A little info About Timbering

[dr_wu002]

I've liked this thread so far! It hasn't degenerated into flaming either and I've found the POVs interesting.

I feel like I have to learn more, first hand, about the various tenants of the logging industry myself. It's difficult in this case to form your own opinion based on, well, what could be construed as biased opinions from others. I'm certainly not accusing anyone here of being biased in a negative way but there are sides taken here.

More important for all of us than either condemning or praising the logging industry to examine our own day-to-day consumption of timber-related products. We'll never lose our reliance on timber (not soon anyway) and it is indeed a renewable resource. However, I don't think it's a renewable resource to be abused and we could all benefit from looking around and finding things that are unnecessary and that burden our fragile eco-system.

It's good to see though that this thread hasn't turned into a flame war.

-Dr. Wu

 

[Chip]

I have always found it interesting how these 'argument' threads progress. A lot of very valid points are raised. Yet the points are not addressed but are argued around. If this conversation happend over a beer and fire (with proper gratitude expressed to the woodsman) we ould fine that we are all pretty much in agreement on this issue. Some of our points may need to be modified a degree or two.

So when all is said and done I wish I had a BMW. I wish I knw some desperate housewives, I wish I had an old growth forest in my backyard.

I owe you a beer, then. Part of the problem is that when you go to look for unbiased info on the subject it's difficult to isolate because of all the competing interests involved. We have an odd situation in CT and much of the northeast because there have been several completely different phases of habitat here in the last 300 years. Old growth forests with some hunting, clear cut for farming with alot of hunting, abandoned farms regrowth and now a combination of mature woodlands, housing (grass, clover and gardens), protected open spaces, industrial areas, etc with little hunting.

The CT Audubon Society wanted to open some of their property here to archery deer hunting because the deer were destroying the nesting grounds for many of the protected birds, but PETA stepped in to prevent it. Ironic in my mind.

I've stated populations of deer, turkey, bear etc have increased due to improved habitat, which is a result of the expanse of nice bedroom communities in the northeast (grass, clover, garden, trees, open spaces, repeat.) The opposing view is that the animals were always there, basically a stagnant population, that we now observe because WE now live where they
always have. I'll add this that I clipped because it speaks directly to my point;

Wolf Restoration, Forest Biodiversity, and Management

High deer densities are an important positive factor in wolf recovery because prey density influences wolf population size, survival, and reproductive success. However, these high deer populations are an artifact of highly altered forest ecosystems that are undergoing extensive harvesting at frequent intervals and provide ideal deer forage and habitat. While wolves are often considered wilderness animals, we now know they are also adaptable to semiwild regions with adequate prey, if they are not killed by humans. Ironically, the high deer populations that assist wolf recovery occur in semideveloped, human-dominated landscapes where wolf mortality is high due to intentional and accidental killing of wolves....

....The Northeast has great potential for successful wolf restoration and, given experience elsewhere, wolf recovery may be inevitable whether or not they are actively introduced.

This is the article, if you're interested in Wolf Restoration in the Northeast.

 

[Puck]

Chip
Sure lets talk about CT. In 1800 only 10% of the state was forested. If there is old growth in the state it in the Northwest Corner by the AT. If my memory serves the old growth is actualy inMA. In the antebellem period this country was facing a fuel crisis because most of the wood lots were cleared. We were saved by the first oil well in PA thanks to two New Englanders Drake from Vermont and Silliman from CT.

You mentioned th eCT audubon. The have in thier posession some of the best climax forest around all decidious. I can't call it sterile, however, then again I am looking at the warblers in the canopy and the thrushes on the ground hiding under the kalmias.

As I have mentioned earlier the type of forestry that started this thread is a great tool for management. The biggest problem is the urban sprawl. They don't leave the area to regrow but plant lawns and parking lots. This has a huge impact.

Well we can go on and on and volley facts that we are all familiar with. It is just hard to argue when we agree.

 

[Backcountry Exp]

I've stated populations of deer, turkey, bear, etc., have increased due to improved habitat, which is a result of the expanse of nice bedroom communities in the Northeast (grass, clover, garden, trees, open spaces, repeat). The opposing view is that the animals were always there, basically a stagnant population, that we now observe because WE now live where they
always have.

It is a little bit of both ... In the Northeast, there certainly has been extensive habitat recovery in the past 100 or so years and the mix of landcovers have helped once decimated deer populations to rebound. But it is also true that "we" are moving farther and farther into territory that once provided refuge for a number of animal species, thus increasing the number of interaction with wildlife.

I can point to examples here in Southern California that illustrate the latter point. A year or so ago there were a couple of well documented mountain lion attacks in and around Orange County. Some people came to the snap conclusion that if there were more attacks then that meant that their must be more lions. Some even rallied a call for hunting the beasts

But the opposite was true. The attacks were not indicative of any boom in the lion population. Instead what they represented was the desperate state of the mountain lion population in Southern California. The lions have been pushed back by sprawl into the most marginal lands. Add an ever increasing population of recreationalists onto these ever shrinking pockets of habitat and you had a recipe for the attacks.

Obviously SOCAL and the WMNF are two different animals. But I think the pendulum has begun the swing back the other way in the Northeast as well. States like CT and MA reached thier maximum percentage of forested acreage back in the 70s, since then the number of forested acres in each state has begun a slow but steady decline. I am not sure about Northern New England, but I would guess that they also reached their maximum percentage forested around the same time and or will be experiencing decline as well.

And keep in mind too that the current overabundance of deer does not necessarily mean that the environment is a healthy or a stable one. Ditto that for increased bear sightings in the suburbs. The fact that bears or deer are becoming "suburban wildlife" does not speak well for the quality of the habitat. It may be cute and make the local news when a bear forages garbage in some bedroom community, but it is indicative of a habitat being stretched to the limit.

 

[Chip]

Puck, this is an article re. the NJ Audubon and habitat , I can't find the CT article, but the info was basically the same.

LOSS OF SPECIES

In the report, the Audubon Society underscores the voracious foraging habits of the white-tail. For decades, deer have munched away at New Jersey's plant life, leaving other creatures that depend upon it to disappear.
"We have lost 14 bird species alone," Stiles said.
One place that has been ravaged by deer is the Audubon's 3,000-acre Scherman-Hoffman Sanctuary in Somerset and Morris counties.
Rick Radis, an environmental consultant and naturalist, said he led botanical walks there for 30 years, and especially loved the early spring, when some 30 species of wildflowers and some 20 species of ferns bloomed in the forest. But he has stopped leading the walks.
"Over the years, it got harder and harder to find anything out there," said Radis, who lives in Rockaway. "The deer ate everything -- the wood anemone, the dwarf ginseng. The ground used to be carpeted with trout lilies and other flowers. They're just gone now. It's sad."

This is a good example, because the only factor that has changed here in the last 30 years is the deer population.

 

[Chip]

And keep in mind too that the current overabundance of deer does not necessarily mean that the environment is a healthy or a stable one. Ditto that for increased bear sightings in the suburbs. The fact that bears or deer are becoming "suburban wildlife" does not speak well for the quality of the habitat.

Actually, it can speak very well for the habitat, as deer and bear (unlike humans) can not continue to reproduce and grow their numbers in areas of poor habitat. Bear are a slightly different situation, they are territorial and have invaded urban areas and adapted because their population growth has pushed them out of "the woods".

Remember "habitat" does not refer to where "we" think these animals "should" be, it refers to areas where they can find food and cover and can reproduce.

I do agree with the mountain lion situation in CA. They have huge ranges.

 

[Backcountry Exp]

Actually, it can speak very well for the habitat, as deer and bear (unlike humans) can not continue to reproduce and grow their numbers in areas of poor habitat.

Actually, Africa and some Southern Asian countries have development indices that would indeed classify those areas as "poor habitat." Yet the human population is exploding there. If sheer numbers of animals, or people for that matter, are used as a measure of how healthy a habitat is, I suppose one could argue that Sub-Saharan Africa and Bangladesh are healthy environments.

Remember "habitat" does not refer to where "we" think these animals "should" be, it refers to areas where they can find food and cover and can reproduce.

Yet if the human-impacted habitat was as healthy as you alluded to in previous posts, then you picked a puzzling quote to illustrate that point ... am I missing something?

Rick Radis, an environmental consultant and naturalist, said he led botanical walks there for 30 years, and especially loved the early spring, when some 30 species of wildflowers and some 20 species of ferns bloomed in the forest. But he has stopped leading the walks.
"Over the years, it got harder and harder to find anything out there," said Radis, who lives in Rockaway. "The deer ate everything -- the wood anemone, the dwarf ginseng. The ground used to be carpeted with trout lilies and other flowers. They're just gone now. It's sad."

 

[Chip]

Yes, you missed several points.
- Humans can and do reproduce in poor habitat, animals don't. Remember I said (unlike humans) ?
- Animal populations ARE the guage of habitat. Rat habitat in NYC is FANTASTIC ! Deer, turkey, coyote and bear habitat in the Northeast is FANTASTIC !
- The Audubon article refers to deer population impact on bird habitat. There was no human impact in these protected lands, just deer.

 

[Backcountry Exp]

Yes, you missed several points.
- Humans can and do reproduce in poor habitat, animals don't. Remember I said (unlike humans) ?
- Animal populations ARE the gauge of habitat. Rat habitat in NYC is FANTASTIC ! Deer, turkey, coyote and bear habitat in the Northeast is FANTASTIC !
- The Audubon article refers to deer population impact on bird habitat. There was no human impact in these protected lands, just deer.

My point was that humans AND certain animals can over-reproduce even in poor habitats. I could have done a better job clarifying it. Nonetheless, the fact remains that sheer numbers alone are not a good gauge of the carrying capacity of the environment. Look again at the Audobon article and you will see that the explosion of the deer population is coming at the expense of a host of birds and plants that are suffering. That is not good for the birds or the deer. And it should be noted that f there wasn't a substantial hunting culture in the northeast, thousands of deer would starve each year. This is not a system in balance. It is a system in flux ... the outcome of which is still being determined.

You say too there is "no human impact" in these protected lands but that is just not true. The human footprint on the land is large and growing all the time. Just fencing off a parcel of land and labeling it "protected" does not automatically negate the impact of past and present human activity. Environments are complex systems with many variables and attributes. You just can't pick out a couple of animals that are happening to do well in the current scenario and label the entire environment as "healthy."

 

[Chip]

So I guess you'd be opposed to clear-cutting the WMNF ?
Just kidding.
I don't know of any animal, other than us, that can over-reproduce in areas of poor habitat. Carrying capacity is something different. A population can exceed its habitat's carrying capacity and starve or move on. But it had to begin as good habitat to allow for the over-reproduction. Also, great habitat for one species might be poor habitat for another, like deer and ground nesting birds.
So let's see if we can agree on a couple things so that I can eat lunch.

- When discussing habitat, we must first ask "Whose habitat ?"
- Some species have been encroached upon, others have seen their populations grow.
- Diversity is the key to biological success. If a management program prefers a particular species, it may be to the detriment of others.

How's that ?

 

[DougPaul]

There is a saying in the ecological game: "Everything is connected to everything". One gets a very poor picture of the state of an ecosystem by focusing on only a few species.

And yes, humans are part of the ecosystem and we too are governed by it--for instance, there have been a number of local human population collapses after we degraded and/or outstripped the local ecosystem's ability to support us.

Doug

 

[Neil]

Why did some of you keep thinking this thread would get deleted? Other than it not being directly related to hiking I couldn't see anything about it that would bring on the axe (sorry!). A perfectly good thread! I've read pretty well all of it.

- Diversity is the key to biological success. If a management program prefers a particular species, it may be to the detriment of others.

How's that ?

I wondered if you would get around to biodiversity. Other than bears and deer and large mammals unfortuneatly most lay people don't care about toads, frogs and creepy crawlies.

On that other point about humans reproducing in poor habitat. No problems for the Canadian Arctic. Planes fly food and heating fuel up there non-stop.

Back to forresting...
My buddy and I use a remote cabin (you have to snowshoe across 3 lakes to get there) in Quebec. 5 or 6 years ago we went up for the day to check on it just before a 5 day stint. To our horror, the area was being logged and in Quebec that aint good news (ie. clearcutting). We debated for a while whether we should forget about the area and go somewhere else.

Back home, I got on the phone and learned that there was a 5 year plan to selectively log all through our snowshoe territory. Well, we ended up staying there and returning every year. The loggers are gone now and I'm pleased to report that our bushwhacking activities are 100% as pleasant as before. The hand of man is in evidence of course (flagging, paint on trees, roads that are growing in) but the forest dosn't look all that different. More open but basically the same, at least in winter time.
Here's a bunch of pictures from out last trip:
http://www.neil.webcentre.ca/outdoor pursuits/cabin2005/index.html

 

[kalless]

Just a point of clarification...

Backcountry exp said
"Untouched old growth forests have a biological complexity that can't conceivably be approached by human efforts to replant and rejuvenate cleared stands. The forests that recolonized New England after agriculture waned in importance were far more ecologically rich than the monoculture forests of commercial timber that presently get planted after a stand is harvested."

I really think that this is a broad generalization. If the forester or landowner plants a large monoculture after site preparation designed to eliminate natural regeneration, this is probably true. However, more care is being taken on some private lands to promote biodiversity. I know firsthand of hundreds and hundreds of acres in southern NJ replanted in pine where an incredible amount of natural regeneration was allowed to continue growing. If those areas of plantation are thinned properly, light will get to the non-planted species, and a normal structured forest will develop.

The key is thinning. I think we in NJ and NY are pretty familiar with CCC-era red pine plantations that were never thinned, have little understory and are in critically poor health. They were planted with the pest of intentions 70 years ago, but science has moved so much further.

Science has moved much, much further regarding how to develop a mature forest into one with traditional old-growth forest characteristics. Several articles in the Journal of Forestry about a year or two back were devoted to developing old-growth characteristics in second-growth forests for Northern spotted owls. That's what habitat is right? Characteristics within the living and non-living surroundings. Coincidentally, my old forestry professor observed nesting of Northern spotted owls in second-growth forests in northern California almost ten years ago.

It was also interesting to hear someone from PA Nature Conservancy speak this winter regarding the need for the PA Div. of Natural Resources to practice certain types of silviculture in areas designated to be allowed to mature to old-growth forest within the State Forests.

-kalless

 

[Chip]

I think I'd prefer regulated cutting to burning, but whatever works;

Controlled Burns Aid New England Forests

John Roach
for National Geographic News
January 27, 2005
For at least 5,000 years before Europeans arrived in North America, Native Americans periodically set vast swaths of New England on fire. Settlers brought the practice to a halt by the mid-18th century. But today conservationists are again burning the forest to restore the ecosystem and dampen the fire risk to some towns.
Tim Simmons is a restoration ecologist with the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program in Westborough. Speaking of the early Native Americans, Simmons said fire "was sort of a Leatherman [or multi-tool] of their time. They used it for everything."
Burning thinned forests, enabling Native Americans to see game, to grow blueberries, and to have elbow room when setting up camps. Fires also served to spur new plant growth and to control insect pests, Simmons said.
Since the landscape burned with such periodic frequency, many of the plants and animals became fire-adapted, according to Simmons, who noted that such species now depend on periodic fires for their survival.
After more than two centuries of fire suppression, some species are headed towards extinction.
To save the plants and animals, Simmons and his colleagues are engaged in a long-term program of prescribed burns, each year intentionally setting about 1,000 acres (400 hectares) on fire.

 

[Puck]

I wondered if you would get around to biodiversity. Other than bears and deer and large mammals unfortuneatly most lay people don't care about toads, frogs and creepy crawlies.
[/url]

Unless of course the toads are exploding and grabbing headlines in Europe.

You forgot to mention the birds. They are very sensitive indicators of the health of ecosystems. Birding has become a fast growing past time.

I thought that such a thrread may turn from ecology to policy and to the slippery slope of politics.

 

[RGF1]

It is a little bit of both ... In the Northeast, there certainly has been extensive habitat recovery in the past 100 or so years and the mix of landcovers have helped once decimated deer populations to rebound. But it is also true that "we" are moving farther and farther into territory that once provided refuge for a number of animal species, thus increasing the number of interaction with wildlife.

I can point to examples here in Southern California that illustrate the latter point. A year or so ago there were a couple of well documented mountain lion attacks in and around Orange County. Some people came to the snap conclusion that if there were more attacks then that meant that their must be more lions. Some even rallied a call for hunting the beasts

But the opposite was true. The attacks were not indicative of any boom in the lion population. Instead what they represented was the desperate state of the mountain lion population in Southern California. The lions have been pushed back by sprawl into the most marginal lands. Add an ever increasing population of recreationalists onto these ever shrinking pockets of habitat and you had a recipe for the attacks.

Obviously SOCAL and the WMNF are two different animals. But I think the pendulum has begun the swing back the other way in the Northeast as well. States like CT and MA reached thier maximum percentage of forested acreage back in the 70s, since then the number of forested acres in each state has begun a slow but steady decline. I am not sure about Northern New England, but I would guess that they also reached their maximum percentage forested around the same time and or will be experiencing decline as well.

And keep in mind too that the current overabundance of deer does not necessarily mean that the environment is a healthy or a stable one. Ditto that for increased bear sightings in the suburbs. The fact that bears or deer are becoming "suburban wildlife" does not speak well for the quality of the habitat. It may be cute and make the local news when a bear forages garbage in some bedroom community, but it is indicative of a habitat being stretched to the limit.

What BCE, is talking about Urban Sprawl , has little to od with what I opr almost any timber operator I know of does. The people who buy, then literally strip the land of every thing are called land liquidators. who usually builds housing developments. Commercial sites like your local shopping center. Etc. They sell off every thing they can and trash the rest. Ask a logger or forester what they think of liqudators and you will usually get a string of profanities. . The loss of forestland is due to a high demand for housing a very profitable market to get into if you have the requisite wealth. Not loggers working a active forest. They have good reason for it it stay a working active forest it is how we make a living. I do not want ot see land razed, and a new development go up . Hunters do not and our fellow hikers also should not want this. .

These guys affect all of who enjoy the out doors, often what could have been a conservation easement is now off limits and trailhead, lake and river access is closed off . There is no longer a forest there. It is gone possibly forever. Some animals have adapted to a setting such as this because some minor replanting takes place and sometimes a few small patches of wetland are left alone the coyote and raccoon are probably the most well known for this then deer and bear, But many other species are pushed out. In the West, Elk do not adapt well to development, as most of the land that is developable is prime breeding and calving ground for Elk.
Driving back from a few deliveries I saw what is a good way to explain what goes on when a forest is cut o, avalanched, blown down in a storm or brunt.
There is this place I go buy a lot the owner has probably not mowed his lawn in a few years there are small trees such as birch maple and poplar growing along with raspberry bushes and all sorts of plants . . Now eventual a the trees are going ot get much taller and some white pine, hemlocks and oak will start to set in. Now if we were to walk in that thicket we would find bird nests small rodents holes and homes and on the forest bordering it owls in a dead tree, bats in another. And maybe a coyote den nearby. Insects are all over the place along with insects. Under the duff, (stuff that makes up the dirt on the forest floor ) you will find centipedes millipedes beetles and worms . Food for the birds and rodents that in turn are food for the owl and coyote. Eventually after say 50 years the white pine hemlock and slowly the oak with start to get taller and shade out the other trees and undergrowth. In this time lots more wild life will have moved in maybe a bear, some hawks, more fish in the nearby lake and steam. . As second growth gets taller and taller it shades out more and more. Soon t the smaller trees die fall down making a place for mere animals to live and rot away to provide nutrients for the newly growing forest. As will the ongoing life and death cycle of the other plant fish in the nearby lake and steam. . As second growth gets taller and taller it shades out more and more. Soon t the smaller trees die fall down making a place for mere animals to live and rot away to provide nutrients for the newly growing forest. As will the ongoing life and death cycle of the other plants and animals. Eventually after over 150 years much of the first growth that came in will be gone and the understory of the forest will be much thinner and there will be less wildlife as it has moved on to a area that has more food. . The Oak, White pine and hemlock will grow to be very large some nearing 200 ft and well over 6 or 7 ft in diameter. They will put out a lot of cones and nuts as they get older. This slowly brings a few animals back. Then in 200 - 300 years they will start dying some of course will have fallen over in a storm creating a small haven for a few animals, also allowing fast growing trees and plants to gain a foot hold in the climax forest. As the trees die and fall the become homes to the owl next time you see a Nalgene sized hole in a dying tree it might be home to a owl or bats which love to eat the insects we hate. .
Eventually most of the entire huge tree will have died off and the smaller fast growing sun lovers will sprout up again starting the cycle over again. Although simplified greatly this is called succession.
Sometime take a walk through a larger growth of White pine and hemlock and oak over 100ft tall and notice that the forest floor has very little growth on it and it is easy to walk between trees unlike the spruce you see above 3,000 ft in the NE.
Maybe some of you do not know this but not to long ao there were not many moos or bear in the WMNF I recall in my youth it was a big deal to see as moose or bear. Now they are fairly common to see to the point of where there is now a hunting season for both I think about 20 – 30 years ago there was not . If you take a ride up Success Pond road you will see lots of wildlife. in the early AM or evening . This is a direct result of selective timbering. .
If you want to see a area that is actively timbered and many of you have just drive up Jefferson notch road or Mt Clinton road. That is what it looks like. Not the devastating clear cuts you see in photos used by anti timbering organizations.
Would you rather a delopemnet go in along success pond road? It could have happened. Would you want acess to the Mahuossacsa(SP) closed off because of a high end second home developments or elsewhere in the WMNF? Or would you prefer the private and public land managed and timbers soundly?
Also I sell cordwood. Due to both supply and demand and rising fuel costs I have to raise my prices in order to keep up and make a living. Sadly my supply has gone down due to land liqudators and over zealous organizations that think all timbering is bad. I have less places to timber. The irony is that this affect those who can least afford it the most as many of them burn cord wood. . I have even donated a few cord to a very poor family last year after the father lost his job after returning from Iraq I would invite any one who thinks what I do is easy or destructive to spend a day with me. Then tell me what you think. Or If I do hike with you maybe you could ask what goes on and I can identify.. trees. Plants, and show you where wildlife might be and tell and give you a real idea of just what I really do.

 

[RGF1]

Unless of course the toads are exploding and grabbing headlines in Europe.

You forgot to mention the birds. They are very sensitive indicators of the health of ecosystems. Birding has become a fast growing past time.

I thought that such a thrread may turn from ecology to policy and to the slippery slope of politics.

Puck Yes Birds are a important part of our Ecosystem I enjoy watching them it is very relaxing now if i can only get them to come clse enough so I can get a good photo witha 70 - 300 zoom.
I am glad that this thread has not gone down that ugly road.
I do hope ople learn something I have learned a little of why people seem to dread and fear my proffesion and that ther is alot of diferent information some deliberatly misleading . some not os . some good some bad. some just ok.

 

[Backcountry Exp]

- When discussing habitat, we must first ask "Whose habitat ?"
- Some species have been encroached upon, others have seen their populations grow.
- Diversity is the key to biological success. If a management program prefers a particular species, it may be to the detriment of others.

How's that ?

I agree ...

 

[RGF1]

Just a point of clarification...

Backcountry exp said
"Untouched old growth forests have a biological complexity that can't conceivably be approached by human efforts to replant and rejuvenate cleared stands. The forests that recolonized New England after agriculture waned in importance were far more ecologically rich than the monoculture forests of commercial timber that presently get planted after a stand is harvested."

I really think that this is a broad generalization. If the forester or landowner plants a large monoculture after site preparation designed to eliminate natural regeneration, this is probably true. However, more care is being taken on some private lands to promote biodiversity. I know firsthand of hundreds and hundreds of acres in southern NJ replanted in pine where an incredible amount of natural regeneration was allowed to continue growing. If those areas of plantation are thinned properly, light will get to the non-planted species, and a normal structured forest will develop.

The key is thinning. I think we in NJ and NY are pretty familiar with CCC-era red pine plantations that were never thinned, have little understory and are in critically poor health. They were planted with the pest of intentions 70 years ago, but science has moved so much further.

Science has moved much, much further regarding how to develop a mature forest into one with traditional old-growth forest characteristics. Several articles in the Journal of Forestry about a year or two back were devoted to developing old-growth characteristics in second-growth forests for Northern spotted owls. That's what habitat is right? Characteristics within the living and non-living surroundings. Coincidentally, my old forestry professor observed nesting of Northern spotted owls in second-growth forests in northern California almost ten years ago.

It was also interesting to hear someone from PA Nature Conservancy speak this winter regarding the need for the PA Div. of Natural Resources to practice certain types of silviculture in areas designated to be allowed to mature to old-growth forest within the State Forests.

-kalless

Kalless intersting you bring up mono specis plantaions. It is still done in parts of the south where I bleive pitch pine , a close relative of the White pine in the ne are still grown in plantaions because the mature rapidly and are then harvsete and replanted. I saw timber plantaions a few years ago when I made a stop over on a flight from Denver in Houston TX On the way down to the airport at about 100, ft yopu could see them . It looks sort of like a large carrot garden all the trees are in neat rows and nothing grows in between Yes very stereile and not good for the ecosystem but great for profits and mass lumber production.

 

[Mike P.]

Technically though I don't agree when they build McMansions at the end of a Cul-de-sac & you can's see the house beacuse of an acre or two of woods, he lives in a forest but a sub-division. (Now I'm not saying they changed the way where measure forest ala GNP & GDP but it may have happened)

I'd be tempted to say they built the subdivision I'm in by cutting a lot of woods & also a little bit of farmland (ironically BCE probably has a better idea of what my CT neighborhood looked like 15 -20 years ago than I do )

Last year we saw a bunch of snapping turtle babies crossing the new road, apparently the mother who lived across the street in a lot too wet to build on, cross the street beacuse the large hill of mulch the new homeowner used made an ideal nest for egg laying.

Deer, fox, turkeys, muskrats, beaver all seen in the last year in townmost in the neighborhood/subdivision

As a member of Red Sox Nation for many years I've been too desperate until the last 8 games of last year to watch a bunch of good looking rich actresses pretend they are desperate or housewives. I could watch people pretend to be stranded on an island where are basically involved in office politics without the office but why do that.

In order to pay a logger a liveable wage & provide them with benefits to serve me a burger at Burger World, that burger would cost how much? I can't afford that so please keep logging. my butt needs two ply, I grew up on 1