Take a look at your forests!

[Ithaca 37]

This site has some interesting articles and pictures.

"Been beyond the beauty strip lately? These aerial photograph compilations show the destruction of your national forests in black and white. White portions of the photos show clearcuts.

http://www.forestcouncil.org/learn/skymaps/index.php

"Native Forest Council is dedicated to the preservation and protection of all publicly owned natural resources from destructive practices, sales, and all resource extraction. Commercial timber sales, grazing, mining, and oil and gas extraction all contribute to the destruction and degradation of air quality, wildlife habitat, and of our wilderness areas. We believe a sound economy and a sound environment need not be incompatible, and that current land management practices are devastating to both."

http://www.forestcouncil.org/index.php

This group is going to have lots of appeal!

And here's some more pictures!

http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/Change/grazing.htm

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-03-2003 19:44: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[schmalts]

I didnt read the whole article but i can tell you that the reason wisconsin has so many deer is due to clearcutting. It depends on what state your in but here clearcutting is GOOOOD for deer and grouse. Even better if its in aspen woods. the tops that are left give great winter brows, and the fast new shoots in the spring that pop up are a great (favorite) spring and winter food source that deer never have in a tall heavy shady woods. It is an eyesore, and a bitch to hunt for a few years but its the best thing in the longrun. Large oak woods need select cutting only.

 

[Ithaca 37]

I agree. In eastern or upper midwest states the small clearcuts (less than thirty or forty acres) can be a great thing for deer and grouse. The huge clearcuts in the dryer western states are real bad.

 

[ELKCHSR]

My puter is to slow for these pics to come up..
I can well imagin though..
Any in the Pacific Northwest will grow back very quickly as forests go. I have never been a proponent for clear cutting. The ones that dictate how forests are cut, are the state biologists and what ever little puke beurocrat that happens to be sitting in the power seat as the rules for that ground is being drawn up..I have logged and thinned pieces of ground that had only been logged some fifteen to twenty five years before that. The wood was very nice as timber goes..I also looked at some of the timber that I thinned some 6-8 years ago on this last trip to the coast and it could be thinned again and not even be noticed...Any of the clear cuts in the national forests and on state land have to be cut extactly how the people in charge on the gov. side want it. It is not the logger that logs this way if given a choice..It is more costly and takes longer between cycles.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-03-2003 23:34: Message edited by: ELKCHSR ]</font>

 

[Washington Hunter]

Elkchsr, if it's only the government that likes to clearcut, why does Weyerhaeuser do it?

 

[ELKCHSR]

WH..did you know they along with plumb creek and all the rest have to go thru the same stuff to get any thing done on their property as any one else, maybe even more so.. They don't just get to wantonly wack what ever they want. Besides they are set up to run every thing like a crop instead of a little patch of trees like every one else..

 

[tmsander]

ELKCHSR.... How is clearcutting more costly than other prescriptions? It is my understanding that a primary driver for clearcutting is that it is so much LESS costly.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Elkchsr, yes I am aware private timber companies have to follow the rules too. In fact I work for the DNR which is the agency responsible for the enforcement of forest practice regulations so I know a little bit about it. I would have to ask the same thing as tmsander...why would it be more costly to clearcut? I'm pretty sure the opposite is true.

 

[Muledeer4me]

"We hope that you too will discover that our natural heritage is best kept Forever Wild, and will be motivated to help us toward our goal: a full and permanent stop to all resource extraction on publicly owned lands."

Im no fan of clear cutting,and I have to admit that when living in oregon we saw the most clear cut's of any state we lived in.
That being said I find the last statement of of The Forest Council link that was posted said it all.
It's another org. that isnt willing to help find and let company's use good practice's so we can depend on are own resourse's.
There goal is clear,and it suck's.

 

[Muledeer4me]

http://www.idahoforests.org/health2a.htm#looks
Here is site that looks into alot of issue's facing forest's all over.
It seem to have more balance to it,understanding that we need to manage what have not just stop all practice's.
It show's good point's as well as the bad point's .

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-07-2003 14:16: Message edited by: Muledeer4me ]</font>

 

[ELKCHSR]

In the long run, this is why it is more costly...
First, when you clear cut, you have to get every thing.
Then it has to be replanted, and then you wait another fifty or so years for the next cutting, this is a good way to go if you have enough land to set it up as a farming operation. If you just thin out the big stuff, it costs more on the thinning, because of time involved, but you can go back in every 10-20 years and relog, with out the extra costs of replants and you also keep the diversity of the forests...Some types of forests it is better to clear cut though..Alder being one...

 

[BuzzH]

ELKCHSR, that isnt necessarily true. I've seen many, many, clearcuts that were never replanted. In fact, most arent.

I'll agree that in some cases, clearcutting can cost more in the long run. Especially in areas where multiple planting have to take place because of weather, or the harshness of the site, etc. However, in the case of most clearcuts all thats needed is to leave 2-3 seed trees per acre (or less) and you're back in business. In the case of lodgepole just burn the damn unit and you'll be swimming in a sea of regen within a few years.

Also, I dont think you're estimate of 50 years for a merchantable tree in MT is even close to realistic. Rotation age in MT and most of the interior West is between 80-120 years depending on species.

Clearcutting definately is the most cost effective way to cut in almost all cases. If it werent, companies like Champion, Plum Creek, Weyerhauser, etc. wouldnt be doing it. Those outfits maximize profits, they have to.

 

[tmsander]

I seem to recall that the largest expense of harvesting timber is roadbuilding. The significance of roadbuilding costs varies by terrain type, of course, so the equation changes when comparing, say, the Pacific northwest to the southwest. And, since clearcuts are more prevalent in the PNW than in the SW the impact on cost is made evident. Since much less roadbuilding is necessary to collect the same boardfeet out of a clearcut than another presecription, it would seem that clearcuts, in general, would be less costely, even in the long run.

 

[ELKCHSR]

HAHAHA!!!Buzz!!!
I haven't been able to study Mt. alot yet, even though I have been working on it..Usually when I am talking about tree care and the timber industrie, it has to do with Western Wasington. I don't mean for it to be a generality across the U.S. It took 15 years to learn the indepth knowledge I have on that area, it will take a little while of watching and working in this area, looking at stumps and what not, plus out on the fires in the other areas before I can draw a more conclusive generalization about those regions..Every thing that I mentioned in some of the other posts have every thing to do with W. Wa. and really will hold pretty true to that region One thing that I have found out for a generality of all nature, "Nothing is exact textbook". There seems to alway's be an exception to the rule. If any one else doubts the validity of what I say, then all they have to do is meet with me when I am out there on the West Coast and I will very gladly show them what I am talking about....I won't though, draw conclusions about the whole U.S. as some do, on my limited knowledge of "other" areas...

 

[BuzzH]

Perhaps then, ELKCHSR, you should state that before you post your GENERALIZATIONS about Western Washington. Apples and Oranges between a coastal area that recieves 80+ inches of rain and another much larger portion of the interior west that recieves less than 20.

I usually make the assumption that your talking about the area you live, which last time I checked was Montana. By the way my "generalizations" can include MT, ID, Eastern WA & OR, WY, the Western Dakotas, CO, Northern AZ & NM etc.

 

[1_pointer]

Damn you Buzz you left me in UT out!!!

 

[ELKCHSR]

HAHAHA!!!Buzz, your to much then...It just goes to show, you don't really read much of what others say...I have stated time and time again that my expertise with trees lie with in the boundaries stated above, but to date, these other areas are slowly being researched as I get into them. You of all people on the board have seen this and I have also stated it many times. I think your just trying to bait me into some thing kind of silly. There are some truths about trees that I have been finding so far that seem to hold true any where I go...But will have to get more info from seeing it before I can elaborate much more...