1
   

Forest management

 
 
neil
 
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2003 09:46 pm
A lot of good points have been made about The USA
National Forests with serious exaggeration.
Long lived wood products are rare, so removing wood
from the forest before it decays is useless
unless you can some how insure long life most everything
especially wood products.
Obviously a clear cut forest removes no
carbon dioxide, and some critters do poorly if selective cutting
results in a city park with 10 or 20 medium size trees per acre.
How about a compromise? Clear cut must be rare and must be
replanted promptly with trees and/or shrubs that most
effectively reduce green house gases. Not pine trees which
emit green house gas and other pollutants.
The city park type forest will be on both sides of the access
roads, so citizens can enjoy our National Forests, getting
thicker gradually as you get farther from the access road (and
improved hiking trails)until it is no longer practical to harvest
any trees, except in emergencies such as the blight that recently
killed many trees creating a massive fire hazard. The wide
spaced tree like a park should also act as a buffer for
homes and businesses at the edge of the forest. The presence
of many hikers campers and hunters may discourage future
developers from locating at the edge of a forest. Please comment, refute or embellish. Neil
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,015 • Replies: 3
No top replies

 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2003 09:51 pm
Nope, need to replace cut trees with the natural trees in that specific ecology to sustain that ecology.

And having a road that goes through a habitat immediately threatens local wildlife. The hazards aren't just about being flattened, but also, those near-road bits of widespaced trees would be unsuitable for many wild critters due to noise and pollution.

By the way, who will be maintaining all these acres?
0 Replies
 
neil
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2003 10:41 pm
Hi littlik: I'm suggesting a compromise. The old forest would be far from the roads and trails. The park like forest is for humans and such critters as can adapt and to produce the lumber and forest products that humans need. Surely you don't think spotted owls are more important than humans. I see no problem where replanting is necessary, with planting local trees and shrubs if they are also useful to humans. The humans who frequent the park like areas will crush much of the natural regrowth that sprouts between the trees, so park maintanece will rarely be necessary. This brush is only a minor fire hazard as long as it is growing and healthy, and it will provide shelter for many species in the 2nd decade after the forest was thinned. Long ago, humans were permitted to build cooking fires and recreational fires from dead wood they found nearby when the fire hazard was low. Perhaps fire permits could be issued only to persons who could pass a test on camp fire safety.
I likely exaggerated the amount of thinning desirable. How about insisting the loggers pay a fine for each ten meter by ten meter square that does not have one or more heathy trees or large shrub the July following the thinning? Neil
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2003 07:44 am
A bit of a diversion but what you are describing is a 'Greenway" concept, which is getting popular among the developers whove been lectured alot by professional forest managers and national Parks foresters. (they, developers, are slowly getting it that "open SPace" does not mean a postage stamp lawn in the middle of an othewrwise ugly bunch of micky mansions)Many municipalities are reorganizing their comprehensive plans to recognize that any open area from one development be contiguous to the open area of another. The result is a large cooridor of natuarl climax vegetation forest and meadow that ultimately leads to a large regional forest. there are birds that only breed in deep forests and most of these are now verging on threatened. (orioles, tanagers,flickers etc). The groups that youd think would champion a holistic view of forest management, like tHE NATURE CONSERVANCY, are many times part of the problem. they only want to establish 'vista forests' out in the deep wilderness, thus causing more people to want to leave their own areas and travel to and overuse the sMOKIES, YOSEMITE, etc,9because there isnt a large enough greenbelt for a forest experience within 300 miles of home)

What we have here in Eastern Pa just shy of the forested Appalachians is large expanses of open farmland with edge forests. Most of these edge forests and small woodlots are actually a source of very high quality wood. and the deeper forests are selectively cut 9Im not sure where you got that statement that it wont work)
i have a 10 acre wood lot on my farm and a smaller 5 acre area which i let reforest to act as my own buffer from a small development . I log a small amount of wood every 10 years or so from my larger lot and this works just fine because I can manage to keep the tulip poplars and basswood out by cutting and allow for the larger maples, oaks, and ash to thrive. i have a forester come in and give me a harvest schedule because all my wood goes either for furniture grade lumber of veneer.
the state forests are managed in a similar fashion. They , unfortunately cannot just plant the trees reminiscent of a deepe forest at all places in the forest. They plant artificial "seres" with trees that can adapth to the areas nearer the terminus and there are plenty of seedlings of mature forest trees in the forest center, all that needs to be done is to carefully and cyclically log out the older trees so you dont step on the seedlings and younger trees while still providing a fire buffer. Here in the East we are blessed with temperate humid forests , trees grow like weeds and they fill in really nicely

Clear cutting is still done in Maine , but they only grow pines for pulp wood, and they replant in a gawdawful way of rows and columns. a half grown forest in N Maine looks like Arlington Cemetery. bUT, steep slopes account for about 305 of the forested area and they dont harvest that at all because of machinery problems. i know in Wisconsin the tribes use chinook choppers to selectively harvest b igger trees and keep from crapping up the surrounds.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Forest management
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/12/2024 at 01:05:01