POSTED IN alt.forestry

I came across the May 2002 issue of Discover magazine with an article on
coastal redwoods. It hinted that some people don't clear-cut redwoods, but
didn't really develop the idea of uneven aged mgt. as an alternative to
clearcutting. The article seemed to be written more to appeal to a logger
than a silviculturist- the sort of article often seen in Northern Logger
magazine. I think Discover magazine could have done better with this- but of
course this is the problem with media that offer quick views of complex
subjects, given the fact that Americans have short attention spans.

--
Joe Zorzin

In article , foresterSPAM-
says...
POSTED IN alt.forestry

I came across the May 2002 issue of Discover magazine with an article on
coastal redwoods. It hinted that some people don't clear-cut redwoods, but
didn't really develop the idea of uneven aged mgt. as an alternative to
clearcutting. The article seemed to be written more to appeal to a logger
than a silviculturist- the sort of article often seen in Northern Logger
magazine. I think Discover magazine could have done better with this- but of
course this is the problem with media that offer quick views of complex
subjects, given the fact that Americans have short attention spans.

--
Joe Zorzin



Some companies didn't clear cut them. Pacific Lumber from Scotia, for
one didn't, until it's take over by Maxxam. Selective logging may be
coming back after all the nasty publicity. Redweeds are such prolific
stump sprouters you don't even have to replant after a partial cut.

mhagen wrote in message ...
In article , foresterSPAM-
says...
POSTED IN alt.forestry

I came across the May 2002 issue of Discover magazine with an article on
coastal redwoods. It hinted that some people don't clear-cut redwoods, but
didn't really develop the idea of uneven aged mgt. as an alternative to
clearcutting. The article seemed to be written more to appeal to a logger
than a silviculturist- the sort of article often seen in Northern Logger
magazine. I think Discover magazine could have done better with this- but of
course this is the problem with media that offer quick views of complex
subjects, given the fact that Americans have short attention spans.

--
Joe Zorzin



Some companies didn't clear cut them. Pacific Lumber from Scotia, for
one didn't, until it's take over by Maxxam. Selective logging may be
coming back after all the nasty publicity. Redweeds are such prolific
stump sprouters you don't even have to replant after a partial cut.
Indeed. Even wind-blown redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens) sprout
multiple new trees. (I knew there was something I liked about that
tree.)

Maybe it's time to increase its range a little further north,
elminating the need to reforest some of the more sensitive rainforest
areas of Oregon and southern WA? Probably won't happen: the hard
freezes we get every 100 years or so (or is that _used_ to get?) kills
the trees. (At least it _used_ to kill them...) This tree used to grow
naturally as far north as the southern side of Yaquina Bay, near
Newport, Oregon.

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

mhagen wrote in message ...
In article , foresterSPAM-
says...
POSTED IN alt.forestry

I came across the May 2002 issue of Discover magazine with an article on
coastal redwoods. It hinted that some people don't clear-cut redwoods, but
didn't really develop the idea of uneven aged mgt. as an alternative to
clearcutting. The article seemed to be written more to appeal to a logger
than a silviculturist- the sort of article often seen in Northern Logger
magazine. I think Discover magazine could have done better with this- but of
course this is the problem with media that offer quick views of complex
subjects, given the fact that Americans have short attention spans.

--
Joe Zorzin



Some companies didn't clear cut them. Pacific Lumber from Scotia, for
one didn't, until it's take over by Maxxam. Selective logging may be
coming back after all the nasty publicity. Redweeds are such prolific
stump sprouters you don't even have to replant after a partial cut.

That's like this one ole logger said "Ya can't kill a dang redwood
tree. They just a keep a'comin back."

Larry

"Larry Harrell" wrote in message
om...
mhagen wrote in message
...
In article , foresterSPAM-
says...
POSTED IN alt.forestry

I came across the May 2002 issue of Discover magazine with an article
on
coastal redwoods. It hinted that some people don't clear-cut redwoods,
but
didn't really develop the idea of uneven aged mgt. as an alternative
to
clearcutting. The article seemed to be written more to appeal to a
logger
than a silviculturist- the sort of article often seen in Northern
Logger
magazine. I think Discover magazine could have done better with this-
but of
course this is the problem with media that offer quick views of
complex
subjects, given the fact that Americans have short attention spans.

--
Joe Zorzin



Some companies didn't clear cut them. Pacific Lumber from Scotia, for
one didn't, until it's take over by Maxxam. Selective logging may be
coming back after all the nasty publicity. Redweeds are such prolific
stump sprouters you don't even have to replant after a partial cut.

That's like this one ole logger said "Ya can't kill a dang redwood
tree. They just a keep a'comin back."

Ayup, but they ain't the same. Suckers growing out of a giant stump just
ain't the same as a 2,000 year old giant. What old growth redwood remain
should remain.



Larry

(Daniel B. Wheeler) writes:


Indeed. Even wind-blown redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens) sprout
multiple new trees. (I knew there was something I liked about that
tree.)

Maybe it's time to increase its range a little further north,
elminating the need to reforest some of the more sensitive rainforest
areas of Oregon and southern WA? Probably won't happen: the hard
freezes we get every 100 years or so (or is that _used_ to get?) kills
the trees. (At least it _used_ to kill them...) This tree used to grow
naturally as far north as the southern side of Yaquina Bay, near
Newport, Oregon.

There are redwoods planted in the early 1900's in the Victoria, BC, area
that are about a metre in diameter now. They appear to be thriving, and
Victoria gets temperatures down to -10° C every decade or so.

Maybe the redwood is hardier than is usually thought?

--
Larry Stamm

http://www.larrystamm.com

Joe Zorzin
"Larry Stamm" wrote in message
...
(Daniel B. Wheeler) writes:


Indeed. Even wind-blown redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens) sprout
multiple new trees. (I knew there was something I liked about that
tree.)

Maybe it's time to increase its range a little further north,
elminating the need to reforest some of the more sensitive rainforest
areas of Oregon and southern WA? Probably won't happen: the hard
freezes we get every 100 years or so (or is that _used_ to get?) kills
the trees. (At least it _used_ to kill them...) This tree used to grow
naturally as far north as the southern side of Yaquina Bay, near
Newport, Oregon.

There are redwoods planted in the early 1900's in the Victoria, BC, area
that are about a metre in diameter now. They appear to be thriving, and
Victoria gets temperatures down to -10° C every decade or so.

Maybe the redwood is hardier than is usually thought?

A lot of species will grow very nicely outside of what is considered their
"natural range". The question is, "will they adapt and 'go native'" so they
don't have to be replanted?".

Many southern species are planted and do well here in New England. I've
heard that there is a fine Baldcypress stand planted in western NY.

I wonder if foresters are experimenting with those redwoods in BC to see if
partial cutting will allow natural regeneration? Hey Larry, maybe you could
find out more and let us know.



--
Larry Stamm

http://www.larrystamm.com

"Joe Zorzin" wrote in message ...
Joe Zorzin
"Larry Stamm" wrote in message
...
(Daniel B. Wheeler) writes:


Indeed. Even wind-blown redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens) sprout
multiple new trees. (I knew there was something I liked about that
tree.)

Maybe it's time to increase its range a little further north,
elminating the need to reforest some of the more sensitive rainforest
areas of Oregon and southern WA? Probably won't happen: the hard
freezes we get every 100 years or so (or is that _used_ to get?) kills
the trees. (At least it _used_ to kill them...) This tree used to grow
naturally as far north as the southern side of Yaquina Bay, near
Newport, Oregon.

There are redwoods planted in the early 1900's in the Victoria, BC, area
that are about a metre in diameter now. They appear to be thriving, and
Victoria gets temperatures down to -10° C every decade or so.

Maybe the redwood is hardier than is usually thought?

A lot of species will grow very nicely outside of what is considered their
"natural range". The question is, "will they adapt and 'go native'" so they
don't have to be replanted?".

Many southern species are planted and do well here in New England. I've
heard that there is a fine Baldcypress stand planted in western NY.

I wonder if foresters are experimenting with those redwoods in BC to see if
partial cutting will allow natural regeneration? Hey Larry, maybe you could
find out more and let us know.

I can't speak to British Columbia. But a neighbor two blocks from my
home in Portland, Oregon just got done cutting down a 100-foot S.s.
after he had concerns the tree might blow over onto his and others
homes. The interesting thing to me is that this tree was nearly 4 feet
in diameter at the base, but had been growing for less than 60 years.
In other words, it had a relatively high concentration of wood stored
in the bole. (And I never did get to check for truffles associated
with the tree! )

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

"Joe Zorzin" writes:

"Larry Stamm" wrote in message

There are redwoods planted in the early 1900's in the Victoria, BC, area
that are about a metre in diameter now. They appear to be thriving, and
Victoria gets temperatures down to -10° C every decade or so.

Maybe the redwood is hardier than is usually thought?


A lot of species will grow very nicely outside of what is considered their
"natural range". The question is, "will they adapt and 'go native'" so they
don't have to be replanted?".

Many southern species are planted and do well here in New England. I've
heard that there is a fine Baldcypress stand planted in western NY.

I wonder if foresters are experimenting with those redwoods in BC to see if
partial cutting will allow natural regeneration? Hey Larry, maybe you could
find out more and let us know.

All the redwoods on Vancouver Island that I know of are in residential
areas or botanical gardens, so I doubt that much experimenting is being
done on a commercial basis. However I have seen redwood suckers around
the bases of a few trees, so it does seem as if they might regenerate
naturally.

In the same vein, there has been some success commercially in planting
Doug fir in northern BC several hundred km north of its natural range.
In fact, Doug fir has been the saviour species on some burned over
southeast facing sites in which pine/spruce plantings had failed because
of summer heat and drought. These plantations are young, and haven't
reached commercial thinning stage yet, but they seem to be thriving. No
evidence yet of natural regeneration, as the trees have yet to produce
viable seeds.

--
Larry Stamm

http://www.larrystamm.com

In article ,
writes:

I can't speak to British Columbia. But a neighbor two blocks from my
home in Portland, Oregon just got done cutting down a 100-foot S.s.
after he had concerns the tree might blow over onto his and others
homes. The interesting thing to me is that this tree was nearly 4 feet
in diameter at the base, but had been growing for less than 60 years.
In other words, it had a relatively high concentration of wood stored
in the bole. (And I never did get to check for truffles associated
with the tree! )

The sequoia is a rapid growing tree and tends to be very pyramidal unless
the trunk is forced to elongate by competition. I have seen a 50 year
old sequoia that was 6' dbh, growing in an open lawn. It was
considerably less than 100' tall.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

Larry Caldwell wrote in message t...
In article ,
writes:

I can't speak to British Columbia. But a neighbor two blocks from my
home in Portland, Oregon just got done cutting down a 100-foot S.s.
after he had concerns the tree might blow over onto his and others
homes. The interesting thing to me is that this tree was nearly 4 feet
in diameter at the base, but had been growing for less than 60 years.
In other words, it had a relatively high concentration of wood stored
in the bole. (And I never did get to check for truffles associated
with the tree! )

The sequoia is a rapid growing tree and tends to be very pyramidal unless
the trunk is forced to elongate by competition. I have seen a 50 year
old sequoia that was 6' dbh, growing in an open lawn. It was
considerably less than 100' tall.

This one used to be in the front lawn. Of course, it also had some
80-foot D-fir in the back bordering the back property as well as
off-street parking space. Maybe that's why the owners chose to cut
_everything_ down: reducing the danger of falling limbs falling on a
schoolyard next door, or trees falling and damaging homes. The redwood
in front had already created a root mound that may well have been
cracking the foundation of the house.

It's odd. Another neighbor also has a redwood, but located even closer
to his home. You'd never know it was a redwood though, to look at it:
less than 15 feet tall, and constantly pruned and shaped into a tight
shrubby growth. I don't know. Maybe that neighbor had the right idea.
Planting a redwood too close to your home (read within 60 feet) during
this century may not be such a good idea.

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

(Daniel B. Wheeler) wrote in message . com...

This one used to be in the front lawn. Of course, it also had some
80-foot D-fir in the back bordering the back property as well as
off-street parking space. Maybe that's why the owners chose to cut
_everything_ down: reducing the danger of falling limbs falling on a
schoolyard next door, or trees falling and damaging homes. The redwood
in front had already created a root mound that may well have been
cracking the foundation of the house.

It's odd. Another neighbor also has a redwood, but located even closer
to his home. You'd never know it was a redwood though, to look at it:
less than 15 feet tall, and constantly pruned and shaped into a tight
shrubby growth. I don't know. Maybe that neighbor had the right idea.
Planting a redwood too close to your home (read within 60 feet) during
this century may not be such a good idea.

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

Sequoias do look nice for quite a long time but, at some point, the
top will die and you'll have a scraggly, scruffy-looking fat tree (not
unlike an aging biker G ). Redwoods are very poor trees to use for
landscaping. They grow fast and big but, the worst thinga about them
is that the roots will buckle sidewalks and foundations while needing
vast amounts of water. I really hate it when I see redwoods and alders
planted as landscaping in Sacramento G.

Larry

(Larry Harrell) wrote in message . com...
(Daniel B. Wheeler) wrote in message . com...

This one used to be in the front lawn. Of course, it also had some
80-foot D-fir in the back bordering the back property as well as
off-street parking space. Maybe that's why the owners chose to cut
_everything_ down: reducing the danger of falling limbs falling on a
schoolyard next door, or trees falling and damaging homes. The redwood
in front had already created a root mound that may well have been
cracking the foundation of the house.

It's odd. Another neighbor also has a redwood, but located even closer
to his home. You'd never know it was a redwood though, to look at it:
less than 15 feet tall, and constantly pruned and shaped into a tight
shrubby growth. I don't know. Maybe that neighbor had the right idea.
Planting a redwood too close to your home (read within 60 feet) during
this century may not be such a good idea.

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

Sequoias do look nice for quite a long time but, at some point, the
top will die and you'll have a scraggly, scruffy-looking fat tree (not
unlike an aging biker G ). Redwoods are very poor trees to use for
landscaping. They grow fast and big but, the worst thinga about them
is that the roots will buckle sidewalks and foundations while needing
vast amounts of water. I really hate it when I see redwoods and alders
planted as landscaping in Sacramento G.

I could understand Giant Sequoia in Sacramento. But I'm having
difficulty envisioning Coastal Redwood the isn't it way too dry? As
for alders...I suppose along steams or rivers, where the floods could
wash them out.G

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

(Daniel B. Wheeler) wrote in message . com...
(Larry Harrell) wrote in message . com...

Sequoias do look nice for quite a long time but, at some point, the
top will die and you'll have a scraggly, scruffy-looking fat tree (not
unlike an aging biker G ). Redwoods are very poor trees to use for
landscaping. They grow fast and big but, the worst thinga about them
is that the roots will buckle sidewalks and foundations while needing
vast amounts of water. I really hate it when I see redwoods and alders
planted as landscaping in Sacramento G.

I could understand Giant Sequoia in Sacramento. But I'm having
difficulty envisioning Coastal Redwood the isn't it way too dry? As
for alders...I suppose along steams or rivers, where the floods could
wash them out.G

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

Yep, it IS way too dry and hot for Redwood trees in Sacramento. Could
landscapers be liable for damage caused by redwoods? Why not plant
drought-resistant native trees for landscaping instead of
water-intensive species? Seems like people do not realize that drought
will be a constant companion for all of us in the West.

Larry

(Larry Harrell) wrote in message . com...
(Daniel B. Wheeler) wrote in message . com...
(Larry Harrell) wrote in message . com...

Sequoias do look nice for quite a long time but, at some point, the
top will die and you'll have a scraggly, scruffy-looking fat tree (not
unlike an aging biker G ). Redwoods are very poor trees to use for
landscaping. They grow fast and big but, the worst thinga about them
is that the roots will buckle sidewalks and foundations while needing
vast amounts of water. I really hate it when I see redwoods and alders
planted as landscaping in Sacramento G.

I could understand Giant Sequoia in Sacramento. But I'm having
difficulty envisioning Coastal Redwood the isn't it way too dry? As
for alders...I suppose along steams or rivers, where the floods could
wash them out.G

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

Yep, it IS way too dry and hot for Redwood trees in Sacramento. Could
landscapers be liable for damage caused by redwoods? Why not plant
drought-resistant native trees for landscaping instead of
water-intensive species? Seems like people do not realize that drought
will be a constant companion for all of us in the West.

While most of California is projected to become drier, parts of Oregon
may actually get wetter. And B.C. _may_ become a wetlands far away
from the coast.

All I know is that I may have to start irrigating my truffle patches.

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com