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

[KiwiBro]

I read something on here not long ago. It might have been a Randyism along the line of : when you get a big saw, the big tree jobs seek you out.
I appreciate that "big" is relative and for me at the mo' that's a Dolmar7900 still waiting on a few bars (and the $ for a 32" bar), etc before initiation. The aforementioned trees I looked at being the 4-6 1/2' trunks that have sought me out. Personally, maybe I just need to go make me a nice cup of harden the fluck up, but I think I may turn down that job, as much of a buz it would be to drop what are big trees by my standards. If down already, I'll buck'em rather than leave them there, but I'm struggling too much (and frankly, it's pissing me off somewhat) with the thought of being responsible for dropping majestic trees for no other reason than a few extra m2 of grazing land. Do I need the money? Hell yes. But I know I'd beat myself up too much for dropping them.
There's a few windblown and hung nasties there that I could deal to with a clear conscience, and a few on a boundary line that if blown over would wreck neighbouring property. But that's about it.

Now, I know of a farmer up North who has sprayed 'nuka a year or so back and it's dead standing. That's one of the highest value firewood timbers we've got and b/c it's dead, I wouldn't feel too bad about clearing those natives out.

These are just my personal thoughts, and I in no way project my rationale upon others or use it to judge others for their decisions.

Oh, and thanks to those who've repped me. I still haven't figured out what that's all about or what the reps do, but thanks anyway.

 

[Oldsawnut]

I am guilty of "sport falling" so there it is. I went out of my way, just to pitch an interesting tree down the hill.

Don't worry Randy they will just plant more... Trees are the Rabbits of the plant world... Errrr I take that back it would be scotch broom

 

[madhatte]

it would be scotch broom

Arrgh, the bane of my universe. Most of the prescribed burns I work on are largely efforts to keep the broom at bay. Cottonwoods are weeds? Try broom, if you haven't had the chance.

*shudder*

Also, this reminds me of a fun Plant Nerd story. A prof I had awhile ago told this one: somebody was speaking with PNW botanist Arthur Cronquist about invasives, and mentioned "Scotch Broom". Cronquist turns to him and says "It's 'Scot's', dammit. You DRINK Scotch!"

So, I always pronounce it as "Scot's Broom". I have far too much respect for a good Scotch to sully its name through my own sloppy language.

 

[tdi-rick]

Yep, have Broom here too :msp_sad: and it's called 'Scotch' too

Weeds Australia - Weed Identification - Broom (Scotch)

Barrington Tops, mentioned in that link are only an hour away from me.

Privet is probably the most invasive woody weed in this district ATM, it's a bloody shocker.

 

[MCW]

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.

That is an issue with our Eucalypts. They tend to come back well after the odd fire, even seriously hot bushfires which have the hottest temperatures out of any forest fires in the world.
The main issue we have is the greenies and government who won't allow controlled understory burning in the wetter months which gets rid of highly flammable ground trash. After a few years of this fuel building up it reaches a point where if it does go, we see bushfires of massive proportions that can't be controlled and can take lives. Quite often the temperatures in these types of extreme bushfires are enough to kill a fair proportion of these otherwise "fireproof" trees.

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.

Local rainfall isn't always relevant when it comes to tree numbers or size. Particularly if there is underground water tables and or nearby water sources such as rivers etc. For instance the area I live in has an average rainfall of about 10.5" however there is generally an abundance of large trees such as Redgums in many of the lower lying, untouched areas due to underground water availability. We also have heaps of wildlife here too as the species we have (kangaroos etc) have adapted to little or even basically no rainfall.
You are mostly correct however and I can certainly see your point.