Champion Trees

F'g crazy posts about logging destruction etc in your area, Justin.
 
kevin bingham said:
I was reading about a German forestry department that has operated with the same game plan and with out a hitch for the last 800 years. that would include before Germany even. through the Weimar, the Nazis, the communists and the reunited era. all these massive political changes and the operation and care of the forest is continued. That is one story of forest maintenance, the other is when the decisions are made by wall street and far removed from any tree. . There is no such thing as "forests untouched by man". The managing of forests by stock traders thogh is a recent development. Michigan was razed to the ground by them. the forest that has grown back is shitty. Some people see a beautiful michigan. I see an environmentally devastated wasteland. There are a few pockets of nice forest. but overall pretty meh. the big trees are found in urban areas or just a few pockets where there was importance to people. you don't go out to the six to find big trees in Michigan. a few acres here and there is all. There was no regard to any future at l when they laid waste to Michigan. It was turned into profit and they moved on to Wisconsin. The forest needs managing but that can't be dictated with a monetary and political mindset.

It seems like clearcutting a forest is similar to topping a tree. Followed by intense rampant growth as well as decay massive interuption of vital functions. I walked through a clear cut in Oregon and it was crazy with big leaf maples and those had been cut down and other trees had been planted but the big leaf maples had rebounded so high and there was so many of them. I was just overwhelmed by how much work that would be to guide that forest where you wanted. surely possible but it seemed a process. I would like to hear more about that Burnham.
Click to expand...

Kevin, if that clearcut was on National Forest land, use of herbicides was banned over 30 years ago, so any decent reforestation program would have had a crew of sawyers go through and perform a "competition reduction" stand improvement prescription. That would mean, cut out the hardwoods and brush that were impacting (current and in the next 5-6 years window of time) free growth of the crop trees. Generally driven by the honest desire of the public lands managers to meet the requirements of law, and in my personal experience, because it the right way to manage harvested timberlands.

If it was on state or private industrial timberlands, usually a helicopter would broadcast a nasty herbicide, with the same objective in mind. But generally driven by protecting their investment in the prospect of future profit generating crop.

If it was a clearcut on some individual private landowners property...either of the above might have been done, but no guarantees. The state (here it is Oregon, but most states that have any degree of timber production have SOMETHING for laws along these lines) has regulations requiring replanting and assured stocking levels, but enforcement may be spotty.

Hence my inquiry re BC's laws in these regards. On the scale Reg describes on VI, it simply could not happen here.
 
Last edited:
rico said:
How many of you have walked into a forest that has never seen an axe, saw, skidder, cat, or yarder and proceeded to mow every tree in sight down?

How many of you have stood in the middle a clear cut the size of a small city/town, knowing you participated in the devastation?

I can tell you neither is anything to be proud of.
Click to expand...

I have. More times than most people have. And I will respectfully disagree with your conclusion, again. It is not black and white, Erico. I never found any joy in walking those raw cut units...but walking out of one 6 months later after sheparding a planting crew for days and busting my ass to make sure as many of those tender little seedlings were planted right as I possibly could...hell yes, I was proud.

And to walk through that same unit 15 years later, see that beautiful stand of young, vigorous trees free to grow...more than proud.
 
I didn't even mention what it is like to walk a unit I planted as a wee young tot of a refor tech 36 years ago. Did that just last month. Planted to 8x8 average spacing, thinned 12 years later to 13x13 average. It was commercially thinned 8 years ago... took out about 30% of the volume, on the stem.

Today it has average dbh of about 18 inches, height average at an experienced eyeball guess of 140 feet. Wide variety of herbs, forbs, and brush understory, and even though it was planted 100% douglas fir, there is a good cohort of natural western redcedar, western hemlock, red alder, vine and bigleaf maples. A small creek that transects the unit runs clear and cold.

Yeah, that piece of ground is effed up forever.
 
Grove we have constantly thinned beetle infestations out of seems to be settling in better. Death has slowed, less numbers. Little seedlings of ponderosa, white fir, black oaks, canyon live oak and sugar pine are popping up pretty nicely. No planting was needed. We had saved some smallish logs for shading seedlings when we planted. Planting went on halt when we saw how much mother nature was letting happen. No point in over crowding them again. Love watching the little trees grow.
 
MasterBlaster said:
Damn straight. What say you, Rico?
Click to expand...
Burnham can and should be proud of his replanting work, but I thought we were talking about the practice of clear cutting.
Go walk through a forest that has never seen any logging, then walk through a 15 yr old clear-cut that has been replanted. You will quickly realize that it is gonna be many lifetimes before they remotely resemble each other.
After that you can come on out here and walk through a Redwood forest that has been managed through proper selective cutting.
You can come to your own conclusion Butch, but after living and experiencing both clear-cut and selective practices, I know which one I chose.
In my little hood we have a few plants and animals that exist nowhere else on the planet simply because man was never allow to destroy nature here, then try to "manage" it.
 
Kind of the point Butch.
Some of these trees can take thousands of years to reach the point that we a now seeing them, yet can be destroyed in a matter of moments, all in the name of profit.
 
Many lifetimes is just a dimple on the ass of time.
Yes, protect with select logging. Leave some giants. But to cease logging is reflective of what CA did. Killed it. Should have been managed better. Now it all dies, burns and sucks up water. Properly managed forests renew, supply and are healthier.
 
CurSedVoyce said:
Grove we have constantly thinned beetle infestations out of seems to be settling in better. Death has slowed, less numbers. Little seedlings of ponderosa, white fir, black oaks, canyon live oak and sugar pine are popping up pretty nicely. No planting was needed.
Click to expand...

thats awesome , stephen
 
CurSedVoyce said:
Many lifetimes is just a dimple on the ass of time.
Yes, protect with select logging. Leave some giants. But to cease logging is reflective of what CA did. Killed it. Should have been managed better. Now it all dies, burns and sucks up water. Properly managed forests renew, supply and are healthier.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but I for one don't feel that a clear-cut is a properly managed forest.
 
Eric...no one prescription for managing any one stand in any one forest at any one point in the span of that stand's life will be all right or all wrong. I think you are looking through a very narrow lens, one that does not show a depth of understanding of forest ecology in the long term, and one you clearly have plenty of intelligence to appreciate. All I'm seeing is emotional response in your position.

I'm not trying to be an ass...I just think you are not looking at the issue with clear eyes. I also don't want to appear condescending. If I have, I apologize.
 
My feelings concerning clear-cutting are based on my experience in the late 70's-80's. I spent nearly a decade clear-cutting and logging forests that had never seen a saw before. We walked into beautiful untouched forests with big timber, and incredibly diverse ecosystems. When we left it literally looked like a bomb went off. I have been back to some of these locations and seen the before and after, and it is very clear to me that what we took is never coming back. Something will grown in its place, but it won't be what we destroyed.

You are not being an ass Burnham, and I do respect your stance on this issue. You are a very intelligent, knowledgable, level-headed, articulate sort of fella, and I always enjoy your posts. Lord knows you are much more knowledgable on this issue than I am. You are also spot on when you describe my response as emotional. Its just how I roll. I get all riled up when I see humans or animals being abused, pictures of clear-cuts, or someone fucks with my morning cup of coffee!
 
squisher said:
I'll try to answer as best I can Reg. I'm proud to be a Canadian but I'm not always proud of what my countrymen do. I guess the best I can do is answer with another question. Do you feel that Canadians are unique in their quest for wealth over environment? Seems it's universal to me. You spoke of leaving a land that has already destroyed everything natural that it ever had. I see Canada as just a younger version and with a plethora of natural resources. I have a general dislike of people for the most part. I find that my moral compass is not aligned with most people I meet.
Click to expand...

I cant say I feel any kind of National pride, no attachment....part of the reason I have no issue moving countries. But I'm glad I grew up where I did, because they mostly told us the truth, good and bad. The bad stuff was never hidden or silver lined. Whilst here in Canada it seems quite the contrary, by the media and Government in particular. Ive lived in Australia and New Zealand too, as well as visited many countries in the past, so my opinions are based on real life observation.

The UK is but a fraction of the size of BC, no mind the whole of Canada....but has 30 million more people living there. They were clearing trees for farms and ship building at least a thousand years before the invasion and takeover of what is now Canada. In regards to your question, its hard to say also, because I cant be in 2 different places and times at once. What did surprise me more than anything about Canada, is the lust for money and consumables. Advertising, sales, finance is everywhere.....just to buy consumables. Take for example my recent visit to the coast, which kicked off this discussion about clearcutting. There's nobody out there. Some of the most beautiful country in Canada, or arguably in the world as you know, and its free....but instead every one is in the malls, consuming....technology, fashion, jewelry, Boston Pizza, Starbucks ! Where was this lust for consumables learned from, and by whos initiative ? My kid is 9 now. She only knows about the Coast, forest, logging and fishing because of what Ive told her, not from school or the media. But shes learning about Google and Facebook at school....how about that.

My feelings are if the forests was more publicized, had more visitors, if the people were encouraged to get out there and enjoy all that natural beauty that's free....the logging companies or corporations more like, standards whatever, would have to clean up their act. I think 10 -15 year old derelict cut block would become less and less. They'd probably become smaller too. When I asked you earlier what it is to be a Canadian, I suppose Im also asking, Is there a difference between now and say 20 - 30 years ago ? Not so much yourself Justin, but societies values in general. Thanks, I'm not meaning this as a Canada bashing post, don't take it that way....but in many ways living here was not what I expected.
 
I would question if the UK is really big on 'the truth' overall. But I've never even been there let alone lived there. Seems most 'developed' nations aren't really fond of the truth though. More like the polished turd truth.

As for Canada I would say I've seen massive change in the people I don't know so much about our values. The flood of info and media that has come in the last 20-30+ years has fully changed the next generation a lot IMO. Every fat young bastard has a smart phone in one hand and a list of shit they want in the other. Just one generation ago when I was a kid it seemed simpler and more honest. I collected bottles so I might buy the odd slurpee from the corner store, wasn't even allowed in the house until after dinner for the most part and I was a 'town' kid. Dirt, creeks, forest were the playground. Now my daughter is in that generation where they're using phones all day at school and if I didn't insist on physical activity I think she'd be happy enough to be inside with that phone after school too. Don't get me wrong, she's a good kid but we push her to be too which I think kids need. I see a lot less 'parenting' in some of her peers.

I would agree it's a culture of consumption, I just don't really know that it's unique to Canada in that regard. It seems the North American way to get whatever you can at whatever cost. Buy, buy, buy. Finance to the hilt and buy some more seems to be pushed. Easy to get caught up in.
 
There are some Canadians like everywhere I think who see the bigger picture more complete. My parents for example are generous and community minded to a very high degree. Retired now they volunteer constantly at the local food coop, museum, are active participants in local politics, etc, etc. Genuinely generous people who will never accumulate wealth because it's just not important to them. If a windfall ever came their way it would go to charity. But I honestly don't see them as the majority here by any means. But just pointing out that not all Canadians by any stretch can be painted with the brush of gluttonous consumers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Article in WSJ
Replies
8
Views
2K
stehansen
stehansen
Back
Top