mhagen wrote in message ...
Geoff Kegerreis wrote:
Yeah, Larry! You go, man!

I wasn't whole-heartedly serious when I wrote all those
adjectives in front of foresters and preservationists, it
was mostly for fun. In the past I have joked around about
the forest circus too, but all in all they do a pretty good job
despite what monumental objects they have to climb over
in order to get any work done (and the teams thing isn't a
bad idea - but it shouldn't be compared to private consultancies,
because it is a whole different ballgame).

I don't think that all appeals are based on stopping all logging
on federal lands, but many of them are. I know that the
native forest league, or whatever they call themselves now are
against any harvesting whatsoever on federal land, but I don't believe
that most forest groups support that kind of radicalness.


If those groups were truly "green", they'd support some logging that
would lock up carbon into long-term wood products instead of growing
firewood with which to heat our atmosphere. 7 million acres is a lot
of "firewood" to burn up in one year.

As far as the ponderosas go, I'll bet you'll be surprised if you get to
come back to those trees after a few years and check out the new
candles. I've never worked with P. pine, but they remind me of our
red pines on steroids. Depending on the site conditions, I'll bet they
take off like greyhounds after a rabbit when they're able to see the
sun again. Most hard pines like those respond pretty well to
over story removals, but you're working in the place, and I'm not,
so maybe you have a better idea of what's there vs. what could be there?
Just curious, where are you at (region only-don't give the peckerwads
too much info) and what are you removing from them?


Would a 100 year old pine at 9" dbh recover? Probably not. Would a 30
year old sapling recover? Maybe so. I'm working in the Rocky Mtn
Region. Drought here right now is a major consideration. They're also
very concerned with aspen regeneration and meadow restoration. Cutting
pine and spruce is one way they want to accomplish those goals.

One last thing, don't worry about your boss. After you get so much experience
working all over the country, that adds weight to a very impressive
resume. There are good timber marking jobs on the private side if you
want them, and I guarantee that the pay is higher if you take the risk and
get out on your own. Say what you want. That is the reason for the 1st amendment!
USA rocks as long as we keep our liberties (which seem to have a tendency
to be slipping out of our fingers via politicians) KEEP ON FIGHTING!

Warm regards,
Geoff Kegerreis



"Overstory removal" -- they really are calling it that? That's
refreshingly honest and free of PC... Is this the last stage of a
shelterwood or a mistletoe infected stand? Or a silvicultural solution
to some odd problem?


Yes, Mike, that is the name of that particular prescription. To me, it
has a bad connotation, linking silviculture with "extractive" culture.
Also, it definitely reminds me of the 80's when that style of
silviculture dominated and ecosystems suffered. We won't be taking ALL
the overstory (no tree larger than 20" dbh will be removed) but, there
really aren't that many of those larger trees left. Some of these
areas have very little good "leave trees" so, we may just still end up
with a high-graded forest in those areas. It's pretty difficult
marking with several different marking schemes within the same unit.
Experienced markers can adapt the marking guidelines to treat these
areas but inexperience can lead to understocking and high-grading. One
of the hardest things for a timbermarker to do is to not mark anything
and "bump through" to the next pocket of timber.

There have been amazing shake ups in forestry over the last couple
decades. Many big companies are doing a fair job of environmental
forestry at last, mixing harvest zones with ample bufffers and set
asides. The Feds, when they can do it, do some of the best. The worst
practices are those of the forest owner with less than 80 acres. This is
the bread and butter segment for consultants, but most of what I've seen
has never been touched by one.

The small land owner, in political compensation for large timber owners
increased environmental restrictions, is free to practice the worst of
forestry. With a dismal timber market, some are forced to do their
worst, but this may be over generous. These are the guys that cut timber
to the edges of creeks, up unstable slopes and don't replant or follow
up when more work is needed after the cutting permit expires. These are
the shmucks that don't think a real forester is necessary. Some of
these are inexperienced land owners getting taken by unscrupulous
loggers, but on the whole, the owners are happy with practices that give
them the biggest short term payout. This is the type of forestry that
has slipped through the cracks.

As Joe Zorzin says, "We should be able to practice excellent
silviculture AND turn a profit".

Larry, benevolent tree god