A little info About Timbering

[NewHampshire]

Excellent thread!

Here is a quick number check fro another forum I visit:
BY THE NUMBERS:
The Good OL' Days?

Whitetail deer population in 1900: 500,000
Current whitetail deer population: up to 25 million
Wild turkey population in 1930: 30,000
Current wild turkey population: 5.6 million
Pronghorn population in 1950: 12,000
Current pronghorn population: 1 million
Elk population in 1900: 100,000
Current elk population: 1 million
Number of hunters in the U.S. in 1988: 16.5 million
Number of hunters in the U.S. now: 13.5 million


Selective foresting is truely a good thing IMHO. Now, I am of course biased being an avid outdoorsman, but from someone who has a keene interest in history. Now we cant give blanket credit to managed looging as the reason for increases in game population, but the habitat does play an important part. A big part in why animals are doing so well is because of the establishment of Fish and Game Departments, set hunting seasons, abolition of market hunting (of which our beloved John Weeks played a part in,) and the creation of dedicated groups of people set on game conservation (i.e. Trout Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Federation, Duckd Unlimited, etc.) But again, without good habitat it means nothing. But someone mentioned controlled burns. Controlled burns are actually NEEDED in the evergreen and conifer(sp?) forests. The intense heat is needed for the cones to open and new growth to take place. Plus it eliminates old, dead or useless scrub which doesnt benifit animals that much. But looking to hardwood harvesting, the role limbering plays is one to eliminate some old growth to make room for new. Plus, game animals will feed on the buds and leaves of fallen timber that, until then could not be eaten due to the height. New growth offers increases in in nut bearing trees ( like beech, and oak) which is a staple for deer, bear, moose, small game and so on. Regulating heavily is a good idea. No one expects the days of old to happen (meaning the blatant clearcutting of huge swaths), but with the unfortunate past it seems necessary. Thankfully people realize now (including the loogers themselves) what selective harvesting can mean and provide. Besides, Ive got a freind who absolutely loves driving logging roads. He says its the greatest place to be when you want a day on the road away from civilization!
But, through good and bad, highs and lows, the logging history of New Hampshire is a deep and integral part of what we are today. Let us learn, but never forget.
Brian

 

[arghman]

good thread, hope it stays open.

(disclaimer: I am not an ecology expert) Different management goals require different management techniques. Timbering increases more open habitat, which is an important component for some plants/animals. I've heard that depending on how/when you do it, different trees predominate (some species (pine? i forget) need scarring of soil to thrive, some need fire, some need the soil to be left alone, I think birch/cherry is in the latter category).

Some species are picky specialists that may do better only if the land is left alone for decades. There's an interesting essay by John McPhee, I think it was in "Irons in the Fire", talks about Hutcheson Memorial Forest which is owned by Rutgers (http://nynjctbotany.org/njnbtofc/hutchesn.html) and includes a 65-acre forest that was never logged to anyone's knowledge, lots of people are studying it to compare the ecology of that forest and other forests which have seen timbering in recent history.

rgf1: I wouldn't worry too much about anger from this crowd against local foresters/loggers that do selective cutting -- you bring up lots of good points, I think people here are smart enough to catch on that there's many ways to cut down trees (including not cut them at all).... however it would be impossible to agree on any "right" way of doing forest management without first agreeing on the goals you're trying to meet. (other than that unsustainable forestry probably isn't the right way in any case) I don't envy the WMNF in having to deal with all sorts of conflicting opinions.
This is a conversation I'd really like to continue (but preferably offline), I'd be interested in hearing your take on a few topics (including what's going on in the Mahoosucs now, that's my hot button at the moment...).

 

[DougPaul]

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

Fire is part of nature, regulated cutting is not. Plants have adapted to it.

Some plants require fire and will go extinct without fires. For instance some pines hold their seeds in the cone until after a fire. Sequoias require fire to clear out the competition so their seedlings can get a jump on the competition. Some grasses require fire to clear out the woody plants which would otherwise outcompete them.

Fire also releases nutrients from the ash. The soil is not necessarily damaged.

Doug

 

[Chip]

Excellent thread!

Here is a quick number check fro another forum I visit:
BY THE NUMBERS:
The Good OL' Days?

Whitetail deer population in 1900: 500,000
Current whitetail deer population: up to 25 million
Wild turkey population in 1930: 30,000
Current wild turkey population: 5.6 million
Pronghorn population in 1950: 12,000
Current pronghorn population: 1 million
Elk population in 1900: 100,000
Current elk population: 1 million
Number of hunters in the U.S. in 1988: 16.5 million
Number of hunters in the U.S. now: 13.5 million

thanks Brian, I could not lay my hands on the numbers, though I knew they were dramatic. "Extirpated" is the word often used to decribe turkey, bear and moose populations from 150 - 200 years ago.

 

[Pete_Hickey]

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.

Or Blackflies?

 

[RGF1]

good thread, hope it stays open.

(disclaimer: I am not an ecology expert) Different management goals require different management techniques. Timbering increases more open habitat, which is an important component for some plants/animals. I've heard that depending on how/when you do it, different trees predominate (some species (pine? i forget) need scarring of soil to thrive, some need fire, some need the soil to be left alone, I think birch/cherry is in the latter category).

Some species are picky specialists that may do better only if the land is left alone for decades. There's an interesting essay by John McPhee, I think it was in "Irons in the Fire", talks about Hutcheson Memorial Forest which is owned by Rutgers (http://nynjctbotany.org/njnbtofc/hutchesn.html) and includes a 65-acre forest that was never logged to anyone's knowledge, lots of people are studying it to compare the ecology of that forest and other forests which have seen timbering in recent history.

rgf1: I wouldn't worry too much about anger from this crowd against local foresters/loggers that do selective cutting -- you bring up lots of good points, I think people here are smart enough to catch on that there's many ways to cut down trees (including not cut them at all).... however it would be impossible to agree on any "right" way of doing forest management without first agreeing on the goals you're trying to meet. (other than that unsustainable forestry probably isn't the right way in any case) I don't envy the WMNF in having to deal with all sorts of conflicting opinions.
This is a conversation I'd really like to continue (but preferably offline), I'd be interested in hearing your take on a few topics (including what's going on in the Mahoosucs now, that's my hot button at the moment...).

Arghman I am not 100% sure of every thing going on in the Mahooosacs, or exactly what you are refereing to . I do know that land has changed hands a lot and that the state of ME added some land to Grafton Notch State park a while ago .. Also a particualar person from ME has bought a large tract of land and wants to liqudate it all and possibly develope it with strangley little oposition except from locals . Hmm it. Hopefully it will not happen this is due to the stricter ME laws on what you can do on your land and timbering in particular. In ME or VT for that matter you cannot clear cut more than 5 acres and sell it off in one year . In NH you can pretty much cut and do do what ever you want. untill some brings you to court for harming them or thier propety . A example is building housing lots and drilling wells leaving those down hill from you dry so they can legaly force you to pay for a new well big time bucks in the 10 k range at that point as they usualy have to drill 1,000 ft . But if you do want ot send me a PM with your email addy and what you are refering to I will happily talk about it .
I am finding out most are not opposed to local guys cutting and droping trees. Hell I might be the guy to you call to drop that 100+ ft tree some day Please do ! Discount rates for VVFT posters . There are a few hard core types who oppose any logging but where do they think thier TP for thier "uh Bunghole as Beavis would say " comes from though I do not cut pulp wood. or for that matter where do they think I cut the cord wood Mars ?

 

[Stan]

Something I like about small clearcuts are the views that are opened up. This thread resembles a small clearcut for the views that are opened up. Thanks for keeping it civil and informative.

 

[VFTTop'r]

Hey RGF excellent post! Keep up the good work at managing and harvesting the BIG forest garden! It really is no different than a garden which needs to be thinned out every so often so the other plants can grow bigger. Many trees if left to grow too big end up rotting from center and become waste. Use 'em up.

Cut Away!

 

[Umsaskis]

I think VERY few people understand what poor habitat mature forests are.

Generally, I agree with sustainable logging; land ownership by private timber companies is one thing that has kept development at bay in the northern parts of our northern tier states for many years. Sustainable logging should take into account the need for a mosaic of all different forest types and age classes across the landscape, including regeneration as well as old growth. I quote the sentence above because there is a solid connection between old growth forests and many species of invertebrates (leaf litter beetles, etc.) and many rare plants. The hummock/hollow topography of old growth forests caused by ancient rotting logs, which allows water to pool and creates different moisture/temperature microclimates, supports these species. So, while a regenerating forest is a great place for high forest bird diversity and moose browse, old growth is necessary for beetles and many herbaceous plants. We need it all; I wouldn't advocate covering the landscape with just one or the other.

 

[RGF1]

Selective Timbering takes in to account the need for deadfall and dying trees . I do leave dead or dying trees . I also drop some and leave some so that they can rot and provide a place for small rodents and things like beetles .Please read some of my posts . I wish Greenies would not believe every thing a few orgnazitions tell them and look at more moderate or highly educated views . Not trying to flame but trying to educate. Looks like lots of mis informatiion and propaganda out there. It really is hard to compete with the images of a NW clearcut on a steep mountain slope. It is not what goes on here. It makes for big donations but puts lots of Joe six packs out of work for no real reason other than a elite agenda and some self serving alleged non profits form making money off thier "hotels in the sky " and pay thier upper manegment over 200 k a year. think about that .Before you donate or pay to "volunteer" at that "nonprofit " . That 200K would fix alot off muddy trails . Like I say you want to pay the logger his previos wage and befits for your burger and gas ? While you drive your BMW or Lexus SUV to the mouintains and stay at the High Priced Complex ? I think not .
If you really care about ecology learn about it for real sources not a high priced hotel chain .

 

[Chip]

Generally, I agree with sustainable logging; land ownership by private timber companies is one thing that has kept development at bay in the northern parts of our northern tier states for many years. Sustainable logging should take into account the need for a mosaic of all different forest types and age classes across the landscape, including regeneration as well as old growth. I quote the sentence above because there is a solid connection between old growth forests and many species of invertebrates (leaf litter beetles, etc.) and many rare plants. The hummock/hollow topography of old growth forests caused by ancient rotting logs, which allows water to pool and creates different moisture/temperature microclimates, supports these species. So, while a regenerating forest is a great place for high forest bird diversity and moose browse, old growth is necessary for beetles and many herbaceous plants. We need it all; I wouldn't advocate covering the landscape with just one or the other.

Yes. We've discussed poor habitat for many may be great habitat for a few.
The natives understood "Patchwork" forests . Biological diversity is key. Diversity is achieved by
allowing some to stand, others to be cut, and some to burn. Aesthetics (ie:"I don't like the way THAT looks")
have no place in proper forest management. Sadly "Aesthetics" sometimes win.

 

[RGF1]

Chip you are more right than you know. sure a cut looks ugly right afer it is cut. But give it a few months and new plants will be growing and in a year or two it will be to thinck ot wlak in. Wlid life loves them also. lots of easy food. .
Ironically the Greenies did not seem ot up set when Yellowstone had fires that would burn the WMNF over a few times in size. Some pople did want the NPS to " Do Something ot fix the damage " now the areas that werer burnt have more wildflowers than before the fire and visitors see more wild life espcially the Elk a magestic animal. and the Famous Grizzley Bear. Always a Awe inspireing sight.
Sadly the Greenies use images of the devastaing masssive clearcuts of the Pacific North west. Not at all what goes on here as far as timbering goes. .
One thing that is not often disscused in know i might have breifly mentioned it. is that most wood land and open space is lost ot development many that border our national forests here and in the west are huge 4- 6,000 sq ft vacation homes. Onece the land is developed it is not usable and often leads to trail closure and denail of access to lakes, ponds steams and rivers that we also enjoy in many ways.
This is not logging at all.

 

[VFTTop'r]

Hey RGF1 and Chip, great comments and data keep it coming.
Thanks for the info.

Are there any "old growth" areas in NE? I notice many trees in NE get so big and rot in the center then die. I don't see the sense of letting them get to that point. It seems to me that the trees are beyond their maturity at that point and will be wasted if not used up. From the data we have available is the decay and die scenario something new or has it pretty much always been that way?

Timber what a gift and an awesome re-newable resource.

 

[arghman]

Are there any "old growth" areas in NE? I notice many trees in NE get so big and rot in the center then die. I don't see the sense of letting them get to that point.

there are some virgin forests in new england, most are small patches of areas deemed not worth logging (steep hillsides or wetlands), I haven't seen any myself but Audubon/SPNHF/Nature Conservancy have protected a number of them & report their existence in vague terms due to the sensitivity of information. NH's oldest trees are black gum trees in the 500-600 year old range.

re: the point of old growth -- If the goal is specifically timber yield, there is no point. If the goal is specifically biodiversity, it provides a unique habitat, see Umsaskis's post.

 

[RGF1]

Hey RGF1 and Chip, great comments and data keep it coming.
Thanks for the info.

Are there any "old growth" areas in NE? I notice many trees in NE get so big and rot in the center then die. I don't see the sense of letting them get to that point. It seems to me that the trees are beyond their maturity at that point and will be wasted if not used up. From the data we have available is the decay and die scenario something new or has it pretty much always been that way?

Timber what a gift and an awesome re-newable resource.

yes eventually thgey do start rotting but that takes a very long time depending on the species of tree. What happens is when the tree goes into decline it drops branches and usually puts out alot of what ever type of seed or "pod " that caries the seeds. it uses to reproduce. If you do have a rotting tree near your home have it taken down bya experineced aroborist. They earn every penny you pay them.
The od rooting tree becomes a home to many things from insects to owls. Wood peckers love them as most of ypou can see.
Iti s fine ot leave some i do not cut them down usually un less they are either a danger to my self in the area i am working as the are prone ot falliong in wind. or the land owner wants a few on the ground ot provide homes for more wild life.
But to leave every single tree standing would waste as we do use forest products in some form everyday. I do know where some of the virgin forest is The Black gums are not in Notheren Nh but some are in NH.
The Forest In Castle Ravine once you get past aproxamaitly the link is virgin forest as is the forest around Nancy ponds.
There isa also a differnce between virgin forest and climax or old growth forest a virgin forest simply means it has not been logged.
it is entierly possible for a climax or old growth forest to have at one time been logged.as the forest regrows and might not have been touched sionce the last time it was logged. remember man has been cutting down trees for a very long time.
Agrman you mention some great conservation organzations that really do a great job and work with loggers instead of trying to turn them into burger flippers . That is what the greenies mean when they say ther will be a new type of economy.

 

[Chip]

I don't subscribe to The Journal of Biogeography (it's $400 per year), but if anyone can get ahold of the Oct 2002 issue, it is about all this.

Journal of Biogeography
Volume 29 Issue 10-11 Page 1337 - October 2002
doi:10.1046/j.1365-2699.2002.00759.x

Wildlife dynamics in the changing New England landscape
David R. Foster1,*, Glenn Motzkin1, Debra Bernardos2 and James Cardoza31Harvard Forest, Harvard University, Petersham, MA, USA, 2Missouri Department of Conservation, Kansas City, MO, USA and 3Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, MA,USA
Aim: Over the past four centuries the eastern US has undergone remarkable landscape and land-use transformations involving deforestation, intensive agriculture, farm abandonment, reforestation and human population increase that have induced sweeping changes in wildlife assemblages, abundances, and distributions. This study compiles data on major wildlife species and seeks to identify broad population trends and to address both fundamental and applied questions regarding these long-term patterns.

Location: The study encompasses the state of Massachusetts, which is broadly representative of the habitat conditions and landscape and cultural history of other New England states.

Methods: A wide range of historical sources of data were used including town histories, newspaper and other popular accounts, scientific studies, museum collections, compiled trapping, bounty and harvest records, explorer accounts, and agency records. Statewide distribution maps and generalized population trends were assembled for individual species where practical, and major trends in species trajectories were identified. Emphasis was placed on mammals and birds for which data are readily available.

Results: Although species exhibited highly individualistic long-term dynamics in response to habitat change and human pressure, six major trajectories of species changes are identified: (1) large mammals and birds that declined historically and increased recently, (2) open-land species that went from low to high abundance with the creation of open habitat but are in rapid decline today in the heavily wooded landscape, (3) species regionally extirpated or globally extinct, (4) species expanding their range from the west, north and south, (5) non-native, introduced species, and (6) persistent species not exhibiting major long-term trends. Currently, wildlife populations are changing at a remarkable rate leading to significant ecological impacts on the landscape and many other species, creating major conservation and management challenges, and generating novel and oftentimes significant conflicts with human values.

Conclusions: The rate of historical and current changes in wildlife assemblages pose many scientific and conservation challenges, especially in this heavily forested but highly populated landscape. Historical data are fragmentary and oftentimes uncertain, modern information on wildlife populations is similarly incomplete, and small populations of species that are immigrating, expanding or declining from previously high levels pose major sampling problems; development of conservation and management plans for rapidly expanding populations of large woodland mammals (e.g. moose, coyote, deer, bears, beaver) and for declining populations of cherished species that are dependent on cultural landscapes generates conflicting directives; and educating, and modifying the behaviour of a human population that is living in but separated from nature is a difficult enterprise. The future is guaranteed to bring major dynamics in these historically novel species assemblages.