Forum Replies Created
- AuthorPosts
near horse
ParticipantI wondered about Lyme because they were being put forward as an example in an article titled “Conservationists Team Up with Ranchers and Loggers”.
Also, in a few cases I know of here in our area, timber companies will log an area then want to swing a trade with the USFS or other public landholder to “exchange” their land for some public land. There’s been a big battle over a land exchange like that and every retired USFS forester from the region has condemned the transaction as flawed ….. those still employed by the USFS remain silent.
What would be a good base to build a management system around? I know (maintaining?) ecological integrity was mentioned but how would we measure that (sounding like Andy :p)? Would you do a pre and post harvest assessment of key species? I’m not trying to be difficult but this is one of those things that seems like it could gel into something workable but still feels a little sketchy to me right now.
With the 3rd party certification process idea – would the proposed harvest need to be evaluated as well as the result?
ParticipantAny of you in the NE familiar wih Lyme Timber Co in NH? I just read an article that mentioned them as a private company that “acquires quality habitat … gives up development rights by selling conservation easements then logs the land in a sustainable way”. “Harvesting methods are 3rd party certified by the Forestry Stewardship Council and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative”.
Are these certifying agencies considered reputable or are they extensions of the standard conventional forestry community?
ParticipantHi Ed,
Happy New Year. Can’t help with the steel beam question but near here a guy saws wood for flooring, siding, finish etc and he uses his covered area for the sawn material with the mill out in front. He doesn’t get near as much snow as you do but do you have plans/thoughts on how/where to put store the cut material? BTW – he added a profile cutter to his setup so he can do some molding too.
ParticipantRead about using one person on each side of animal w/ attached lead ropes. No rope halters.
Definitely start in a more confined area and work your way to more open spaces.
I wonder about trying a sort of hobble setup if the above aren’t options.. …. Just to make running off more difficult for your cow.
FYI – there’s an older book called Handbook of Livestock Handling and Restraint. Some good there too.
ParticipantBesides the points Donn mentioned, do give those tires a real good look. They can be pretty spendy to replace and may hold air but not have much life left in them – look for sidewall checks/cracks.
Participant@Countymouse 38230 wrote:
I agree that fire events provide another historical model. In some ways, this is a good model of what happens when trees are removed by logging. I recognize that it is not exactly the same, but probably a good natural model in in some forests. I would guess these studies would be particularly well suited to some western forests, where fires seem to occur with high severity at a regular frequency. I am less convinced about it’s applicability to eastern forests. I am not sure how frequent fire was in virgin eastern forests, if it was severe enough to kill large trees, and how widespread the damage was from a single fire. This info would let one know what naturally happens after a fire (and parhaps a logging event), but also how much of this is going on at a steady state level in a natural environment. All useful info. Without it, one could argue “1) Fire is natural 2) Recovery from fire is beneficial 3)clearcut logging is like a fire, and thusly, 4) there is a ecological benefit to clearcutting everything I see.” To counter this argument, one needs both qualitative and quantitative information. It is a good example, actually, of why both are important.
I think I may have not clearly made my point. Fire was just one example of how nature “creates” heterogeneity in an ecosystem. And that increases niches for various species (plant and animal) to “make a living” — diversity. Old growth forests are important because they support some specific lifeforms, take a long time to replace, and are relatively rare now. But thet are not necessarily the “gold standard” to manage towards.
The hypothetical argument that if fire is good then so is clearcutting is pretty weak and shouldn’t need any data to refute. The similarities exist in the benefits/drawbacks lie in the scale …”how big; how severe”.“Many would be attracted to spending some money (or making less) on low impact logging if it could be shown that increases populations or quality of deer, turkey, bear, or other game animals.”
My question here is aren’t we just substituting a desirable animal species for a tree (or trees) in our management plan?
” If we use horses to apply the exact same forestry as is being applied by mechanical operators, then we will not be offering an alternative.”
To add to Carl’s point here – to try to use horses in a system based on mechanical harvest is destined to fail economically. If you have to market/get paid at the same rate as guys running line machines, skidders and feller/bunchers
because you are really offering nothing different, the game is over. I think Mitch’s example on the 3-5 acres pieces sort of speaks to that.Carl – are you thinking of perhaps a 3rd party post-harvest score/grade system where the results are “scored” vs the original management plan? Would pay be scaled to how closely you met the desired goals? WOuld like to hear more details of how the system might work …. it sounds interesting to me.
ParticipantOld growth forests are just one example of what forest looked like pre-human disturbance. The heterogeneity of habitats/species in stands of varying ages is the diversity that makes the system robust enough to continue to exist. Fire events were one of the disturbances that generated patches of younger timber.
I’m pulling form old memory again but the methods we need to employ to be profitable with high overhead demand high output per unit time (at current prices). Where draft animal logging can fit in best (IMO) is where harvest is ONE of the goals of the landowner not just the only goal. Many of the ecological principles that I recall enhancing the diversity of an ecosystem – edge effect, patchiness of a resource … – would be perfectly suited to use of animal power. One example in the UI experimental forest is what they called a “postage stamp clearcut” – a 1 acre clearcut surrounded by uneven age stands that may have been logged selectively or not at all. Those practices would be very difficult to perform and justify ($$) using conventional means but the landowner(s) need to see the “added value” of using this method and be willing to pay for it. Funny that in the local food movement ” value-added” is a pretty common term. Maybe that’s another way/buzz word to use with potential clients?
ParticipantHave you checked SFJ to see if they have at least a schematic in an older issue? Also, I can check and see if the DVD Loose Haying at the Grant-Kohrs Ranch has anything.
Participant@Countymouse 38191 wrote:
Well said, Geoff, this is the question indeed… Does anyone have a good answer to this? I don’t…
I think that is the crux of Carl’s point. We need to redefine what constitutes a forest resource. The old definition was too narrow and short-sighted. Unfortunately, just like our energy situation, when many of us have invested in the current system, change will be difficult.
ParticipantTim – a well-made point. When I was a graduate student there was an “argument” put forth that clearcutting, specifically in the Tongass National Forest in SE Alaska, was beneficial to wildlife by increasing food availability – browse for deer, elk, moose. That was true … for about 3-5 yrs at which point the quality browse was beyond reach of most animals. The time frames and long term effects are often overlooked.
Andy – I understand your frustration with not being able to measure or quantify the benefits of draft logging v conventional but I don’t think it’s in ability to measure that’s the fly in the ointment. It’s inability to know (or agree?) what things we desire as outcomes so we can then determine how to measure/collect data etc. For a long time (and in some places even now) it was totally based on timber production (maximizing growth of desirable/marketable species) and that was pretty easy to measure. Once you start trying to take ito account the impacts on a whole ecosystem that is dynamic in its own right, you’ve exponentially increased the complexity of what to measure, how to do it, and for how long.
An example – in 1989 my project was to help determine the carrying capacity for grizzlies in Yellowstone National Park (partly funded by USFS). Shouldn’t be too hard ……. a fixed area defined, figure out the nutritional value of natural foods available, how much of those foods are available in the Park and the nutritional requirements for a grizzly and BANG – Yellowstone should have X number of bears. Over the last 20+ yrs there still has been much debate over what X should be —- bears eat whitebark pine nuts that are in serious decline and are a masting crop. How much importance value (a realterm) does that food get? ……
Not sure if he’s still relevant but Jack Ward Thomas was the guy to read back then —-here’s one of his more recent quotes
“The Forest Service is going to be a leader in ecosystem management,” Thomas once said. “Right now, it’s more a concept than a practice. What does ecosystem management mean? It means thinking on a larger scale than we’re used to. It means sustaining the forest resources over very long periods of time.”
IMO – the question we’re confronted with is: How do we define forest resource? Untilwe can define it, we can’t really measure or manage it.
Sorry about the ramble – some of this was stored away in the dusty areas of my mind.
ParticipantFrankenstein say – “Fire no bad or goood. Is necessary part of some (or many) ecosystems though.”
Look, I don’t want to get into a pissing match over this but as a student in zoology I took a Fire Ecology course (along with countless other ecology courses) and spent plenty of time trapping and collecting data on small mammal succession after a burn (in a chaparral and coastal sage scrub environment). It was made very clear by those instructors and researchers that there is, was and always will be an economic component to fire policy ….. sometimes in direct conflict with ecological principles.
“In the context of the ecological theory of the time, fire exclusion wasbelieved to promote ecological stability. In addition, fire exclusion could also reduce
commodity damages and economic losses.”I don’t see that this says anything about foresters believing or not. I think the “context” they refer to is really a smaller subset of ecology known as “conservationism”.
But a quote from here (Fire Prevention and Control in the National Forests — 1911) indicates that economics was a large part of the mindset ….
“If the crop is to be harvested, it must be protected from fire during the time of its growth. It is worse than useless to devise plans to assure future growth if this future growth is to be burned up.”Also, there’s a whole paragraph discussing the catastrophic economic losses associated with the 1910 fires here and the Fernie fire in BC. Some great old pictures too.
http://www.foresthistory.org/ASPNET/Policy/Fire/Suppression/Silcox_Fire_1910.pdfWith regard to evergreens in PA (or anywhere) – In a larger time frame, the conifers are considered successionally relic populations giving way to the flowering trees (hardwoods). Now, humans can manage these trees to keep resetting the successional stage and that is certainly something to consider.
ParticipantForest service fire suppression policy was based in part on the economic value of the timber that might be lost in a given fire event. I don’t think that’s evidence for our inability to indentify a natural ecosystem but more, our desire/willingness to disregard it in the face of economics.
Also, years of observation by “unbiased” foresters/loggers/land managers IS some of the data collected and used to prove/disprove a hypothesis. People who work in the woods daily are an invaluable source of observational data.
ParticipantAin’t much you can get for $250 so if this is rebuilt you’re gettig a deal and a half.
ParticipantHey Ed – we’re gonna have to put you and your scoot-making on a video archive for future generations to view 8>0
If you get a chance check out this from the 1980’s – showing woodlot mgmt in Indiana. http://archive.org/details/edu.maine.trees
Also, the last log drive here in N ID was in the 1970’s on the North Fork of the Clearwater – I think there’s video.
ParticipantHi Donn,
We got a little winter with 6″ snow on 40mph wind. I know some forums have you reduce the file size of photos by running them through a photo site like picasa. Otherwise they can be pretty large. BTW – I appreciate that you document and post so many photos to your picasa site. Very helpful.
- AuthorPosts