a local logging company got 80 acres of some old big timber woods I hunt & it just makes me sick looks like a bomb went off. I know with the exception of the mast loss in a few years it will be a wildlife haven loaded with new growth cover & browse but I still hate to see it

I am with you on this. When I lived in northern California they would leave a small stand of trees next to the road. Then everything behind it was a complete clear cut. Makes me sick to see this happen. Sooner or later it will come back but what about in the mean time?

timex, did a logging company buy the land or are they cutting for another owner? Just curious.

They are cutting across the road, and right behind my house right now.Amish on private land.Not real fond about it, but it is their land , and they can hire who they want to do the work.A lot of Amish lumber mills were I live, and lumber being processed all the time.Just a fact of life were I live.

it is a 100 acre farm 20 tillable & 80 woods with an old farm house a big plant nersury operation bought it & sold the timber off to help offset the cost. iv got permission from the farmer that works the 20 acre field & have taken 2 does there so far this year. I had considered trying to buy this place but the house is huge & there's a firefighter training facility & airport that border the land & just to busy for my liking

Same thing happened to a place I used to hunt. Turned it into a wildlife desert!

Well, as one who makes a living, supports a family, helps provide valuable raw materials fostering highly sought after, useful and life enhancing products for all of us I'm sorry , but not surprised to see these sentiments here. Sentiments rather than facts captures the essence.

Appalachian hardwoods are resilient,dynamic, self sustaining and naturally regenerating ecosystems. None of the hardwood forests from Maine to Georgia were planted. They can be managed towards preferred species and structures but not with guaranteed outcomes. Why, because the natural regenerative capacity built in by the Creator is unstoppable.

Timex got it right at end of his post. The neighbors clear cut will be a wildlife mecca, particularly for deer the first 7 to 8 years. After crown closure it will transition to being escape cover on the interior with good habitat along the edges. The landowner harvested a mature crop and reaped the benefit of providing logs for lumber and veneer, crossties, pallets, frame stock, flooring, board roads,industrial mats,chips for pulp, paper, OSB, plywood, laminated beams, or fuel for steam generated power, bark for mulch, sawdust for boilers and livestock bedding,and hundreds of other products.

The landowner or his family purchased the property, paid property taxes, protected it and allowed you to enjoy it and benefit from its aesthetics, wildlife habitat, air pollution and sound abatement and a host of other "free" benefits. He could have developed it or otherwise changed its use but instead allowed it to create valuable forest products. Its harvest was a thoughtful, intelligent continuation of land stewardship that he was appropriately compensated for. It's part of the "bundle of sticks" that comprise private property rights. It's the bulwark and foundation of a free society. The abolition of property rights and private enterprise, i.e. socialism has a horrific track record for both human flourishing and outdoor recreation.

I help private landowners market their timber and manage their land to grow future forest products and wildlife habitat. I might have sold your neighbor's timber Timex. I live near Salem but work all over Virginia and I love to recommend clear cuts in hardwoods and pines to efficiently and profitably harvest a mature crop and create silvicultural conditions that foster regrowth of valuable shade intolerant hardwoods like oaks, poplar, ash, walnut and others to dominate the next stand. Google hardwood forest management and get informed about sound wildlife management which is essentially the same thing. Also, dont blame loggers and sawmills for producing products you/we all demand including traditional bows and wooden arrows.

Hardwood clear cuts don't stay ugly for long. Stumps sproutfrom the root collar of nearly all hardwoods and seedlings from abundant poplar, ash, maple seeds in the leaf litter along with already established understory saplings will aggressively regenerate and form a fast growing, dense stand with an explosion of new growth and soft mast that every critter eats. A veritable salad bowl will ensue for browsing and foraging deer, turkey, bear, small mammals, songbirds. The canopy will display fall colors, the seemingly denuded hillsides will miraculously green up and no one will believe it was clear cut in 15 to 20 years except the observant and informed. Hunters should applaud sound forest management and rejoice when neighbors prosper.

I'm of course biased and de-sensitized to the ugliness of clearcuts because of long experience with them. I see a chance for a well managed forest to replace the old instead of high-graded, picked over and under producing, for both timber and wildlife, stands I all too often encounter where so called "selective" cutting has cherry picked and degraded stands.

Please forgive the rant but I'm passionate about good forest management.

I don't like the looks of it either. The second growth will be great for wildlife but hard on arrows.

Stop buying lumber and building houses, using any paper products, anything that has to do with forestry products and they will stop logging. Geez maybe stop having kids to, that way we won't need pencils and paper for school.

Come on guys if you don't own the land, don't gripe if the land owner sells the timber ...... it's their land!

relax Mr cooper didn't say I didn't understand just said it sucks when a beautiful tract of old big woods gets flattened

Of course it's "THIER" land ....but bulldozing and logging it all off for a few more bushels of corn with no regard for the wildlife is just plain irresponsible. I never did it when I owned land,both in MN.and Mt. ...and I had plenty of high dollar offers.

Selective cutting is sound forest management. Small parcels cut clear (small parcels said again) are wildlife magnets within a few years after the cut. Old growth forest with no mixture of new growth browse is a sure way for deer/grouse and other wildlife numbers to start dwindling. Sound timber/forest management is needful for the forests and wildlife alike.

SB maybe the land owner doesn't think so.

Timex I am probably the most relaxed person you will meet. I still stand by what I said.

Selective cuttingng is only sound first management for shade intolerants like bich-beech-maple forest of the northeast. And then only when a trained and informed person is selecting the trees to be harvested. It creates two ages stands and requires multiple entries into the stands over time with attendant risks of injury to residual trees and greater soil compaction. Also creates smaller openings that do not allow oaks,think acorns, to regenerate. So not so good for wildlife.

Selective cuttingng is only sound first management for shade intolerants like bich-beech-maple forest of the northeast. And then only when a trained and informed person is selecting the trees to be harvested. It creates two ages stands and requires multiple entries into the stands over time with attendant risks of injury to residual trees and greater soil compaction. Also creates smaller openings that do not allow oaks,think acorns, to regenerate. So not so good for wildlife.

Selective cuttingng is only sound first management for shade intolerants like birch-beech-maple forest of the northeast. And then only when a trained and informed person is selecting the trees to be harvested. It creates two aged stands and requires multiple entries into the stands over time with attendant risks of injury to residual trees and greater soil compaction. Also creates smaller openings that do not allow oaks,think acorns, to regenerate. So not so good for wildlife.

SB: Forest conversion to crop land is not the same thing as a even aged forest management. When trees are harvested and stumps removed then the lands use is being changed to crop land, or housing, or...If market conditions afford the landowner a higher and best use opportunity to profit from changing the lands use , that's a good thing. Profit is not a dirty word. Visit an eastern European country where communist, i.e. state dictated rather than market driven economies prevailed until very recently and you will have greater appreciation for private property rights.

Good posts Tyler.

Yep....timber management is the key. When we owned our place in Southern Ohio we had it cut periodically. As mentioned, you have to in order to keep it healthy.

The deer will benefit immediately from that cutover. I also hate to see old growth cut but I also know that old growth isn’t the best habitat for deer. That cutover will hold more deer in the next year than it has in a very long time.

No woods stays static. It may LOOK like it hasn't changed, but it is/does/will. When the places I hunt get logged, I use it to re- learn my area and adapt to different ways to approach hunting it.

From a purely selfish hunting standpoint, I'd rather see a woods logged than grow to it's climax stage of succession. If it's logged it will rejuvenate back into prime hunting cover FAR faster than if you let "nature take it's course".

Yes, you have to break the eggs to make an omelette, but when that omelette's ready to eat it's well worth it!

We've got a place in Southeastern Ohio we wish we could find someone to cut. Not enough and to hard to get to everyone tells us. But it's big woods now, and we almost never see deer in such open forest anymore.

Just lost my favorite squirrel hunting spot to the same thing. They took out all the trees except the ones along the road so it looks like nothing changed. Drive off the road into the woodlot and there is no woodlot!

Here in NC we love them. They create havens for the deer. They bed there and are often hunted in the places where they leave them to feed or return from feeding to bed. If you have property that does not have mast on it and no ag around for food, you won't have any deer. If you go in and clear some of it, it will grow up to create dense areas where they will bed.

Logging is generally sound forestry management, in most cases we need more of it.

Give it a few years and it will be a deer sanctuary.

Our club owns nearly 400 acres, and a forest management plan in place. We cut over here, a few years later we cut over there. This past summer they logged right up to a 'permament' ladder stand I stuck in the heavy cover some years back. Went from 25 yards visibility to 'where's my rifle?'

Some years back they thinned one area, you could see 100 yards easy. Now you can't see ten. Deer love it but you'll never still-hunt it!

I'd be looking at establishing a few areas on the lee side of the cutting, where I could set up a stand or ground blind and some 'deer friendly' planting.

Forester is correct. For sure timberland needs sound management. The problem greed gets in the way many times by the land owners.

Sadly, many land owners don't have a forestry plan in place. If you plan and manage your forestry, you can improve your hunting/wildlife habitat and be assured that years to come you (or whoever the land passes to) will realize income from the property.

Also, there are funds to help you avcailable from various gov't agencies. With a proper plan in place you can be reimbursed for your management costs. Better hunting, better habitat, long-term profitability, what's not to like?

Does selective clear cutting have a role in managing wildfire risks?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and change is inevitable.

timex, Keep on ticking. I pray the change forced upon you provides some good.

FWIW,:)

We may like or dislike many things in this world, but there is ultimately only one owner, and he has a plan.

"built in by the Creator" - Forester

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away" Revelation 21:1

God declares the futility of "greenies" trying to save this earth.

But hasn't selective cutting for pure profit("take the best and leave the rest") created the situation where all of these now degraded hardwood woodlots need to be clearcut due to the poor genetics present after all of the good stems were removed?

Had a "selection" cut strategy been utilized in those millions of acres of eastern US and Canada woodlots there would have been no need for the clearcuts that are the only fix now.

So no need to travel to Europe to see poor silvicultural practices related to greed. But you will now see, in Germany, Sweden, Finland and the UK, some of the best managed forests in the world.

I employed a selection cut strategy in two woodlots I own up north. It involves retaining healthy stems that will grow into crop trees with marketable veneer and sawlogs. This is done while maintaining a density of enough stems per acre to encourage proper growth and avoid epicormic branching, which is branches growing out of trunks, creating knots that degrade a log's value.

This strategy provided me with a steady continuous harvest of firewood each year by removing inferior stems. It also afforded the opportunity to open the canopy in spots to allow shade intolerant species to flourish, many of which have high wildlife values.

I retained enough cavity trees for wildlife habitat and tapped inferior maple trees for syrup, The uneven age structure left various oak trees to bear mast and yellow birch was able to establish and flourish in the openings with the removal of red maple.

The amount and variety of wildlife present in my woodlots is simply amazing!

I am not a forester but I joined a woodlot association and learned how to manage my woodlots myself.

Careful harvesting of crop trees like maple and birch during early winter when the ground was frozen and the bark tight has almost paid for one woodlot.

Sadly, clearcuts are most often the only solution left in many woodlots and the aftermath leads to a limited ability to enjoy the property.

The ability to manage with a selection strategy lets someone have their cake and eat it too!

Yup it does. Don't like the litter on the ground afterwards or the trash trees getting a boost on taking over a piece of land when timber companies around me harvest off some farmers land. But it pays the taxes for someone and makes jobs for a few in town.

Bob, I'm not sure what you mean by 'trash' trees. As forest regrows there is a succession of various growth. Brush, poplars etc. all provide habitat at various times post-logging.

There's an old saying that the chain saw is a deers' best friend. It also helps every species of birds. I'm partial to partridge, even if I can't hit 'em worth spit ;-)

I find it ironic that a hunter would be against killing trees.

Well said Forester. Whenever I hear someone complaining about a local property getting bought/leveled/timbered/or having houses built on it, I remind that neighbor that, "You could have bought it." That usually ends the conversation. My wife informs me that people were looking at the lot next to ours last week. Twice. I've come to look at that six acres of woods as an extension of my property, but if someone buys it and puts a house on it I'll know that I could have bought it if it meant that much to me. That's the beauty of America! Jim

I don;t think anyone said that. I have to admit that cut-overs are *ugly* when new. You have to take the 'ugly duckling now, swan later' view ;-)

Here are a couple clear cuts up the road from where we just moved from in North Idaho and behind my buddies house

That's me out Elk Hunting and pointing to the clear cut near where that top pic was taken, where we were stump shooting. The circle is around where their house is.

I have some pics in my phone but their the wrong size I can't post them as stated in the op I fully understand the benifets to wildlife over time. but this logging company does ugly work tops every where & in the bottoms they fill in the skidder ruts with skinny tree's so ya can't even walk without risk of hurting your legs. I know it's their land they can do as they please & I'm thankful to still be able to hunt it. it's kinda like skidmarks in a brand new pair of white drawers just something ya don't like to see !!!

Ohio has govt has done a lot of damage to our woods. They prompted farmers to plant lots of multi flora rose many years ago. Then theyd ship out samples of russian olive and amur honeysuckle to farmers and encourage them to plant these species. The honeysuckle and olive are very invasive to the point that the honeysuckle chokes out about everything else. Its roots contain a toxin harmful to other plants and trees. Ironically, the timber management plan the state did for me cites the need to eliminate these " invasive" species from the property. Clear cuts in my area are quickly overgrown with the three lovelly species above. No doubt good cover, but harmful in the longrun.

Tzolk, that looks like a *great* place to hunt - inside and outside corners, plenty of places for a ground blind etc.

Riverwolf, I fear subdivision and development, not good forestry. Deer cover will regenerate faster than you think.

We did some logging on our club property several years ago, within a few years it's prime moose cover! And this is central Massachusetts we're talkin' about ;-)

Forestry management is a human concept. Unfortunately for many non-human species, humans are very adept at reproduction and modifying their surroundings. As noted above, invasive species are a major problem in every part of the US and they a a problem because, like humans, they are very adept at reproduction and adapting to an environment. Human activity almost wiped out deer and elk in the 18th and 19th centuries. Now suburbanization and wildlife regulations have deer back to pre-Columbus populations, but bird diversity, for example, has decreased significantly and is unlikely to ever recover. Frogs, toads and amphibians populations and diversity are likewise way down. We are a clever species, and we are especially clever at adapting our environment to suit our needs and desires, but much of the rest of the world's fauna and flora are taking a shellacking. It's like the wolf and grizzly bear debate...they were here long before us, with stable populations. Now we cant figure out whether and how co- existence with modern human activity is possible. I dont have any answers, and absolutely believe we have a responsibility to do the best job we can to manage the environment we so absolutely dominate. I'm just concerned that we are, always have and always will "manage" to achieve what we want in the short term, forgetting that the world got along pretty well without "management" until we humans got the hang of fire, tools and, eventually, bulldozers.

forests heal themselves, they'll grow back.

My own feeling is that any system based on the belief that people can "own" land is doomed to fail--because, as a species, we will always value short-term profit over long-term ecosystem health. Moreover, we're still not smart enough to manage something as complex as the natural systems of this world.

Our collective actions have proved this over and over again: we disrupt the atmosphere and then whine about climate change; we poison the birds with DDT and then whine about the mysterious increase in ticks. Duhhh! Hopefully we will smarten up before it's too late--though I expect the world would be better off without us.

Common situation in my parts as well. The only thing that really IRKS me is that they don't have to be so messy. An older gentleman, whom I greatly respect, has spent most of his life cutting logs all over the US. He has looked at land with me and turns red over the mess left by the "new age" loggers. It does not have to be that way, but careless and rush is in ALL production these days.

-Bones

Ugly - YES

but partially grown back is the place to be here during the hound season if still using a bow

they have paths in there and get back on a stump and clear a shooting lane to the path through the briars

they come through fairly slow when the hounds are pushing them bout the only way to get a shot with a bow during the hound season here

My friend had 40 acres cut. they left all the tops lay. now its pretty thick but made excellent bedding for deer, and we are starting to see more rabbits, and turkey in it. seems like a plus for habitat.

Wow! This thread is ranging far and wide. The diverse views of "wallers" is to me fascinating. All told, I'm amazed at the general level of understanding of how forests grow. I have studied and practiced this stuff for over 45 years and most of you guys "get it" from being observant. Trad folks, with maybe a few exceptions, are not disposed to the latest and greatest gadgetry nor given to shallow thinking. Also, trad folks are demonstrably better informed.

Mangonboat: Mark, I respectfully disagree that forest management is a human concept. It's a Divine concept. The first thing God gave mankind was a blessing and a job: be fruitful, fill and subdue the earth. He planted a garden and put Adam to work and keep it. Managing natural resources is our God-given, made in His image instinct.

I agree we do not always "manage" wisely and invasive species are a case in point. Introducing" non-native plants and animals nearly always ends with them becoming "invasive", i.e. ecological backfires.

Crookedstick: I also agree, to a point, that natural systems are very complex but as Mark says "we humans are a clever species". We can , and do, manipulate our environment(s).

Forest management is primarily attempting to manipulate levels of sunlight in the crowns for established stands and at the ground level for regenerating stands. We are only "managing" with tools (light, moisture, nutrients, microorganisms, etc.) given to us by God. I also agree we don't "own" land we just sorta borrow it for a while.

But, I have legal ownership of land complete with recorded deeds, debts, and certain rights and privileges for using it. I speak of private "owner"ship more to distinguish it from everyone owning it. The total and complete abolition of private ownership is a basic tenet of Marxism with a horrible track record for human flourishing and natural resources. When someone criticizes what a landowner does with his property I too, as "Handle" said think:"...well, he bought it".

Private "ownership" of land goes way back: "...so the field of Ephron...to the east of Mamre, the field w/ the cave...in it and all the trees...in the field, thruout its whole area, was made over to Abraham as a possession..." Genesis 23:17-18. See also the 10th commandment, Exodus 20:17.

I cannot agree that greed is the sole or even primary motivation for landowners selling timber. Most of my clients are anything but controlled by greed.

Finally, bulldozing stumps after clear cutting is land clearing not forest management. Selective cutting in the lake states, New England and Canada is good forest management bc the target species are shade tolerant trees. "Apples and oranges" versus growing hardwoods in the south or midwest. Different species, climates, length of growing seasons, precip., soils, etc.

I love it when we have our woods logged. we do it in the winter(jan-mar), and by midsummer the new growth is amazing. too many forests in my area of not managed appropriately and are becoming "old growth" with no under story cover. selective timbering is essential to healthy forests and good hunting. plus the tops left are good firewood that I don't have to fell myself.

In some places, unlogged wilderness may be appropriate as a benchmark for what an area can be without active human intervention. But this requires that these areas be large so natural processes can dominate. Seldom do these places exist without some form of human impact. For example, grizzly bears in the Bob Marshall depend on the larvae of a species of moth that lives part of it's life cycle in the agricultural lands far to the east.

But logging, along with other activities, must be done wisely and cautiously to avoid unexpected results.

As former Forest Service chief Jack Ward Thomas stated, "these systems are not only more conplicated than we think they are, they are more complicated than we can think."

I like cutovers. Makes it easier to get my 4 wheeler in for my deer.

If I read Timex's posts correctly, he said a large plant nursery bought the property and clear cut it, If so, I would guess that NO trees are going to be allowed to grow back.

We have/had a large nursery here in town. It was 100+ acres, and the only trees growing on the property were the shrubs being grown by the nursery. There were rows upon rows of different plant and shrubs, all in pots and under sprinklers. The whole nursery was fenced and was anything but a wildlife Mecca.

The owners have the right to do as they see fit, but it sounds like it sucks for you Timex, although, you may be able to talk to the nursery about hunting there, as I imagine they don't want deer eating their "crops".

state had a large controlled burn about 15 yers ago ,undergrowth just started to come back last year. not hered or seen a grouse since.

our whole lease is timber land, get a good place like you want it, and here they come and cut every tree, had 24 years of it already, and yes spots will get better later, some of us want be around to wait it out, cutting on us right now all large trees almost gone, now cutting pulping, and thinning the small ones, constant change, sorry I hate clear cuts dr

Chris: Yea, aspen is very similar to yellow poplar in its growth requirements and its prolific sprouting. I didn't mean to suggest that clear cutting, which is an even aged mgt system isn't also practiced in the lake states but rather that uneven aged, i.e. selective harvesting is a system tailored to reproduce shade tolerant species, particularly sugar maple, beech and moderately shade tolerant yellow birch.

Here in the mountains of VA, WV, NC, TN clearcuts favor oaks, poplar, ash, cherry, walnut, basswood, white pine.

Chris: Yea, aspen is very similar to yellow poplar in its growth requirements and its prolific sprouting. I didn't mean to suggest that clear cutting, which is an even aged mgt system isn't also practiced in the lake states but rather that uneven aged, i.e. selective harvesting is a system tailored to reproduce shade tolerant species, particularly sugar maple, beech and moderately shade tolerant yellow birch.

Here in the mountains of VA, WV, NC, TN clearcuts favor oaks, poplar, ash, cherry, walnut, basswood, white pine. I have an old forester friend and mentor who used to work in the UP for Mead Paper. His descriptions of the UP were enthralling. I have in laws in Grand Rapids we've visited and we traveled a little further north in MI once but never all the way up to your neck of the woods. Maybe, one day...Merry Christmas!!

"The old joke in the U.P. Is that the best thing for the deer in the U.P. Would be to take a chain saw and cut down all the trees in the U.P.". An old joke, indeed. Here is a photo taken on the Kingston Plains of the Upper Peninsula, also known as 'White Rat Plains". I spent many days there as a youth. This photo was taken in 2012. The Kingston Plains, in 1875 an ocean of old growth white pines, was clear cut from 1875 to 1909. Then the slash fires came, over and over for over 20 years. This photo was taken in 2012, more than 100 years after the last clear cut logging, more than 80 years after the last significant fire. Admittedly, climate ,soil and species of the UP of 140 years ago are very different from the southern Appalachian hardwood forests, where I live, but the point is inescapable...we don't always know what we're doing.

Aspen stands should be cut in strips or bands on a 20 year cycle...provides habitat for various species as the forest matures, starting with woodcock then on to grouse etc...

Chris, I dont doubt that wildlife and forestry folks with the best intentions and based on the best knowledge recommended. I met with a forester on my own property Friday morning, and I always give the professionals a lot of credit and credibility. I also know that the entire planet has many, many examples of management practices and recommendations that didnt turn out well in the long run. The loss of biodiversity and habitat is undeniable, and suggests we have made some mistakes along the way. So maybe management for maximum deer populations is not the best practice. Maybe management for maximum sustainable lumber harvest is not the best practice. For example, the fecund hardwood forests of WNC produce amazing trees, mast , clean water, but not nearly as many deer as the rolling hills and coastal plain to the east, where agriculture, suburbs, pine forests and pocosins are the norm. But the streams down east have never seen a native brook trout or a hellbender and those pine woods have never seen a ruffed grouse . Its a complex planet, and its okay to admit we don't know everything about how it works.

"So maybe management for maximum deer populations is not the best practice. Maybe management for maximum sustainable lumber harvest is not the best practice. "

Exactly. Manage for habitat diversity instead. Parts of the property mature or close to it. Small openings. Various sections at diffent growth stages. As seasons shift, and as trees mature to timber, log those sections.

You'll get deer cover and browse. Grouse habitat. etc etc.

Ever been to Scotland? Ireland? In many places there, no trees whatsoever in the mountains. They don't necessarily always grow back after being 'clearcut'. I haven't read anywhere near all the posts here, but I lived in WA/OR for 20 years, and worked in the same building as the Forest Service was in in Portland. I knew the issues and conflicts surrounding the whole logging issue. Clearcutting, old growth, you name it. These debates and conflicts will NEVER get resolved, no matter how well resources are 'managed' or not managed. There will never be 100% satisfaction. Just like in politics. You can fight and bicker all your life long. I do know one thing. A healthy coastal old growth natural, unaltered (by man) forest, a large tract of it, with unimpacted rivers, wetlands and streams, salmon, and the ecotone to the east transitioning into oaks, Ponderosa pine, and eventually prairie is the best source of biodiversity on the planet besides the ocean reefs, and more than just a little personal use impact 'take' is too much to keep it truly 'healthy'. An oldgrowth clearcut does not result in a 'healthy' resource for ALL biodiversity. I doubt much of this type of habitat truly exists anymore however. My 2 cents.

This is an extreme case just to illustrate what happens when you harvest all the trees in the past for ship's masts and shipbuilding. Closer to home, I once had a beautiful 100 acre oldgrowth Doug fir elk travel corridor where I hiked and hunted. It was my favorite piece of Washington ever. Hunted it for almost 20 years, and killed my biggest bulls there. Then one season I went up there and found two govt. loggers working it, having all but finished it off. My heart sank, I almost felt betrayed. I know it was not their fault, but I told them how I felt about having destroyed my favorite elk haunt. I just drove off while they watched after those two quick sentences of what I said. Just still hurts to the core, that place being gone. I went back about 10 years later, and it still sickened me. I know someday it will 'return', but not in my lifetime, and there is no other place like it, none that I found in 20 years in that whole mt. range. It happens, but it sucks.

Here is the opening on the opposite of where the 100 acre old growth corridor was. The elk fed here, and bed in the old growth. I killed some big elk in this spot. 4 to be exact. None after they logged it behind there. Just saying, I agree with the OP, I don't like it. I And I am NOT against logging, or timber harvest so don't get your panties in a wad all you who make a living at it. I just think it needs to be carefully thought out and not be subjected to GREED.

This was a deer hunting lodge in GB in the 1880s. I guess deer can live without trees...;)

There's been quite a few astute comments on this particular thread and have enjoyed reading them. A Forest Land Management graduate who studied Forestry and it's associated disciplines in the 1960s a lot has changed over the years.

Unfortunately the 'management by lawsuit' that exists in parts of this country and it has undoubtedly affected the best written management plans. It has done more to affect how our National And State Forests are managed that most of us realized.

Designated Critical Habitat for just one example, in places that the species has never been recorded, even in historical documents, can, and in areas I am familiar with, has limited management plans that are critical to manintaining healthy productive forests. In many areas of our country, the tree clad mountain sides will not be seen again in our lifetimes, maybe our children and grandchildren will see nature heal itself and our vertant vistas will be available for one all to see and enjoy.

Greed is a universal human attribute present in all of us to varying degrees. It is also indigenous to free enterprise where its effects are ameliorated by the "invisible hand" of countervailing and symbiotic influences and outcomes collectively known as free markets. Excising "greed" from the business of forestry is impossible and without the impulse and catalyst of material gain from land use decisions our economy would collapse. I'm not excusing it defending greed. It is the perversion of a good thing: a desire to realize financial gain.

"A rising tide lifts all boats".

I hunt Wisconsin public lands and it seems lately more logging is "select cut" and that leaves the woods looking much more natural and deer move in there and it seems to improve deer hunting. I have seen some "clear cuts" that left the landscape looking like the moon when they were finished. I would not like that either. It seems we should be able to have a balanced approach. I have taken a number of bucks on these fresh select cut areas...

This is one of the best threads I've read on here. I see so much concern for the forests, albeit shared in various ways. Good discussion. If I had to choose another profession I'd make my living in the woods.

I will not debate the merits of harvest financial gain vs. natural resource value left alone (there is value to both, and legitimacy to allowing both to occur), but I will say that there are options, like 'everything in moderation', alternatives to taking nearly ALL the old growth (less than 10% of which remains) in our western forests. THAT is what I consider greed, and there are relatively FEW who have lined their pockets to the Nth degree to the point where they cold not spend it all in a lifetime..

...or these 'few' have used it (the billions gleaned) with such frivolity that there is really little true justification for taking so much of this valued resource from everyone and every living thing in it.

The robber lumber barons who logged off northern Wisconsin a century or so ago to build Chicago certainly were operating out of greed. They changed the forest ecosystem of that part of the state. What used to be mature white pine forest is now primarily aspen/birch with some oaks and maples and various spruce.

Of course the birch/aspen is much better habitat for deer and most other creatures than the rather sterile white pine forest. Too, as has already been pointed out, aspen/birch responds well to clearcutting. Where I hunt, I'm surrounded by thousands of acres of public/county land, small chunks of which are being logged continually. I usually lose a tree stand or two location every year to logging. On the other hand, the new growth is huntable almost immediately and provides food and habitat for deer, bear, grouse and a lot of other critters. Of course, spacing the timing and location of the clearcuts also leads to diverse age management of the forest.

And, as the loggers in my neck of the wood are fond of saying, "If you don't like logging, try wiping with plastic."

Some on here should read Aldo Leopold's Sand County Almanac, or reread it. I include myself because it is so pertinent to this discussion.

And yes, while humans may be charged with the responsibilty to "subdue the earth," that doesn't mean abusing the Creation. Rather, we are to "tend the garden," not destroy the environment that sustains us.

Stewardship, not greed, is what Leopold was espousing. He was also a bowhunter.

While a mature forest might be pretty, a cut-over is better for deer. Hunting the far north, cut-overs are about as close to agriculture as I can get, so I actually like them! I will admit they are "ugly" at first, but boy do they attract the deer...which makes 'em beautiful in my mind.

Great topic. I have an interest in a sawmill, and proud of it. The mill uses about 85,000 cubic meters of logs per year and working on doubling that. I am also an avid moose hunter and can tell you first hand that cut overs are great habitat for moose in about the third year after the cut and raspberrys(which I like) show up on the cut over really quickly. What scares me is the use of herbicides to knock back the hardwoods and other over growth as part of the silviculture process. We still have to have lumber and jobs and there is no changing that, but I get the heebie jeebies wondering about the impact herbicides may have on the moose and my family through consuming the meat. By the way, sawmills in my neck of the woods don't participate in silviculture, we just purchase the logs. I am not sure of the makeup of the herbicide but I believe its called VISION. Anybody a chemist on here?

Rick

When Orion spoke of the logging of the pine forests of Wisconsin at the turn of previous century, it reminded me that many of the loggers headed south to Missouri and logged the White Pine and Shortleaf Pine forests that covered the Ozark region.

A thumbnail overview of deer hunting in the Show-Me State includes the cutover lands eventually grew up as a Oak Hickory forest complex. Until that happened and until whitetail deer management came into its own in the late 1930s with many imported deer from Wisconsin, Michigan and other states, deer were seldom seen much less hunted.

From a deer harvest (2 day bucks only) of less than 600 in 1944, the deer harvest now approaches 500,000. Time will tell if CWD or something else will change that number but the Oak-Hickory forests of the Ozarks and the croplands of norther Missouri should support abundant deer numbers for years to come.

I suppose I should note that lumber that was used in the construction of my home, built in 1906, likely come from the old growth pine forests of the ozarks.

"Contrarian", a fellow leatherwaller, sent me an article he wrote several years ago this morning is response to this thread. it included this quote from Aldo Leopolds "a public which lives in wooden houses should be careful about throwing stones at lumbermen, even wasteful ones, until it has learned how its own arbitrary demands as to kinds and quantities of lumber help cause the waste which it decries."

"Backcountry": Clearcutting in the southern Appalachians is responsible, wise, good....stewardship. It mimics the natural conditions that early successional tree species (and wildlife) need. It is not just a prescription to correct past abuses it is how you reproduce another stand. It promotes the growth of species that naturally establish themselves ( "volunteer") in full sunlight. Here that happens to include many species, especially oaks, that are valuable for wildlife.

Actually, the majority of stands I work in have been mismanaged/abused/"mined" for generations yet still include trees that produce some of the most sought after lumber in the world. Similar "horrendous" examples of timber harvesting to those mentioned in this thread can be cited from every forest biome and forest type in N. America. Most of these abused areas have in time recovered including those devastated by natural disasters like Mt. St. Helens. The elasticity, longevity, and restorative capacity of forests is baked in by an intelligent Designer.

I carry no brief for abusive logging or unbridled exploitation of natural resources. Neither do I like the "sky is falling" doomsday alarm-ism that inevitably slithers into discussions of forest management versus preservation. I also love true wilderness and heartily support its existence and availability with some limits. I have little patience for the prevalent, extreme "we must protect" preservationist view so that views Creation as only or primarily something to be preserved rather that conserved. Conservation is the wise use of natural resources with emphasis on use. The word was coined by Gifford Pinchot, a forester. "Con" to guard and "servare" to hold together.

Logging, cut-overs, clearcut, laying a forest to waste, ugly scarred country...yeah it is ugly. But under certain conditions I am 100% for it. In WI. the upper northernmost forests consist of a lot of mature conifers, cedar, alder and the like. I have seen tracts of land cut and the carrying capacity within 3-5 years appears to be greatly enhanced. Mind you, 95% of the Old World red and white pines disappeared 100 years ago, and the areas I speak of are not heavily hardwood Oak, Maple, Walnot, Hickory and such.

On the other hand, The southern half of the state has a great deal of valuable hardwoods. Many of these trees are 85+ years old, I bet many were there during WWI. I would hate to see them cut down under any circumstances if they are healthy

We use a combination of smaller clearcuts and selective shaded fuel breaks to reduce canopy closure, increase diversity and improve overall forest health while reducing fire risk in the wildland urban interface here. These harvests seldom produce merchantable timber, though.

Public backlash against some horrendous harvest practices, like massive clearcuts and their attendant impacts, only further reduce opporunities to conduct responsible forestry practices that can improve forest health, wildlife habitat and watershed conditions.

Why are your clear cuts not replanted by the logging company. We in new zealand have massive amounts of pine forest that is clear felled totally replanted,silvicultured over the first 8/12 years then left untill 22/28 yrs when the process starts again.We use a species called pinus radiata that originally was sourced from the montery pinsular in california, although we have selectedly bred it to grow farster and produce more than the runts from california.Their is no excuse for not replanting enmasse with the knowledge we have today.Hard mahi[ work] never hurt anyone???.

Chillkill, that method produces 'plantations' of one species. Habitat-friendly land management produces succession of varied growth.

The object is *not* optimization of timber production but sustained production of timber AND healthy forest/habitat for diverse species, including both game and non-game species.

Reading down through the comments I see a variety of opinion, most are based on local observance.

I think its safe to say clearcutting has different results in different locals, not only state to state but also within the same state.

A couple of things I have observed here in PA.

Seedling sapling stage supports the most deer, next is saw timber, and pole timber by far supports fewer deer.

A clearcut in say the Tuscarora state forest in the central part of the state may result in a healthy regrowth of oak seedlings, often it will need to be groomed by taking away the birch seedlings and striped maple which often take over.

A clearcut in the southern sproul state forest at higher elevations may end up growing back not worth anything due to soil, climate ect...

head farther north to the tioga state forest and head up Cushman branch which is west of the canyon and cedar run, and you will find a clearcut so thick with briar it is impassable. It is surrounded by a deer fence DCNR put up. The surrounding mts are typical of the area and contain a lot of beech whips. I often wonder where in the world did the briar come from? There is no briar anywhere in the surrounding mts that I'm aware of.

Speaking of deer fences meant to keep deer out...lol couple years ago I saw more deer sign inside the fence of a clearcut on SGL 75 in Lycoming county than there was outside. I witnessed the same thing this year in the rothrock SF. Buck rubs everywhere, lots of droppings and trails beat down to the bare earth. Incedently PA'ers we are allowed to hunt inside the fences. In 1985 a huge tornado ripped a huge swath of forest up in the Fish dam and dennison fork area. In it's aftermath I simply could not traverse it. Now years later it is still hard to traverse in many areas. It is one of the most remote and rugged areas in PA. Most hunters do not get into its interior. However you will find there some immense hardwoods, and a forest rejuvenating back after nature did a little forest management in part of it.

What does it all prove? Yes some clearcutting is a valuable tool for forest management,yet some turn out to be somewhat worthless, seeds from wind birds and whatever can bring new species to an area. Deer deterrent fences can be a real waste of money in some areas.

And despite all our knowledge....sometimes man just isn't as smart as he thinks he is.

Chillkill, to answer your question as to why we don't replant our cut-overs...in the northern states most cuts are predominately aspen (popple) which requires no replanting and will regenerate on its own. Further south many cut-overs are replanted with pine seedlings, and even further south they replant hardwoods...it just all depends on whether or not the preferred species will regenerate on its own or not.

Forester I am curious for your opinion about the California fires and if thinning would have helped.I have a friend who is a Federal forester in Idaho and he laments the Government wont let them manage the forests because of the PR.

4nolz- in short, yes.

Once the fire get going it's about the only thing tah could have helped.

The devastating Carr fire in Redding could have been stopped well before it even became a named fire, but the US Park Service would not let Calfire onto Department of Interior controlled land with their bulldozer to cut a fire break when the fire was under 10 acres.

Having direct experience with quite a few California forest fires I can say that there is a lot of variables in what fires burn with devastion and those that don't.

In 2008 we had a massive fire (in acerage) burn 95% of our property boundry. For the most part this lightening started fire burned low and slow. Burning forest litter and only crowning on dead standing trees. The only time it really blew up is when it hit the base of a 40 year old clear cut on a steep slope. The whole thing went up in a terrifying roar. The northwest facing slope was overgrown with tan oak and scrub replacing the invasive firs... yes. The conifers in this part of California have only moved in over the last 4-500 years. Prior to that the are was dominated with oak lands and meadows. I suspect lightening fires were common and it is well known that the local tribes regularly burned the land as active management.

"Public backlash against some horrendous harvest practices, like massive clearcuts and their attendant impacts, only further reduce opporunities to conduct responsible forestry practices that can improve forest health, wildlife habitat and watershed conditions." Backcountry, that's a good point, and true. I experienced that first hand when I worked for the COE at Robert Duncan Plaza in the 90s-00s as a fisheries biologist on salmon restoration and passage. In 2000, I had to enter the building I worked in (also forest Service was there) from the east side for a couple of weeks while this nut job held out on the side of the building, on a skinny ledge, protesting a single old growth cut proposal. Ecoterrorism was big a presence in Portland with the various anarchist groups like Cascadia Alliance. I certainly do not condone this type of practice. As a fish bio, I am in favor of balance, and sound forest management. I applaud the practices of leaving buffer zones of 100 feet, riparian areas for minimizing siltation into salmon spawning and rearing streams and rivers. Many improvements happened over the last 100 years of logging in the PACNW, and the salmon restoration was a great indicator of the success. I did NOT favor the near demise of the logging industry due to spotted owl and marbled mirullet protection in old growth. While I favor keeping large tracts of old growth, I do not condone shutting down logging as it was done, killing jobs, and leading to unmanaged timber resources. Its like taking certain drugs - you can't just stop cold turkey once you have been doing it for a period of time. During the 90's the Clinton Admin. totally screwed up the forests IMO. They stopped logging, closed forest road gates, and essentially abandoned the forest practices that favored improved habitat, all in the name of 'conservation'. Just plain foolishness, in the name of PC. I lived less than 30 miles from Mt. St. Helens for 20 years and I was up in this country for a huge amount of time. The regrowth of timber blown out from the blast was rapid, and led to an explosion of elk numbers. But then it started closing up canopy, and the elk numbers began to fall back again. Then hoof rot came and numbers dropped even further. Weyerhauser reduced timber harvest, and it was actually a negative impact on elk habitat. So you can't just abandon timber management - like a ghost town, it will be 'dead'. If you are going to manage it at all, keep doing it, and improve it. Gifford Pinchot Nat Forest was my home for 20 years. I lived literally on the border of it, or inside the boundary. The man came from NY. But he reached the timber industry far and wide. Salmon and timber all coexist in a balance he well understood. I got to be a part of it all and now I understand it. Timber mgt. is crucial to healthy forests, and stopping it is irresponsible esp. once you start. Ideally, the Creator's work is best left alone, but we are also part of creation and we need to use the resources, so we should use them and manage them wisely.

Tapperkayak: Thanks! Good posts. The pic of the wood sided apartments (?) captures an exciting (to a forester) trend in the forest products industry called "mass timber".

Entire neighborhoods and large urban centers, particularly in Europe, with houses, apartments, office complexes, hotels,restaurants...including high rise buildings all constructed with wood-osb, laminated beams and panels and a host of other wood materials that use high tech adhesives, heat, compression, grain alignment and lamination techniques to essentially produce wood building materials with strength properties equal or comparable to steel but with much lower carbon footprints. Many environmentalists are finally realizing the forest products industry isn't their enemy.

4nolz: Yes, in general the forest fires in CA are almost certainly more destructive bc of regulatory obstacles and disdain for cutting trees. As someone posted, there is very often no market for the dead trees coupled with entrenched resistance from federal land managers or their overlords to cutting/thinning which equals a toxic brew.

I fought forest fires here in VA for the first 12 years after college and have great admiration and respect for wildland fire fighters. Many federally managed western forests have excessive "fuel loads" of drought, bark beetle and just old growth natural mortality caused standing dead "timber" that are ticking time bombs. The dense conifer stands with large swaths of standing dead and (dry) stuff growing alongside green trees on steep terrain in semi arid to arid climates with violent lightning laden storms...these are the "perfect storm" conditions that lead to the terrible footage we see on the evening news.

Southern CA with communities built on the edge of the national forest are the most susceptible to horrible damage. The Santa Anna winds that can blow 50 mph or more coupled with very low humidity, in the teens or less than 10%, steep slopes enabling pre heating of fuels, the box canyons and long hollows that create chimney effects, and pitch and other nearly explosive, volatile fluids in the dry site vegetation... these conditions make fire control almost impossible.

Judicious use of controlled burns to reduce fuel loads and thinning intermediate aged stands and harvesting mature timber would help reduce scope and severity of many western fires but the absence of markets for the wood, difficulty and expense of accessing large roadless areas with equipment, resistance to "interfering with nature", PC,...means it will likely be a long time before things improve.

Yet, as increasing urban populations and improved livingbstandards around the world demand more wood products from shrinking forest land bases, new construction techniques and products using panels, beams, walls, floors, doors, trim, furniture, etc. from basically chipped wood from trees that don't have to be large diameter or tall could help "pay" for the cultural practices needed to alleviate severe forest fire hazards.

These sound management practices already occur on many state and private lands in the west but will not happen on public lands until we wake up or burn up.

Well said, Trapper.

I look at the forest as a giant garden. The gardens that grow well are the gardens well tended.

Logging was so intense then that below-cost timber harvests flooded the market with saw logs. Rather than cut at a sustainable rate, lumber companies raced to cut more and more, shipping valuable timber to Japan for pennies on the dollar.

I remember a cartoon from that era showing a corporate type telling a lumberjack, who was sitting in a sea of cut tree stumps and no trees left to cut, "You're fired!"

Yup, shiploads of beautiful timber to Japan, in return for loads of chip board (not even plywood). Just plain forest gluttony, but a 'few' got really fat from it.

Don't confuse Profit with Management. Just because you despise one doesn't mean the other is no good. Timber owner's have little control over where their timber is marketed; they simply know they have a forest to manage...where the low bidder decides to sell that timber is out of the owner's hands.

Below-cost timber sales screw the taxpayer and stick them with external costs such as ruined stream courses, loss of salmon runs (and the jobs those support), on and on...

And the pushback from the concerned public may result in NO timber mgt getting done. Then comes disease, lack of diversity and eventually catastrophic fire may result. We're not talking about small lot, private timber owners.

By the way, most of the California fires were in non-timber producing areas often with volatile brushy vegetation types or in areas where timber harvests are made impractical by residential development.

I am a forester in eastern Oregon and have been watching some of this thread. As part of my job I am involved in the public discussions revolving around timber management, particularly on our national forests. I have spent most of my career in industry yet work regularly with folks from the environmental community, consequently I am well versed in all sides of the the timber management issues. I just want to state how impressed I have been with the civility and respectfulness of the discussions in this thread. From my experiences timber management discussions illicit highly emotionally charged opinions, statements, responses and the like. My hat's off to this gang. Mike

Likewise, Colorado is a beetle kill burn mecca waiting to happen (again), due to poor management, esp. up around RMNP. It has already happened there but I bet the mgt. has not changed.

Forester, That is a light colored brick building that an eco terrorist pseudo-named 'Tre Arrow' scaled and sat on for 11 days in 2000. He was a member of Cascadia Forest Alliance, and ended up destroying some logging heavy equipment at the Eagle Creek timber sale site, and was subsequently on the lam until they finally caught and arrested him. I was working in this building at the time and when I got on the third floor every morning, I could be at the same level and look right through the windows out to him. I was heavily involved in the salmon passage and restoration issues as a fish biologist for the Corps of Engineers, and balancing 'issues' and moderating meetings with several agencies and tribes, many with conflicting interests, was my job. I know that forcing opinions on others results in nothing being accomplished, and using tact is far more productive in getting positive results. This is true for salmon recovery as well as forestry practice. Since those days, the salmon runs have increased, and the forests are better managed, with greater yield and less negative impact. And the anarchists are fuming... :)

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here