Champion Trees

[RegC]

No Idea what your stance is mate. But we may differ in our opinion of what makes a weirdo, thats all

 

[stig]

I doubt it.
My post was in reference to a really old one of Burnham's about tree sitters and protesters.
Tounge in cheek, which was of course lost, if you haven't followed the original discussion.

My point was that you come in after I have made a number of posts putting me on the side of the protesters, then apparently without having bothered to read any of those, focus on one single sentence and decide that I'm against the " Weirdos".

Read back a couple of pages before you put your opar in, please.

Bedtime, here.

Good night.

That time difference sure knows how to kill a good discussion.

 

[rico]

I hope Im not stepping over a line here, but you seem a little more grumpy than usual stig. Perhaps your drinking too much coffee, or suffering from DSB syndrome (deadly sperm buildup)? Lucky for you both are easily remedied!

 

[RegC]

I doubt it.
My post was in reference to a really old one of Burnham's about tree sitters and protesters.
Tounge in cheek, which was of course lost, if you haven't followed the original discussion.

My point was that you come in after I have made a number of posts putting me on the side of the protesters, then apparently without having bothered to read any of those, focus on one single sentence and decide that I'm against the " Weirdos".

Read back a couple of pages before you put your opar in, please.

Bedtime, here.

Good night.

That time difference sure knows how to kill a good discussion.

Chill out Stig. I didnt attack you or anything

I did read your previous posts, as well as factoring in you being a f_____g rec climber. With that said I still would rather avoid categorizing you or anyone else as being definitively on one side or another, like black or white, because more often than not it causes division and so we reach a premature dead end. Whether your background is Foresty, urban tree work, conservaton, or you work in an office....our perspectives and priorities are all relative and equally important....so long as we're telling the truth. On that point I thought branding people as weirdos seemed a bit harsh. You say it was an inside joke, fair enough.

 

[FireFighterZero]

Stig hasn't released a sperm in anger in years Rico.

 

[rico]

DSB is no laughing matter Jim. A devastating disease that is so easily, and enjoyable cured! A little cuffing of the dummy and all your symptoms magically disappear.

 

[gf beranek]

Jim, The PNW was a mosaic landscape long before the European's showed up. Between the ice age, volcano's, forest fires, massive floods, tidal waves, pestilence and disease it never was a contiguous forest here. It's always been a patchwork quilt of mostly young forests trying to reach an old-growth state.

It always grow back. Well, if you give the chance to, anyway.

 

[mdvaden]

WOW!
And that is to both the tree and the gal.

I was, of course, thinking of the picture behind my dining table with ( Shit, I forgot her name) and Lost Monarch.

I totally love that one.
Countless people have looked at it since I bought it from you, and it is always fun to see that little start they give, when they spot the girl, and everything falls into perspective.

Be a buddy and post it for Forestkeepers.

Time to fix the rails on this thread !!

I know the photo you mean, but first here's an experiment with her sister. It didn't turn out the way I expected, and I haven't shared this version before. For prints and canvas, I opted for two full outfits.

 

[mdvaden]

Here's a variation of the one you have. The Curly Redwood Lodge motel has the same vertical print you have, in their lobby. This is one they chose to frame in one of the rooms.

 

[mdvaden]

Stig ... I think this redwood used to be an old champion prior to each of the two shown above.

 

[Burnham]

First and foremost, Mario, those are beautiful photos. Thanks.

OK, second (and I doubt I'll even try to keep up numerations after this ) Stig my good friend. You are right, argument is not discussion, and I value our discussions here. I was feeling a bit sad that some points I have tried, apparently in vain, to make over many years here in the T'House apparently have not made one bit of movement to understanding of my position regarding timber harvest practices in my part of the world, and the impacts that shutting down these harvests continue to have on much of the rest of our fragile planet. So I opted out of further posting, which was a poor position for me to take. My apologies.

Now then...I find on rereading, that the place from which I stand in these discussions is, as Butch has noted to another point, apples to oranges in relation to where you others stand. I look at forestry and harvest practices as they are currently done through a singular window, that being what has been, what has changed, and what is now done on United States Forest Service managed National Forest lands in the states of Oregon and Washington.

That is a very small window, I'll agree. I worked 32 years on the Mt. Hood NF, 26 of those years as a reforestation specialist. That was the work I detailed in my earlier post to this thread. I here acknowledge that my experience in forest management is a mile deep and an inch wide.

So federally managed forests in a couple of western states...that is what I know extremely well. I know something about management of forests owned by both states, and have similar understanding and experience about privately owned timber lands in both states, but certainly not near as deep as my knowledge of the federal situation.

So let me define my bailiwick, somewhat. There are 17 National Forests In OR and WA, (Region 6, by USFS definition). They average well over 1 million acres each. Call it 28 million acres, give or take a million or 2. On all that public land, there has not been but a tiny handful of acres truly clearcut in nearly 20 years. As I have stated before in one or two related threads, on the Mt. Hood, the forest I know most intimately, under 50 percent of total acres have been harvested by any prescription, clearcut included.

By any measure, that is a shitload of natural stands left on Federal lands. That is probably the reason I feel so strongly that natural stands are not in danger of extinction here. And believe that these younger reforested stands can become fully functioning ecotypes. The cohort of species is still here to populate these younger stands.

You only have to look at the longstanding conflicts between entities that favor timber harvests and the Federal gov't. to understand that forest management practices on USFS lands have become quite restrictive. Selective harvests, as Rico advocated, have been the norm on PNW USFS lands for 20 years or so. Even those harvests are limited greatly by restrictions to prevent damage to watersheds, T&E species, recreation uses, and many more reasons that are valid. Maybe some invalid as well, but those are the rules set by Congress, so those are the rules the USFS follows.

Not to paint some rosy picture of the USFS...they were caught between some hard rocks back in the 80's and 90's. Congress demanded X timber volume production, and allocated X dollars to have the USFS produce it. At the same time, more or less, Congress also passed laws requiring resource protections that made the first part hard to do while meeting the second part. So the USFS kinda ignored some of those laws in order to meet those output targets, until the anti-logging public filed lawsuits, won them, and forced the USFS to follow the laws that Congress had passed. Thus the reason for no clearcuts in a couple of decades. Also why my job as a reforestation specialist died a natural death .

Make no mistake...this is as it should be, imo.

But the situation on privately owned and managed timberlands here in the PNW is obviously different. That I can attest to. On state lands, too. And clearly on Vancouver Island where Reg sees the situation every day and I have no eyes at all. Same as the privately owned lands in N. California, where Rico has eyes, and I don't.

Now here is a little aside, to counter (not argue against, just paint a fuller long view picture) Rico's advocacy for selective harvests. You have to understand forest ecology to get this, but it ain't rocket surgery, I promise . Selective harvests eventually convert the stand to shade tolerant species. If that isn't obvious, ask and I'll explain. But that truth means you convert your stands from higher value species to lower. I don't really mean dollars, but rather utility, strength, what the wood fiber can be used for. Comes to the same thing in the end, I suppose. And you cannot forever selective harvest...you'll run out of value stock eventually. Then it's time for a regen harvest. Don't think I mean to say that selective harvesting is a bad idea, it's brilliant, but it is a relatively short term management program, say 150 years or so in my ecotype. OK, done with the aside.

 

[MasterBlaster]

I bet you're glad you didn't do like Stig and POOF - lose your post when you click something!

 

[FireFighterZero]

What do they call that? Magnum opus?

 

[Burnham]

I knew it was too long...sorry guys.

 

[FireFighterZero]

No, hell no.

It was fine.

If you can't put a little effort into reading something....you did not want to learn anything anyway.

 

[MasterBlaster]

It was a good read.

 

[squisher]

It's an appreciated post and perspective Burnham.

 

[gf beranek]

Whenever I drive through the mountains and see the thousands of acres of burned and bug killed forest, as far as the eye can see, all natural of course, I think of the many people that get all fired up over a little 40 acre clearcut logging plan.

I can honestly say, I have never seen a logging plan match the scale of devastation to a forest that mother nature can, and does. As far as the eye can see. Great swaths, square miles, all over the Pacific Northwest every year. The managed timber lands today may be a patchwork, but at least most of them are still green and growing, and providing a broad range of habitat for wildlife, while creating jobs and providing good recreation. In the meantime there's room for improvement in forest practice, but I think the demand for forest products, which is the driving force behind it all, should be the more important issue for people to quibble over.

A well managed forest is healthy forest. You can quote me on that.

 

[mdvaden]

Your post reflects a type of comment I often interject on Instagram. Every so many photos, some people like to add some form of wise saying, Muir quote, or their own "brilliant" insight. One being along the lines of "look what man has done" or "amazing these trees even remain after man swung the axe and saw" ... etc., etc.

I tend to chime in with ''hmmm ... then you must really dislike how mother nature laid waste to 100 times more trees than men or women ever cut and logged" ... something alongg those lines.

 

[FireFighterZero]

This has been a fascinating thread.

 

[rico]

Yea. What we call old-growth Reds have been around for well over a 1000 years, and in a matter of a few decades we humans managed to kill a large portion of them.
If it were not for the forethought of a few leaf-licking, tree-hugging. dirt-worshipping, eco weirdo's these irreplaceable wonders would have most likely been harvested to near extinction.

 

[stig]

That was one hell of a great post, Burnham.

I'm really glad you took the time to put it together.

I probably shouldn't point fingers at you guys for being a bit heavy handed in the way you've dealt with your forests, we killed the last remaining part of our original forests off about 255 years ago.

By middle of the 17th century there was only about 5% of Denmark that was covered with forest.

There had been no management, no planning for replanting ( That was an unknown idea back then around here) and the remaining forests were under heavy pressure from wood poaching and poor people gathering anything they could get their hands on for firewood.

Eventually the king ( I could look up which one, but really it doesn't matter) realized that something had to be done.
So a German forester ( The Germans were, then as now, more scientifically minded than the Danes, so they had already systematiced forestry) by the name of Johan Georg Von Langen was offered a shitkoad of money to move up here and start reforesting the land.
His methods worked really well.
Once they shot a few firewood gatherers, that stopped quickly and the same goes for the wood poaching.

Shit, back then you were hung if you as much as looked sideways at an elk, since they were all considered royal property. Not too hard to make that same rule for forest.

Apart from introducing reforestation plans, he also introduced several species that were not native.

This may sound weird, but apart from yew and juniper, we have no native conifers.

Von Langen introduced the Picea abies , Pinus sylvestris and Larix Decidua , all of which are the back bone of forestry in the areas with poor soil today.

He also introduced the Abies alba, which had grown here in a time of warmer climate, some 4000 years ago, but since become extict.

2 of the original Abies alba trees that he brought in are still with us, and are in fact among , if not the biggest trees here ( Yours truly has of course made his sneaky way up into both)

Another introduction, which was not entirely a blessing, was maple; Acer pseudoplatanus, which is now known , jokingly, as Von Langen's footprint.

Damned things will sprout anywhere, outshade the beech and oak, and then,since they aren't really fit to grow here, die when they are about 30 years old.

About 10 years ago it was decided to look over the best stands of maple here, select the fittest trees , gather seeds from them and try to make a Maple that is fit for Denmark.

Guess who did all the seed collecting all over the country. Richard and I.

So hopefully, in time, we'll be able to grow some magnificent Maple logs here.

Later , when James Douglas had brought seed back to England from the PNW, Douglas fir , Noble fir and Grand fir were introduced.
They do very well here and indeed all over Europe.

Guess which country has the 3rd largest acreage of Doug fir in the World..............France.

So, as you can tell, our forests are a total and complete mess.

So who am I to point fingers at you


I hadn't thought of the shade tolerant species thing, but actually, when I think of it that is why, when we do it here, beech tends to win over oak, unless we cheat.

I've done my part of replanting and caring for the little ones for years after, as you well know.

Hence my hatred of deer.



A few years ago I traded some tree work for a trip in a hot air balloon.

Pure luck made the wind push us over a stand of Noble fir that I planted exactly 40 years ago.
That was so fine..........................except the damned things look just like broccoli when seen from above

Mario, that Mother Nature can and sometimes will do devastation that far surpasses anything that mankind has yet come up with doesn't make Weyerhauser less of an asshole, does it?

 

[RegC]

Your post reflects a type of comment I often interject on Instagram. Every so many photos, some people like to add some form of wise saying, Muir quote, or their own "brilliant" insight. One being along the lines of "look what man has done" or "amazing these trees even remain after man swung the axe and saw" ... etc., etc.

I tend to chime in with ''hmmm ... then you must really dislike how mother nature laid waste to 100 times more trees than men or women ever cut and logged" ... something alongg those lines.

We're not in control of mother nature, Mario. But we are in control of the chainsaws, yarders, and helicopters....and above all else, our minds and bodies.
Those pics that your post, of the redwood groves etc.....same or similar areas that was in Jerrys most recent book. What would you say if were all suddenly condemned to being clearcut ? I sort of doubt your reaction would be "hmmmm, mother natures done worse. so be it"

Good posts Burnham, Jerry and Stig, from a harvesters perspective. If Id walked in your shoes through the years, I could only hope to be as conscientious and optimistic.

Its actually a little more than a few acres of clearcutting here Jerry. In 2016 for example they cut near 1100 hectares of Old Growth and Vancouver island alone. That figure doesn't include the second growth clear-cuts, nor the stats for the rest of BC. In a region where 75% of the Virgin forest has already been logged, including 90% of the valley bottoms....10-1100 hectares per year is criminal. Or at least, that's how I view it. You see, I originate from a country where there is no Virgin forest....let alone that of giants which have been evolving in the PNW for thousands of years.

The landscape that you see through much of the UK is manufactured or altered by man. We used to have wolves, bears, lynx and very long list of wildlife inhabitants throughout at one time, much like BC....but they obviously vanished as their habitats were destroyed and what then remained were hunted to extinction.

So, to come to a place like the West coast, more specifically BC, and witness such a unique, natural wonder and treasure being eliminated for short term currency, is simply astonishing. Id put it on par with placing a series of friggin' huge oil rigs right through the centre of Australia's Great Barrier Reef.

But put the money worshiping corporations aside....the majority of the residents here simply don't care enough or don't care at all....as is evident by their absence in the forest, and presence in the malls, consuming. Those that do care enough to stand up and protest government policy are often branded eco weirdos and sometimes even thrown in jail protesting....simply because they dont uphold the belief that the main value of a forest ecosystem is as a saw logs, sold to china. Consider though, that I'm a relatively recent immigrant here at 7 years. Maybe in another 10 Ill become so desensitised to it that I wont give a frig either.

 

[Burnham]

theres 2 ways of looking at that Burnham. Is it not more egocentric of the current generation, at this moment in time, to assume the right to remove thousand year old live forrest, denying the next 10 generations of people and wildlife inhabitants to witness, appreciate or live off ?....and what's more the cutting down only to generate temporary wealth that will be spent within the current generations lifespan ?

Sorry I didn't get back to replying to this sooner, Reg.

I did not and do not advocate for harvesting oldgrowth forests. By any harvest prescription.

My point was that to consider any and all clearcut harvests a removal for all time of a fully functioning stand is simply incorrect. I do not think clearcuts on second, third, and even fourth growth stands, as is now being done on privately owned timberlands all around my area, is necessarily the best way to manage all stands. It's more complicated than that.

One reason I hesitate to debate these issues is that so few people have a solid understanding of the science of forest stand dynamics. That is not a slam, it couldn't be any other way. And I cannot give understandable explanations in short forum posts...the subject is just too complex...no one wants to read Burnham's 2000 word answer to someone else's 30 word question. Hell, I'd argue I'm not really qualified to even try.

If any of you wish to learn much more about the subject than I could ever relate, and if you can find it at a reasonable cost, try reading Chad Oliver's Forest Stand Dynamics; or maybe from a library. It's worth plowing through if you want to understand how easily unintended consequences can follow the best of intentions in managing forests.

Best wishes always, Reg.

 

[Burnham]

We're not in control of mother nature, Mario. But we are in control of the chainsaws, yarders, and helicopters....and above all else, our minds and bodies.
Those pics that your post, of the redwood groves etc.....same or similar areas that was in Jerrys most recent book. What would you say if were all suddenly condemned to being clearcut ? I sort of doubt your reaction would be "hmmmm, mother natures done worse. so be it"

Good posts Burnham, Jerry and Stig, from a harvesters perspective. If Id walked in your shoes through the years, I could only hope to be as conscientious and optimistic.

Its actually a little more than a few acres of clearcutting here Jerry. In 2016 for example they cut near 1100 hectares of Old Growth and Vancouver island alone. That figure doesn't include the second growth clear-cuts, nor the stats for the rest of BC. In a region where 75% of the Virgin forest has already been logged, including 90% of the valley bottoms....10-1100 hectares per year is criminal. Or at least, that's how I view it. You see, I originate from a country where there is no Virgin forest....let alone that of giants which have been evolving in the PNW for thousands of years.

The landscape that you see through much of the UK is manufactured or altered by man. We used to have wolves, bears, lynx and very long list of wildlife inhabitants throughout at one time, much like BC....but they obviously vanished as their habitats were destroyed and what then remained were hunted to extinction.

So, to come to a place like the West coast, more specifically BC, and witness such a unique, natural wonder and treasure being eliminated for short term currency, is simply astonishing. Id put it on par with placing a series of friggin' huge oil rigs right through the centre of Australia's Great Barrier Reef.

But put the money worshiping corporations aside....the majority of the residents here simply don't care enough or don't care at all....as is evident by their absence in the forest, and presence in the malls, consuming. Those that do care enough to stand up and protest government policy are often branded eco weirdos and sometimes even thrown in jail protesting....simply because they dont uphold the belief that the main value of a forest ecosystem is as a saw logs, sold to china. Consider though, that I'm a relatively recent immigrant here at 7 years. Maybe in another 10 Ill become so desensitised to it that I wont give a frig either.

So are there just no regulations governing timber harvest practices or requiring reforestation in BC, Reg?