http://www.northcoastjournal.com/072403/cover0724.html

Old news, but I thought it was a good article. The guy had some points that I liked, especially on clearcutting. I'm gonna do a little more research on what he's saying.



> And while environmental advocates, many citizens and some foresters advocate selective logging, Boak insists that clear-cutting followed by reforestation is the best way to produce redwood and Douglas fir. "Thinning seems to be the political way to do it, but it's the worst way in the world to grow fir and redwood," he says. "You create a tree that starts growing more limbs down low. It grows shorter instead of taller and wider at the butt. You create an expensive logging job."


----------



## GASoline71 (Jan 17, 2010)

Not to mention how much of a PITA it is to yard logs out of a thinnin' operation.

Gary


----------



## rlwheeler1 (Jan 17, 2010)

That was a pretty good read thanks for posting.


----------



## Taxmantoo (Jan 17, 2010)

Clearcutting and replanting would be closer to the natural (forest fire) way, wouldn't it?


----------



## slowp (Jan 17, 2010)

Once again, it depends on where you are and how old your trees are. We've got areas that were thinned, some more than once-commercially thinned, and they are doing great, with limbs up high where they are supposed to be, and height also. 

Yes, there should be more clearcuts, but unfortunately, I've been told by those in charge, "It aint gonna happen." For us, the only way will be to stress making some kind of wildlife openings, or huckleberry habitat, and then those that are in charge may insist that no profit is to be made--leave the trees on the ground and burn them or leave them standing and burn it. 

Doesn't make sense, so I'm happy we can thin. Even if it is harder to yard through. By the way, the fallers say they like thinnings better. At least the guys around here say so. opcorn:


----------



## Taxmantoo (Jan 18, 2010)

slowp said:


> By the way, the fallers say they like thinnings better. At least the guys around here say so. opcorn:



With a clearcut, how much harder is it for the fallers do take them all down without making a dangerous pile of ten ton jackstraws?


----------



## Greystoke (Jan 18, 2010)

Sounds like quite a guy. The only thing that I noticed was odd was this quote: "They figured if they saved 60 or 90 feet out of an [old-growth] tree, that was fine." Has to be a mis-print, or taken out of context. Unless they are talking lineal feet and not board feet? Even if it is lineal feet, that is a terrible save!


----------



## slowp (Jan 19, 2010)

taxmantoo said:


> With a clearcut, how much harder is it for the fallers do take them all down without making a dangerous pile of ten ton jackstraws?



Takes a good sale administrator/forester too. The fallers are good, they don't have too much trouble. According to them, it takes a bit more thinking to get the trees on the ground. If they are limblocked I get called and go down to OK (with my paint) taking more trees out. Same if ithey are hung up.

A couple other small perks of thinnings are shade in the summer for the crew and less snow in the winter because of the sheltering of the leave trees. But otherwise, thinnings are slower and take more time.


----------



## slowp (Jan 19, 2010)

tarzanstree said:


> Sounds like quite a guy. The only thing that I noticed was odd was this quote: "They figured if they saved 60 or 90 feet out of an [old-growth] tree, that was fine." Has to be a mis-print, or taken out of context. Unless they are talking lineal feet and not board feet? Even if it is lineal feet, that is a terrible save!



I think he's talking lineal feet. That happened here if the mill bid too high for the stumpage. Then they only seemed to care about getting large diameter 40 foot logs out. The rest of the tree be damned.


----------



## Burvol (Jan 19, 2010)

He sounds like a nice enough man. It's hard to write about loggers from the non-logger point of view. As for the clearcuts,
call me old fashioned or evil, but I still enjoy a good clearcut!!!


----------



## Gologit (Jan 19, 2010)

Burvol said:


> He sounds like a nice enough man. It's hard to write about loggers from the non-logger point of view. As for the clearcuts,
> call me old fashioned or evil, but I still enjoy a good clearcut!!!



Yup...except for the dog hair stuff.


----------



## Burvol (Jan 19, 2010)

Gologit said:


> Yup...except for the dog hair stuff.



I was refering to the stuff similar to what you had down there in the Bedrock days, LOL. Nice wood.

Good morning Bob


----------



## slowp (Jan 19, 2010)

Curse you! Now The Flintstones song is stuck in my head. 

And will probably be there all day!

Oh well, maybe I'll sing it if there is a meeting. :greenchainsaw:


----------



## Gologit (Jan 19, 2010)

Burvol said:


> I was refering to the stuff similar to what you had down there in the Bedrock days, LOL. Nice wood.
> 
> Good morning Bob



LOLOLOL...Hey, T-Rex could really skid those OG butt cuts.


----------



## Gologit (Jan 19, 2010)

slowp said:


> Curse you! Now The Flintstones song is stuck in my head.
> 
> And will probably be there all day!
> 
> Oh well, maybe I'll sing it if there is a meeting. :greenchainsaw:



Video please. With audio.


----------



## Burvol (Jan 19, 2010)

Gologit said:


> LOLOLOL...Hey, T-Rex could really skid those OG butt cuts.



California is where the big stick still lives. There is alot of nice sticks left here, but the magnitude of what you guys still have _and had LOL_ is staggering. My buddy just finished a roadside burn job down there...Big time wood.


----------



## Greystoke (Jan 19, 2010)

Burvol said:


> He sounds like a nice enough man. It's hard to write about loggers from the non-logger point of view. As for the clearcuts,
> call me old fashioned or evil, but I still enjoy a good clearcut!!!



Me too pardner!


----------



## slowp (Jan 19, 2010)

I wouldn't have to pack the heavy  cans of paint around so much if we clearcut. But I don't like the way the logs would shift and begin to roll on the clearcuts--but you just had to stay out and look in from the edges. 

And there's my everlasting shameless plug for more huckleberry habitat! Along with elk habitat. Saw 10 this morning in front of my pickup. I fumbled too much with the camera to get pictures.


----------



## Humptulips (Jan 20, 2010)

slowp said:


> Once again, it depends on where you are and how old your trees are. We've got areas that were thinned, some more than once-commercially thinned, and they are doing great, with limbs up high where they are supposed to be, and height also.
> 
> Yes, there should be more clearcuts, but unfortunately, I've been told by those in charge, "It aint gonna happen." For us, the only way will be to stress making some kind of wildlife openings, or huckleberry habitat, and then those that are in charge may insist that no profit is to be made--leave the trees on the ground and burn them or leave them standing and burn it.
> 
> Doesn't make sense, so I'm happy we can thin. Even if it is harder to yard through. By the way, the fallers say they like thinnings better. At least the guys around here say so. opcorn:



WDFW is in the beginnings of a process of putting together an EIS for reintroducing grizzly bears to the Cascades. One of the points I heard mentioned was the bears need more clearcuts on federal lands to allow for hucleberries to grow (bear food).
I'm not sure if the bear food was berries or berry pickers. That part was unclear.


----------



## Gologit (Jan 20, 2010)

Humptulips said:


> WDFW is in the beginnings of a process of putting together an EIS for reintroducing grizzly bears to the Cascades. One of the points I heard mentioned was the bears need more clearcuts on federal lands to allow for hucleberries to grow (bear food).
> I'm not sure if the bear food was berries or berry pickers. That part was unclear.



That's okay, the bears will figure it out.


----------



## slowp (Jan 20, 2010)

Then it'll be time to get one of those Kurillion (sp?) bear dogs and a hogleg.

Or maybe a couple of bear dogs? 

If the grizzly thing is true, the fish and wildlife have lied again. The wildlife folks swore they would not move bears here, they would leave things be.


----------



## Greystoke (Jan 20, 2010)

slowp said:


> Then it'll be time to get one of those Kurillion (sp?) bear dogs and a hogleg.
> 
> Or maybe a couple of bear dogs?
> 
> If the grizzly thing is true, the fish and wildlife have lied again. The wildlife folks swore they would not move bears here, they would leave things be.



My horse shoeing buddy has a client that trains those karelian bear dogs. Awesome dogs, and the trainer is an awesome lady. She travels all over the world with them. Probably just a matter of time til you guys have grizzlies over there. Wolves too, unless they are already there. If not there goes that ten head of Elk you saw, along with the rest. They have wreaked havoc on our elk and deer herds here, unless you talk to a fern feeler; They will tell you that the herds are just as healthy as ever! We have 15 packs of wolves in the Bitterroot Valley alone, and I have read that one pack survives on one elk (or the equivalent in other ungulates) per day...that is 5000 head per year just in the Bitterroot! :bang:


----------



## Burvol (Jan 20, 2010)

tarzanstree said:


> My horse shoeing buddy has a client that trains those karelian bear dogs. Awesome dogs, and the trainer is an awesome lady. She travels all over the world with them. Probably just a matter of time til you guys have grizzlies over there. Wolves too, unless they are already there. If not there goes that ten head of Elk you saw, along with the rest. They have wreaked havoc on our elk and deer herds here, unless you talk to a fern feeler; They will tell you that the herds are just as healthy as ever! We have 15 packs of wolves in the Bitterroot Valley alone, and I have read that one pack survives on one elk (or the equivalent in other ungulates) per day...that is 5000 head per year just in the Bitterroot! :bang:



:angry2:


----------



## Humptulips (Jan 20, 2010)

One of the higher ups in the department I know (I won't mention his name) just got back from some kind of Grizzly bear summit with the feds. The plans are in the works. It's just a matter of time.
And Wolves? They're already here at least in Eastern WA as far west as the Winthrop area. They just closed comments on the wolf managemet plan. Their prefered version calls for 9 breeding pairs in the South Cascades and Coastal WA.
Fisher? When they are established here on the Peninsula, South Cascades is next.
A whole lot of legal fodder there.


----------



## Cedarkerf (Jan 21, 2010)

Read a few articles about the Griz being reintroduced in the North Cascades the granola herd was really whining about the danger of this. They only want cute fuzzy nature that cant eat them before they change from earth first to me first.


----------



## Burvol (Jan 21, 2010)

Cedarkerf said:


> Read a few articles about the Griz being reintroduced in the North Cascades the granola herd was really whining about the danger of this. They only want cute fuzzy nature that cant eat them before they change from earth first to me first.



Can't remember the exact location, but I remember that in the fall of around 2003 a few Grizzlies were around 35 miles east of Bellingham.


----------



## Cedarkerf (Jan 21, 2010)

Burvol said:


> Can't remember the exact location, but I remember that in the fall of around 2003 a few Grizzlies were around 35 miles east of Bellingham.


Yea I have heard the rumors over the past several years but hadnt heard of one being verified.


----------



## slowp (Jan 21, 2010)

Before I went into exile, the timber sale contracts on one northern forest had a clause that loggers were to have a bear proof container on site for logger food, and were not to leave lunches out and about because there might could be grizzlies around as it was their kind of habitat. One of those, just shake your head and laugh things because crying isn't as pleasant. 

The Cheeseheads said they'd be glad to ship Fishers over to us. Fishers are plentiful and considered a pest there. I saw one close up. He looked like he was not having a pleasant day so I left him clinging to his tree. 

I didn't go hiking on any trails there either. There were packs of wolves. The wolves will attack and kill dogs. I like to take my dog with me. The wolves were becoming used to logging being done and would watch sometimes. One logger had his dog out with him, saw a wolf, got his dog in the skidder and then drove back to the landing with the wolf following. That story made the local paper. 

Wisconsin is the place I had the closest encounter with a black (actually cinnamon) bear. The only thing I could think to do was to spray it with paint from my paintgun and when the bear was almost in range, it finally clicked in his brain to go away. Whew! I think he was deaf and blind cuz I was yelling and waving arms and blowing a whistle. He looked so calm.


----------



## Burvol (Jan 21, 2010)

Cedarkerf said:


> Yea I have heard the rumors over the past several years but hadnt heard of one being verified.



I saw the pictures of the tracks, no doubt about it.


----------



## Greystoke (Jan 21, 2010)

slowp said:


> Before I went into exile, the timber sale contracts on one northern forest had a clause that loggers were to have a bear proof container on site for logger food, and were not to leave lunches out and about because there might could be grizzlies around as it was their kind of habitat. One of those, just shake your head and laugh things because crying isn't as pleasant.
> 
> The Cheeseheads said they'd be glad to ship Fishers over to us. Fishers are plentiful and considered a pest there. I saw one close up. He looked like he was not having a pleasant day so I left him clinging to his tree.
> 
> ...



Ahh, who needs pepper spray, when you have tree paint! Awesome


----------



## Curlycherry1 (Jan 21, 2010)

Clearcutting an East Coast/Midwest hardwood (Maple/birch/beech) forest is the deathknell for that forest. I drove by a part of one of our national forests in Wisconsin a few years ago and it had been clearcut. It looked like it had been cut about 5-10 years ago because the trees were scrub and 10-15' tall. It turns out that woods was cut over 70 years ago and they call it the Charlie Brown Forest because every tree looks like a Charlie Brown Christmas Tree. Hardwood forests go through successions and interrupt that suggession by clearcutting and it is straight back to the beginning of the succession (poplar, then pine, then softwoods like soft maple and ash, then hard maples and cherries, and finally birch/beech).


----------

