Forestry Questions

[near horse]

@Carl Russell 31154 wrote:

If there are other objectives such as wildlife habitat, or soil protection, or aesthetics, then the term “overstocked” is out of context.

It is a pet peeve of mine because it sets up a finite expectation for people in how they look at biological communities. Life is a continuum, where extremes are attained, collapse/mortality occurs, and recycling and regrowth follows. Restricting certain extremes from occurring has its place, such as in fire suppression, but on a whole I think we need to allow for more appreciation of broader ecological goals. In my mind letting sections of forest attain an overstocked condition can have very important impacts.

Carl

So here’s another naive question regarding the idea of managing for other or multiple objectives. How do you integrate things like what we called “woodpecker trees” – good for woodpeckers but probably loaded w/ beetle grubs. Would you be more prone to designate “areas” for leaving such trees or would it be more X number every acre or so? Or would you not leave any – assuming habitat is one objective.

Thanks

[Baystatetom]

I hate arguing silviculture with other foresters but here I go anyway. To me forestry is more an art then a science. I take or leave trees based on the exact situation and therefore a formula for how many dead snags per acre or trying to remove or retain an exact basal area makes no sense at all. I realize there has to be someway of explaining what we are doing but all the numbers and formulas just don’t work their way through my thick head. If you want “woodpecker trees” I would girdle trees with little or no timber value or potential for improvement, the number per acre would depend on the quality of the trees.
~Tom

[Carl Russell]

@Baystatetom 31160 wrote:

I hate arguing silviculture with other foresters but here I go anyway. To me forestry is more an art then a science. I take or leave trees based on the exact situation and therefore a formula for how many dead snags per acre or trying to remove or retain an exact basal area makes no sense at all. I realize there has to be someway of explaining what we are doing but all the numbers and formulas just don’t work their way through my thick head. If you want “woodpecker trees” I would girdle trees with little or no timber value or potential for improvement, the number per acre would depend on the quality of the trees.
~Tom

I agree completely……

The thread started with questions about biometrics….. which I have some knowledge about. I keep current on these things as the Vermont Current Use Taxation Program for forestry requires that we have complete numerical data to underlay any plan submitted. This is because a State regulated tax program needs to have quantifiable standards to make sure people are conforming, and to give the Department of Forests and Parks base-line data to review properties as they move forward.

However, I am totally with Tom on this. I am an extremely intuitive person. I feel my way through life, and I work in the woods because early on I felt a connection to, and an understanding of, forests and wild places. Yes I have studies the science, and I can recite it, but to me forestry is very much a communication with most basic human instincts. My work with landowners is all about this. I don’t try to educate people about forestry as much as I help them to accept what they already know about forests, particularly their own. As an animal species we have all the observational capacity that we need to gain appreciation for the complexities of ecological communities, even if we don’t know what to call all the parts.

As far as making forestry decisions in conjunction with harvest, these things take practice, but they are not beyond the capability of the average adult landowner. Besides, the mistakes that someone like George MIGHT make are going to be very small compared to the degree of potential dissatisfaction with poor choices made by someone else, AND if the mistakes are recognized they can actually be of value from an educational standpoint.

It is easy for us trained foresters to say that we go by the seat of our pants, because we have a lot of experience, and an understanding of the science. It is a valuable discussion to try to understand some of the science, but in the long-run a strong sustainable culture of stewardship depends on landowners who can take the time and initiative to understand and practice forestry fundamentals.

Carl

[Scott G]

OK, after this response I’m done…

Using standard tools, cruise techniques, and silvicultural prescriptions are not exclusive of management for ecological integrity. Out here, especially with my government forestry job, 95% of what I do is manage & implement prescriptions for the absolute primary objective of maintaining and/or enhancing ecological function/integrity.

Something you folks from back east need to understand is that our scale of management is landscape scale; most often it includes entire watersheds. I directly manage, with a couple of other folks, well over 30,000 acres (~50 square miles). Our projects deal with areas where fire was the predominant factor in forest succession processes due to our semi-arid climate. Most of these areas have not burned since the mid-1800s when extensive grazing removed the fine fuels that initially carry fire – after that, aggressive fire suppression. Currently, with the amount of human development in our forests, suppression on a broad scale is the norm and likely will remain that way due to forest fragmentation involving multiple landowners. That said, the fuel load continues to build and the conflagrations become more severe burning much more intensely than the landscape ever evolved with. Soils are essentially destroyed in many circumstances, especially in the lower montane regions. The Hayman fire, the largest contiguous fire in Colorado recorded history at almost 140,000 acres, burned in just that fashion (it also destroyed my basecamp and approximately 42 mbf of log decks I had on a project that I was currently working). One of our preeminent forest ecologists in the area estimates that it will be 500-600 years before we have a naturally regenerated forest once again on that landscape.

So… when I say we need to reduce BA from 180 to 60-80 I am talking about entire projects, most often in ponderosa/Douglas-fir stands at lower elevations. This not only reduces fuel loading to a point that is consistent with our fuel modeling programs to ensure that the area can withstand fire, it also increases overall tree vigor across the project (again, I am strictly talking about western conifer forests not the eastern deciduous forests that most of you folks are in). These projects are not broad-brushed with only a prism in hand, they involve paint and/or “designation by prescription” when you have a contractor (logger) that you have worked with. We are constantly working towards establish/maintain a mosaic structure across the landscape. Uneven-age management where it historically occurred naturally (pondo, D-fir, spruce, fir), even-age in cover types such as lodgepole albeit through small irregular patchcuts and group selection, and enhancing aspen stands where we can. We, especially in pondo, will retain the mature/over-mature overstory at all costs, something that is directly opposite of what I observed the past two years I visited with you folks. Why? …ecological function. That dominant component is one that falls well short of where we want it. Those trees are extremely valuable for a myriad of ecological reasons, not just the mere fact that they are big. That said, we just got over a period of diameter cut limits which were instilled to appease politics as well as ecologists that were trying to turn our forests into something historically they were not. Thankfully, we have now come full circle and now manage for strata of all canopy layers.

The point of all of this is that even though we operate in “standard” forestry parameters, our objectives are far from standard. I would even say that to date, I have seen no other forest management regional standard in North America that comes close to the degree of emphasis of ecological integrity that we strive for. Indeed, that is the primary objective on every project within my realm.

So, with all that being said, please understand why I bristle at the notions that traditional cruise techniques/data are just a function of a production mindset. I use them on a regular basis, they are essential tools in my toolbox, but my eyes, experience, and intuition by far are the most valuable tools I possess. I am always the guy who when laying out a unit is primarily interested in the “look” with an emphasis on function and form. Case in point, a large stable snag is far more valuable to me then the green trees around it. The large wolfy nasty thing located on the edge will be left because of the valuable edge habitat it is located within and provides ideal roosting/nesting site for a variety of birds as well.

Geoff, the snag you mentioned; I assume you are referring to one that has been hit by bark beetles. If you are really worried about sanitation, remove it to avoid infestation of neighboring trees next season. If they already have emerged this past summer, leave it unless it is a hazard tree with a defined target. The next generation of insects that will colonize the tree are various species of woodborers. Unlike some woodborer species indigenous to other areas of North America, these pose no risk to healthy trees. That snag will have exponentially more life in it than any other tree in the stand. Woodpeckers, as you have observed, will love it. I swear I’m beginning to see increased obesity issues in our woodpecker populations as a direct result of the bark beetle epidemic…:rolleyes:

Do not girdle conifers, at least in our Rocky Mountain region, to create snags. Even with a double kerf, if there is a decent amount of sapwood, that tree can live for years. Also, with the winds we get, if your kerf depth is substantial at all in order to try and reduce the sapwood, the tree will more than likely snap off at the point of girdling. The best way to create a durable snag, and the most entertaining, is to build a large slash pile at the base of the tree and then torch it when you have adequate snow cover. Not only will it kill it – if the fire is hot enough – you’ll add significant durability to it as well. The reality is though, with the current forest health issues we are experiencing out here, we’ll have no shortage of snags.

The end…

[Carl Russell]

(This reply is meant as a broadening of the topic, and not meant exclusively as a direct response to Scott)

Scott, I understand your bristling. The scale of forestry you practice is entirely different from what we are facing here. There is no doubt that stocking guides can be used to determine stocking levels attributed to many natural features found in the forest ecosystem. However, it is still common fact that the stocking levels indicated on these charts are specifically calculated based on tree growth, independent of other ecological components in the forested stand.

In the east we are working in the third iteration of the Northern Forest since our forbears arrived. Our land was first denuded late 1700’s early 1800’s. Then around mid 1800’s many areas had regrown to mature softwoods and pioneer species, and after the civil war agricultural commerce warranted another clearing. By early 1900’s most of New England was cleared open land. What we see here now is a forest that is in the very early stages of establishing its mature manifestation (speaking in landscape terms).

To complicate things, all of the earlier clearings were complete, burning most if not all of the biomass. Then during the agricultural booms, soil was depleted through erosion and the export of nutrients in the form of mutton and milk (mostly).

Add to this that we have very small landholdings compared to your region’s public lands. I have 20-30 clients and manage about 10% of the tract that you described above. There are a lot of foresters out here practicing forestry. Most have been indoctrinated into an industrial mindset where they have more allegiance to each other, and the forestry industry, than they do to the landowners they work for. In other words, there is a strong culture among foresters that forestry is about harvesting and bringing forest products to market. In our region stocking guides are used primarily as a tool to relieve landowners of growing stock for the sake of the needs of the industry, with a little silviculture and wildlife habitat thrown in for good measure.

The other aspect of this culture is that it creates among landowners like George questions about their own ability to make management decision for themselves based on factors that they can understand easily. On a landscape that is a mosaic of independent landowners, I believe that building a working landscape of invested forest stewards is our best hope to having a sustainable resource economy. The culture of professional agents that are employed to provide off-farm knowledge runs contrary to these interests in many cases, and I try to encourage a different understanding of the principles of forestry that are based less on numbers and more on experience.

I think intelligent people should take the time to understand some of the numerical science behind forestry, but they also should be encouraged to develop some personal experience and understanding. After all, most foresters will admit that the art of application makes the difference.

My own preference is to see landowners fumbling through unknown territory learning to take ownership over the use of their own land, rather than a continuation of what I consider to be landscape scale mistakes being made by professionals with broad cultural support based on a belief that they are practicing a science that they understand better than those who own the land, when in fact what they are practicing is an industrial model of moving natural resources off of the land for the benefit of an export economy.

Faced with the repeated series of clearing and exporting of soil biomass and nutrients we really don’t have the ecological reservoir that we need to sustain this approach. The harvesting that is currently practiced doesn’t take into consideration these deeper ecological factors, and promises to set us so far back that our land may never recover adequately to support our natural resource needs. And in this region the dependance on stocking guides, and the harvesting strategies supported by them, is a big factor in this problem.

From an ecological standpoint we need to allow for much more of the stand conditions that accompany an “overstocked” delineation. Constantly managing forests to maintain a juvenile growth rate, reducing overmaturity, and eliminating mortality and natural deposits of coarse woody debris is shortsighted in the best setting, but given our depleted landscape, I feel it is unforgivable. And in my experience this utilization philosophy is supported by the adherence to thresholds laid out in our stocking guides. Obviously the “stocking guides” are not to blame for this “misuse”, but they are propped up as the standard that excuses foresters from changing their practices.

Carl

[Author]

Posts