question for you professional loggers

[Dalmatian90]

The author used tomatoes as a simple analogy. It was said that tomatoes continue to be grown because people buy and use them. If people cease to buy tomatoes then farmers won't continue to grow them.

That's not really a strong argument.

If people never used another tree, Vermont would still mostly be trees. That's what's natural up there.

It's not like the North Woods of Maine would evolve into a giant blueberry barren or be leveled for housing if the pulp mills shutdown. The exact mix of species and ages of trees would change, but it would still be mostly a spruce-birch forest. That's what's natural there, and the land and demand isn't suited for agriculture or intense development. Now there is a good argument that by keeping those forests as working lands, we preserve public access as a side-benefit to large, undeveloped areas that might otherwise be sub-divided into a checkerboard of thousands of hundred-acre vacation properties that get no trespassing signs thrown up around them...but that is different from saying it's necessary to save the trees.

But you're not going to see wild tomatoes taking over south Florida left to their own devices; they only exist in large numbers because of the economic incentives to keep them around and spray them with pesticides and employ gangs of near-slaves to keep them cultivated. Likewise corn is only the dominant crop it is because of massive subsidies and markets created to use it.

 

[pdqdl]

...the only disposables would've been the napkins and a straw.
...

There is a movement afoot to get rid of all the straws, too. About Straws - Be Straw Free - I go Strawless!

Their claimed number of straws used per person seems a bit outrageous, but perhaps they are right. The biggest reason we use so many straws is to get around all the ice the vendors stuff into our drinks.

Say...doesn't making all that ice use up a lot of energy too?

 

[LumberjkChamp]

But you're not going to see wild tomatoes taking over south Florida left to their own devices; they only exist in large numbers because of the economic incentives to keep them around and spray them with pesticides and employ gangs of near-slaves to keep them cultivated. Likewise corn is only the dominant crop it is because of massive subsidies and markets created to use it.

Yeah. You got it. That's the point right there. The author of this article is talking mostly about plantations. Trees only exsist there because of the economic incentives to keep them around and subsidies and markets created to use them. Like you said above. Same with corn, same with tomatoes.

I agree with you about the overuse of pesticides. Its not good. We are a chemically dependent country. I am all organic with my operation, but if I have a bad year because some disease or pest affects my crops I am only out a few hundred bucks -not including labor. These big guys have several million in their operations each year. What would you do? I think I'd spray. Organic just doesn't work on a large scale.

I also agree with you about Vermont, Maine, New England in general remaining mostly forested regardless of the demand for wood products. As it is regeneration to harvest is 3 to 1. It would be tough to reverse that.

 

[Gologit]

Yeah. You got it. That's the point right there. The author of this article is talking mostly about plantations. Trees only exsist there because of the economic incentives to keep them around and subsidies and markets created to use them.

What subsidies?

 

[slowp]

Yeah. You got it. That's the point right there. The author of this article is talking mostly about plantations. Trees only exsist there because of the economic incentives to keep them around and subsidies and markets created to use them. Like you said above. Same with corn, same with tomatoes.

Where's that WRONG button sound.

In the PNW, where trees grow with or without people or subsidies, plantations exist because we want the trees to grow back faster. If the trees were not planted (that's a plantation) they WOULD grow back but at a slower rate. In my area, we live in a cool jungle. When I mow my lawn this time of year, I'm also mowing alder seedlings. Where is this place where trees would only exist due to subsidies and markets?

Trees would also be growing in the Southwest and elsewhere.

Our state does have tax incentives to keep land in forest. However, it also has strict rules about not cutting along streams and wetlands and also requires reforestation to stay in that tax bracket after harvest.

Now, our area is wet and cool and will have a stand replacing forest fire on an average of every 300 years. But, just 50 miles away, over the mountain pass, it is a whole different story. That forest developed as a fire tolerant forest, in fact, some species of tree are helped by fires. We've had 90 years of fire suppression in this country. Now, those areas have hotter, and bigger fires when they burn. So, is it now acceptable to have those huge fires or should we try to thin the forest and mechanically fix it? We now need subsidies to do either. Crews to try to keep the fire out of communities, or pay people to thin it. Yup, gotta pay people to thin the forest if there is no mill or other business within a reasonable distance to haul the trees to.

Usually, when I point these things out, the answer is , "I don't care. I don't want to see logging. Logging is bad."

And that folks, is what you are up against.

 

[Dalmatian90]

Now, our area is wet and cool and will have a stand replacing forest fire on an average of every 3 years.

Think you meant every 300 years Slowp.

Circa 1900 about 3% of Connecticut burned every year. Combination of a moderately fire tolerant forest (since the glaciers retreated large areas had been regularly burned by the Indians)...plus people didn't see the direct economic benefit in conserving the forests. Brushy areas would ignite, and for the most part unless buildings became threatened it was largely left to it's own. Since most homes were in farming areas, most houses and villages are large fields around them that acted as fire breaks.

Since large areas were fairly resistant to fires -- north slopes of hills, hemlock forests, etc., figure many of the areas that did burn actually averaged around 15 years between fires; so you never got to the point that you started to transition to a mature forest. This was different from the Indian's use of fire which was more oriented towards clearing out the floor of mature forests. You can't quite call southern New England's pre-colonial forests a savanah, but it was much more like a savanah of open grasslands between trees then the dense forests we have today with near total fire exclusion.

The economic value of the forests for both materials (wood to make and ship things) and clean water was what was used to justify the expense of suppressing the frequent fires caused by human carelessness. That's what finally allowed abandoned farm fields to finally move past the brushy stage and grow back into mature forests. Multi-thousand acre fires were regular events before WWII; but the last truly large fire was in the early 1960s. (1942 saw a 30,000 acre fire on the Conn/RI border -- can't even imagine how apocalyptic the TV news would be if we saw a repeat of that today!)

 

[slowp]

Fixed it, thanks.

 

[LumberjkChamp]

What subsidies?

Good question.

My statement, more or less, quoted Dalmation90 in reference to tomatoes and corn being subsidised. I took it out of context and replaced corn and tomatoes with wood. Whether my statement was untrue was not the point. It was designed to emphasise the fact that Dalmation90 understood the concept I had initially posted. I just used the same rationale as Dalmation90.

Perhaps I was unclear. I hope now that I am understood. I am not disagreeing with anyone.

I thought I could add to the discussion by stating that I had read an article almost ten years ago that said our forests future depends on people using more wood. I happen to agree. If demand does not increase -due to extensive recycling, for example- more trees will not be ordered up.

I'm just trying to do my part. I live in a house made of wood. I heat it with wood. I use wood derived products. I manage my own private woods. My deck is cedar and not Trex.

Slowp, if you're mowing trees in you're lawn, increase the frequeny of you're mowings.

Also, that WRONG sound is ringing in my ears. I think I'm sitting on the button.

 

[slowp]

This time of year, we mow when it is merely a light shower. Dry is limited. Alders pop up quickly. Very quickly.

I was lucky to get the grass cut yesterday. The forecast for the month is....rain.

 

[lmbrman]

What subsidies?

In WI there is a 60% cost share subsidy from the federal govt for establishment of timber stands(USDA payment after planting), as well as 80% reduction in property taxes once the stand is established. There are state programs for establishment of timber stands at a similar rate last I checked.

Paperwork is run thru the state DNR.

I am not sayin it should or should not exist- might end up like a east vs west discussion :hmm3grin2orange: