You seem pretty well informed. Just what are the margins on a "typical northwest timber sale"?
"The logging companies seldom own the land either. If they did, they would manage it."
You mean that the land isn't managed? What happens after a cut? Aren't the trees replanted? Usually at a ratio of 3 or 4:1 at the expense of the logging company?
What is a pittance to you anyway? Can I have a few hundred thousand to buy a new house? I still live in an apartment, but if that's a pittance to you.....
"Oh - too bad if you can't breathe anymore."
Right...I forgot, only the "Old Growth" forest creates O2....oh, no...wait a minute. While it's decomposing it's producing CO2 not O2...that means that the "Old Growth" forest is suffocating me!
You seem so knowledgeable and yet you don't seem to know anything.
You want to see a great use of private forest land? Look at:
http://galbraithmt.com
This is a managed forest, owned by a private company and opened for the use of the public! They have ongoing logging operations in the forest and seem to get along with the public at the same time! They let people build all of these trails in their private forest. Damn loggers anyway! They wreck everything!
Ok. You almost have it right, but your missing several very important points. Don't feel badly about it, most people miss them. The one thing that all sides of this argument forget is that right now, today, we still don't know everything. The concervationists and the logging interests both only have so much knowledge. I will judge (without bias) that you are more pro concervation than pro logging, even selective logging or selective thinning.
I am totally pro forest stewardship. I am for the responsible use and preservation of our natural resources, whatever form they may come in. I am also very pro logging, so long as it's done responsibly by companies who will hold themselves to a high standard of conduct in the forest.
Now, on to your arguments!
You assert that it is logging interests that have implemented the current and past fire-suppression policy for their own selfish purposes. You are correct in that assertion. What you have overlooked though is that when the logging interests pushed for that policy, nobody understood the forests need for small intense fires. People were concerned about the wildlife that would be killed or left homeless by these small burns and don't forget that even these "mild" burns leave an ugly scar on our lands. By the time the logging community figured out how important the "mild" burns were, approximately 1965, it was too late. The environmental movement had started and the public was beginning to believe that the logging interests would tell any lie they needed to as long as it would let them keep cutting down the trees. The logging community was the first group to assert that we needed to have fires to maintain healthy forests. The slash burns that took place was not simply a method to dispose of waste after a clearcut but to rapidly replenish the soil with necessary nutrients that can only be produced by a fire. The lesson is that even those stupid loggers can learn, just like the preservationists, concervationists and environmentalists.
You next assert that big trees are supposed to fall down and rot, returning nutrients to the soil. I'm not sure where you get your data, but I'd like to see the nutrient return ratios from large dead trees to the soil as they rot vs nurtient return ratios after a clear cut followed by a slash burn. I think if you take the time to look, you'll be surprised at what you find.
Now, on to selective cutting. This is one of my favorite topics. I'll ask a couple questions and also provide the answers.
1. If 10% to 25% of the trees are thinned in an old growth forest, what happens to the remaining trees?
Within 2 years and additional 25% to 60% of the trees that are left standing will be on the ground as a result of storms. The actual percentage will vary depending on the topography, climate and type of forest. In the following years, expect a declining number of trees to fall annually due to storms.
2. What if we take the same 10% to 25% from a 30yr old reproduction forest(that's a forest that was clear cut 30 years ago, planted and actively managed).
The loss would be greater than 60% in the first 2 years and would not decline much in the following years.
Trees need other trees of simillar size/age to hold them up in the wind storms of winter. If we take a bunch of trees out of a mature forest and introduce new trees into the mix, the new trees will not help block the wind for the older large trees and since trees are competitive in nature, the small trees will be shaded out and die.
The solution?
Tree farms or no wood products used. Yup, that's it. Unless we have a replacement for wood resins used in making plastics for things like ballpoint pens we're going to have to continue cutting trees. Until we all start living in something other than wood houses, we'll have to continue cutting trees. Yes, even those pesky printers on our desks are going to cause more trees to be cut down(even if we never print a singel paper page with them, the plastic is made with resin from wood).
I am a tree hugger, I love them in all of their stages of life and death. The are wonderful to walk through in a forest, they are beautiful when crafted by a skilled wood worker into my desk, and they are wonderful as a medium for my favorite authors to print their words onto.
Until we have a better solution, we'll have to continue cutting down trees. The question you have to answer is this:
Would you prefer to have clearcuts on large scale tree farms near cities and urban areas where everyone can see them or would you rather they were in the heart of our national forests where only the lucky loggers will get to visit them regularly?
Just cause I know you'll want to know:
I live in Bellingham WA, I am a software engineer though I d/won't work for the evil empire, I have spent much of my life in the forest, hiking, camping, fishing, skiing and even logging, I am the son of a man who has opperated a logging company for the last 35 years and have seen first hand both the tragic results of mismanagement and the beauty of a well managed forest.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem pretty well informed. Just what are the margins on a "typical northwest timber sale"?
"The logging companies seldom own the land either. If they did, they would manage it."
You mean that the land isn't managed? What happens after a cut? Aren't the trees replanted? Usually at a ratio of 3 or 4:1 at the expense of the logging company?
What is a pittance to you anyway? Can I have a few hundred thousand to buy a new house? I still live in an apartment, but if that's a pittance to you.....
"Oh - too bad if you can't breathe anymore."
Right...I forgot, only the "Old Growth" forest creates O2....oh, no...wait a minute. While it's decomposing it's producing CO2 not O2...that means that the "Old Growth" forest is suffocating me!
You seem so knowledgeable and yet you don't seem to know anything.
You want to see a great use of private forest land? Look at:
http://galbraithmt.com
This is a managed forest, owned by a private company and opened for the use of the public! They have ongoing logging operations in the forest and seem to get along with the public at the same time! They let people build all of these trails in their private forest. Damn loggers anyway! They wreck everything!
Ok. You almost have it right, but your missing several very important points. Don't feel badly about it, most people miss them. The one thing that all sides of this argument forget is that right now, today, we still don't know everything. The concervationists and the logging interests both only have so much knowledge. I will judge (without bias) that you are more pro concervation than pro logging, even selective logging or selective thinning.
:)
I am totally pro forest stewardship. I am for the responsible use and preservation of our natural resources, whatever form they may come in. I am also very pro logging, so long as it's done responsibly by companies who will hold themselves to a high standard of conduct in the forest.
Now, on to your arguments!
You assert that it is logging interests that have implemented the current and past fire-suppression policy for their own selfish purposes. You are correct in that assertion. What you have overlooked though is that when the logging interests pushed for that policy, nobody understood the forests need for small intense fires. People were concerned about the wildlife that would be killed or left homeless by these small burns and don't forget that even these "mild" burns leave an ugly scar on our lands. By the time the logging community figured out how important the "mild" burns were, approximately 1965, it was too late. The environmental movement had started and the public was beginning to believe that the logging interests would tell any lie they needed to as long as it would let them keep cutting down the trees. The logging community was the first group to assert that we needed to have fires to maintain healthy forests. The slash burns that took place was not simply a method to dispose of waste after a clearcut but to rapidly replenish the soil with necessary nutrients that can only be produced by a fire. The lesson is that even those stupid loggers can learn, just like the preservationists, concervationists and environmentalists.
You next assert that big trees are supposed to fall down and rot, returning nutrients to the soil. I'm not sure where you get your data, but I'd like to see the nutrient return ratios from large dead trees to the soil as they rot vs nurtient return ratios after a clear cut followed by a slash burn. I think if you take the time to look, you'll be surprised at what you find.
Now, on to selective cutting. This is one of my favorite topics. I'll ask a couple questions and also provide the answers.
1. If 10% to 25% of the trees are thinned in an old growth forest, what happens to the remaining trees?
Within 2 years and additional 25% to 60% of the trees that are left standing will be on the ground as a result of storms. The actual percentage will vary depending on the topography, climate and type of forest. In the following years, expect a declining number of trees to fall annually due to storms.
2. What if we take the same 10% to 25% from a 30yr old reproduction forest(that's a forest that was clear cut 30 years ago, planted and actively managed).
The loss would be greater than 60% in the first 2 years and would not decline much in the following years.
Trees need other trees of simillar size/age to hold them up in the wind storms of winter. If we take a bunch of trees out of a mature forest and introduce new trees into the mix, the new trees will not help block the wind for the older large trees and since trees are competitive in nature, the small trees will be shaded out and die.
The solution?
Tree farms or no wood products used. Yup, that's it. Unless we have a replacement for wood resins used in making plastics for things like ballpoint pens we're going to have to continue cutting trees. Until we all start living in something other than wood houses, we'll have to continue cutting trees. Yes, even those pesky printers on our desks are going to cause more trees to be cut down(even if we never print a singel paper page with them, the plastic is made with resin from wood).
I am a tree hugger, I love them in all of their stages of life and death. The are wonderful to walk through in a forest, they are beautiful when crafted by a skilled wood worker into my desk, and they are wonderful as a medium for my favorite authors to print their words onto.
Until we have a better solution, we'll have to continue cutting down trees. The question you have to answer is this:
Would you prefer to have clearcuts on large scale tree farms near cities and urban areas where everyone can see them or would you rather they were in the heart of our national forests where only the lucky loggers will get to visit them regularly?
Just cause I know you'll want to know:
I live in Bellingham WA, I am a software engineer though I d/won't work for the evil empire, I have spent much of my life in the forest, hiking, camping, fishing, skiing and even logging, I am the son of a man who has opperated a logging company for the last 35 years and have seen first hand both the tragic results of mismanagement and the beauty of a well managed forest.
Let the flaming begin