Draft Logging Research?

[Andy Carson]

I think that when people are motivated to take specific actions because they truly care about the forest, there is a temptation to think that those that do no take these same actions simply do not care. This might be the case in many situations, but i am not sure how widespread this is. I think it is entirely possible that someone could care about the forest to a very high level and simply have different ideas on how it is best to supoort the forest ecosystem. I am even open to the idea that some may actually beileve that leaving some undisturbed areas while clearcutting neighboring areas actually has ecological benefits. They certainly make this case in documents.

I do believe that some industrial scale loggers do not care, but regardless of if they do or not, I do not think this is the best way to forward an agenda. In some ways, it reminds me of people who comment on other people parenting styles. They might say things like “If you cared about that child, you would get them vaccinated, not vaccinate them, send them to public school, homeschool, breastfeed them, not breastfeed them, sleep with them, not sleep them them,” (and a miillion other things). Each caregiver believes in some of these thing and doesnt believe in others, but nearly all actually cares for thier children very much. Starting the conversation with “If you cared you would do X, Y, or Z” often just makes people mad and makes them point out how they care in other ways that are better than yours. Perhaps some people also have these honest differences of opinion about caring for the forest. Studies would provide a different way to frame the conversation in what I believe is a more productive way. Perhaps something like, “If you are interested in biodiversity in the forest, I read a study that the greatest levels of biodiversity are created and maintained by low impact small scale logging operations.” Contrast this with the statement “If you truly cared about the forest, you would support low impact small scale logging operation.” I believe the subsequent conversations go in very different directions.

[Rick Alger]

I agree Andy. I have a good friend who cuts 3000 cords a year with a mechanical outfit. He is an intense environmentalist, but he also believes that large scale stand interventions in our forest types mimic nature and enhance wildlife.

I also like the idea of framing this discussion in terms of silvicultural prescriptions as Carl has also suggested.

[near horse]

Sometimes opinions/decisions can be based on a “practice looking for justification” —- case in point Rick’s example of mirroring natural disturbance. We can go looking for ways to justify our desired outcome. “How can I justify cutting 3000 cords using a mechanical outfit tht I have lots of money invested in?” “Oh, it’s just like natural disturbances.” From the trees perspective perhaps (dead is dead) but there’s a massive difference in loss/relocation of nutrients and in removal of biomass on that scale. When we say “it’s just like nature” we need to also consider “it’s in addition to nature”. Our disturbances are additive to those already naturally occurring.

As I mentioned in a different thread, there’s pretty good evidence that enhancement of wildlife habitat is often short-lived ( +/- a few years).

I was told these are admirable goals, but they stifle the economy, stop buying coffee makers, and someone loses a job……

I hear this in our area too. But has anyone thought someone designed and marketed “coffee makers” thereby creating a demand and thus the need for “coffeemaker makers” :(? Why does changing the status quo have to be seen only in terms of jobs lost and not new oportunities as well?

[Tim Harrigan]

@Rick Alger 39249 wrote:

…in our forest types…

This is a key concept. My guess is there is some truth and evidence to support both the comment by Rick and Geoff. We all suffer to some extent from selective perceptions framed within our own experience and realities. I have some confidence in assessing local impacts but my confidence wanes as I get farther from home. Get me out to Scott’s or Geoff’s neighborhood and I probably won’t have much to say. It seems to me though that if the forest type approaches a monoculture because of earlier harvests and replanting then some selective hard harvests with the intent of increasing botanical diversity and resilience in the future could be a defensible approach. But there are many considerations in such a decision. I am sure there are many better examples but these things are not all black and white, sustainable or unsustainable.

When I get a chance to travel I am often struck by the huge regional differences in the acceptance of various agricultural practices. They are rooted in the terrain, past practices, level of investment in the status quo, scale of production, many different things. My guess is you could take a small scale beef producer from the northeast and a Nebraska feedlot owner and put them in a room and they would fully agree on the need to protect the environment, animal welfare and on and on. But take them on farm visits to assess those realities and their response is likely to be different. Nothing is as clear cut and simple as it seems.

[Andy Carson]

@near horse 39251 wrote:

Sometimes opinions/decisions can be based on a “practice looking for justification” —- case in point Rick’s example of mirroring natural disturbance. We can go looking for ways to justify our desired outcome. “How can I justify cutting 3000 cords using a mechanical outfit tht I have lots of money invested in?”

Or, perhaps someone truly believes cutting 3000 cords provides an ecological benefit and buys equipment in order to do it. I think it is better to extend the benefit of the doubt and address the merits of the argument rather than questioning the integrity of people who disagree. I think questioning integrity is a good way to rile up people who agree with you already, but it also riles up those that disagree, and makes the argument look like mad rants to those on the fence. I’m not saying you are right or wrong, Geoff, just that I don’t think that these are productive ways to frame the debate.

[Baystatetom]

Trust me I am quite familiar with the mimic natural disturbance idea, I used it as the base for managing thousands of acres. A couple light thinnings to get the best trees up to size then…..lets pretend it was a huge hurricane. The thing is in a natural state those disturbances don’t come along in every generation of trees. Sometimes it could be hundreds of years between them, not every 80 years when the stand hits financial maturity.
The area I work in has been highgraded multiple times since agricultural abandonment and sometimes putting 9 out 10 stems on a 50 acre plot through a chipper is the best thing to do with the mess we have created by poor forestry or no forestry. That being said every once in a while the perfect job for draft logging pops up. Too bad more foresters can’t recognize the opportunity and think that it is actually a worthy way of doing things.
~Tom

[near horse]

@Countymouse 39255 wrote:

……I don’t think that these are productive ways to frame the debate.

Since I never meant to question one’s integrity and only to point out one example of potential drivers of decision making, I guess I just don’t get it.

[Andy Carson]

@near horse 39251 wrote:

Sometimes opinions/decisions can be based on a “practice looking for justification” —- case in point Rick’s example of mirroring natural disturbance. We can go looking for ways to justify our desired outcome. “How can I justify cutting 3000 cords using a mechanical outfit tht I have lots of money invested in?” “Oh, it’s just like natural disturbances.”

This is the passage I am referring to. To me, the implication here is that the logger in question doesn’t truly believe their intervention is ecologically sound, they are just trying to come up with some sort of justification for making a buck. I believe this is questioning someone’s integrity. Don’t get me wrong, I do think it is worthwhile to point out a potential conflict of interest. I just don’t think emphasizing this is a good strategic move out in the real world. There are people making money on both sides of many environmental issues. It is easy to point out these potential conflicts of interest, and soon you end up in two camps yelling at each other. I personally do not find this productive. Does this help you understand what I mean, Geoff? Did I misinterpret your passage?

[Carl Russell]

It is clear that many people have their own idea of what is ecologically sound. The forestry we are taught in school is much different than the forestry we see practiced across the landscape. This is because the discipline was created in reaction to decades upon decades of wholesale harvest and disturbance. The habits were so hard to change that many of the applied principles of forestry associated with the harvesting end have made accommodations for economic realities of the logging process .

Primarily modern forestry comes from the perspective that logs are going to be harvested, and therefore some degree of forest manipulation should modify that impact to improve future growth of trees to be harvested, and if done with some understanding of how the components of the forest work, then the art is ecologically sound. There is nothing “wrong” with this, it is the cultural habit that we have.

Most people operate under this set of assumptions, foresters, loggers, and landowners alike allowing for ecological compromises as the cost of doing business. The truth is that ecology costs money. We see it in every resource-based industry, fished-out and oceans, polluted air and water, degraded soils, etc…… We make excuses and accommodations across the board for the economic drivers of our society.

However, someone could go into the forest with an eye to the ecology, and could easily see that something else is clearly going on.

There is nothing in the ecology of the forest that substantiates the harvest of any tree. When an operator harvests 3000 cords/per year, there are no ecological principles that support that. There are no ecological principles that support the soil impact and disturbance to the site that the traffic on the land creates. There are no ecological principles that support the change in cover across the landscape that these operations cause. And when you throw in 5-10 more such operations in a region you are off the ecological map.

When comparing horses vs. machines, assuming that all forestry (use the above scenario of the logger who believes he doing the right thing… in fact is being led to believe he is by the forest industry) is ecologically sound, or at east acceptably so, then you will have to face cost and production factors. You cannot pull wood far enough. You cannot handle enough low grade. You cannot harvest enough material in an allotted amount of time. Your operation is too costly to provide high enough stumpage value. Well….. none of these factors are substantiated by any ecological principles in forestry.

In my operation I do not let these apparent inadequacies of my horses deter me from practicing forestry. I leave large volumes of low grade material in the woods, a sound ecological principle. I use non-commercial means to kill competitors, releasing crop trees, leaving standing dead, and downed coarse woody debris, a sound ecological principle. I maintain high stocking, sound ecologically. I harvest small annual volumes, ecologically sound. I minimize vehicular traffic across the stand, ecologically sound. I harvest material using surgical access protecting regeneration and other residual trees, sound ecologically and economically. I have LO invest in building permanent multi-purpose access roads with drainage systems that minimize soil erosion and protect water quality, sound ecologically. They are also sound economically because these investments are affixed to the land permanently, and are amortized into perpetuity, and reduce future harvesting costs, while making animal-powered and low impact harvesting more feasible. I reduce re-entry cycles, harvesting trees at their ultimate market value because my set-up and transport costs are lower, sound ecologically and economically.

No one can call my work into question. My work is held in high regard, for the application of ecological and economic factors of forestry improvement. The ONLY criticism I get is that my work is too costly. There is no ecological principle in forestry that validates that evaluation.

I am not saying that my work is better. I am not telling anyone that if they cared they would support me. I am saying that if you want to use horses in the woods you will have to face the reality that you cannot compete on economics, but you can still practice legitimate forestry. IF you want to take it to the next level, which I do, and say that because I know that my methods are ecologically, and economically (in terms of improving the forest asset) sound, I would like to see machinery operators adopt the same principles and compete financially with me…… they cannot do it.

When I use the term moral compass I am not taking a “moral” stance, I am referring to our innate abilities to make decisions on what we each know is right…. for us personally.

We can argue all day about whether or not it makes sense to stand on sound ecological principles in the work we do on the land……. but to me there is no argument……. and I am in the company of some amazingly intelligent and insightful people, current and past, studies or not.

Carl

[Andy Carson]

@Carl Russell 39284 wrote:

No one can call my work into question. My work is held in high regard, for the application of ecological and economic factors of forestry improvement. The ONLY criticism I get is that my work is too costly.

Let me give you a hypothetical situation, Carl, because I am curious what your response would be. Lets say you were showing photos of one of your logging jobs to a mixed audience. Lets say that someone politely says “Did you know that black walnut is mildy toxic to tiger salamanders, and leaving the slash for this species a little longer has been shown to be beneficial to tiger salamander populations?” I have no idea, by the way, if this is true, but it does sound like something that could be true. Black walnut is toxic to some animals, amphibians are generally sensitive to toxins, and you might not have noticed what happens to these small burrowing animals. Also, leaving the slash a little longer for just one tree species is something that seems pretty easy to do. What would your response be? Have people ever pointed out little things like this to you before?

[Carl Russell]

Well this hypothetical has some interesting aspects that ring true to some real-life situations, but I’ll stick to this first.

Taken at face value, I would question the premise first, because I know that BLW has phytotoxicity, preventing other trees from regenerating within it’s close vicinity, but I had not been aware of it having affect on amphibians. Not knowing for certain, I would counter that I know that there are many other such complex relationships that are part of the environmental pressures that are exerted on species that help refine their participation in certain ecosystems. So many that I am quite sure that I only know of a small portion.

Recognizing that BLW is an uncommon, but native, species in our forests, I would not be concerned about this, as the brush would be a natural occurrence, and its effect on other organisms would be a natural expectation, even without any human interaction. The forest ecosystem, and its naturally occurring regional constituents of the forest community, is primarily supported by the biology of tree growth. This is represented by common associations of trees species growing in sites where soil, moisture, aspect, solar exposure, and soil-types are favorable to the desired conditions for each species. These trees occupy the site, creating an environment that is the result of shade cast by live trees, soil disturbance caused by falling trees, and soil characteristics related to biomass contributions from leaves, twigs, branches, and bolewood, to name a few. These aspects are the skeleton that provides desirable conditions for multitude of organisms, from amphibians to fungi, and songbirds to large mammals, that also sort themselves out based on those listed characteristics, and more. Along with these conditions come positive, and “so-called” negative affects of one species upon another.

I feel that as long as my attention to tree growth stays withing natural parameters, such as high stocking, observable natural species composition and stand structure, leaving brush from a potentially toxic tree that is a naturally occurring species would be acceptable to me as part of the normal biomass contribution. I also feel that this type of stimulus on certain amphibians could lead to the development of favorable genetic mutations of salamanders that could allow them to exist in this micro-site environment of BLW.

There are many relationships in our ecosystems that people place value on, either because they are considered beneficial, or because they are considered detrimental, based on certain biases that drive their decision making. I realize that many people may consider that Spotted Salamanders are rare and endangered, and that we should do all we can to protect them, but my opinion is that we should do all we can to protect the complexity of the ability of the ecosystem, represented by the multitude of interrelationships within it, to respond to challenging impacts and environment pressures. The way the ecosystem builds this resiliency is like an animal’s immune system, through complex challenges to different inherent components.

By interfering with the outcome of one relationship, we possibly affect others, and it magnifies down the line, and across the web. I try to maintain as much integrity in the way tree growth is expressed on a certain site, in a certain region, so that my desire for forest products does not disrupt the interplay between the inhabitants of that forest community, and their dependence on the characteristics of tree growth.

There is a fungus called Armelaria Root Rot, or Shoe String Fungus. It is both a parasite and a saprophyte. It is considered a “tree killer”, because it attacks trees at their stump, killing cambium through parasitism. It doesn’t always kill trees that are vigorous, but causes defect in the butt logs of quality hardwoods. It also lives on dead and down trees so that it stays a part of the forest. It plays a vital role in constantly testing the vigor of dominant species, yet it is considered a pest because of its economic impact on timber production. My feeling is that this is one of the most important relationships that we could cultivate in the interest for long-term vigor of our northern hardwood forests, but as you can imagine, this perspective is not shared by most of my professional peers.

I see infestations of diseases, and invasives as detrimental in some respects, but I also see the prevalence of these conditions as indicators of the lowered resiliency of our ecosystems because of our unintended impact by interfering with the relationships between competing components. This is pure conjecture, and probably needs a study to verify it, but it is an informed perspective that helps me make choices about how to affect the sites where I work. Speaking of which, these are things that I was taught in school, by professors, using published texts, but I cannot point to any studies to substantiate the concept of ecological resiliency through complex interplay of organisms.

Carl

[mitchmaine]

Do we believe that a forest of trees is an ecosystem in and of itself? And that animals live in symbiosis with the forest exchanging carbon and oxygen for mutual gain? And then that any disruption in the forest ecology is natural as long as what ever the resulting “damage” is left to decompose and become part of the forest still.
Then it would be safe to assume that any time wood or other plant material was removed from that system, it would compromise the sustainability of said forest.
So, any logging would represent an impact., low or high. The minute we enter a woodlot and extract limbwood, weare imposing impact and have subtracted from the natural system and have compromised it. And low impact would only represent a term or condition representative of the system at play. Low impact could apply to skidders and heavy machinery if the job or results were good compared to the normal conditions of heavy machinery. And the same would go for animals in the woods. Low impact would be the same applied to the normal conditions of animal logging. Since normal in each parameter is so different, it would also be assumed that low impact of horse logging would be “better” than low impact with a chipping crew. Perhaps we are misusing the term, or our expectations should be explored a little further.

[Carl Russell]

@mitchmaine 39307 wrote:

Do we believe that a forest of trees is an ecosystem in and of itself? …..

It isn’t really that, but trees do not grow in the forest, it is the trees that grow the forest. There is no forest ecosystem without trees, and the biology of tree growth. I think that is one of our problems, because every time we cut over a forest, even when we clear it, it comes back….. But the intervening impact on the whole system is a loss of energy and an impact on the integrity of the interplay between organisms.

I truly do believe that it is much more sensitive than we have been led to believe, and to me the impact is greater through the philosophy behind the management, than actually through the treatment, although the treatment is where the rubber hits the road.

Using economic models and growth charts based on a focus on maximizing financial gain from trees separates our actions from the ecosystem that supports them. That is why I speak about low impact forestry, rather than low impact logging. It is the focus of the forestry that determines the greatest impact. I take great exception to horse-loggers practicing conventional “tree-growth” forestry and calling it low impact. The horse doesn’t change the approach to the ecosystem, it is the acknowledgement of how tree growth is tied to the web of other relationships that changes the impact.

I do however think that horses are the key to practicing low impact forestry because of their versatility, low cost, and small scale.

Carl

[Andy Carson]

This is a clever way to address this hypothetical question, Carl. It is not where I thought you would go. I expected some checking into studies to see if that BLW salamander conception was real or just made up… Did you google Black walnut salamander before answering? It is always interesting to see how other people think.

PS. It was such a well written and well thought out answer I forgot one of the reasons I brought up the hypothetical question in the first place. I wanted to understand how a holistic mind answers question, which I now understand better. I also wanted to know if it is possible for a holistic mind to be questioned, and if it can learn from others who may have noticed something they did not. Still not sure about that… I’ll have to come up with a less far-fetched hypothetical, I guess. 🙂

[Carl Russell]

@mitchmaine 39307 wrote:

Do we believe that a forest of trees is an ecosystem in and of itself? And that animals live in symbiosis with the forest exchanging carbon and oxygen for mutual gain? And then that any disruption in the forest ecology is natural as long as what ever the resulting “damage” is left to decompose and become part of the forest still.
Then it would be safe to assume that any time wood or other plant material was removed from that system, it would compromise the sustainability of said forest.So, any logging would represent an impact., low or high. The minute we enter a woodlot and extract limbwood, we are imposing impact and have subtracted from the natural system and have compromised it……

There is obviously some degree of surplus production in any ecosystem that builds reserves, or is transported away as animal flesh, reduced by fire, or lost due to erosion and other factors, otherwise life on Earth would be a series of diminishing returns. This is how we have become as affluent as we are, by utilizing that productive capacity for our own benefit. There are examples, such as the Black Forest in Germany, where for generations, every stick that fell was gathered for fuel, and now there are significant inadequacies in the ecosystem there.

It can be rather ubiquitous, as Mitch says

normal in each parameter is so different,

. That is why I focus on the economic motivation and measurement as the difference. Looking specifically at numeric values of tree growth in terms of highest financial gain, the role trees play in the ecosystem is diminished, or even ignored.

While thinking of an ecosystem as an organism may be far-fetched for some, there are suggestions that organisms are micro-ecosystems in their own right. Organisms are hosts to a multitude of other biota that coexist using the organism as the foundation for their function. There are feed-back loops where the interaction between biotic groups, and between them and the host organism that create stimuli and stresses that test, and maybe enhance, the resilience of the host.

In the forest, trees provide the micro-climate, the skeletal structure, the organic material that changes the landscape to be more favorable for a diverse gathering of biota. This grouping of organisms is very different than in other environments, and the way that trees grow is the primary factor that makes it different. There are a multitude of feed-back loops between these organisms, but they all come back to what trees provide to each group, either directly or indirectly.

I like to discuss Armelaria because it exemplifies the basics of the forest ecosystem in the Northeast. It needs trees, or the debris from trees, to grow. It has the capacity to parasitize living trees, or to live as a decomposer on dead and down trees. A tree grows, it is weakened by exposure to pests, or perhaps has some genetic predisposition that prevents it from thriving, Armelaria is present testing this tree by living on the sap flowing through cambium at the stump, forces combine, and the tree dies. Armelaria has not only provided itself with more habitat, but it has also create habitat for millions of other decomposers, or other biota that can use dead trees. It has also reduced competition for surrounding trees by creating an opening in the cover. It has also taken out of the gene pool a tree that could not sustain the pressures on it, making way for other trees that may have better genetic make-up. And it has contributed to the enhanced growth of other trees by causing this tree to become part of the biomass and nutrients that will provide resources for its neighbors.

As I mentioned before, this organism causes serious economic harm in some of our most prized hardwood species. Because of that, measures are taken to reduce its occurrence and viability in our forests. So here we have an organism that is one of the natural forest enhancers, yet modern economic concerns cause us to devalue it, and to try to compete with it…… and this is just one of the immeasurable components that make the forest a forest.

Carl

[Author]

Posts