Could you do a computer simulation of the action and make a game out of it? You could call it the squirrel and butterfly game.
A non-violent video game which would not sell in today's bloody market.
the feathry truth
- Thread starter paccity
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Could you do a computer simulation of the action and make a game out of it? You could call it the squirrel and butterfly game.
A non-violent video game which would not sell in today's bloody market.
Y' know, I probably could. It'd be some old-school looking side-scroller, all Pac-Man looking and blocky. I guess I just need sprite graphics. This is a terrible idea. Must resist the urge.
Turns out that this is totally a thing that ANYBODY can do... but I'm not sure I care enough to do the time to make it actually happen. I was mostly joking about being able to just "make" a game, but, as usual, the Internet beat me to it. Color me "Schooled".
Might be fun. Can you make a game with loggers vs. preservationists? I probably need more coffee.
That could be an offshoot. I would make an in-house game called IDT meeting. Maybe not, it brings up too many frustrating memories.
That may be a project for a horrible weather day.
Okay, for us civilians who don't speak fluent acronym, what's an IDT meeting? I can think of several words that match the letters...I just can't say any of them here.
Inter Disciplinary Team. Where the serious fighting is done. I tried to avoid going to those meetings but got told that I had to.
The meetings are maddening. You'd want to throw your Donettos and throw them hard at the participants.
The meetings are maddening. You'd want to throw your Donettos and throw them hard at the participants.
No! What a terrible waste of pastry. Throw pencils or coffee cups or something. Not Donettos!.
sounds either really kinky, or a total waste of time and energy.
Both, to my way of thinking
The meetings here seemed to be futile. The 'ologists want to keep their part simple. This means no change in what they want to do no matter if the conditions warrant it. They have a boiler plate write up on their computers and that's what they will put into every document. Once in a while I would catch them because they missed a change of the name of the project.
These meetings were on my Pro list when I was deciding whether to retire or not.
These meetings were on my Pro list when I was deciding whether to retire or not.
OlympicYJ
ArboristSite Guru
Wow I know how I missed this cuz I was busy whacking down owl and mullet habitat this summer, okay not me personally but my contractors were. Anyways the article from Evergreen Mag was great and I think I have found a new site to frequent. As for the Murrelet article they still can't get crap strait; and I mean that in a literal sense. Murrelets do not just lay their eggs on flat mistletoe infected branches. They litterally crap a ring and lay the egg inside that. I went to a DNR meeting on Murrelets this summer. Without causing my brain to hurt too much; basically they have no idea how many Murrelets there are and once the plan is in place will not continue to do surveys of the population; this is DNR land private continues to do surveys where murrelets are. Anyways as for the predation aspect. Corvids, crows/ravens, are the primary target of the finger pointing. Granted they probably do eat some eggs and they say that clearcuts and smooth edges are what cause the attraction of corvids. You say what does clearcuts and edge effect have to do with attracting some damn birds that like to eat the other birds eggs. Well the berries and such attract the birds. Now for strait edges, here's where scientists infinite brilliance shines. They want ragged edges. Well this increases the amount of edge you have rather than decrease, think of filters, same principle that the brilliant morons can't figure out. Oh and they want tons of uncut forest without edge but the real truth is Murrelets do not fly and lite on branches. They are flying freakin potatoes; meaning when they go to lite they just fold their wings and fall to the branch unlike most birds. Hmm well it would seem to me that having edge could help them. Yes edge could expose them to more corvid predation but alas all the solutions are "techno fixes." These doctored eggs are a techno fix which we rely on to fix our environmental problems instead of trans-formative change. Granted I believe techno fixes are valid and definitely useful. Where we need the trans-formative changes are with our science and overcoming our tendency to overreact to problems or percieved problems before we have a good grasp of the problem. Owls would be a prime example and Murrelets will be another once we find out we screwed the pooch on it too. Hey species go extinct, the very nature of these bird species lends themselves to extinction and probably without human help. The original article, I believe, speaks volumes to this.
Wow I got fired up there. Anyways that's how I feel about all this. Take home message is junk in is junk out. Once we fix the problem of shoddy science then maybe we can truly come to understand the problems we face and how best to fix them.
Wes
Wow I got fired up there. Anyways that's how I feel about all this. Take home message is junk in is junk out. Once we fix the problem of shoddy science then maybe we can truly come to understand the problems we face and how best to fix them.
Wes
Species notwithstanding, long, complex and feathered edges are a good idea wherever practical; it leaves more protection for canopy trees that are not wind-hardened so you lose less to windthrow and breakage, and also leaves more structural continuity in the remnant stand which means a shorter time to functional forest structure regardless of rotation time. The key word here is "practical" -- if there's a road, there's an edge. There's no sense in feathering that. As for 'ologists, well, I guess their heart is in the right place even if they can't agree among themselves what they want to do, much less play nice with others.
OlympicYJ
ArboristSite Guru
This is true. I haven't decided yet if its a bad thing it isn't practiced more on private timber ground. Although RMZ boundaries and other resources to be protected often create a feather effect of sorts. But like you said species notwithstanding. I was on a timbersale a couple years ago post harvest. It was feathered for Murrelets and I wanna say everyone was griping about it both operationally and the fact we had to leave more timber.
redprospector
Addicted to ArboristSite
This thread brings me to mind of what a former Mescalero Apache Chief once said.
I think it was in 91, the enviro's were letting us have it with both barrels. Mexican Spotted Owl, Goss Hawk, some kind of salamander, butterflies, and even a thistle. About the only logging jobs were on the reservation (which was not subject to the EPA or many other Fed. decisions). A TV reporter interviewed Chief Wendell Chino who stated that logging would continue on the reservation, during the interview the reporter asked; But Mr. Chino, what about the Spotted Owl? The Chief replied; We've done alright without the dinosaurs haven't we?
I think it was in 91, the enviro's were letting us have it with both barrels. Mexican Spotted Owl, Goss Hawk, some kind of salamander, butterflies, and even a thistle. About the only logging jobs were on the reservation (which was not subject to the EPA or many other Fed. decisions). A TV reporter interviewed Chief Wendell Chino who stated that logging would continue on the reservation, during the interview the reporter asked; But Mr. Chino, what about the Spotted Owl? The Chief replied; We've done alright without the dinosaurs haven't we?
OlympicYJ
ArboristSite Guru
If the spotted fluff balls go extinct the barred bad guys are more than willing and able to take over.
RMZ's would be an excellent place to feather edges, and are often very much a lost opportunity, as are ridiculous leave tree clumps in the middle of the unit which blow over during the first winter. Connect 'em to something, make 'em functional! Rules are just guidelines; foresters need to think beyond that! For every sale, the forester in charge of planning needs to think about what they want to leave for the next entry -- 10 years for a precommercial thin, 25 for first commercial entry, etc -- it isn't done by rubber stamp or congressional decree, it's done by slow natural systems that can't be rushed (much).
The Chief replied; We've done alright without the dinosaurs haven't we?
I kind of like that. It's a bit snarky, and a bit commonsense. It's worth noting that Tribal forestry is catching up quickly and can get things done much more efficiently than FS/BLM can. I have spoken to foresters from several tribes and they seem to really "get it".
OlympicYJ
ArboristSite Guru
Most everyone is only leaving the wildlife trees and incorporating the leave tree clumps into the unit boundaries, Except for the DNR they leave $@%^ everywhere and it's a pain in the butt. I could see feathering being plausible if part of FSC but most folks just want to follow the forest practices and get every stick possible. Now part of this is rooted in the fact that the Forest Practices keep getting more restrictive and therefore they see the harvestable area shrinking already and to do it voluntarily takes some guts on managers part. I'm not saying leaving more is a bad thing nor doing it voluntarily. It would actually be great. What I would prefer is a cap on the RMZs where they are now and allow more management in the outer, inner and a smaller core. Green Diamond for instance has an HCP and they felt going that route would reap more benefits in the end while meeting the needs of Forest Practices. On the flip side to this it costs more to manage with the HCP and allot of outfits don't want to go through the hassle and expense. Especially since the govt wants more and more in the RMZs.
And i will say I wouldn't mind seeing some more diversity in our stands as opposed to just clearcutting it all and replanting. Feathering could provide some added structure. Although I'm thinking about it from a wood quality/market sense but one aids the other in the end. Sure would be nice to have some high quality peelers or poles in the future on private ground.
But the downside of that is once the timber gets older and starts taking on mature stand characteristics they are worried that it will be declared habitat. So you have the economics of the REITS playing into the majority of the management but the regulations are just stoking that fire. I would like longer rotation ages myself, 50-60 yrs. We may see a shift though as demand for better quality rises but I'm not banking on it too much unless they start genetically modifying the crap out of stuff and zap it with some x-rays. Intensive silv does not lend itself to good wood quality due to the low density of early wood but the economics right now don't work out too well.
And i will say I wouldn't mind seeing some more diversity in our stands as opposed to just clearcutting it all and replanting. Feathering could provide some added structure. Although I'm thinking about it from a wood quality/market sense but one aids the other in the end. Sure would be nice to have some high quality peelers or poles in the future on private ground.
But the downside of that is once the timber gets older and starts taking on mature stand characteristics they are worried that it will be declared habitat. So you have the economics of the REITS playing into the majority of the management but the regulations are just stoking that fire. I would like longer rotation ages myself, 50-60 yrs. We may see a shift though as demand for better quality rises but I'm not banking on it too much unless they start genetically modifying the crap out of stuff and zap it with some x-rays. Intensive silv does not lend itself to good wood quality due to the low density of early wood but the economics right now don't work out too well.
That observation is right on and I don't have a clue what to do about it. I've been doing sales of bigger and bigger areas in order to spread the disturbance around and to create structural continuity at the landscape level (one unit I'm working on now is 600 acres and another is 750 acres) and I am well aware that if I do my job right I will eventually put myself out of business. However, the bigger sales get bigger bids because it helps drive production costs down, so it works, for now. Perhaps someday we'll figure out a politically-expedient way to meet all of the environmental requirements at once as well as turn a profit from working forests and we'll all live happily ever after. In the meantime, the best we can do is the best we can do.
Similar threads
