Forest structure, services may be lost

[OregonSawyer]

Forest structure, services may be lost even as form remains | News & Research Communications | Oregon State University

For you Foresters, Tech's, Loggers and Students... I would like to get your opinions regarding this article.

I typically check out the OSU Forestry site to see any new research or press releases happening and stumbled across this. If my memory serves me, I recall Madhatte discussing the opposite. In fact I believe he saw extensive diversity of undergrowth in "their" reprod?

Anyway, this article just kinda surprised me. Particularly one paragraph that seemed to elude to calling for more stringent harvesting practices.

 

[madhatte]

It's a fine line between too much and not enough. A 3rd-growth commercial forest, or a doghair hemlock patch, have all the biodiversity of a cornfield. By contrast, "natural" systems are often every bit as wasteful as old-school cut-and-run logging, especially when you consider how long it takes a stable middle-aged (100-200 year old) stand to start dropping crowns and developing a multi-storied canopy. There's a lot of years there where stem exclusion keeps a near-monoculture condition even without human intervention, depending of course on soils, aspect, and all that.

I think what's going on here is that it's in vogue to do science where, putting the cart before the horse, it is assumed beforehand that anything humans do is "bad" and anything nature does is "good". This is not only unfair to humans, it gives nature more credit than it deserves. Natural Selection only works because of the millennial aggregation of millions of mistakes.

A truly "sustainable" forestry is a human-managed system where the most desirable traits of both are encouraged, and the least-desirable are discouraged. Black-and-white decisions very, very seldom work in the long run. Natural systems change; managing them means accommodating and managing for that change as well. Climate change is real; it has been changing since the dawn of time. Did we do it? Who cares? What's so special about humans, anyway?

Fact is, we only matter to ourselves, and the guilt the doom-and-gloom contingency is pushing down our collective throats for sins we may or may not have committed against nature is their guilt and theirs alone. The ignorant don't know, the apathetic don't care, and the conscientious are already doing what they can. I am not favorably inclined to get up in arms about anybody's opinion on forestry who isn't in the woods with me. It's the folks working a single piece of ground over as many years as possible whose contributions are valuable. Studies are only as robust as their design, and robust design comes from experience.

Oh, and that article is peppered with "weasel words" -- veneer, protection, natural -- which belie the cart-before-the-horse agenda mentioned above. People need to go outside more.

 

[slowp]

Forest structure, services may be lost even as form remains | News & Research Communications | Oregon State University

For you Foresters, Tech's, Loggers and Students... I would like to get your opinions regarding this article.

I typically check out the OSU Forestry site to see any new research or press releases happening and stumbled across this. If my memory serves me, I recall Madhatte discussing the opposite. In fact I believe he saw extensive diversity of undergrowth in "their" reprod?

Anyway, this article just kinda surprised me. Particularly one paragraph that seemed to elude to calling for more stringent harvesting practices.

It seems more targeted towards private land operations, and the article seems kind of shallow. In my area, a goodly part of the forest is second growth because of a fire in the early 19th century. There are some relics found in the midst of the younger stands, and old cedar snags.

In the stands that were clearcut from the 1980s and on, wildlife trees were left and snags were created. Even in the stands logged prior to that, there are the old culls that were left for economic reasons that are now called down woody debris. Those did not even burn well when the units were broadcast burned.

Contrary to what most people believe, there is a very large portion of our area that has not been logged. At the higher elevations, a friend and I noticed large amounts of old growth silver fir dying on the hillside. It doesn't live forever.

In the new plantations, we still have down logs, huckleberry, and hemlock has worked its way into the appropriate areas. As of the 1980s again, a mixture of species was planted and you will not find the monoculture that many folks talk about.

All I can say about some areas on the eastside is that Lodgepole begats Lodgepole and it burns over and over. One forest I worked on went hard at cutting the Lodgepole and leaving all non - Lodgepole and it hasn't burned in those areas. The big Western Larch, Doug-fir, and spruce were left as leave trees. I do not know how the spruce faired. Those areas were naturally reproducing with---lodgepole.

There hasn't been a clearcut here since 1990something, and you will now find elk living year round in the valley pastures and gardens. Many elk hunters are now going over to the east side because our area is so overgrown.

We have mudslides where there are roads and old logging areas, but we also have mudslides in untouched areas...

So it goes. I'm just a poorly educated technician. I'm sure somebody else can explain things better.

 

[OregonSawyer]

I appreciate your insight/input. It's always good to hear it firsthand from people that are consistently out there actually seeing it with their own two eyes. I'm just getting my Forestry career started so I try to keep my ears open to any info possible as well as double and triple checking things I have heard, while getting other opinions on similar subjects.

Again, much appreciated

 

[Gologit]

I think what's going on here is that it's in vogue to do science where, putting the cart before the horse, it is assumed beforehand that anything humans do is "bad" and anything nature does is "good". This is not only unfair to humans, it gives nature more credit than it deserves. Natural Selection only works because of the millennial aggregation of millions of mistakes.

Well said.

 

[madhatte]

Thank yez, thank yez.

 

[hammerlogging]

yeah that millenia of millions will put the odds on your side, every time. statistics. same reason my jug wine tastes so good, every time, heck they don't even have to put a vintage year on it. none of that "single vineyard" crap, perfect every time.

 

[Humptulips]

Pulled this out of the article "In particular, the article questioned any continued harvest in old growth forests and salvage logging after wildfires or wind storms."

Makes me wonder how often these guys get out. Haven't seen any of that kind of logging in over 20 years.
I do remember logging a lot of hemlock second growth on the Clearwater that was naturally seeded in after the big 1921 blow down. It certainly was a monoculture but it was natural so it must have been good. I could say more but my Dentist told me I needed to stop clenching my teeth.

 

[madhatte]

I recall Madhatte discussing the opposite. In fact I believe he saw extensive diversity of undergrowth in "their" reprod?

Just want to clarify real quick that the diversity we have in our forest is due to deliberate manipulation over the last half-century. While we have done limited clear-cutting in the past, it has never been our only or even preferred silvicultural treatment. As early as 1970 we had nested treatments within sale units in order to meet different silvicultural objectives: seed-tree, shelterwood, group selection and retention, etc. Today we primarily use variable-density thinning with group selection and retention in order to encourage vertical and horizontal diversity. Some of our 50 year-old-stands look very like much older stands, which is encouraging to say the least.

However, much of this success is possible only because of our unique climate and geology. What works here will not work everywhere. We do not have a "magic bullet", nor do I believe such a thing exists. It remains in the province of local expertise to determine the most appropriate treatment for a given stand.

 

[Humptulips]

However, much of this success is possible only because of our unique climate and geology. What works here will not work everywhere. We do not have a "magic bullet", nor do I believe such a thing exists. It remains in the province of local expertise to determine the most appropriate treatment for a given stand.

Amen to that! I get so sick of hearing the latest one size fits all solution for forest health.

 

[slowp]

There was an error in my post. I meant early 1900s for the fire, not 19th century. My bad.

 

[HILLBILLYREDNEC]

Most areas in Central Oregon get mostly thinning or the FS burns huge areas to prevent fires around human habitat. I say thin the whole ####in PNW We need the economy going well lets thin the whole ####in PNW and put people bad to work.

 

[Hank Chinaski]

Most areas in Central Oregon get mostly thinning or the FS burns huge areas to prevent fires around human habitat. I say thin the whole ####in PNW We need the economy going well lets thin the whole ####in PNW and put people bad to work.

you should run for president.

 

[slowp]

Most areas in Central Oregon get mostly thinning or the FS burns huge areas to prevent fires around human habitat. I say thin the whole ####in PNW We need the economy going well lets thin the whole ####in PNW and put people bad to work.

This is an example of the problem.

THERE IS NO ONE SIZE FITS ALL SOLUTION.Each region, valley, slope has a difference. We do not have a lodgepole problem on the west side of the Cascades. Thinning on the coast can cause blowdown. Clearcutting dry slopes of the east side can cause problems in reforestation.

Travel. Walk the woods. Look at the difference. Then make statements.

 

[OregonSawyer]

Another thing I just read in the news regarding local forests was that Congress is looking at passing a bill to renew payments for a handful of counties statewide. The counties receiving payment from the Government would be those that have been significantly impacted by cut-backs in Federal timber sales.

Somehow this really just does not make sense.... I'm sure those of you involved in the industry have more insight on the subject matter than me. Again, I hope you chime in.

So, "They" all but completely restrict logging on Federal land (decreasing revenue) and then pay the counties affected (doubly decreasing revenue) so that they don't totally collapse? How in the world is that a fiscally responsible (or reasonable for that matter) plan?

 

[floyd]

Feds don't pay property tax on the ground they own. Renenue was generated from timber sales that replaced what another land owner would pay in property taxes to the county.

No timber harvest means no income for the county.

Some counties are 90% federal ground. Cuts into property tax revenues.

 

[slowp]

Another thing I just read in the news regarding local forests was that Congress is looking at passing a bill to renew payments for a handful of counties statewide. The counties receiving payment from the Government would be those that have been significantly impacted by cut-backs in Federal timber sales.

Somehow this really just does not make sense.... I'm sure those of you involved in the industry have more insight on the subject matter than me. Again, I hope you chime in.

So, "They" all but completely restrict logging on Federal land (decreasing revenue) and then pay the counties affected (doubly decreasing revenue) so that they don't totally collapse? How in the world is that a fiscally responsible (or reasonable for that matter) plan?

Like Floyd said, no property tax comes from federal lands. Back in the day when trees were being cut and sold, the counties collected 25% of the timber sale receipts in lieu of taxes. When the timber sales dried up, that funding was lost, so Congress kept passing budget items to pay timber counties to make up for that.

Lately, they threaten to end that. It might be a good thing to end it. Maybe more folks would pressure Congress for more logging. More not meaning anything like in the 1970s. But at least here, a heck of a lot more timber could be logged and it would improve the forest.

 

[madhatte]

Or the agencies could opt to pay taxes like everybody else. We do 40% of our GROSS to the counties, which is a lot, but out land area is also pretty small by proportion, so we probably don't affect the counties' revenue all that much. Also, we have had years in the past where we didn't sell any timber at all, so the 40% cut of nothin' was nothin'. Straight taxation might keep an even keel on that kind of annual fluctuation. It would certainly help keep land-rich but cash-poor counties afloat.