A study

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Turtle

In the kindest possible terms, poppycock! While x-mas tree farms may plant in rows, that is not how forest land is replanted here in the NW.

errr....actually, the forests from which I experienced the rows and silence the most were in the NW, Washington to be precise. (and they were Doug Fir, not x-mas trees)
All around the Olympic peninsula you can see examples of this. Perhaps planting policy has changed since I lived in the PNW, almost 4 years ago. I'm sure of it actually, as the PNW is very progressive in this sense, but there still remain the groves of rows nearly thirty years old.
I certainly do not intend to devalue the timber industry, but I think the slow shift to better practices should be less....slow. No economic pitfall from operating more efficiently AFAICT.

Paul Stamets has a great plan for forestry in the NW and deserves a listen.
forest road restoration and mushrooms

And power to the private timber folks!

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by freeztar

errr....actually, the forests from which I experienced the rows and silence the most were in the NW, Washington to be precise. (and they were Doug Fir, not x-mas trees)
...Paul Stamets has a great plan for forestry in the NW and deserves a listen.
forest road restoration and mushrooms

And power to the private timber folks!

I don't doubt it about Washington, & though I live in said state of a general's name, there is an abundant paucity of information flow as compared to what comes out of Oregon.

I'll get a read on that link ASAP.

Originally Posted by freezbar

I certainly do not intend to devalue the timber industry, but I think the slow shift to better practices should be less....slow. No economic pitfall from operating more efficiently AFAICT.

I had this naggling feeling all day that I needed to come back here and qualify my use of the term 'eco-freaks', and your comment is a nice segue.

The big problem I see with 'slow shift' is the eco-extremists who have tied up all the government land (lawsuits, protests, tree-spiking, equipment & mill arsons, etc.) so that no practices can go on, let alone the 'better' practices we have learned. People see a chainsaw and right away 'ohhhh...you're killing a tree!!" BS "Carrot killers!!!", I say.

And as an afterthought, some folks have started farming hybrid poplars here in NW, and they do plant them in rows I must say.

Anyway, let's cut some wood! Cut it real good!

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Cedars

uh oh... I need to clarify...

I understood TBAs poll and question from a general ecologically healthy forest standpoint rather than a harvest for profit regard. I have a little DNR produced brochure states that "an unmanaged 40 acre aspen/birch stand typically might appeal to 15 species of mammal and 60-80 species of birds. If that same woodland were modified by harvest, openings or other habitat improvements, the greater variety of habitat types would increase the numbers and kinds of wildlife species."

The point I was trying to make was by planting 500 acres of one type of tree in an area (and this is region specific) you narrow the health of a forest. A natural forest has at least several types of trees, in varied growth stages, with a wide variety of plant life below. Our forest management practices are usually geared towards profitable harvest, and row after row of similar sized trees, planted in groupings that negate actual forest diversity in general.

Exactly!
Variety is key!

And while people do plant trees around the borders of their property, or to shade certain parts of their yards, not alot of thought is given to the diversity on a wide scale plan. So you can technically have mile after mile of three or four tree types, rather than the 10 - 20 types of varied ages typically found in less than a mile of forest.

And for an urban example, most of the trees planted for road projects comprise of a handful of species. This further fragments certain wildlife. In a Darwinian sense, it is a test of all species, but in an ethical sense, it is an abomination of respect. Heck, we can't even respect one another, within the same species! But I digress...

For example:
I have 5 acres of land. I have 4 types of conifer and 2 types of oak (varied ages) a small stand of aspen, a few cottonwoods, basswood, hickory, locust, plum, cherry, elm, box elder, and birch, that I can think of right now. The surrounding forests have a few additional types. 2 acres of this land is open grassland/forest edge type. I have tamarack and black spruce nearby, but my particular landscape doesnt support those types of tree. That is a diverse forest example and more along the lines of what I think of when I hear the term 'forest'.

Indeed. It sounds like you have a pretty nice forest there.
Pretty typical of the area, but I'm curious, what type of birch and cherry do you have?

It also contributes to my great backyard birding/wildlife watching

The birding is not very good (ie virtually non-existent) in the planted pines by the Chattahoochee River, but a couple miles downstream there are older forests with floodplain wetlands where I've witnessed several Great Blue Herons gathering (not to mention all the other birds that love the diversity).

[HappytheStripper]

Originally Posted by Larv

...and then there is: 5) those who know that they know what they know is the only truth worth knowing are arrogant - expose them.

—Larv

Sounds like my kind of job

I have discovered.. it takes a certain amount of intelligence to be arrogant..?? I deal with arrogant people on a daily basis its in my job description..

Those whom have the ability to process information required by intelligence.. and those who don't.. becomes the defining line between arrogance and ignorance..

As for that which takes place in my country.. more marijuana plants than trees.. are harvested at a rate the country is unable to supply..

Whoever said.. money doesn't grow on trees.. had no idea

Ashley

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by freeztar

And for an urban example, most of the trees planted for road projects comprise of a handful of species. This further fragments certain wildlife. In a Darwinian sense, it is a test of all species, but in an ethical sense, it is an abomination of respect.

Another good point, and I would add, the replanted trees, shrubs, grasses, often include exotics rather than strickly native.

Originally Posted by freeztar

Pretty typical of the area, but I'm curious, what type of birch and cherry do you have?

Typical where development hasnt broken up the landscape. I am lucky to live in the hardwood transitional forest area, increasing the diversity supported.

The birch is the paper birch and the cherries are the black cherry*.

*All swallowtail butterfly caterpillers rely on fruit plant leaves to survive.

Originally Posted by freeztar

The birding is not very good (ie virtually non-existent) in the planted pines by the Chattahoochee River, but a couple miles downstream there are older forests with floodplain wetlands where I've witnessed several Great Blue Herons gathering (not to mention all the other birds that love the diversity).

There is much that should be done to diversify in the planted-for-harvest forests, including better road planning when going into these areas to harvest. The link you posted was an interesting read and immediately sparked my thoughts towards better planning for run-off in development. Logging roads dont need to be so perfect, that a hybrid car can navigate it*. This would allow for putting in banks to channel water flowage into pooling areas to allow for sediment settling, in addition to the other methods being incorporated regarding stream preservation. The logging companies will just have to adapt to the idea that they may have to give a few tree laden semi-trucks a push now and then on the roads out of the cuts.

*my ideas on logging roads are based on my regional experience with using them for birding. Around here they are pretty good roads.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Cedars

uh oh... I need to clarify...

I understood TBAs poll and question from a general ecologically healthy forest standpoint rather than a harvest for profit regard....

You wield a gentle whip friend Cedars.

To the post then! BlackyAlchemist said :

Originally Posted by BlackAlchemist

It's a study to see what takes place in your country more.

I will, for the sake of argument, take the position that in my country tree harvest for profit is the preeminent factor driving discussions of ecologically healthy forest.

There is money at stake for loggers no less than for the environmental activists. My sense is there is too much money being made & spent promoting a 'leave the forest alone as Nature intends' meme, and not enough money being spent to actually improve the ecology of the forest. So many trees dead just to make those protest flyers and nary a protester in the forest replanting.

Here's some fun for you forest lovers. About 40 milers from me is an area of old growth still intact that hosts a research station. The installation includes a high crane tower to allow researchers access to the canopy without climbing individual trees, and attached to the crane is a remote operated camera. You can control the camera yourself from PC including tilting/panning & zooming. Enjoy!
WFC-WRCCRF Crane Cam (view)

[Cedars]

You posted this just to get me going didnt you???

Originally Posted by Turtle

I will, for the sake of argument, take the position that in my country tree harvest for profit is the preeminent factor driving discussions of ecologically healthy forest.

I wont argue that the primary drive behind tree harvest is profit, nor will I dispute the timber industry puts alot of pressure on Feds to provide easy access to the greatest amount of board feet for the lowest amount of money they can buy it for, but I do disagree that its related to an ecologically healthy forest. Simply put, an ecologically healthy forest is not 120 acres of same sized, straight as an arrow, specie specific trees. That is the forestry equivalent of a cattle/pork feed lot or a Tyson chicken farm.

Heres a timber profiteer page describing some of the diversity within the forests:
Tree Species
A link at the bottom gets you FWS info on diversity also, but I dont have time to download and read it.

Another link describing some of the issues around forest fragmentation:
Assessments of Wildlife Viability, Old-Growth Timber Volume Estimates, Forested Wetlands, and Slope Stability

The timber industry has gobbled up over 50% of the old growth forests in the last 50 years and if I remember correctly, Oregon and Washington have approx 7% of the orginal old growth forest remaining, nearly all of which remains on public lands. In any other biological statistic, a reduction to 7% of its original numbers would spark an immediate appeal to list that specie as critically endangered.

This issue can be reversed, but the basic definition of an 'old growth forest' is one that is dominantly 150 years old at a minimum. The current rate of harvest is between 80 and 100 years and does not provide for re-establishment of the lost old growth. So it seems that the pattern of 'substinance logging' ignores an aspect of healthy forest to convince itself that what is occuring is ecologically sound. It will be another 50 years or so, with careful management, to bring back a small portion of the old growth that has been lost. That is assuming a significant portion nearing 100 years of diverse regrowth. Most likely, we are looking at 100 years or more.

Another often forgotten group of people out there who use the forests and attached streams are the by sportsmen whos hunting and fishing habitats are disrupted or even destroyed by logging practices and the blow back effects on other businessmen such as outfitters, campgrounds, resturants, ect. regarding the recreational uses of these same properties and the impact a logged area has on the return of sportsmen, recreational visitors to areas for years and years. Their interests support a host of non-logging related jobs too.

The FWS, BLM, Dept of Interior all work for these people as equally as the timber corps. It may be painful for some to adapt to the idea that the Nat. Forests and State forests are not the sole domain of the logging interests.

[Cedars]

Part 2

Originally Posted by Turtle

There is money at stake for loggers no less than for the environmental activists. My sense is there is too much money being made & spent promoting a 'leave the forest alone as Nature intends' meme, and not enough money being spent to actually improve the ecology of the forest. So many trees dead just to make those protest flyers and nary a protester in the forest replanting.

Loggers and the timber industry has had years and years of warnings of an impending loss to their basic income. What occured in that area in 1940 (as far as employment) has changed significantly, not only due to importation of other countries woods, changing building practices (you wont find a home built in 1940 with plywood), incorporation of synthetic materials such as vinyl siding and last but not least, automation of many formerly manual labor jobs.

http://www.odf.state.or.us/DIVISIONS...esthistory.gif

http://www.odf.state.or.us/DIVISIONS.../BFCFComp..gif

The above links shows actual board feet has dropped. A shift in wood product uses? A shift in wood sources? Are forests in the southeast competing with the Pacific NW? I know forests of Canada are.

Probably most revealing of all is this piece of the puzzle:

Winston-Salem Journal | End of U.S. subsidy causes financial crises in the West

So while restrictions were put in place on some harvesting, it seems the US government was paying subsidies just like farming subsidies. However, instead of investing that money in planning for the future and the job re-adjustment needs, the various places kept on with business as usual. Are the people of Oregon going to pay a price? Yes. But dont blame the tree huggers for internal political misteps.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Here's some fun for you forest lovers. About 40 milers from me is an area of old growth still intact that hosts a research station. The installation includes a high crane tower to allow researchers access to the canopy without climbing individual trees, and attached to the crane is a remote operated camera. You can control the camera yourself from PC including tilting/panning & zooming. Enjoy!
WFC-WRCCRF Crane Cam (view)

BTW, happy 15th birthday (even though this is like your 3rd or 4th one since I'be been a member)

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Cedars

You posted this just to get me going didnt you???

Moi? If so, then only on the chance I can learn something.

Originally Posted by Cedars

Heres a timber profiteer page describing some of the diversity within the forests:
Tree Species

It reads like the list of the bonsai I used to keep.

Originally Posted by Cedars

Another link describing some of the issues around forest fragmentation:
Assessments of Wildlife Viability, Old-Growth Timber Volume Estimates, Forested Wetlands, and Slope Stability

This certainly looks like what needs to go on in so far as the planning; that is to say there is no general rule(s) that applies to all the different microenvironments we find here in the NW.

Originally Posted by Cedars

The timber industry has gobbled up over 50% of the old growth forests in the last 50 years and if I remember correctly, Oregon and Washington have approx 7% of the orginal old growth forest remaining, nearly all of which remains on public lands. In any other biological statistic, a reduction to 7% of its original numbers would spark an immediate appeal to list that specie as critically endangered.

I guess my angle on this is just that we need a more active management of public lands that reflects the best of the logging practices I saw on that OPB show.

I think your 'endangered species' angle is a bit of a stretch, as there is no shortage of trees that at least have the potential to grow for 150 years, wheras the end-game for the endangered species list classification is extinction.

Originally Posted by Cedars

Another often forgotten group of people out there who use the forests and attached streams are the by sportsmen whos hunting and fishing habitats are disrupted or even destroyed by logging practices and the blow back effects on other businessmen such as outfitters, campgrounds, resturants, ect. regarding the recreational uses of these same properties and the impact a logged area has on the return of sportsmen, recreational visitors to areas for years and years. Their interests support a host of non-logging related jobs too.

Oh, I haven't forgot them. We also have mushroom hunters, pot growers, bear-grass & hucklberry harvesters, squatters, miners, shooters, campers, poachers, etc. out in the forest. Virtually all of them have access to the forest only because there are logging roads to get them in there. I am personally responsible for getting a spur road removed because I snitched off a bunch of squatters (might have been drug related, but the ranger never told me after the fact.) I was back last Summer & except for a dead-end bridge, one can't tell there was even a road.

PS

Originally Posted by cedars

BTW, happy 15th birthday (even though this is like your 3rd or 4th one since I'be been a member)

Muchas gracias; how time flies.