Bush support for logging in national forrests to reduce wildfire risk..?

roscoe

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Oct 30, 2002
Messages
21,739
Re: Bush support for logging in national forrests to reduce wildfire risk..?

Many of Wisconsin's forests were totally destroyed by clearcutting almost 200 years ago. The massive hemlocks and white pines are gone. The folks on the east coast saw some trees, so they cut them down, long before anyone thought about conservation or preservation.<br /><br />Today, we have many thousands of acres that are protected from all activities except walking in them. There is even an old growth virgin timber stand near Milwaukee of all places.<br /><br />The bulk of our logs now go to paper mills, but plenty still goes into hardwood veneers and lumber.<br /><br />Most of the logging around my area takes place on private land, which the owner values very highly. It is all logged with selective cutting, unless the owner wants it cleared for some other purpose. Most of the logging is done by small 1 - 3 man companies. <br /><br />The owner specifies which individual trees will be untouched, and a minimum size limit for the rest of the harvest. In our case, everything under 8" diameter was left standing.<br /> Looked kindof thin for awhile, but 2 summers later, it was thick with underbrush and new saplings. And the unharvested trees had room to grow. And these trees provided the shade and preserved the moisture that was needed by the new saplings.<br /><br />25 years later, the 6-8 inchers have grown to havesting size, and the smaller ones are now in the "under 8" protected class."<br />Dad will have it harvested again in a year or two.<br /><br />Now, if you want to see some clearcuts, I can show you thousands of acres, but not here, over the border in Canada. They take it all but the tops, and pulp it so you can have cheap newsprint.<br /><br />We also harvest more than 3 million Christmas trees per year. Now those are raised on tree farms, and selectively harvested too.<br /><br />Any of you ever spend 2 weeks shearing trees, acres and acres and .........acres of #@#@%$#@ trees?
 

JasonJ

Rear Admiral
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
4,163
Re: Bush support for logging in national forrests to reduce wildfire risk..?

I am all for selective harvesting. There are areas up here that are not allowed to be selectively logged, and I dread the day a forest fire starts. There is so much fallen trees, dead trees, and all sorts of other fuels. From what I have seen, the areas that are selectively logged have been done so in ways that have not impacted the environment. Helicopters are used extensively, which means little forest floor destruction. They also have machines that grab, cut, strip, and cut the log to predetermined lengths, then load it on the truck. As a result, there isn't multiple machines destroying the forest floor, just a few. The forests are then being planted with new trees. It is very well done here.
 

12Footer

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Mar 25, 2001
Messages
8,217
Re: Bush support for logging in national forrests to reduce wildfire risk..?

Here in Lehigh Acres, Florida, there is no harvesting. It's a shame, but every fire season,or every other fire season, we loose at least one home to brush fires. We've all seen the results of allowing underbrush to take hold.And one sure way of doing this, is to ban tree cutting. This allows the trees to grow so thick that nothing but a cat or skunk can get thru it. But having said that, I am clueless as to a course of action that would be best for our public lands.<br /><br />I have no idea what harm or good would be done by allowing logging on public lands, but I'm sure the truth can be found by using the national forestry service ,and the FFWC as sources of advice. <br />It's thier job. They would not burn themselves out of a job, would they? After following thier advice, all should be as it should. Yet, for some reason, the subject is being decided by private organizations ,all with agendas to forward. Why? It's not rocket science...And even if it was, it would be left up to the rocket scientists,would it not?<br />Let's get the whackos on both sides of this issue removed from the loop.<br />If thinning-out forests is healthy, do it. If not, don't.
 

dick

Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Oct 4, 2001
Messages
433
Re: Bush support for logging in national forrests to reduce wildfire risk..?

Last year we had a brutal fire season up here.One of the driest summers on record.Two of the biggest fires where in Barier and Kelowna.The Barier fire was started by a guy with a smoke( no kiding, he tried to put it out and couldn't and watched it spread)It took out the mill and a bunch of homes .The second and most publicize was Kelowna (it was started by lighting)and took out alot of homes.After the summer of hell they did a report on what could have been done better, Full report <br />The jist of it is we should clear out the dead wood,promote selective logging and selective burns. <br />You can't suppress fire and let the forrest grow wild it will add up to this Slide show <br />Last I heard all the recomendations where accepted.
 
Top