Do you ever feel guilty dropping trees, especially big healthy ones?

[TreeClimber57]

We're still learning. To be sure, a clear-cut isn't an ideal method, but it has its place and it has its reasons. Fortunately, trees are persistent beggars and grow in spite of us, and will continue to do so long after we're gone.

Can not disagree here, there are a few very limited situations where clear cutting may be a logical but limited solution.

There are also some species of trees that actually propagate best (if at all) after forest fires (the only ones I can think of are all conifers). These particular conifers have serotinous cones, all of which require heat from external source to open up and release their seeds. Jack Pine and Sequoia being a couple that come to mind.

And while we do know that fire is need for some trees to propagate, this is a very difficult situation in some areas as it is not pratical to set fires or allow them to burn in most areas simply to allow (particular) trees to reproduce better.

 

[tdi-rick]

At the risk of sounding as if I want to champion clear-cutting as a harvest method, I do feel obligated to point out that there is actually some pretty good science and long ground experience behind the method.
[snip]
We're still learning. To be sure, a clear-cut isn't an ideal method, but it has its place and it has its reasons. Fortunately, trees are persistent beggars and grow in spite of us, and will continue to do so long after we're gone.

Thanks for putting a reasoned response on an issue (admittedly not necessarily here) that can be very emotional for a lot of people.

I've always been antsy on clear cutting since witnessing it here in about '69 or '70 (I was only a real tiny tot but remember the cleared hillsides that Dad pointed out to me and we drove through and why he felt it was wrong) and that sometimes people on the opposing side of the argument forget that it's in everyone's interests for timber harvesting to be sustainable these days.

 

[madhatte]

Thanks for putting a reasoned response on an issue (admittedly not necessarily here) that can be very emotional for a lot of people.

It seems like more and more that's a large part of my job. Writing prescriptions for each stand to be harvested is time-consuming and nit-picky, but valuable not just for the health of the residual stand but also for the process of making decisions and living with the consequences. A philosophy prof I had in college said, "We write so that, through the process of writing, we find out what it is we really mean to say". This applies to forestry as well. A question I am constantly asking is "What do we want this forest to look like?" Without first answering that question, I can't begin to plan for how to select trees for harvest in order to reach those goals.

It seems to me that in the past, there was a prevailing feeling that the trees would simply last forever; they don't, and now we're finding out new ways to keep enough around to meet commercial demand while keeping the forest itself intact for all of the reasons forests are necessary. It's a juggling act, to be sure, but it has to be done, and we have to learn to look further and further into the future to make informed decisions. We are limited by our short human lifetimes, but we have the collective knowledge of our predecessors to guide us.

 

[2yb3]

At the risk of sounding as if I want to champion clear-cutting as a harvest method, I do feel obligated to point out that there is actually some pretty good science and long ground experience behind the method. Yes, it's ugly to see a new cut by a scenic route, but the fact is, Douglas-Fir is poorly shade-tolerant, and regenerates glacially slowly, if at all, in an understory. Further, the equipment used in yarder logging favors big areas for fast layouts. It's economical to clear-cut and replant, then thin as necessary, to ensure a future crop. My major concern remains soil and slope stability.
.

I should of rephrased, I dont disagree with clearcutting, it was with this certain block where it was mainly pine kill, with the odd fir, so they leave the firs, wasnt necisarilly for ground stabilitation, since some hill sides were barren if they were no firs. dad's friend who was working skiider on that block said no one/mills was taking in any fir, mills just wanted the pine and spruce. Here the bettle kill is just overwhelming, and thats top priority around here to haul out before the wood value drops. Theres a nice 5'dbh fir that Id love to take down at our freinds place, its on the corner of a logging road, sourounded by a bunch of big spruce, but the fir makes a good yield/stop sign post lol

 

[madhatte]

ere the bettle kill is just overwhelming, and thats top priority around here to haul out before the wood value drops.

Insect infestations tend to come in cycles. They eat themselves out of business and then starve to death. What's interesting to me is that there are now several approaches to managing beetle-killed stands as well as other pathogens. The prevailing wisdom is "cut 'em before they lose their value" -- this is called "capturing mortality". However, a growing number of situations favor the opposite approach: if an individual tree survives an attack, it could be that it is somehow genetically adapted to repel the pathogen. Cutting that tree would mean losing that genetic advantage from the local population. Leaving the affected stand intact, then, gives the forest a chance to fix itself. This is known as "capturing survival".

The problem with just leaving sick stands alone, aside from the obvious loss of revenue, is the build-up of fuels, which dramatically increases the risk of catastrophic wildfire. Fire exclusion has already rendered much of the West's forests veritable tinderboxes ready to flare up at first opportunity, but new mortality complicates the management strategy.

A responsible approach often involves a combination of techniques -- saving survivor trees, salvaging dead ones, and aggressively reforesting with appropriate stock. This can be pretty complicated, and foresters and loggers alike are prone to grumbling about the extra effort, but in the end a well-considered management strategy is probably the only way to keep our forests both intact and productive.

 

[stihl 440]

Never feel guilty...if they are big they are oversized...and almost at the end of life anyway. Plus if they are dead they aren't worth as much anyway..and they might fall or rot being so big...its called healthy forest management. And if i dont cut em' someone else will...and i wanna cut em....i like big trees.lol

 

[KiwiBro]

Never feel guilty...if they are big they are oversized...and almost at the end of life anyway. Plus if they are dead they aren't worth as much anyway..and they might fall or rot being so big...its called healthy forest management. And if i dont cut em' someone else will...and i wanna cut em....i like big trees.lol

hahaha, you recidivist stump hugger!

 

[2yb3]

Insect infestations tend to come in cycles. They eat themselves out of business and then starve to death. What's interesting to me is that there are now several approaches to managing beetle-killed stands as well as other pathogens. The prevailing wisdom is "cut 'em before they lose their value" -- this is called "capturing mortality". However, a growing number of situations favor the opposite approach: if an individual tree survives an attack, it could be that it is somehow genetically adapted to repel the pathogen. Cutting that tree would mean losing that genetic advantage from the local population. Leaving the affected stand intact, then, gives the forest a chance to fix itself. This is known as "capturing survival".

The problem with just leaving sick stands alone, aside from the obvious loss of revenue, is the build-up of fuels, which dramatically increases the risk of catastrophic wildfire. Fire exclusion has already rendered much of the West's forests veritable tinderboxes ready to flare up at first opportunity, but new mortality complicates the management strategy.

A responsible approach often involves a combination of techniques -- saving survivor trees, salvaging dead ones, and aggressively reforesting with appropriate stock. This can be pretty complicated, and foresters and loggers alike are prone to grumbling about the extra effort, but in the end a well-considered management strategy is probably the only way to keep our forests both intact and productive.

yeah foresty has tanked a fair amount here cause of that, drive by these clear cuts from say 10-40 years ago just huge massive blocks and all that replanting work and silviculture down the drain beetle killed juvees, I take your word, can't argue with the old sea dog(your avatar) lol
Theres a 32" cottonwood snag at the farm I'm gonna take down hopefully tommorow, chance it might fall on something, other than that its a nice spot and tree but I have no love for cotton woods. I enjoy listening to the old guys at the mills tell of storys of ol cotton woods so big they had to use tnt/dynamite on them.

 

[madhatte]

Cottonwood is a pain in the butt to cut, but it's absolutely essential in streambank stabilization. Everything has a role.

 

[tdi-rick]

Cottonwood is a pain in the butt to cut, but it's absolutely essential in streambank stabilization. Everything has a role.

Except here it's an exotic and could be considered a weed.
They definitely suck up the water :msp_ohmy:
Black Locust/pseudoaccia robinia (sp?) is a declared weed here, as are most Willows, Privot, Camphor Laurel, etc.

A bit like our Eucs are for you guys.

The first thing that was taken out here when white fella came was all the Australian Red Cedar, Toona ciliata.
It was the giant of the Australian Rainforest and worth a fortune and so was cut to virtual extinction.

In most areas it's basically gone, i can't recall seeing one in the bush for years and isn't a commercial species anymore AFAIK, and there aren't any left in this valley, although a local firewood cutter has told me there's a small stand on the range, but I've never seen it.
As a kid I was just awed by the size of the stumps left by the 19th and early 20th century loggers, and while everything looks bigger when you are little I don't think I'm exaggerating that some were 10' across.

 

[masculator]

there have been times where I have had to drop trees I have felt I shouldn't have but what I feel more guilty about is cutting up trees for firewood which could be milled into a more useable/valuable resource. I have cut up some very nice BIG trees that I wish now I had milled instead of burning. Nowdays I do not cut down many trees, unless they really need to be, but still cut a lot of windfall and other trees which are down, usually I will cut firewood from the smaller or insect affected wood and try to slab what I can get out of the rest.

I also agree about the stupidity of leaving a few trees standing on a hill top, first decent breeze they fall over, it is a shame to see how much timber actually goes to waste in those pics too. You would think they could chip them for paper or mulch or peletize them for the pellet fire industry or something at least. I hate waste.

 

[wyk]

this is on top of a hill, and yeah most of them are blown down now, also those firs arent for reseeding the area, call it selective, but when its miles and miles cut with just the odd fir here and there its clear cut, they wasted alot of wood as well.

My clear cutting statement was a bit tongue in cheek. However, clear cutting must be done to allow a large expanse of new Fir to seed. As was mentioned earlier, Fir needs sunlight. If the area is high, Hemlocks will take over the fir. If it's lower, Alders will take over(or Birch's in Europe), and sometimes maple if it gets an early hold. Alder is worth more than fir, tho. So I dunno if that is much of a problem unless it grows much slower and smaller(which seems to be the case). Is the area you showed public land or a tree farm? Looking at it, it seems to have plenty of Fir to reseed. And it is likely to have saplings in it already. I don't understand the wasted wood part still. What is wasted? They take everything they can sell. If wood sits there, it replaces nutrients in the soil and helps prevent erosion. Trees don't live forever in those close quarters. Some will win, some will lose. And, as some of you know, trees basically grow on trees. There's no shortage of Fir...

It doesn't look pretty when clear cutting is done. I'll agree with that. There is a lot of it here in Oregon, believe it or not. But, the trees will be back. Much of it is second or third growth anyways - planted or seeded previously. It'll be back.

Now, if you are in parts of the world where there is little rainfall, I can see the issue with culling. But up here, it rains all the time.

 

[Gologit]

And many loggers, I think, no longer clear cut but strive to maintain the resource for future harvesting.

We still clear cut. A lot. Most of my work is on private ground and clearcutting is the most practical, profitable way for us to get timber. It is, after all, a business that needs to be run at a profit.

And I agree with the people who say that a clearcut is ugly. It is. Even with the remediation we do, and we do a lot, the area generally resembles a blast zone when we leave. Our timber is a crop, pure and simple. Most people have a purely emotional reaction to the ugliness of clearcut ground. I can't fault them for that. They've just never had the chance to see anything but the devastation.

But...we do brush control, erosion control, and we replant. We replant several trees for every one we harvest. The ratio varies with species, soil, climate, terrain, and the probable mortality of the new trees but we're putting back much more than we're taking. It's our land and our livelihood...it behooves us to take care of it.

Also, I recently clearcut a piece of ground that my Grandfather clearcut back in the 1950s. Even with the lack of forest technology from those days it was a healthy stand of timber. The stuff we're replanting now will be even better when it's time to harvest.

I can take you to places not far from here that were clearcut 100 years ago. You can't tell man ever set foot there.

Look beyond what you're seeing when you see a clearcut. Picture what your children and your grandchildren will see...a healthy thriving forest, doing all the good things that forests do for our planet, and providing jobs for many of the people that live in timber country. It's a fair trade.

I imagine we'll continue to clearcut. And I imagine well meaning but uninformed people will gripe. It gives us all something to do.:biggrin:

 

[TreeClimber57]

We still clear cut. A lot. Most of my work is on private ground and clearcutting is the most practical, profitable way for us to get timber. It is, after all, a business that needs to be run at a profit.

And I agree with the people who say that a clearcut is ugly. It is. Even with the remediation we do, and we do a lot, the area generally resembles a blast zone when we leave. Our timber is a crop, pure and simple. Most people have a purely emotional reaction to the ugliness of clearcut ground. I can't fault them for that. They've just never had the chance to see anything but the devastation.

But...we do brush control, erosion control, and we replant. We replant several trees for every one we harvest. The ratio varies with species, soil, climate, terrain, and the probable mortality of the new trees but we're putting back much more than we're taking. It's our land and our livelihood...it behooves us to take care of it.

Also, I recently clearcut a piece of ground that my Grandfather clearcut back in the 1950s. Even with the lack of forest technology from those days it was a healthy stand of timber. The stuff we're replanting now will be even better when it's time to harvest.

I can take you to places not far from here that were clearcut 100 years ago. You can't tell man ever set foot there.

I imagine we'll continue to clearcut. And I imagine well meaning but uninformed people will gripe. It gives us all something to do.:biggrin:

Again, it is about managing the resources. If you are replanting, then that in itself is a management process and will provide the renewable resource years in the future, which is still ok. Natural methods have essentially clear cut for centuries (storms, fire, etc.. all were essentially in some cases a clear removal of all (or most of) timber in the area). Professional loggers, I am assuming, manage the resource properly (at least for the most part) as it is their future.

 

[Gologit]

Again, it is about managing the resources. If you are replanting, then that in itself is a management process and will provide the renewable resource years in the future, which is still ok. Natural methods have essentially clear cut for centuries (storms, fire, etc.. all were essentially in some cases a clear removal of all (or most of) timber in the area). Professional loggers, I am assuming, manage the resource properly (at least for the most part) as it is their future.

Thanks...and no offense taken. Like I said we're used to well meaning but totally misinformed people who's only real exposure to Left Coast timber is watching AxMen re-runs. We try not to take their judgmental attitudes and complete ignorance of our profession as a personal insult. Usually, anyway.
We welcome any and all opportunities to shed a truer light on the way things really are. We just wish there were more actual opportunities...and less Ax-Men re-runs

 

[wyk]

Thanks...and no offense taken. Like I said we're used to well meaning but totally misinformed people who's only real exposure to Left Coast timber is watching AxMen re-runs. We try not to take their judgmental attitudes and complete ignorance of our profession as a personal insult. Usually, anyway.
We welcome any and all opportunities to shed a truer light on the way things really are. We just wish there were more actual opportunities...and less Ax-Men re-runs

Some folks whom seem to address clear cutting, and various other methods to me seem to be not only ignorant of the preservation part, but also of the environment. I'm not addressing anyone here specifically. Just so we're clear there.

Clear cutting is not taking place in the desert. Clear cutting does not take place where trees are sparse and have to fight it out to survive. The soil is very thick and nutritious in these areas. Rainfall in the PNW can vary from 48-60" per year. It is 55" of rainfall per year here, 3 miles from the nearest clear cut operation we had. We often get 25+" of rain for Feb - April. We had 25 days of rain last month.

While there are 'tree huggers' and 'extreme conservationists' from every state, the vast majority I have run in to were from California where the rainfall often struggles to reach 10" a year. If you get less than 10" of rainfall a year, you are gonna have wildlife issues. It is difficult to sustain a huge amount of trees, wildlife, etc when you are in a desert. It will also be difficult when you have 33 million people roaming about in their cars every day.

I can see their concern. But...the PNW is a completely different environment. Between Washington and Oregon there's not even 10 million people. And that's including the 1 million Californians that have relocated here You would have to thoroughly slash and burn an area to the ground to slow the growth. And even then, the burning simply gives some trees more of an advantage than others. However, as was stated previously, it is a renewable resource that should be respected, and it is treated so.

 

[Nailsbeats]

No I don't feel guilty. There is a reason for every tree I remove, I get payed and there are plenty more growing up to take there place.

 

[earache]

?

Yes

 

[slowp]

Nope. I don't fall trees. I've probably marked thousands of them, which meant they were doomed. No guilt. Got in trouble for painting dollar signs on the big ones.

One thing everybody needs to know is that out here all the left coast states have laws that require reforestation if the land is timber land. Here in Warshington, you can get a lower property tax if you have land desiginated as timber land, but you have to replant it after clearcutting to keep that designation. Not only do you have to replant it, but a percentage of the seedlings must have survived for a few years after planting.

We have a problem in my area that has resulted from NO clearcuts
being made. The last of the clearcuts has grown back. The crowns of the trees have closed in. There is now less browse for the elk. So, the elk are now spending all year down in our valley, where they get hit by cars, tear up fences, eat trees, shrubbery and gardens, and eat the hay crop.

On the rainy side of the mountains, we know how and can grow forests.

 

[angelo c]

?

Only when I don't get paid for doin it...