Growing up with Redwood's. Truely God's country.

[Gologit]

I've never had a chance to talk in person to an old school logger that spent their time dropping the big boys, but I'd like to think that more than a few look back with some lament that a couple thousand years of history was clearcut for not much more than railroad ties. You can talk all you like about replanting and all that, but I can't imagine that even in 500 years those sites will be what they were.

It's ironic how we look at the mass devastation happening in places like russia and the PNG, clear cutting of old growth and point out the more sustainable logging methods available now. People in those countries point out perhaps rightfully how Europe and later the US clearcut their own forests to lay the foundation for their own industrial revolution that slighshot their countries to the forefront of the economic world. Kind of a tough call on whether it was worth it or not... it was hard honest work knocking those trees over, but look where its brought us.

Shaun

There aren't many guys left who made their living falling old growth Redwood. I know a few, though, who are still around and have the experience to back up their opinions. Without exception they have no bad feelings about what they did. They shouldn't have them, either. It was a job and in those days it was an honorable profession.

Those big fine trees were put here for a purpose and the lumber they produced help build the West.

The government has made parks and sanctuaries for what remains of the old growth. There's still quite a bit of it left. There's more than enough old growth for people to stand next to and appreciate their size and majesty. I don't want to see all those fine old trees cut, either, but when I look at them I'm planning gunning cuts, lay, and lead.

For my part, I don't regret a single old growth Redwood I put on the ground. If I had the chance I'd do it again.

 

[2yb3]

by redwoods are you referring to cedar and big douglas fir i take it, besides the actual giant redwood species

 

[RandyMac]

The term Redwood, for the most part refers to the Sequoia Sempervirens when it comes to lumber. The other Redwoods, Sequoiadendron Giganteum and that Asian shrub are not considered timber trees.

Unlike Gologit, there is one OG Redwood that I felled, that still makes me grit my teeth. It was one of my "beginner" trees and I scattered that son of a ##### all over the hillside. I was told it was going to explode on contact before I set steel to it. Most of it was just shoved off to the side. Funny part of it was, the Boss told me it was a "good job". It was a highly technical cut, I had to pull it 40 degrees to the right, roll the butt off a stump 20 feet in front of it and jump it off a bank, it worked perfectly. I still have a clear memory of that tree turning into a cloud of splinters and chunks. Diameter at the stump was just over 8 feet.

 

[Gologit]

by redwoods are you referring to cedar and big douglas fir i take it, besides the actual giant redwood species

No. Note that Redwood is capitalized...like RandyMac said it's a species of it's own.

 

[carym2a]

No. Note that Redwood is capitalized...like RandyMac said it's a species of it's own.

Yup! a Redwood Is a Redwood.

 

[Wisctimber]

The Mrs and I saw the Redwoods of Northern CA/Oregon last week. We drove through the National Park and the Avenue of the Giants. Impressive doesn't do justice to what its like to stand next to those behemoths. Simply impressive, massive, and very beautiful trees. The pics we took are hilarious because we look sooo small and dwarfed next to those big boys. It was also one of the quietest forests Ive ever visited. Ill also say this too.. during our trip we saw some incredible forests along the way. Oregon has so much timber, and NW Montana, Lolo forest is very lush and large.

 

[CM76]

I too, had the recent honour of being able to see the giant Redwood trees of the PNW and also the mighty Sequioa of the Sierra Nevada. The damage to the Sequoia groves in the Converse Basin is very evident through the thousands of old growth stumps still standing firm, and the large amounts of broken giants lying on the forest floor. It is a magnificent feeling to walk amongst these big trees, and I for one am extremely grateful that there are still some of them to see today. The timber industry has its place, and so does conservation.

Chris.

 

[carym2a]

When we were kids the old timers called them Redweeds, they can grow to a very large size in short time , I'v seen it at my place in thirty years 2 1/2-3 foot at the base and 50feet tall , got four and two young ones 3feet tall cool to watch them grow and know they might be here a 1000 years from now

 

[NORMZILLA44]

Geeze, got behind on this thread i di. Ditching at work last week, good thing I always bring my camera. Nice couple trees, westside rd, healdsburg CA. Right at the entrance to the Mac murray ranch.

 

[pioneerguy600]

Geeze, got behind on this thread i di. Ditching at work last week, good thing I always bring my camera. Nice couple trees, westside rd, healdsburg CA. Right at the entrance to the Mac murray ranch.

Those are some nice trees, Norm. I really like seeing them whenever I drive the country out that way.

 

[NORMZILLA44]

I won't argue with you there Randy, if anyone knows their stuff it's you. I just read back over that post of mine and the last sentence was a bit ambiguous. What I should have said was 'Kind of a tough call on whether it was worth it or not... it was hard honest work knocking those trees over, but it's all lead to naught'.

I'd just as rather wind the clock back 100 years and carry on as we were. Almost enough to turn a guy Amish. But then, I hear they only have wine... no beer.

Shaun

I hear your side, and others of no regret, and regret. And before Randy M, and Gologit's time I know some of the practice may have been poor, and many not realizing some damage of clear cut's or greed. And even those times I am sure many appreciated those trees, and did not want to cut them all. In a way I would have loved to cut a giant, but then again I have asked myself if I would have the heart. At least we did save many like said, for that I am very thankfull, because I grew up with them, and could never imagine life without giant trees. Randy the thread, well story you wrote, old growth spiders in your head was a beautiful story, and Can relate with it. I just found out recently that Parmeter's dad had a change of heart and some regret. He was asked to clear a few some years back, just for a friend near there shop. He said no in a nice way, but told them you just would not understand I killed `to many already. I respect that, and also Gologit's view=Bob right hope I got your name right, A lot of guy's were making a tough living, and yes highly respected proffesion, highly skilled. When I worked for the mill I learned a lot about sustained yield, which is what our crew practiced, and select harvest. There were groves that trees were dorment basically, becuase they were in need of thinning, I had seen trees in selective cuts go from 10- inches or so, and withing fifteen years or less some were 24, 36in ches. I am no expert on the forset, but sure we made mistakes, and still do. But for the most part now, glad we have the ones we do, and guys who have a concience, which most of us do, and did I like to think. Jerry thanks I love them trees too, every chance I get love to find and look at new ones. P.S one story is relevant I feel. Parmeter and I had a balls to the walls day, 4 years ago maybe more. We put more trees on the ground that day, big trees, pull trees. And all day falling side by side, going for it. Kind of made us sad, we tried to save a few but the lady wanted them down. Fall them to oblivian, would have used some wood but they were all launched, and or pulled down hill away from an easement road, with power, and fencing. With sue happy people, she was an old lady, nice lady but scared of her neighboors and liability, if the trees came across the road. Trees were black oaks, live oaks. Some valley too. Some big ones, as much as we love falling it was hard to waste them.

 

[BrocLuno]

Grew up in the Santa Cruz mtns and went into Dept of Forestry in the mid-1960's. Worked that gig, on and off, for 7 years. Fires in summer and other projects in winter. Did some timber management and harvest permit work above Aldercroft Heights, and such.

Small time operations pulling some big trees up out of steep canyons where they had been passed by back in the day. Got to see some big ones come down. But it put a sad note in my heart knowing that it would take centuries to get regrowth back to that size.

The harvest cycle is so long for slow growth Redwoods that it may never be sustainable? Give them enough light and water and you can get faster growth, but not the quality.

What I'd like to propose is that private wood lot owners with acreage in the 100's to 1,000's range hook up with the Off Highway Motor Vehicle Division of Calif State Parks to set up some recreation leases. Controlled access and restricted roads with speed limits, maybe only special event access (?), or organized jeep club outings where they can patrol themselves. No yahoo drivers. But, enough income to help pay the taxes and maintain the primary routes until the next harvest cycle.

It could be done. And having a secondary use (and income) would make a more sustainable model for both the forest/logging and the recreation side.

Anyway, I think we need to save select groups of trees to set the model on what OG should be like and to act as forest monitors so we can see how our impacts are affecting OG. We need to know what their tolerance levels are as we monkey around in their neighborhood.

 

[Alex D]

Don't you have tree farms for redwood?? As I recall reading in Beranek's book that there are some stands of second growth redwood that is 120 or so years old and already 6 foot at the base and 200 feet tall. Thats a good tree by anyone's standards I would think and plus many mills nowadays dont even take logs over a certain diameter. Take even half that in 50-60 or so years a redwood should hypothetically be 100 foot tall and 3 foot or so at the base.

As I know they have farms for white pine and other species here in Ontario they plant them in rows tend to them thinning, pruning etc... to get them to grow ideally for lumber and then they harvest every 3 or so decades some maybe given more time. Sure it may not match the quality of old growth but it still serves almost all lumber needs- it will build houses, infrastructure etc... and it will produce quantity. But it will not meet the demands of people with money who want high end big dollar old growth.

On a more positive note sure a lot of old growth has been cut but lots of it still remains and what remains will contine to do so seeing as the era of large scale old growth logging is over at least in North America.

 

[Gologit]

Anyway, I think we need to save select groups of trees to set the model on what OG should be like and to act as forest monitors so we can see how our impacts are affecting OG. We need to know what their tolerance levels are as we monkey around in their neighborhood.

Hogwash.

There are plenty of Redwoods "set aside" now. Plenty. The state and federal park systems have enough old growth Redwoods set side to monitor and study from now until the end of time.

If for some reason they're unable to make accurate studies from the literally thousands of acres of old growth Redwood that are locked away and will never be harvested I would suspect that it's better technology they need and not more timber. Bad science doesn't get better by repeating the same mistakes over and over.

Leave the private landowners alone to be the stewards of their own resources. They need less interference from well meaning but basically clueless citizens, not more.

 

[BrocLuno]

Ouch. I take it you did not really read my post very carefully? I'm not in favor of more public lands. Actually, I prefer selling off a bunch to help with the deficit and to reduce the maintenance burden where we have duplication.

I am in favor of using recreation dollars to help private land owners get from one harvest cycle to another (sustainable yield). The trees I was talking about setting aside are small key groves in an active logging area to look at stresses from ongoing sustainable yield forest practices and recreation impacts (assuming the land owners cotton to that idea).

I DID NOT mention locking away trees on mis-used, mis-guided public lands. Studying those trees does us no good (or little good) as they will live and die without any harvest stresses or even modern access. Makes me sad that they don't allow selective harvest on those lands, but that fight was waged and lost for the foreseeable future

In case you'all are not aware, the Water Boards will be coming after private land owners with primitive road systems to reduce sediment burden and shut down additional acreage for headwaters use. By buffering the land owners with a multi-use strategy that includes modernizing the road BMPs and supplying $$ to keep the owner in place until the next harvest cycle, we can MAYBE support a dwindling industry and recreation resource. It's just an idea, but to dismiss it out of hand shows lack of thought about where we go from here ...

 

[Gologit]

I'm thinking that, for the majority of timberland owners, and that includes myself and my family, we already have enough people telling us what we should do with our land.

I'm well aware of the stream siltation issues. It's something that we've been dealing with for quite some time. So far we're dealing with it successfully.

The idea of opening up our land to recreation is not appealing. We've had people approach us about hunting leases and we've had 4 wheel drive clubs interested in access. We've studied the offers and we can't see any advantage to it. The liability concerns alone are truly formidable.

It's our land, period. We are the stewards of it, we bought it, we paid for it, we make the decisions on how it should be used, and we bear the responsibility for mistakes that we make.

The general public has no stake in what we do. They see our ground and our timber as a playground...something to be used when it's convenient for them. They have a visceral reaction when we harvest timber that has nothing whatsoever to do with what is actually happening. Quite frankly, we don't need, and will not put up with, the aggravation involved in having the general public having any input whatsoever with what we do.

Every year we use foresters to advise us on timber harvest. From time to time university students conduct wildlife and flora surveys on our ground in order for us to improve cattle grazing and reforestation. There's a mutual benefit there. We're not a huge conglomerate but the land has fed us and we've been on sustainable yield for three generations.

But recreational use? Not going to happen. Ever.

 

[BrocLuno]

OK, fair enough. But I see by your handle that you are in Grass Valley - why are you concerned about Redwood lands - unless you own coastal land too?

You have looked into various scenarios by folks who have approached you, but you have not looked into the one I proposed. If you had, you'd see that an OHV Recreation Lease would come with them assuming any liability for recreation related incidents. It's not only a source of income, but a liability shift.

I get your position and I am not against your stand. It is your land. I have no interest in pushing a rock up hill. But, some others might see this as a workable situation? Not all will share your exact same viewpoint. Or, if they do, we will know that by what happens down the road ...

And, if some of these multi-use scenarios had been in place when Headwaters came up, the public pressure to close or buy-out, would have been diminished as there would have been allies against the movement to "protect". Having to buy-out more than one interest makes the purchase more problematic and expensive as their are more market values at stake than just the land and timber. Seems to me, that in the modern world, landowners need all the capital and friends they can get to help defend their position as a private party owner/operator. I'm not sure a stand-it-alone position will be viable in the foreseeable future? Maybe, and let's hope so, but ...

 

[slowp]

There are already vast swaths of land that are designated for "study". On the Six Rivers and Klamath NFs you will find maps designating parcels for research. Every National Forest affected by the Northwest Forest Plan has some. What is studied? Well, if I could pull it off Google Earth, we have the Mickey Mouse stand or Dice Stand, which are some round clearcuts made in the 1990s that show up as described.

We had a ranger on the Klamath wanting to do a lot of "research". He didn't seem to realize that the studies--whether thinning increased growth or not, had been done years ago. So much research has already been done. He made unit layout less efficient which cost more $$.

What we are seeing in the drier forests is unofficial research--that NOT managing forests in that climate will result in Mother Nature doing the thinning and clearcutting, and she doesn't always get the optimal basal area per acre or care about the visual quality.

If I owned a large amount of forest, I would not be letting it be used for recreation. What happens is that folks go hiking in the pretty woods, start thinking that it is their pretty forest, and when you apply for a harvest permit, they will do their damndest to stop your harvest because "it won't be pretty" or "I don't want to see it" or "it will wreck my view." If that doesn't work, they may organize and put out a plea for money and actually buy the land, but then it is no longer available--unless they see the light, for timber harvest.

I have pointed out that I would like to see the Puget Sound "restored" to a healthy forest so I wouldn't have to see a city if I kayaked there, but that just gets blank stares from the residents of that area.

 

[Gologit]

OK, fair enough. But I see by your handle that you are in Grass Valley - why are you concerned about Redwood lands - unless you own coastal land too?

You have looked into various scenarios by folks who have approached you, but you have not looked into the one I proposed. If you had, you'd see that an OHV Recreation Lease would come with them assuming any liability for recreation related incidents. It's not only a source of income, but a liability shift.

I get your position and I am not against your stand. It is your land. I have no interest in pushing a rock up hill. But, some others might see this as a workable situation? Not all will share your exact same viewpoint. Or, if they do, we will know that by what happens down the road ...

And, if some of these multi-use scenarios had been in place when Headwaters came up, the public pressure to close or buy-out, would have been diminished as there would have been allies against the movement to "protect". Having to buy-out more than one interest makes the purchase more problematic and expensive as their are more market values at stake than just the land and timber. Seems to me, that in the modern world, landowners need all the capital and friends they can get to help defend their position as a private party owner/operator. I'm not sure a stand-it-alone position will be viable in the foreseeable future? Maybe, and let's hope so, but ...

You make some good points and in a perfect world maybe some of your ideas might possibly work. I wish I had time to wait for that perfect world to appear. Those of us who work in the woods and don't just use them to play in usually have a pretty full plate.

You can talk about a "liability shift" all you want but the truth is something different...and a lot less pleasant. Every recreational group, hunters, 4 wheelers, woodcutters, or whatever has been more than willing to sign waivers or hold-harmless agreements or anything else we asked them to sign to gain access to our ground. Our lawyer laughs when he reads them. He calls them well intended but worthless in a court of law...especially in front of a jury. Regardless of what they sign there will still be lawsuits when someone is hurt or killed on our property. If nothing else, their insurance company will sue us. We've been through this before and we're not going to go through it again. The last time we dealt with a lawsuit it cost a chunk of money to defend ourselves even though the suit was frivolous and the person suing us was trespassing.


Our insurance company gets very nervous when we bring up the idea of alternate uses for our ground. What little money we'd derive from leases would barely offset the increase in premiums.

All that being said, the main reason we don't open up our land is a very simple one. We don't want to be bothered. We have neither the time nor the resources to keep track of every city person with a Jeremiah Johnson complex, or all the four wheelers who wouldn't really care if they rutted our ground and negated our efforts at erosion control, or the legions of firewood cutters who are well meaning but frightening in their lack of knowledge and technique.

I don't know what you do for a living but, whatever it is, I doubt if I know very much about it and certainly wouldn't be able to perform the job functions at the same level you do. With that thought in mind I probably wouldn't run my mouth and tell you how to run your job. That would be a little foolish.

And you're right about my home being in Grass Valley. We have a little ground in that area. We have more on the coast, though. :msp_wink:

Edit to add...I'm writing this in Tucumcari, New Mexico. We don't have any ground here. Thank goodness.

 

[Alex D]

Dealing or working with people is one of if not the most difficult things to do. People can be pigs although to say that is an insult to the animal to be quite frank. Just think about all the litter you would have to deal with when you let campers, ATVers, hunters or whoever else onto your land. And all the conflict situations eg camper A crying about how camper B took his spot or who knows what other kind of BS especially worsened if either or both is drunk. The increased risk of forest fires either they dont put the campfire out properly, they throw glass bottles away, break them which acts as a magnifying glass of sorts etc... And the fact that you are most liable or will be held to the highest standard of liable if someone gets injured on your property while they paid you to be there. Absolute headache.