Perspective on logging article?

Geoff,

Long article so would be hard to address point by point.

Thom McEvoy has been around a long time, although as you can tell from the article he is referring to primarily hardwood management. In short, he is spot on when he describes silvicultural prescriptions. Selective harvest is not found in silvicultural text. In un-even aged management there is either single tree selection or group selection. Selective has become common phrase for single tree selection. That is usually thought of in a good connotation, as in what Jason, does “worst first” or also known as low-grading. Selective could also describe the exact opposite which would be high-grading or “cut the best and leave the rest”. I definitely do not agree with Thom’s premise that by removing inferior trees you are not improving the stand, or that by removing an inferior overstory tree in favor of promising regeneration you are not improving individual potential. That situation is referred to as crop tree management and is a true silvicultural prescription by definition.

The folks in hardwood country could better address appropriate silviculture in their region. As you know, for our region I primarily deal with pine, fir, spruce, and some aspen. I am a believer that even-aged mangement as a silvicultural presription is not evil in the appropriate forest cover type. I do believe that some implementation of even-aged management in the past has not been the most beneficial. My silviculture prof pounded in my head that clear-cut is a silvicultural prescription and that clear felling is the action. One of the best things that has happened to foresters in recent years is that they have learned that they don’t have to walk in a straight line and that smaller openings are good. We refer to these as “patch cuts” which are small (few acres) scattered across a treatment area in a mosaic pattern. Small irregular openings that play well into the historical disturbance regime of species like pure lodgepole pine stands that are adapted to, and depend on, stand replacement events to fully function and regenerate. That is a case where, in my region, even-aged management is the most appropriate. Go lower in elevation into primarily ponderosa pine and Doug-fir and even-aged management is the last thing that you would want to do. That forest cover type is best suited to single-tree and group selection. High elevation spruce and true fir, same thing, uneven-aged management.

These scenarios all play into what I rail about. Performing management for the forest’s sake first and then using the resulting product versus managing strictly for product at the expense of the forest. That situation is when you get into operational plans and harvesting methods that are based more on volume, cost, and expediency than what is best for the forest ecosystem.

Trees are the most incredible renewable resource that we have and can continue to have while existing in an ecologically functioning forest if we maintain our management priorities for the forest and not solely for product.

BTW, I hate diameter cut limits in western forests but we can talk about that later…:rolleyes:

Well said carl, I couldnt agree with you more some of these guys get more stuck on theolagy than they do practacality! Most foresters and loggers in this area and in the midwest in general feel that high purduction is there only goal, and LO are duped into beleveing that this approch will benifit them the most till there woods are being slottered! I am working right know cleaning up a mess where a logger not only took the best trees but left everything but the venner logs in the woods. we have trees back there with 500 to 600 board feet left in the tops and talk about ruts I have steped into ruts left by the skidder that were up to my waist! Shamefull mess the land owner vowed to never have a tractor or skidder in the woods again! I am now trying to convince him to bring a dozer in to repair the trail damage so the horses wont get hurt Lancek

I didn’t levi any blame. It’s just that the ultimate decision is left up to the LO, and when there are these common misconceptions floating around then the one good idea is lost among them.

This is another example of a myth. I don’t think “WE” have to “SELL” anybody anything, nor does less aggressive harvest have to be anything but profitable. I in fact don’t have to compete with the hackers. I have turned away more work than I have been able to complete.

The problem is that we all tend to try to get an idea about things we are interested in. It just comes down to how hard we work at “understanding” the issue, and how much “legend” do we accept as gospel. This article is trying to point out that our modern culture is awash in myths about how to make forestry decisions, and many of them are based on belief that are unfounded. My point is that LO’s have all the responsibility. They either choose right, or they don’t. I can’t lose sleep over that.

I wrote a management plan for a local LO. He hired me because of my ecological and low impact perspective. I could not perform the work on his land because of my schedule (building my home), so I agreed to find someone to work for him. We were in a period where condition were limiting everybody, so the choices were limited. Because of a major up hill skid we were looking for a mechanized operator. His neighbor (now this guy knew it all, and allowed an atrocious operation on his land, and had actually called me up (cold) midstream to help because he was all of a sudden worried about the affect on his standing in the State’s Forest Taxation Program) recommended the guy who was working on his place. My LO had to drive by this mess every day, and complained about it, but the operator was a “nice” guy, so he spoke with him. I was called in to walk the woods, and lay out the job. LO really wants to work with this guy. I say, I didn’t mark this job to be cut with a shear, and look what he did next door. His call. He can see the work!!! I say lets get a contract together, and provide it for the LO. Too much! LO and operator want to work on a hand shake. 2 weeks later frantic phone calls. I have nothing to work with. No contract, no teeth. Because he was such a “nice” guy we were able to coax him off the property before he completely destroyed this particularly nice stand of sugar maple poles, but it ended up costing LO $1000 more for my time then he got in stumpage because I had to practically hold everybody’s hands.

I still work for this guy, and he is starting to listen a little harder to me, but I respect the LO’s right to make mistakes on their own property, but just because the guy next door thinks it’s a good idea, doesn’t mean that it is good forestry. And yes there is a bit of irony and frustration in my comments, but I have been having these conversations for nearly 30 years now, and there are some people who get it, and some who like the blinders they are wearing, and it is not my job to try to wrestle them off.

There is no guarantee that any of our work will have any lasting effect. Several of the lots that I groomed in the 1980-90’s have been sold and then smacked, so as much as that disappoints me, I just have to focus on trying to do the best job I know how to do.

Carl

Well again I agree with Joel, logging is NOT a game, it is the second most dangerous occupation in the nation on a deaths and injury basis. I think the reason that Soren Erickson named it this from the start was because he wanted to attract young people to his training courses. Another point based on my experience of training with Soren decades ago is that the training program is about chain saw safety and skills – not “logging”. Maybe since sports are such a big part of young peoples lives, (that are physically active) this became a way of naming that training program.

Every Biological Woodsmen we have trained was a “sports” athlete on some level first. I have said for years that one needs to have the body of a tri-athlete marathoner and the environmental ethic of a radical environmentalist to be a Biological Woodsmen. That hasn’t changed.

I have also heard all these stories from all the forest interests for thirty years. There are so many conflicts of interest and compromising situations that limit the ability of private forest landowners from getting good information. This is why we concentrate our landowner education to be by conducting events like our Open Woods Days and bringing them in the forest to see the work first hand. The more educated the landowner is about the forest the more they want our services.

Landowner education has got to be more than a consulting forester’s telephone number, there just aren’t enough good ones around. This being said by someone that makes a percentage of their income as a consulting forester.

The article by McEvoy is not as bad as the crap on the NH site posted asking for comments by Mark Cowdrey recently.

What do you think of that post Carl? I think there is a deadline on responding to that bunk and wondered if anyone else was looking at it?

I think a missing ingredient in these forestry articles is the phrase “site specific”. The sites are so different that informed ground level observations cannot be replaced as a source of information and guidance for favorable treatment of the forest.

I also agree that all we can do is the best we know how and the rest will take care of itself. That is hard stuff for a beginner to grasp when they are working at this for a living. But time has proven that doing the right things will have their rewards over time, it has for Carl and for many of us.

It is very tiring battling all the conventional thinkers about forestry.

The main point folks is that there is an ongoing war for access to the resources. Our little group of animal practitioners are a threat to the conventional approach having free range in the woods everywhere. The conventional forest product industry is afraid they won’t get wood cheap forever, when in fact they are over harvesting and working themselves out of a job daily, by diluting the value of the very products they sell by putting to much of it out daily.

It is a giant leap to have consumers develop the same understanding and values for sustainably harvested wood as they do for organic food. People don’t eat wood. But the same concern will eventually be shared beneficially by the larger landscape and human needs from the forest will become understood as valuable for it’s role in the community, watershed and planets health. Those enhanced values will add to the worth of our services, but only if we continue to prove the services provide forest products without destroying what the public perceives a forest to be.

Good stuff on this thread and many others. A frequent challenge for me is to put this stuff into sound bite segments for everyday people to understand. That is not easy when the reality is very complex, but something we work on every day. It’s like: Tell me your best way to love and nurture your children, but keep it to 250 words or less….the answer is not let the schools and government raise them!

Keep up your good work folks, wish you could all be with us this weekend!

Lance,

You and I must not have been attending the same webinar. Andy, who actually did the horse logging aspect of the study (he owns two mares and has done quite a bit in the past), was mentioning that it is a viable option. A few other foresters agreed and I did not see one comment to the negative. I did have some issues with Andy’s take on ground compaction and disturbance, but those were minor. Like most quality research, the numbers don’t lie. His study was geared towards impressions the public has of most aspects of the harvesting operation including visual, site impact, and noise levels. He showed short segments of video of each type of system with the relative amount of noise associated with it. Overwhelmingly, participants favored horses over the other methods although recognizing the decrease in productivity and increase in expense. This study was geared towards the increasing population of folks that have moved to the “rural” areas from urban areas. If people think of horse logging as “warm & fuzzy forestry” so be it. It is only another marketing tool for our toolbox; image is everything when it comes to marketing your operation.

This present situation plays into exactly what I have mentioned several times before. Even though from a “big picture” land management perspective the slicing and dicing of larger properties into smaller ones is a problematic and worrisome one, it plays directly into what draft animal powered forestry is really good at and stands to be the most financially appealing to an operation. These folks, as a majority, are more concerned with other values than just fiscal return on their timber. Aesthetics, recreational use, wildlife, and ecological integrity are more important to most.

The previous posts on this thread all point to this. Like Carl & Jason, I turn down probably 60% of people that approach me to do work for them. I am interested in working with people that are committed and want to be involved with the stewardship of their land. The type of folks I deal with are usually fairly well educated, affluent, and want to have someone working with them who is as well and has a high ethic when it comes to land management.

I’ve mentioned this before, do the exact opposite of what we do (hopefully) in harvesting operations “take the best and leave the rest”. These types of folks are out there; it just takes some effort and selfless marketing to reach them if they are not banging on your door.

@near horse 12780 wrote:

On a different note – Scott, that’s an interesting thought that having timber tracts subdivided and in the hands of various small owners might acually be of overall benefit to both the ecosystem and horse logging. So all the “hobby farms” aren’t the blight we were hearing about (perhaps it was another myth).

Geoff,
I don’t believe that fragmentation of land ownerships will be an ecological benefit as a whole. I do believe that peoples values on these smaller parcels will. And yeah, in my mind it is a slam dunk opportunity for horse logging if it is marketed and implemented correctly.

Geoff, the article was not about the difference between conventional forestry and horse logging. These are myths about forestry in general.

Although I do agree that it is unfortunate that many people perpetuate these myths, my comments were mostly oriented toward the fact that the pervasive nature of cultural beliefs, those passed from neighbor to neighbor etc., is almost impossible to compete with. It is not a factor of me, or anybody else, trying to promote an alternative, but just realizing that this is the nature of culture, and the fact is that many many people do get it. It’s just that there are some who (like my client) don’t want to admit that they need guidance and just try to make decisions based on bits and pieces of what they have picked up here and there, listening to the BS at the bar or wherever.

It isn’t a matter of some people passing around bad information, rather it is just cultural habits, and the necessity to believe that you can be a part of what others are doing if you do it a certain way. I’m not blaming anybody, it is an innate behavior choice.

The point that was being made in this article is that these myths are not part of conventional forestry either, they are just plain misinformation. And believe me I spend a huge portion of my life discussing these things with practically everybody I come into contact with.

It is ok to be confused, and it is great to ask for clarification, just people need to be prepared to open their minds to understanding new things, and most people just want it quick and simple. If it is going to cost them money to pay for my guidance then they often opt for the cheaper hearsay version, which usually leads them back to me, just at a higher end cost.

Carl