A study

[theblackalchemist]

It's a study to see what takes place in your country more

[theblackalchemist]

Every one vote please !

While you are at it you are free to post your experiences in saving the earth here

TBA

[Turtle]

There is more forest in the US today than 100 years ago and we are planting more trees than we harvest. :D

 

PS Still looking for more data; this source says more than 70 years ago...

 

 

Are we running out of trees in the U.S.?

 

No; in fact, there are more trees in the U.S. today than there were 70 years ago.

Paper University - All About Paper

 

This source says 80 years...

 

HPVA :: Hardwood Plywood and Veneer Association

[Jay-qu]

You know what, Im not sure :D I know there are big plantations, but everywhere around the urban areas only seem to be getting cleared without much replanting.

[Cedars]

Generally, I would have to say holding steady or slightly increasing.

 

But one has to keep this in mind with the HUGE deforestation that took place prior to the increases. And I would say a hundred acres of christmas trees doesnt quite make up a forest.

 

20 years before you can begin to call a pine planting a 'forest'

 

40 years before you can call it an oak forest.....

[Larv]

There are four kinds of people in the world

 

1) those who don't know and think that they know are foolish - shun them

 

2) those who don't know and know that they don't know are simple - Teach them

 

3) those who know and don't know that that they know are asleep - Awaken them

 

4) those who know, and know that they know are intelligent - Follow them

...and then there is: 5) those who know that they know what they know is the only truth worth knowing are arrogant - expose them.

 

—Larv

[Turtle]

Generally, I would have to say holding steady or slightly increasing.

 

But one has to keep this in mind with the HUGE deforestation that took place prior to the increases. And I would say a hundred acres of christmas trees doesnt quite make up a forest.

 

20 years before you can begin to call a pine planting a 'forest'

 

40 years before you can call it an oak forest.....

 

If I'm not mistaken, the figures I put up refer to the volume of wood in board feet, not the acreage coverage, or number of trees. There is a lot of forest farming going on beyond Xmas trees, including selected harvesting for pulp, lumber, & fencing for example. It doesn't take large trees for these products, and they are sustainable. Much of the best practice here in the PNW is found on private holdings, and I think the government has a lot to learn from them.

 

I realize there is wide variability among states, but on the whole the US is planting more trees right now than we harvest as I understand the figures.

 

PS Checked my links, and they are referring to acreage contrary to what I just said; however, when loggers scale trees, they do so by volume, i.e. the number of board feet and by this measure a smaller healthy stand contains more lumber than a larger area forest of unhealthy trees.

[freeztar]

A lot of trees are being planted in the US, but I wouldn't call it afforestation.

Monoculture does not produce a forest. It is spooky to go into one of these "forests" because all the trees are evenly spaced in rows and it is dead silent. These monoculture stands are known to not harbor wildlife (besides maybe some squirrels and crows here in the south).

So I think it's a misnomer to call such places forests, and in that sense, I don't believe there is a lot of afforestation going on.

 

Cutting down a 500 year old forest is not replaceable with a reseeding of Douglas Fir, especially if that reseeding is cut down in forty years.

[Turtle]

A lot of trees are being planted in the US, but I wouldn't call it afforestation.

Monoculture does not produce a forest. It is spooky to go into one of these "forests" because all the trees are evenly spaced in rows and it is dead silent. These monoculture stands are known to not harbor wildlife (besides maybe some squirrels and crows here in the south).

So I think it's a misnomer to call such places forests, and in that sense, I don't believe there is a lot of afforestation going on.

 

Cutting down a 500 year old forest is not replaceable with a reseeding of Douglas Fir, especially if that reseeding is cut down in forty years.

 

In the kindest possible terms, poppycock! While x-mas tree farms may plant in rows, that is not how forest land is replanted here in the NW. Furthermore, of the 16% of land that is private forest in Oregon, there is a concerted effort to foster the natural diversity of tree species as this ameliorates loss of harvest/revenue in the event of a species specific pathogens/insects infestation.

 

I just watched a PBS special on NW forestry in Oregon and inspite of all the eco-freak dooms-day claims, the private owners look to me to be improving the forests. :cup: :D

 

OPB Pressroom: THE OREGON STORY Poses New Questions on Forest Gridlock

[Cedars]

If I'm not mistaken, the figures I put up refer to the volume of wood in board feet, not the acreage coverage, or number of trees. There is a lot of forest farming going on beyond Xmas trees, including selected harvesting for pulp, lumber, & fencing for example. It doesn't take large trees for these products, and they are sustainable. Much of the best practice here in the PNW is found on private holdings, and I think the government has a lot to learn from them.

 

I realize there is wide variability among states, but on the whole the US is planting more trees right now than we harvest as I understand the figures.

 

PS Checked my links, and they are referring to acreage contrary to what I just said; however, when loggers scale trees, they do so by volume, i.e. the number of board feet and by this measure a smaller healthy stand contains more lumber than a larger area forest of unhealthy trees.

 

uh oh... I need to clarify...

 

I understood TBAs poll and question from a general ecologically healthy forest standpoint rather than a harvest for profit regard. I have a little DNR produced brochure states that "an unmanaged 40 acre aspen/birch stand typically might appeal to 15 species of mammal and 60-80 species of birds. If that same woodland were modified by harvest, openings or other habitat improvements, the greater variety of habitat types would increase the numbers and kinds of wildlife species."

 

The point I was trying to make was by planting 500 acres of one type of tree in an area (and this is region specific) you narrow the health of a forest. A natural forest has at least several types of trees, in varied growth stages, with a wide variety of plant life below. Our forest management practices are usually geared towards profitable harvest, and row after row of similar sized trees, planted in groupings that negate actual forest diversity in general.

 

And while people do plant trees around the borders of their property, or to shade certain parts of their yards, not alot of thought is given to the diversity on a wide scale plan. So you can technically have mile after mile of three or four tree types, rather than the 10 - 20 types of varied ages typically found in less than a mile of forest.

 

For example:

I have 5 acres of land. I have 4 types of conifer and 2 types of oak (varied ages) a small stand of aspen, a few cottonwoods, basswood, hickory, locust, plum, cherry, elm, box elder, and birch, that I can think of right now. The surrounding forests have a few additional types. 2 acres of this land is open grassland/forest edge type. I have tamarack and black spruce nearby, but my particular landscape doesnt support those types of tree. That is a diverse forest example and more along the lines of what I think of when I hear the term 'forest'.

 

It also contributes to my great backyard birding/wildlife watching :D

[freeztar]

In the kindest possible terms, poppycock! While x-mas tree farms may plant in rows, that is not how forest land is replanted here in the NW.

 

errr....actually, the forests from which I experienced the rows and silence the most were in the NW, Washington to be precise. :shrug: (and they were Doug Fir, not x-mas trees)

All around the Olympic peninsula you can see examples of this. Perhaps planting policy has changed since I lived in the PNW, almost 4 years ago. I'm sure of it actually, as the PNW is very progressive in this sense, but there still remain the groves of rows nearly thirty years old.

I certainly do not intend to devalue the timber industry, but I think the slow shift to better practices should be less....slow. No economic pitfall from operating more efficiently AFAICT.

 

Paul Stamets has a great plan for forestry in the NW and deserves a listen.

forest road restoration and mushrooms

 

And power to the private timber folks!

[Turtle]

errr....actually, the forests from which I experienced the rows and silence the most were in the NW, Washington to be precise. ;) (and they were Doug Fir, not x-mas trees)

...Paul Stamets has a great plan for forestry in the NW and deserves a listen.

forest road restoration and mushrooms

 

And power to the private timber folks!

 

I don't doubt it about Washington, & though I live in said state of a general's name, there is an abundant paucity of information flow as compared to what comes out of Oregon.

 

I'll get a read on that link ASAP.

 

I certainly do not intend to devalue the timber industry, but I think the slow shift to better practices should be less....slow. No economic pitfall from operating more efficiently AFAICT.

 

I had this naggling feeling all day that I needed to come back here and qualify my use of the term 'eco-freaks', and your comment is a nice segue.

 

The big problem I see with 'slow shift' is the eco-extremists who have tied up all the government land (lawsuits, protests, tree-spiking, equipment & mill arsons, etc.) so that no practices can go on, let alone the 'better' practices we have learned. People see a chainsaw and right away 'ohhhh...you're killing a tree!!" BS "Carrot killers!!!", I say.

 

And as an afterthought, some folks have started farming hybrid poplars here in NW, and they do plant them in rows I must say. :doh:

 

Anyway, let's cut some wood! Cut it real good! :hyper:

[freeztar]

uh oh... I need to clarify...

 

I understood TBAs poll and question from a general ecologically healthy forest standpoint rather than a harvest for profit regard. I have a little DNR produced brochure states that "an unmanaged 40 acre aspen/birch stand typically might appeal to 15 species of mammal and 60-80 species of birds. If that same woodland were modified by harvest, openings or other habitat improvements, the greater variety of habitat types would increase the numbers and kinds of wildlife species."

 

The point I was trying to make was by planting 500 acres of one type of tree in an area (and this is region specific) you narrow the health of a forest. A natural forest has at least several types of trees, in varied growth stages, with a wide variety of plant life below. Our forest management practices are usually geared towards profitable harvest, and row after row of similar sized trees, planted in groupings that negate actual forest diversity in general.

 

Exactly!

Variety is key!

And while people do plant trees around the borders of their property, or to shade certain parts of their yards, not alot of thought is given to the diversity on a wide scale plan. So you can technically have mile after mile of three or four tree types, rather than the 10 - 20 types of varied ages typically found in less than a mile of forest.

 

And for an urban example, most of the trees planted for road projects comprise of a handful of species. This further fragments certain wildlife. In a Darwinian sense, it is a test of all species, but in an ethical sense, it is an abomination of respect. Heck, we can't even respect one another, within the same species! But I digress...

 

For example:

I have 5 acres of land. I have 4 types of conifer and 2 types of oak (varied ages) a small stand of aspen, a few cottonwoods, basswood, hickory, locust, plum, cherry, elm, box elder, and birch, that I can think of right now. The surrounding forests have a few additional types. 2 acres of this land is open grassland/forest edge type. I have tamarack and black spruce nearby, but my particular landscape doesnt support those types of tree. That is a diverse forest example and more along the lines of what I think of when I hear the term 'forest'.

 

Indeed. It sounds like you have a pretty nice forest there.

Pretty typical of the area, but I'm curious, what type of birch and cherry do you have?

 

It also contributes to my great backyard birding/wildlife watching

 

 

The birding is not very good (ie virtually non-existent) in the planted pines by the Chattahoochee River, but a couple miles downstream there are older forests with floodplain wetlands where I've witnessed several Great Blue Herons gathering (not to mention all the other birds that love the diversity). :hyper:

[HappytheStripper]

...and then there is: 5) those who know that they know what they know is the only truth worth knowing are arrogant - expose them.

 

—Larv

 

Sounds like my kind of job

 

I have discovered.. it takes a certain amount of intelligence to be arrogant..?? I deal with arrogant people on a daily basis :lol: its in my job description..

 

Those whom have the ability to process information required by intelligence.. and those who don't.. becomes the defining line between arrogance and ignorance..

 

As for that which takes place in my country.. more marijuana plants than trees.. are harvested at a rate the country is unable to supply..

 

Whoever said.. money doesn't grow on trees.. had no idea

 

Ashley

[Cedars]

And for an urban example, most of the trees planted for road projects comprise of a handful of species. This further fragments certain wildlife. In a Darwinian sense, it is a test of all species, but in an ethical sense, it is an abomination of respect.

 

Another good point, and I would add, the replanted trees, shrubs, grasses, often include exotics rather than strickly native.

 

Pretty typical of the area, but I'm curious, what type of birch and cherry do you have?

 

Typical where development hasnt broken up the landscape. I am lucky to live in the hardwood transitional forest area, increasing the diversity supported.

 

The birch is the paper birch and the cherries are the black cherry*.

 

*All swallowtail butterfly caterpillers rely on fruit plant leaves to survive.

 

The birding is not very good (ie virtually non-existent) in the planted pines by the Chattahoochee River, but a couple miles downstream there are older forests with floodplain wetlands where I've witnessed several Great Blue Herons gathering (not to mention all the other birds that love the diversity). :doh:

 

There is much that should be done to diversify in the planted-for-harvest forests, including better road planning when going into these areas to harvest. The link you posted was an interesting read and immediately sparked my thoughts towards better planning for run-off in development. Logging roads dont need to be so perfect, that a hybrid car can navigate it*. This would allow for putting in banks to channel water flowage into pooling areas to allow for sediment settling, in addition to the other methods being incorporated regarding stream preservation. The logging companies will just have to adapt to the idea that they may have to give a few tree laden semi-trucks a push now and then on the roads out of the cuts.

 

*my ideas on logging roads are based on my regional experience with using them for birding. Around here they are pretty good roads.

[Turtle]

uh oh... I need to clarify...

 

I understood TBAs poll and question from a general ecologically healthy forest standpoint rather than a harvest for profit regard.... :)

 

You wield a gentle whip friend Cedars. :doh: :D

 

To the post then! BlackyAlchemist said :

It's a study to see what takes place in your country more.

 

I will, for the sake of argument, take the position that in my country tree harvest for profit is the preeminent factor driving discussions of ecologically healthy forest.

 

There is money at stake for loggers no less than for the environmental activists. My sense is there is too much money being made & spent promoting a 'leave the forest alone as Nature intends' meme, and not enough money being spent to actually improve the ecology of the forest. So many trees dead just to make those protest flyers and nary a protester in the forest replanting. :doh:

 

Here's some fun for you forest lovers. :) About 40 milers from me is an area of old growth still intact that hosts a research station. The installation includes a high crane tower to allow researchers access to the canopy without climbing individual trees, and attached to the crane is a remote operated camera. You can control the camera yourself from PC including tilting/panning & zooming. Enjoy! :cup:

WFC-WRCCRF Crane Cam (view)

[Cedars]

You posted this just to get me going didnt you??? :)

I will, for the sake of argument, take the position that in my country tree harvest for profit is the preeminent factor driving discussions of ecologically healthy forest.

 

I wont argue that the primary drive behind tree harvest is profit, nor will I dispute the timber industry puts alot of pressure on Feds to provide easy access to the greatest amount of board feet for the lowest amount of money they can buy it for, but I do disagree that its related to an ecologically healthy forest. Simply put, an ecologically healthy forest is not 120 acres of same sized, straight as an arrow, specie specific trees. That is the forestry equivalent of a cattle/pork feed lot or a Tyson chicken farm.

 

Heres a timber profiteer :D page describing some of the diversity within the forests:

Tree Species

A link at the bottom gets you FWS info on diversity also, but I dont have time to download and read it.

 

Another link describing some of the issues around forest fragmentation:

Assessments of Wildlife Viability, Old-Growth Timber Volume Estimates, Forested Wetlands, and Slope Stability

 

The timber industry has gobbled up over 50% of the old growth forests in the last 50 years and if I remember correctly, Oregon and Washington have approx 7% of the orginal old growth forest remaining, nearly all of which remains on public lands. In any other biological statistic, a reduction to 7% of its original numbers would spark an immediate appeal to list that specie as critically endangered.

 

This issue can be reversed, but the basic definition of an 'old growth forest' is one that is dominantly 150 years old at a minimum. The current rate of harvest is between 80 and 100 years and does not provide for re-establishment of the lost old growth. So it seems that the pattern of 'substinance logging' ignores an aspect of healthy forest to convince itself that what is occuring is ecologically sound. It will be another 50 years or so, with careful management, to bring back a small portion of the old growth that has been lost. That is assuming a significant portion nearing 100 years of diverse regrowth. Most likely, we are looking at 100 years or more.

 

Another often forgotten group of people out there who use the forests and attached streams are the by sportsmen whos hunting and fishing habitats are disrupted or even destroyed by logging practices and the blow back effects on other businessmen such as outfitters, campgrounds, resturants, ect. regarding the recreational uses of these same properties and the impact a logged area has on the return of sportsmen, recreational visitors to areas for years and years. Their interests support a host of non-logging related jobs too.

 

The FWS, BLM, Dept of Interior all work for these people as equally as the timber corps. It may be painful for some to adapt to the idea that the Nat. Forests and State forests are not the sole domain of the logging interests.