very small scale forest work

Jenifer,
That buck thorn is a mess, I worked a wood lot with a lot of that in it. My job was to pull it out by the roots and then pile it in a field. I would hook my team up high on the buck thorn and then pull it almost out of the ground ( the bigger ones I am talking , roots half in half out of the ground. ) then I would re hook it close to the ground take a little different angle with the team and pop them the rest of the way out of the ground. I would skid 4 or 5 in a pile put a rapper chain around them and skid them out of the wood lot to the field. I do not know if they chipped them or burned them. Taylor Johnson

Jenifer,
Time will tell if it is final or not but I sure think t will be because in this gated community there are many , many white tailed deer. I think that what we pulled will come back to some extent but when they do I hope the deer will do the part. The chain was just a regular skidding chain with slip hooks on each end. I would hook it up high and then put a twist on it partly to keep the chain from slipping but it also seemed to help twist the tree from the ground especially when hooked near the stump.
I have use my team to do a lot of this type of work . I have pulled every thing from scrub oak to soft maple wile building trail for people. It works very good and after you skid some logs down the trail the divots in the ground fill right in and it levels right out. I even use the team to pull shrubs out of a garden next to a house. There were a bunch of under ground irrigation pipes and a sprinkler system to work around so it would have been hard to get a tractor into them. I had to flag the sprinklers so I could avoid them . Most of this took place in an area were the cheaper house ran about 1.5 million ( all Dr.s and Med pros from the Mayo clinic in Rodchester MN. Taylor Johnson

Jenn this really looks like one of the most conflicted statements that I have ever read. Natural state=goats?

The “forest” is not a plot of land, it is an ecological state. There is no native forest. This is an entirely human concept. Natural states are always in transition. All species are invasive in nature, at one point or another. The solution to managing forests “naturally” is not to wage war against the present state, but to limit impact on the process, so that site can reach it’s most vital condition, naturally.

The “invasives” that people are so upset about are just taking advantage of weaknesses in the condition of our ecosystem after generations of over-use. There is no way that buckthorn, or any other species is going to out compete sugar maples that are allowed to grow in a naturally high stocking. At some point in a natural forest you will either have to walk encumbered by underbrush, or dead-fall.

Try entering those woods with an open heart to all the species represented there, and see whether that feels better than the feeling of doing battle. I believe strongly that the present is full of truth. Judging the current state based on a picture of the past, or an image of a possible future, are distracting efforts.

The natural response to disturbance is rapid regrowth of opportunistic organisms. Often their work is necessary to set up the future condition successfully. The only time I cut invasives is when they are in direct competition with crop trees, otherwise they are welcome components.

Don’t blame the buckthorn for human error. Pay attention to it, and try to understand it for what it is.

Carl

I think I intended to say that i find it uncomfortable to assign negative value. In other words, when making decisions about land use, and resource management, I recognize the potential to increased the value for a particular crop, or land-use, or individual “crop tree”, as it pertains to my objective, bearing in mind that it is MY objective. That being said I evaluate obstacles and competitors in relation to that chosen use, or individual, and determine what my approach will be. I do not have a set of biases against particular species, or uses, which is the negative evaluation that I was referring to.

I have no problem with some one trying to eliminate buckthorn, for example, I just think that it should be clear, that it is to satisfy a human objective, and shouldn’t be justified as an attempt to regain a natural species composition.

There are places where I eliminate all sorts of plants, animals, and other organisms, in the name of my objectives. Some might argue, that because I am a part of the natural world, then that is natural, but I think being human allows me to take responsibility for my actions, and being only a small participant , I feel that I should keep my impact small too.

Carl

I don’t mean to bat this around so much, but actually the distinction is more than semantic. To see value in something is much different than assuming a negative value in something else. Eliminating a competitor, regardless of species, is much different than ear-marking one species as a detractor.

I have learned that the act of harvest, or elimination, has much different impact on the practitioner when the choice is based on the positive appraisal of potential in a choice, as apposed to the approach that is motivated by an effort to eradicate. One is an act of acceptance, one is an act of intolerance.

I’m glad your getting so much reward from your work, Carl