Has this guy ever been in a biology class?

[Gopher]

Great thread, everyone!

Wow, I thought I was getting too old for everyone, and up pops James Watt! Yikes, he wanted to sell our national parks in about 1980 if I remember correctly.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust... but how long will it take?

Gopher

 

[Ryan Willock]

well said Tx!!!

 

[Tom Dunlap]

Treetx,

Your point is a bit stretched. The whole environmental movement is based on the changes that humans have had on the world AND the time that we've had to make the changes. Sure, the world has a huge dampening effect on change that have been accomodated over the eons. The problem is that humans have made huge changes in the world over a short time. When you account for these two issues you might be able to see where the world is going. A large change on a small unit will be disastorous. Think of a fart in an elevator. Better yet, a fart in a Gore Tex sleeping bag or inside your Carhart jumpsuit. I can sure remember the first time I burped inside my full face motorcycle helmet when the face shield was down. The effect is the same as all of the changes that humans are having on this water planet.

Tom

 

[WRW]

Tom,
It's you that has stretched the point. The forests are not going to be eliminated, just modified. The O2~CO2 cycle will remain the same, or possibly improve. Habitat for wildlife will not be lost. Potential losses to fire will be reduced, thereby locking more CO2 in wood fibre. There are a lot of advantages to managing over "letting nature take it's course".
Forests are a renewable resource, on a lot longer time frame than corn but none the less to be considered as a "crop".

 

[TREETX]

Tom D -

An inspiration as always. I see your point. Regulation/conservation/preservation just here and there is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.

My point is .... for example, in the SE, most people see Loblolly pine stands as ancient, pristine, and not to be disturbed. These stands were cotton fields just 40 yrs ago. Loblolly pine does not have a long life. Top out at 110 if I am correct. At that time, it will change. Where is the "climax community"? It is always changing and needs the helping hand of man to manage it. Even not managing it is still a management decision. Mismanagement has hurt the composition of SE forests. Over logging coupled with fire suppression have made longleaf pine and the red coucaded (spelling) woodpecker scarce.

I digressed and missed any point I was trying to make. What I am against is greenies thinking preservation is the only way and that conservation and use are evil. I am also against politicians like Clinton moving millions of acres of land from a conservation/use designation to a preservation designation when the federal govt clearly can't manage the land that it already has in preservation. I would like greenies to see that preservation at times can lead to degredation and blanket prescriptions of "presevation-stay out" have no place in forest management.

Forests, old and new are among the greatest treasures of this country and are best managed by professionals, not people looking for a feel good environmental cause.

 

[Nickrosis]

Say what?? Tom is stopping all of this? I don't think so... I think he's contrasting your views and asking you to critically think about this.

My angle on all of this is that there should be more prescribed burns at the 5-10 year frequency described and longer intervals where it would seem to match the species composition.

Nickrosis

 

[Tom Dunlap]

Hang on there guys. I'm getting credit for ideas and thoughts that never came off my keyboard. If someone wants to do the search and find where I advocate complete preservation, I'd appreciate that effort. If that's indeed what I wrote, I must have been incoherent. That's not reasonable. Either is border to border logging.

With all of this chatter about forest crops has anyone thought about all of the other parts of the "field"? What about the microbial relationships that don't exist in corn fields or pine plantations. Remember the old saying about how a squirrel used to run the tree tops from the Atlantic to the Mississippi? At one time that was possible, then there was time span where it wasn't possible. Now, the squirrel could run the tree tops but there might not be enough tree variteties to sustain the run. Monoculture in trees might not be the best answer either.

Down to Earth,

Please take this with a tongue in cheek

You wrote: A big reason for the fires here in CO this summer is...I'm sure that you remember how one of the big CO fires got started? By the USFS employee that didn't know about the fire ban. Also, one in AZ was set on purpose too. I wonder if these fires hadn't started that maybe there would be a lot more land unburned. At least this year.

You and I are probably the same distance from the ends of the preserve all/log all line and also the same distance apart from each other from the middle of that spectrum. That's balance!

Tom

 

[WRW]

Are we now worried about microbes becoming extinct? No-till farming leaves the crop residue on the fields, and as yet there are no build-ups of crop residue. More than earthworms are at work there. Same for pine plantations. Mount St. Helens was sterilized back in the late 80's and the forest in already on it's way back to normalization. That's way more than any burp in a helmet.
I'll agree that mono-culture is not the best use of forest land...not for the squirrels' so much as a way of reducing target specific pests. However, I haven't seen where anyone was advocating mono-culture. All I have seen was an attempt to get logging companies to proffer brush clearing in exchange for logging privileges. The small planet is not endangered by that practice.

 

[TREETX]

A monoculture is good if the use of that forest is oh, say.....timber production. In the SE the can get a sudden saw log in 20 yrs. M.U.S.Y. is a different issue for public lands.

 

[WRW]

Around here the first thinning (20 years) is pulpwood. 2nd & 3rd cuttings are sawlogs.

 

[Nickrosis]

WRW: Are we now worried about microbes becoming extinct?
Yes.

WRW: However, I haven't seen where anyone was advocating mono-culture.
This is just me, but I see it every day, and I'm at the largest natural resources school in the nation. In fact, we have a course dedicated to managing the rotations of monocultures which all forestry students have to take.

I hate monocultures. I hate monocultures. I hate monocultures. I hate monocultures. I hate monocultures. I hate monocultures.

Nickrosis

 

[WRW]

Nickrosis,
Within the context of the first post of this thread...are we worried about microbes becoming extinct?
Within the context of the first post of this thread...is a mono-culture being advocated?

 

[TREETX]

Nick, glad to hear you hate monocultures but for some species, especially pioneering species like Loblolly, they do quite well.

Like with the oak monoculture in Central TX, it is a great environment for disease to thrive. Sometimes it is a factor, sometimes, it is not.

One thing that stays the same is foresters need all of the tools available to them to manage a forest or effieciently produce timber. Monocultures and plantations are definitely a viable tool even if they are not to your liking.

The grow trees like corn in the SE. Monoculture of loblolly. They also grow tree like that sucessfully in Europe. You can find homogenious stands of Fir, Larch, etc.

WRW: Conversations evolve.

 

[Tom Dunlap]

Good points. When mangement decisions are made, there are short and long term consequences. We are working through the results of decisions that were made many years ago. The old smokey Bear management style hasn't worked out we've found. But, for so many years that's what people were told was best. Now we realize that controlled burns are good. Hard to change horses in the middle of the stream.

My biggest gripe with the clown that was appointed [the start of the thread] is that he has no background in forest management. He was appointed as a political choice I believe.

Also, I think that there are many areas that could be managed for really long term results. Why not attempt to grow fully mature trees in some hard to log areas? Wouldn't it be a legacy to start out trying to reproduce some of the original forest areas in the west? It's been done in the east in a few small spots. It takes a lot of time though. Do you remember the movie "The Last of the Mohicans"? The woodss that they used are in NOrth Carolina I think. They were logged off over 250 years ago and now are pretty close to being original. Researchers have found that the same organisms from the mature hardwood trees down to the soil microbes have re-estaablished. Pretty cool! There are some areas here in MN that were never logged and haven't burned to the ground for over 300 years. It's really comforting to walk those woods knowing that this may be the source for reinvigorating some logged over area. think of these areas as holding the "starter" for sourdough. Without the starter, all you have is batter.

Tom

 

[Nickrosis]

In class today, I was told that the setting for the Last of the Mohicans was logged 40 years before the film was made. It was so intensively managed, from what I heard, that it had outstanding aesthetic characteristics. I will check with my professor about his source for that right now.

Nickrosis

 

[WRW]

The forest management policies of the past...the ones that we've found not to work but that were clung to so strongly...were made by the "educated".
I'd be hesitant to call anybody a "clown" till I'd seen what he had to offer.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

One of the things that has to be realized is that Forest Management Techniques (FMP) that are used in other ecosystems are not useable in across the board.

The best example is those used in NE hardwood areas that is very high on fire suppression has been proven to be counter productive in the west.
--

As Nate points out it is only fast growing trees that can be usefully grown in monoculture stands without pest pressures becoming a problem. slow growing furniture grade hardwoods need the associate and associatve plants around them to thrive.
--

The cry of the logging industry that jobs are being lost just cannot be continued. Like farming, and fishing mechinization and other efficiency boosting procedure has made it so that these industries cannot support whole comunities any more.
--

The harvest now mwentality is very short sighted, as Matttheck shows with his 50:1 hazard of slenderness rule, we need very old, tall satnd grown trees to get the most desireable tight grained wood. The bumper stickers say "it takes 100 years to grow a 100 year old tree" well we need to start thinking 200-300 years if we want to see fine grained products again.

The forest products term "Over Mature" is a red herring.

 

[TREETX]

Tom, I agree that we need these "starter" places. But disagree with a being back to "original" - original what? that is assuming there is a climax community that when achieved is a never ending state of homeostasis if man does not alter it. I don't believe said critter exists. My opinion Nick.

Most of these timber monocultures are more pioneering species of trees.

I agree JPS - I takes 100 yrs to get a 100 yr old tree (bumpersticker on my toolbox). Fine grained products are vanishing and there is quite a salvage market for them. here in the SE it is the almost non existent longleaf pine. Would be nice to leave a legacy of ancient trees and possibly get fine grained products in the future. I think it will happen as modern forestry goes to producing more inferior products like OSB, etc - they can produce more from a smaller piece of sky in a shorter amount of time. Hopefuly this will work like agriculture and more land will fall out of "intensive production". Thus leaving more stands to grow old and be M.U.S.Y. areas.

Blanket prescriptions have no place in relation to FMPs.

Dan had a good point that greenies overlook - Doing NOTHING is doing SOMETHING.

Conversations like these make me think the world still has a chance.

 

[Tom Dunlap]

I'vve seen aerial pictures of a city just south of Minneapolis that covered about seventy years. There are areas that are now wooded that were once farmed. The land is better suited to grow trees than food. Those areas could be managed for long term production of high grade hardwood timber. Some are in fact. The longer those areas are managed, the healthier they will become. More species will live on and in the land. Nothing wrong with agro forestry it just isn't the best practice everywhere.

You guys are right, this is a great thread. Plenty of space for all views to be aired. This thread has given me many "Hmmmm Momments"

Tom

 

[Gopher]

Tom, all I have to do is walk down to Lake Itasca through "Preachers Grove" (the old red pine stand in Itasca State Park), and I feel rejuvenated. The idea to return select areas (perhaps in each region or state) would be great.

Now, perhaps you should be in a position to kick some...?!

Gopher