Without profit, there would be no logging and we could get our lumber from countries without forest practices rules. So, stay on here and get educated as to what REALLY happens in the woods as opposed to what you are told by
well, not for profit (but somebody must be getting paid) groups such as
The Sierra Club.
Logging is a disturbance and you just can't make it look pretty to folks who don't understand forestry. It looks destructive, but wait a few years and things look nice again. Meanwhile, behind those "looks" is often a healthier, faster growing stand of trees. Wood is the most eco friendly building material we have. Economical too.
There, you've started learning. Right?
I won't even respond to tramp bushler's personal insults. That's a perfect example of why I seldom post on this forum, even though I have an interest in woodscraft and forest management.
Slowp, I always enjoy your posts and learn from them. Thanks.
As I said, I'm not a logger ...... but I spent a summer working in a ma and pa sawmill, and loved it. I spent a few weeks as a flunkie on a logging crew, and I loved it. I personally harvest wood for heat and for lumber, and I enjoy it. I agree that wood is the most eco friendly building material, and I built my house out of deadwood that I harvested from local forests.
I'm not opposed to all logging, just bad logging, and there is plenty of that in the west.
I applaud low-impact selective logging. I have no beef with thinning when it goes well -- but it doesn't always go well. Even small clear cuts have their place. But mile after mile of clear cut, as far as the eye can see -- NO THANK YOU.
Regarding what REALLY happens in the woods, uh, I live in the woods, so to speak. What I see is tremendous waste, where more wood is burned in slash piles and by out-of-control slash fires than is hauled to the mill. Perhaps that is unique to my local situation, but nonetheless that is what I see and it's hard to accept.
My local forests used to be predominately doug fir, ponderosa, and tamarack. Old timey logging practices, motivated by short term profits, called for harvesting the valuable trees first and the less valuable trees (white fir) last -- just the opposite of good management. That, plus Smokey the bear, leaves us with a 2nd growth forest of predominately white fir, which is a hot wildfire waiting to happen.
They've learned their lesson, and are now managing to encourage doug fir and tamarack and to discourage white fir. If they keep it up, 100 years from now MAYBE we'll have a halfway healthy forest again.
Regarding the fire problem, fire is natural and healthy up to a point. As everyone here knows, man-made problems have made fires much worse. Smokey the bear, global warming, beetles (due to global warming), fire-thinned old growth replaced by thick 2nd growth, fire resistant species replaced by white fir -- due to poor logging practices and Smokey the bear.
Before I moved to my present location, I lived near Yellowstone, and spent a lot of time hunting and hiking on land adjacent to the park, most of which had been heavily clear cut. I often hiked up a particular mountain that straddled the park boundary, where on one side of the boundary there was clear cut as far as the eye could see. The park side, of course, was beautiful despite the wildfires that have ravaged the park from time to time. The park side had lots of game, the clear cut side had domestic cows and not so much game. I think of that view every time I hear someone talking about how logging makes forests healthy and how the treehuggers are causing all the problems.
Like I said, I'm not at all opposed to logging when it is done well. I admire loggers for their woods skills even though I may not agree with their politics, and that's why I'm sure I'll enjoy reading Jackson's book. Thanks again for bringing it to my attention.
Slowp,Ambassador for the logging industry!
