Why Can't We Grow Trees Like Carrots & Potatoes?

[forestryworks]

Erosion is a natural process. Man can only slow it or accelerate it. Poor road building causes more erosion than a clearcut does.

The lack of clearcutting is unfavorable to species that require full sunlight and open growing conditions. It is these species that make the most money, as they grow faster and provide a quicker return on your investment.

Here, due to the poor quality of our hardwoods, most people clearcut the hardwoods and replant with pine.

 

[BlueRidgeMark]

And read the above for posts "the problem". One person advocating clear cuts, another saying no, because look what was done in the past. No compromise, or if there is, the enviros will dictate it.

Clearcuts should not be banned. Nor should they be the only prescription. There's places for them, and places where they should never be.

Salmon? We spend millions on stream restoration here. You know what is funny? No salmon can make it up the river without being trucked. There are dams blocking the river. Think that might be an "adverse effect"?

We're on the other side of the pendulum. I'll exaggerate but it isn't too far from the truth. We mustn't let one soil particle into a stream or it will kill all the salmon in the world. Now, have you ever seen the color of rivers and streams after a heavy rain? The streams coming out of "pristine" wilderness?
What color are they? We're buffering streams by as much as 400 feet in --THINNINGS. We don't allow stream crossings, we make it darn hard to log.
Then there's the cleaup work. Mulch, seed, subsoiling, waterbars. There's more.

Things have changed.

If salmon are so endangered, why are we allowing fishing for them? Why are we hearing about record breaking runs on the Columbia?

Because we no longer clear cut, we have elk living in the valleys year round. They used to just come down in the winter. Now we have to dodge them on the highway year round. A deputy sheriff was killed when he slammed into an elk.

Huckleberry patches are getting squeezed out by trees.

The viewpoints along roads no longer have views. I have to mention all the unemployment. The woods used to provide employment for most of our residents.

Yet, we have the professional environmentalists, who are educated with law degrees, and degrees in fine arts, (examples) and funded by the second generation of city people, telling foresters how to manage the forest. They dictate how to log, but don't know the difference between high lead and a skidder. They don't want to learn, either.

Rant done for today.

That's a mighty fine rant!

 

[BlueRidgeMark]

It isn't just hippies, I call it the environmental industry.

Bingo. It IS an industry. It's also an ideology, which makes it very dangerous.

 

[PB]

Anyone without a forestry degree and/or some experience working in the woods either setting chokers or running a saw shouldn't have a say in forest management.

I don't go around telling lawyers how they should litigate a particular issue or tell doctors that they shouldn't do a specific type of treatment when it really works.

I completely disagree. If it were left up to some foresters and loggers we would not have Sequoia National Park or any old growth. Like Slowp said, you need both loggers and environmentalists to find a middle ground. Loggers see forests for profit, others see it as a camping trip with their family or recreation. Finding a way to keep everyone happy is hard, but necessary for a sustainable forest industry. The solid stances on both sides of the issue have caused severe polarization that will lead to an all or nothing scenario.

Loggers and foresters know the trees, ecologists know the wildlife, soil scientists know the soil, lawyers know the regulations, and hippies know how to live in a tree smoking pot. One person making decisions for large tracts of land could end up destroying the land, no matter who it is. You are assuming that all loggers and foresters are responsible individuals and stewards of the land. We both know that isn't true, just like all environmentalists don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Now on the other hand, private land owners should be able to do whatever they want with their land as long as it doesn't affect neighboring land.

 

[madhatte]

PB, I must respectfully disagree with you. Foresters and loggers are, contrary to popular belief, the first line of conservation. A logger isn't a corporation, and isn't beholden to stockholders. A logger is smart enough to know that if all the trees are gone, there's no work. A forester is in the business of growing and protecting those trees. These are pragmatic and practical people, not emotional ones, and not greedy ones. If you want to be upset with somebody, be upset with the Dow and the NYSE and NASDAQ -- those are the entities which push for more, more, more from our forests.

 

[PB]

PB, I must respectfully disagree with you. Foresters and loggers are, contrary to popular belief, the first line of conservation. A logger isn't a corporation, and isn't beholden to stockholders. A logger is smart enough to know that if all the trees are gone, there's no work. A forester is in the business of growing and protecting those trees. These are pragmatic and practical people, not emotional ones, and not greedy ones. If you want to be upset with somebody, be upset with the Dow and the NYSE and NASDAQ -- those are the entities which push for more, more, more from our forests.

I see your point, while I am not disagreeing with you, I think you are failing to see my point or I am not making it clear. Not all loggers and foresters are responsible and have the forests interest at heart. Not all people calling themselves "loggers" are what you and I would consider a real logger either. There is no Hippocratic oath for foresters or loggers. 99% of them are probably very responsible but it only takes one person in charge to completely alter the landscape for years or decades. The above can be said for environmentalists too, it goes both ways. They may not be a corporation but they are all businesses that have bills to pay and money to make.

We are a reactionary society, nothing changes until something bad happens. Poor logging (over cutting) and forest management (preventing ALL forest fires) practices years ago led to legislation in an effort to protect the land. You are obviously a reasonable person, but not everyone has that sense of reason. There needs to be a set of checks and balances so the forests don't get decimated or so under managed that forest fires become extreme.

Slowp mentioned a pendulum. This is the way I think of the situation, the indiscriminate loggers (and stockholders) on the right and the hippies chained to trees on the left. If either were in charge it would be holy hell, but with an equal amount on either side (and a lot of people in the middle) the pendulum stays in the center. This center is the balance that best fits the needs of everyone. The loggers stay busy cutting trees with proper management and the environmentalists can enjoy a hike without having a raging forest fire destroying their home.

If you want to be upset with somebody, be upset with the Dow and the NYSE and NASDAQ -- those are the entities which push for more, more, more from our forests.

This is sort of what I am talking about. If a company was willing to pay top dollar for logs but would destroy a waterway in the process, do you think a logger will take the money or a waterway? My bet is on taking the money. Even if a logger didn't take the job, someone with less standards will, logger or not.

My basic point is, not all loggers and foresters are created equal. Just like any profession, there are good ones and bad ones. In order to keep the bad ones from f'n up, someone needs to make sure that the procedures used by good loggers are the standard.

 

[madhatte]

In order to keep the bad ones from f'n up, someone needs to make sure that the procedures used by good loggers are the standard.

Fair enough!

 

[Dave Hadden]

..

And read the above for posts "the problem". One person advocating clear cuts, another saying no, because look what was done in the past. No compromise, or if there is, the enviros will dictate it.

Given your experinces are in America and mine are in Canada there are some differences for sure, and learning to compromise was something that took some time in coming. Many examples up here.

Clearcuts should not be banned. Nor should they be the only prescription. There's places for them, and places where they should never be.

Absolutely. But those are relatively new thoughts relative to the length of time we've been logging. We used to clearcut everything everywhere at one time. That's just the way it was.

Salmon? We spend millions on stream restoration here. You know what is funny? No salmon can make it up the river without being trucked. There are dams blocking the river. Think that might be an "adverse effect"?

No dams on any of our major salmon streams here and hundreds of examples of damage to the fisheries resource as a result of logging. Note I particularly pointed out the specifics of that.....grapple yarding steep unstable mountainsides and building roads in the same places. From the late 60's on that method of logging gained great favor as it allowed areas to be logged you couldn't touch with conventional high lead tactics. And be aware I'm not trying to condemn anyone or anybody for anything, just pointing out the facts.

We're on the other side of the pendulum. I'll exaggerate but it isn't too far from the truth. We mustn't let one soil particle into a stream or it will kill all the salmon in the world. Now, have you ever seen the color of rivers and streams after a heavy rain? The streams coming out of "pristine" wilderness?
What color are they? We're buffering streams by as much as 400 feet in --THINNINGS. We don't allow stream crossings, we make it darn hard to log.
Then there's the cleaup work. Mulch, seed, subsoiling, waterbars. There's more.


Yep. You're exaggerating a bit alright, and I've seen the difference between streams in intact watersheds and those in logged watersheds many times. No comparison between how water is shed from those different landscapes.

Things have changed.

Yep, and not always for the best.

If salmon are so endangered, why are we allowing fishing for them? Why are we hearing about record breaking runs on the Columbia?

You hear about ONE race of salmon returning in large numbers after a half century or more of diminishing runs and that somehow is supposed to be a credit to the industry? Or what were you attempting to imply?
And the number of people who still fish for salmon is miniscule compared to what it used to be, as I'm sure you have noticed.
Now, dams are one of the major problems down there for sure, but there has never been a watershed logged in the history of mankind that was the better for it as far as fish producing values after the fact.

Because we no longer clear cut, we have elk living in the valleys year round. They used to just come down in the winter. Now we have to dodge them on the highway year round. A deputy sheriff was killed when he slammed into an elk.

I really didn't expect this kind of stuff from you SlowP.
I'll refrain from more comment, but suffice it to say that I tend to ridicule the ridiculous sometimes, so be aware.

Huckleberry patches are getting squeezed out by trees.

You are welcome to come pick some off my Huckleberry bush that's growing on a three foot diameter old stump in our backyard.

The viewpoints along roads no longer have views. I have to mention all the unemployment. The woods used to provide employment for most of our residents.

What part of all this do you think I'm not aware of, and if we could clearcut freely again would that change anything other than providing a "view"?

Yet, we have the professional environmentalists, who are educated with law degrees, and degrees in fine arts, (examples) and funded by the second generation of city people, telling foresters how to manage the forest. They dictate how to log, but don't know the difference between high lead and a skidder. They don't want to learn, either.


If that's actually the way it is down there then you really are in trouble.
However, having lived through all the pro-environment/anti-logging rhetoric from the 60's til now.....coming from both sides..........you'll have to excuse me for taking what you've written with a grain of salt.

Rant done for today.

Take care.

 

[Gologit]

This thread has certainly taken a turn for the better. Lots of good, rational, and well presented viewpoints. I won't join in because, in a way, I agree with all of you...even those who don't agree with each other.

There aren't any easy answers to all of this. No "one size fits all" solution. I sure wish there was. I've been in the woods for over forty years and I'm no closer to having all the answers than the day I started.

All we can do is to remember that we are, indeed, the stewards of our environment and use the best science, hard won practical knowledge, the best available technology, and the dictates of many years of accumulated common sense.

There's a rule in medicine...it says "First, do no harm". That rule could apply to logging, too.

 

[Meadow Beaver]

There's a lot of people with that kind of mindset that say clearcuts don't work and that they cause erosion :monkey:

I would much rather see clearcuts in my area. Looks better then a mountain with its top sliced off.

 

[PB]

This thread has certainly taken a turn for the better. Lots of good, rational, and well presented viewpoints. I won't join in because, in a way, I agree with all of you...even those who don't agree with each other.

There aren't any easy answers to all of this. No "one size fits all" solution. I sure wish there was. I've been in the woods for over forty years and I'm no closer to having all the answers than the day I started.

All we can do is to remember that we are, indeed, the stewards of our environment and use the best science, hard won practical knowledge, the best available technology, and the dictates of many years of accumulated common sense.

There's a rule in medicine...it says "First, do no harm". That rule could apply to logging, too.

Bob, there are always more questions than answers, no matter how old you are. New answers cause new questions.

 

[PB]

I would much rather see clearcuts in my area. Looks better then a mountain with its top sliced off.

Amen to that. Are you in WV? I don't see how that mining practice is illegal. Removing a MOUNTAIN should be against the law. There are better ways to get at the coal.

 

[horseloger]

the clear cutting verses select cutting is not the only thing corp, America has done too this industry its greed has destroyed it in many ways ever tried too sell 2x4 to a contractor cant do it without paying huge amounts of money to get a grade stamp! Most of you know how by using the log scales we have today you and the land owner only get half of the amount of footage that is really in a log.
And insurance company's that require you too have more projective gear than one really needs, that should be a personal choice not a mandatory one!And getting back too the main topic a well managed selective cut will create more jobs as well as a better product! A well maintained woodlot will regenerate in 10 to 15 years with tsi work done at proper intervals! Roads can be built with a more permanent base do too the fact they will be reused again this will help in case of fire tsi work will supply more jobs and as I said the timber will be of better quality so it will be worth more in the long run!Its just like money if you use correctly and do not squander it then it will be there for you and your children

 

[firewood guy]

One 's own observations

About 20+ years ago, I had a girlfriend in Seattle, WA. I live in CA and we met at a wedding in CA. We hit it off and I flew up to seatac to met her for many times. We had a common interest in hiking and the great outdoors and the beauty of the great outdoors. She took me to I think it was called first beach on the pacific shore and we took a nice long hike through what I thought was the "Primordial Forest" that had never been touched by Man or natural disaster. The diversity of tree species was as it should have been w/ conifers and hardwoods, plus all the understory vegetation. One thing that was curious to me was that there where a lot of low mounds scattered about the entire area. It was just a passing thought as we were enjoying the day and I was enjoying the company of this great gal! Hours passed as we went through the forest on our way to the coastline when we came across a machine-routed wooden sign that stated that "This forest under management by the weyerhouser (sp?) corp. Last harvest date 1930, next harvest date 2010". We were both blown away as you could not believe any other Human had ever set foot in that area other than a few trails to the shore. As you might imagine, my girlfriend at that time was a stout environmentalist, and this experience as well as as others caused her to become more of a conservationist, which I believe is healthy for us all. I know it is ugly to see harvested (esp slash & burn) lands, but I believe with good practices the harvesting of timber is like any other crop... Just with a much longer cycle time. take care of the land ..it will take care of You! But say " Oh don"t touch it!" or else the environmentalists will get their inevitable way and it will all burn down in the next forest fire. How about that for global warming??:chainsawguy:

 

[firewood guy]

At the risk of sounding like a tree hugger or leaf kisser, we certainly can grow trees like carrots, just like any other vegetated matter.

The healthiest forests are those stands of uneven age, whereby there is always something to harvest. This I guess is conservation.
Preservation is where nothing is cut, these are called Parks.
Even the most hardcore timber terrorist cannot deny that the resource has been pulped, pilaged, pounded and pilfered with impunity.
It all comes down to proper management and the proper allocation of funds gleaned from the resource.
Most people, even loggers have no concept of how big the resource really is.
Throw into the mix that more timber is lost thru flood, hurricane, landslides, wildfire , bug infestation and land reclaimation, one can see that loggers really have only cut a very small percentage.
Regardless, the stuff is growing and dieing faster than we can cut it down.

We have more trees now they say then we did 100 years ago, although the quality and size is alot less.
I could go on, but it's not all gloom and doom for the resource.
Things just have to be put into proper perspective.
John

You are not a "tree hugger" in MHO, probably just right on the mark.

 

[madhatte]

Last harvest date 1930, next harvest date 2010

If we're gonna do clear-cuts at all, that's about the shortest cycle that makes sense in this bio-region. Anything shorter fails to address the importance of mid-seral communities in the restoration of soils following disturbance. The "50 years => 2%/Year => Sustainable" formula that big ownerships have been following for the last half-century or so has proven to be a wash. No biggie, Live and Learn. Let's just not forget the "Learn" part.

 

[forestryworks]

Down in the Broken Bow, Smithville, and Octavia areas of Oklahoma, Weyerhaeuser, doing even-aged management, harvests their stands on a 32-36 yr. rotational age. Their young stands look like a nice carpet of green.

The USFS, in the same area, manages for uneven-aged management, and they are managing with prescribed fire, an increase in rotational age from 70 - 120 years, and the removal and killing of non-native trees to increase the presence of native shortleaf pines and the native hardwoods.

And then you have the private landowners. Some clearcut and replant with pine, others clearcut and then never manage again, which is a shame, cause the pines can be VERY productive in these parts.

Edit: I wish I knew what the site indexes were in this part of OK. Time for more research.

 

[floyd]

USFS has a MANDATE...multiple use. Weyerhauser has no such mandate.

Their new mandate in PNW is cut it then subdivide & sell 5ac to citiots.

Plum Creek is the king of this trash in MT. More money selling to citiots & turnaround is quicker.

 

[madhatte]

Their new mandate in PNW is cut it then subdivide & sell 5ac to citiots.

That's pretty much my biggest pet peeve right there. They get to make money four times -- timber sales, lumber production, cookie-cutter houses, and eventually land sales... then they walk away from the land now that it's unsuited for anything but suburban sprawl.

 

[joesawer]

That's pretty much my biggest pet peeve right there. They get to make money four times -- timber sales, lumber production, cookie-cutter houses, and eventually land sales... then they walk away from the land now that it's unsuited for anything but suburban sprawl.

Welcome to progress!