Are Timber Companies Destroying Our Forests or Saving Them?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 жов 2024
- Timber companies often get accused of destroying our forests. A lot of people don't like the looks of a clearcut. Is clearcut logging really as destructive as it looks, or could it be saving the forests? Many of our forests are in poor condition partly because of past management and around a century of fire suppression. We take a look at common practice of clearcut timber harvesting in this area. Examine the longer term results, including the use of herbicide. We look at the old growth forests that used to be here. The problems created by logging them decades ago without reforestation. We look at what modern timber harvesting is doing with that situation.
You can support the channel through Patreon at / wilsonforestlands
Items I Use
USA Made Smart Wool Socks
www.camelcitym...
TopTes Moisture Meter
amzn.to/3QHnURv
You can apply the discount code 59ORXNSE to get 10% off.
Chainsaw Files for Square Filing
amzn.to/3uMjeSg
Spencer Log Tape
amzn.to/431roD2
RODE Wireless Go II Microphone
amzn.to/3OZ8HKb
RODE Lavalier Mic
amzn.to/3OTBeRC
If you buy anything through these links, I will receive a small commission.
I'm glad to hear they planted a mix of trees. my biggest beef with the current forest cycle is a lot of the timber companies plant a monoculture. this makes the section very suscebtible to insect or disease kill. a diversified planting makes it harder for one bug to wipe out an entire planting.
A lot of forests or sections of forest are natural a "monoculture".
It's not a forest then, but a plantation of selected tree species grown for timber.
Everything is "selected" for with or without "human interference". You do realize most forests are natural monocultures or have stratified monocultures in them right?
@@douglas_fir My forest is not a monoculture. It grew in the place of a pasture. It has different species of trees and when you make a clearing it will be populated by berry bushes till the tree seedlings will grow and shadow them which I'm not permitting (I like berries :) ).
The south has thousands upon thousands of acres owned by timber companies that many like to call them forest . They are plantation pine grown in mass for a business . They are not a forest…..they are a crop for profit. Other species of trees are not allowed to grow and originally killed off by herbicides in the beginning .
Depends on your region. Western regions of the U.S. are generally far less diverse in the overstory than Eastern regions. Where are you from? What tree species do you have?
@@LukeWatkins-x5b East. NH. Oak, maple, birch, beech, ash, pine and hemlock.
People always need to remember that most forests are grown as a crop, and come harvest time people like to moan and complain at all the trees coming down I have done a few videos on this subject around here in Canada. but good forest management is vital and much needed thats for sure. we clear cut here but also replant on a massive scale. the bison used to also control the understory , but we no longer have 2million strong herds migrating twice a year, we did reintroduce bison into the banff park area and wow do those guys ever make a great difference, the forest is much more lush and productive now in the bison areas.
Thank you for sharing your information
I'm from Latvia and here we use brushcutters insted of herbicide. And back in the soviet times a forest on my familys property was cler cut but not replanted and now I'm having to do a lot of maitinace. There are a few videos on my channel.
I hear the Soviets let loose a serious Hog Weed infestation for dubious scientific reasons. Now the hog weed is multi-herbicide resistant. Has this been a problem around you? Nothing like a weed that can kill cattle and raise hospital serious blisters on people to put herbicides into perspective.
Good stuff on your channel, are going to do more vids on cleaning an unattended hardwood forest? I'm dealing with the same thing.
@@smeagolmazurenko5238 yes when I get more time. Its may last year of studiying so got only the weekends to work. And I first whant to finish the aspen tree cutting in the spruce tree stand. Probably in winter I'l return to that forest.
I hate to see trees, get chopped down, if loggers are smart they will plant trees, no matter what country here in.
I live up in inland BC and yes, there's different problems going on up here. But for a big part you're hitting many nails on many heads! and coming across with some solid points.
Especially comparing the food industries to the timber industries, good that you're bringing some conversation to this topic. Thank you.
Down in the mountains on 180 acres of timberland along the central California coast here. Our redwoods were clearcut in the 19-teens. For whatever reason they burnt all the slash right at the base of the old growth stumps... Paradoxically, I've observed this killed the largest ones (6-10' across), but most of the ones that were less than 4' in diameter re-sprouted. These sprouts are 2-3' on the stump now. We did a thinning harvest in 2008 and 2012, taking 1-3 stems off each clump. Even though they took the largest trees, it made all of the others shoot up like crazy, and the canopy is all filled out again. We also still have 4-5x the number of redwoods that were here historically compared to old growth stump density. Like you, I did have a huge mess due to blow down of oaks and madrones from the thinned canopy/ change in wind patterns. In general, I would say the logging was beneficial to the forest however. They did a great job of cleaning up the understory in all the areas they were in (mechanically, no herbicides). I have endless battles with invading firs on the spots that have no redwoods (our firs are not commercially viable and were not here historically due to indigenous burning). I am slowly extending the range of the redwoods below the hardwood canopy, but most of my management is geared towards reducing ladder fuels/fire danger, as well as reducing disease (Phytopthora ramorum--Sudden Oak Death on tan and live oaks and Botryosphaeria on the madrones). Just found your channel a few months ago, and really enjoying hearing from a kindred spirit! Stay safe!!
I live in the Midwest, so don’t know much about forests. I enjoyed learning from you. Thanks
Well done video, clearly done by someone that has a balanced understanding of our forests. That clear cut looks a lot like the fire scares we have from the big fires over the last few years here in Oregon. Mother nature has used fire in some cases to clear cut for thousands of years. My family has been harvesting timber on the same land for 5 generations and we have as much timber now as when the place was bought. Generational knowledge of our forest land makes our business successful. The key to that longevity is a profit, there must be a descent income to make the investment for the next generation to continue. Thanks for your videos and sharing your knowledge.
But herbacides are a big problem downstream. I live in the margin between the Willamette Valley and the Coast Range. Herbicides are used on both Valley farms and timberlands. People live in between or among the two sources. Not optimal for our health.
Yes I agree. Many of the herbicides they use stay around for 3+ years before they break down. The risk to people and streams is downplayed by the companies that make the chemicals.
A lot of folks miss the sustainable timber farm practices being used by timber companies really are very nature friendly operations. I used to do security for a timber farm on land originally owned by Scott paper. Using these practices had been in use for just over 100 years, during which time several areas were seeing their 3rd or 4th harvest cycle . There by saving other areas of old growth from being harvested. Here on the west coast most if not all timber companies are doing a lot of good for nature while also supplying lumber and jobs for society.
Yes, private land is one thing public land is a different story. The vast majority of public forest land shouldn’t be a tree farm, which was the trend. None of the old growth forests we have left should be logged, as there is precious little left.
Herbicide is the opposite of nature friendly 😂
I always enjoy your episodes keep them coming
Here in WA State some of the tree farms are growing so close that's it's a fire hazard and if they thin them they just leave a tangled mess it is a tinder box😮
It has been a long road for our forests. Like your perspective and approach. We need to work together, learn, and grow to build a workable ecosystem that can benefit nature and mankind’s future.
Great lesson professor Wilson. Very educational.
Evil, no, but there are issues with plantation forestry, especially in areas where diversity was not in the trees, but the herbaceous understory/ ground cover. Longleaf pine and shortleaf pine forests are virtually gone, replaced by fire suppressed loblolly and slash pine plantations on short rotations from 20 to maybe 35 years Even if you run a 50 to 100 year rotation, the diversity will never be present as it was under frequently burned longleaf and or shortleaf.
Take a look into the mycelium effects in a forest and how they interact with the roots of the trees and plants
I noticed in my area of Louisiana the “pine thickets” or areas of planted pines are being harvested then just letting nature take over. Hardwood (mostly nut trees) saplings are plentiful. At least the wildlife will thrive because pine thickets do nothing for them.
The problem is you see a homogenous green replanted hill and assume it’s a monoculture, when in fact, like in this video, they plant a variety of conifer species to create a forest that isn’t a monoculture.
Diversity of the plant life is at the pleasure of the land owner, who may do as he pleases. It is not up to the UA-cam commenter to decide on how to manage another’s private property.
Good job Wilson, making people, including me think. Spot on with all areas are different. Clear felling native Australian hardwood forest to plant GM radiata is not too nature positive for our Koalas and our small native creatures, its like asking them to live in a concrete high-rise and eat MacDonald's and is similar to converting native forest to any other modern mono culture crop. Managed native forest, selectively harvested, in select locations is perhaps an acceptable compromise but I hear not profitable enough for commercial harvest in our modern world. Perhaps if our native forest was predominantly for high value timber products rather than wood pulp the higher margins wood offset the lower yields/ha and forest management costs of a selective harvest. No easy silver bullet but I think we just have to go with a mix of options.
selective cutting is superior to clear cutting period. It preserves diversity, mixed aged trees and encourages brush which requires more herbicide to control.
How are you going to grow new Douglas in an established canopy?
Maybe in your ecosystem neck of the woods. That’s like saying chocolate ice cream is the best because I like it.
Great video. On herbicides, a good deal of research was just released that links herbicide exposure to parkinson's disease.
Merve Wilkinson wrote a book called Wildwood. A very good read. He, as you Sir had a very common sense approach to managing forests. As hard as society tries to keep it on a us and them level. I think more will understand they’ve got to get out there and help manage the vast ecosystems themselves. Paid or not paid, it’s got to be done. Thank you, Strength And Love.
Very nicely put.
@@yonmusak Thank you. 👍😎
This was a really good video...thank you. I am a timberland owner and manager, and surrounded by both commercial timberland and National Forest. You have made some good points. Nothing is black and white and we all can learn a lot!
Private forest land is one thing, public lands are quite another. As you know, forests aren’t just trees and public land ancient forests were over cut. Remember the controversy about raw logs being shipped to Japan? Japanese log ships docked at Coos Bay etc. Our public forests were cut and much of it shipped off to Japan. My first commercial flight over Oregon in the mid 70’s was startling! National Forests cut right up to the wilderness boundaries! All replanted and all a big fire hazard now! Logging entire landscapes, drainages and even the better part of entire states on a massive industrial scale in 20-30 years is mind boggling. We’re pretty much just going to have to endure the wildfire smoke and see miles and miles of burned public woods far into the future.
There’s no way to match the industrial effort and scale that got us here with what’s needed to get us back even in the ballpark of where the public woods were 60-70 years ago. Clear cutting is an efficient industrial process, done with massive machinery. Restoration is labor intensive, hundreds of times less efficient than clear cutting and there’s no $$$ profit. The best we can hope for is reducing the fuel load near towns to help protect them from burning up and killing people.
Most folks just aren’t tuned in to this issue, even if they have lost a home and/or family to wild fire! Watch interviews of some of the victims of the Camp fire in CA, moved a ridge or two over, and were victims of Park fire this year. It boggles the mind again! The Lookout YT channel out of Chico CA has great insights on this subject.
Need trees for timber, no doubt. But clear cutting is not good, neither are chemicals. It can be done in a manner that saves old growth but timber companies want$$$
Selective cuts( say one third of the total adult trees, keep the best seeders for less defect in future growth) every 10 , 20 or 30 years , depending on the growth rate of the area, will produce more wood per acres/hectares and maintain a healthy forest for the next generations. Problem with that is you need manual labor and it is way less profitable then clear cutting.
In Austria - clear cuts are getting less and less. A different type of managing forest into a more continious style of harvesting. There are studies availalbe showing that a forest ground which was in the shade für 100 years getting direct sunlight suddenly kills almost lots of its growth potential. Eigther way - at least in Austria we have a very strict rule system to do sustainable forestry since decades - we have more growth then we are taking out eg. This wildfire topic is interesting - we dont have this here and i havent seen it as a „good thing“ until your argumentation. I also think it might be a good think in your area but less a good thing in my area.
Again, good content, you know why you are talking about. The majority of timber companies are looking at the long term out here. I’m more concerned about ranch logging, because there are some owners who don’t care about perpetuating the forests. I know because I’ve got neighbors who don’t give a damn right across the fence line from me.
The forestry vids are admittedly some of the most interesting content you put up. Do people use continuous canopy management (that is, take just some trees, with an uneven age tree stock)?
Here in WV, working as a forester in a consulting forestry firm. Private landowners dominate the state 85%. I've marked timber and most of the time it seems landowner are more interested in money, rather than forest heath. Pointing fingers and throwing the blame, I think uneducated landowners are to blame. Loggers are simply fulfilling a market demand. Logging brings in over 30,000 jobs and generated 3.2 billions dollars for the state. West Virginia is the second leading hardwood producer in the country. For a state that is dumb and poor. I think it's an important aspect of our state. We have government agencies to overlook and keep loggers in line such as the Department of Forestry. Loggers are by law, required to take classes and gain certifications in order to own a operation. Getting back to my point, landowners. We selectively choose our species and the diameter class we mark. After the fact, once the timber is for bid, and the cut is complete. Regeneration and land management is handed off back to the landowner. Who... usually doesn't want to put time into their property after making the money. There are many intricate points to be made. I think it all boils down to uneducated opinions on a industry people benefit from regardless of their beliefs or realizing it.
“ for a state that is dumb and poor” ? I think you showcase the dumb part pretty well
@@saltymofo5870 Name checks out. Move along, you bring nothing to this conversation.
@@Adem-nl8pd Nor do you, but you think you do. That’s even worse
@@saltymofo5870 Bud needs a pick-me-up, so he starts internet arguments on his free time. kick rocks
@@Adem-nl8pd just kicked one, guess what I found under it? A low life consulting firm forester who charges landowners 10% and have the timber companies to do the cruise, the title search, and the boundaries. Then they take the 10% for absolutely nothing. The more the landowner sells, the more you make. Your business relies on taking advantage of people that don’t know how a timber sell works. Any thing the landowner needs done or wants done, he simply tells the forester that is buying the tract, with no need for a middleman cutting him for 10%. You can get help, it’s not too late
I tell people that if our life span was 500 years instead of 80 or so, seeing clear cuts would not affect us any more than seeing a corn field harvested. I don't like the herbicide use but they are working on new ways hopefully. Grazon, not sure about spelling is one that scares me. It does not break down, even when the crop is fed to livestock. If that animals manure is used in your garden, it kills or stunts your plants, for years.
There won't ever be a unified consensus on the topic, just like there won't ever be a consensus on the beef industry or the green industry or the oil industry. All we can do is try to make things better a bit at a time. Bjarne mentioned once that in BC they changed logging practices from timbering whole mountain sides to only logging blocks at a time. This helped but they are only one company, or just one forest region. In northern MN and Wisconsin they log so many trees you would think the place would be barren but you can barely notice the difference until you pass a single block of forest and a few years later can barely notice. Is it different, sure, the poplars take over. But they fall over in a few years and the oaks and maples get re-established.
I'm a Forester for a timber company. The short answer is yes, they typically are destroying the forests. Do they have to? No, but they are more concerned about meeting demand quarterly than about 40+ years down the line. Responsible logging followed by quality reforestation can be beneficial to the forest, the community, and long term timber production, but the corporate execs that run these companies only care about their yearly bonuses.
There you go, being all sensible.
Similar to eucalyptus forests in Australia. Forestry is very complex. It is difficult to know what is the best way to manage forests.
I tend to think a managed forest with undergrowth removed is better than an unmanaged forest with weeds and stuff growing. In Australia lantana is a weed that infests forests. It is ladder species, allowing fires to move up from the forest floor to the tree tops. A managed forest will not have lantana. It will be cut back and eradicated. An unmanaged forest will have lantana and other woody weeds. A fire in unmanaged forests will destroy the forest.
Never liked how Sierra Pacific clearcuts stands that were, for instance, predominately doug fir...and then replant it with 100% fast growing pine.
State forest practice rules in Washington do not allow 100% cut, although it looks like it. Every block or unit has so many trees per acre of harvest set aside somewhere contiguous with the unit. There are also so many snags and downed logs left, too. You don’t see them because often they are along a boundary that appears to not be apart of the unit. Each unit is managed to a site specific plan so what is done on the coast is different from the inland NW, and you can’t apply what works in one area ( a partial cut ) and apply it to another area ( a clearcut). The lesson is every region has site specific requirements that do not transfer across the country to another forest.
I think herbicides can be a useful tool to allow seedling trees to grow unemcumbered by competing species, but unfortunately some lumber companies pollute watersheds used by humans and there is a very real chance they are detrimental to those said humans. The worst-case scenarios have been drift from helicopter spraying. Why can't the spraying happen when the re-planting does, why not use hand-spraying crews? Automation in the form of helicopters may be more convenient and maybe even cheaper but if it causes problems to locals then it's time to look at other possible solutions. Helicopters can't plant trees, but humans can both plant trees and spray herbicides, therefore humans are the superior choice.
One thing i notice on replanted logging land, is all the trees have segmented branches. Like a whole ring of branches every 2-3 feet, while natural forest i observe, have premium trees, that dont have branches for like the first 75-100 feet
That high canopy of the big trees forces young trees to slowly push tall to find their spot in the light at the top. Only then will they take off in growth, adding trunk mass to support their new sunlit bushy top. Giving you strong tight grained heart wood with clear vertical grain in that lower 100’. Takes a lot longer, and takes and intact mature forest to raise a next generation of premium trees
I like the selective logging approach as well as liming up the trees. If it was my property, of course but also the way mycelium interact with a forest when you do clear logging it destroys the mycelium base. If you walk through old growth, forest you find a bunch of mycelium as well as lush green Areas. You can terraform an area with trees and allowing nature to take us course fire included.
Beautiful property. Great video.
The big timber companies have managed forest well .
Private land owners logging for greed have turned forest into jungles and fire hazards.
I am torn on the issue but at the end of the day I prefer a good rotational thinning.
All of the timberland in our area was bought up by what is now Hancock and they have cut it down to bare dirt.
There will not be harvestable timber in my lifetime over thousands of acres.
I appreciate your presenting facts and not just giving black and white opinions on a fairly complex issue. good information to consider.
I researched the idea of planting redwoods of various species to widen the range. The lumber companies were the ones selling seedlings. I think a great many care about the environment and are taking steps to make sure there is lumber to harvest in the future.
I’ve thought about the same thing, would redwoods do well in the BC or Washington in the next 100 years maybe? Be the Johnny Appleseed of the big trees!
Just got an ad at the end of this video for a corn herbicide talking about how peaceful and calming it is to only have corn growing in your field’s. So yeah the timber companies one time use can be forgiven and honestly if it saves human turmoil then im not against it.
Biggest evil about timber companies is they don't pay taxes on acessment values, at least in Idaho. The state legislature gave them a huge tax break as it's zoned as timber land. The timber company is leasing out campground spots on their property and it's not zoned for such and they're using it for income they're not zoned for. Bunch of corporate BS.
Putting a few Redwoods in the replanting program is a wonderful idea. I'm surprised the timber companies don't make that more known. Most of us think of them as monocultural plantations. And it's also surprising how far afield Redwoods can grow. I hear there's a grove of Giant Sequoia doing very well in England (planted in the 1800's). Plus my neighbor here in L.A. has a Coast Redwood growing in his front yard. Of course it's constantly irrigated with the lawn and is only about 50 feet tall.
Is the spraying a factor in hoof rot in elk ? Are they changing the ph and minerals in the soil that favors hoof rot and not the immune system of the animals ?
I think the real risk is the effect that the herbicides have on streams. Fish and other aquatic life are extremely sensitive to runoff from herbicides. I guarantee they haven't done the testing needed to understand the impact they cause on the fish and the tiny organisms that the fish rely on.
Thank you, M.W.
Always enjoy your videos. I watched this one and read through all of the comments from the past day. I guess that my one comment is that all forests aren't the same, so trying to create or replicate an Old Growth forest in one place, would not be the same as in another. I've spent quite a bit of time in the forests of southern Oregon and northern California and what is OG there is very different than what is called the Wabanki forests of the Canadian Atlantic provinces (I live in the province of Nova Scotia).. Here, the OG tree species would be Yellow Birch, Sugar Maple, Red Oak, Eastern Hemlock, and Red Spruce. The lumber companies are not much interested in any of those except Red Spruce, so as a result, those OG forests have been pretty much razed in favour of fast-growing softwoods that can be milled for construction lumber or sent to the pulp mills. There isn't much of a market for hardwood the way there used to be so, sadly, a lot of hardwood is being cut and burnt as biomass to produce electricity, but also to fill a big market for biomass to ship to Europe and the the UK to burn in their big DRAX biomass power station. Now there are plans to use it to make biodiesel and even a company from Ireland that intends to set up a plant to use forest biomass to make into jet fuel. There isn't much of a plan to replace any of these hardwood forests with more hardwood -- most trees grown here are increasingly the fast-growing conifers -- there's a big push on now to set up HPF forests (High Production Forests) in Nova Scotia, similar to what has been going on in New Brunswick -- grow trees fast, clear cut, use a lot of spray. I guess that might work where the soil is deep and plentiful, but the soil here in Nova Scotia is pretty nutrient depleted as forests have been actively cut going back into the 1700s when trees were cut and shipped back to the UK. The soil is thin and very acidic. In any case, my point is that the "replacement forests" (conifers) favoured by industry for pulp wood and construction lumber, are not at all natural to the natural ecology that existed here before, so it has had a pretty serious impact on wildlife. I guess the thing is that you have to decide whether human needs and desires outweigh the needs of wildlife. If the demand for all sorts of products from wood (especially biomass) don't stop rising, I can't see much of a future for the original Wabanaki forests. It will all end up being plantation conifer. I suspect the same is happening in many parts of the world where the native forest just doesn't cut it as a marketable commodity. Anyhow, interesting topic.
There was a comment in the news feed about forest land taxes. My neighbor in Washington State has 79 acres of forest land and pays $167.00 a year. I looked up a tree farm in Clatsop County Oregon. 239 acres and yearly tax is $2069. I have references.
My mom has a few smaller properties in washington that are forest land and a few years ago she was paying $12-20 per 5-15 acre parcels. Years ago it was easy getting your land taxed as forestry land but a year or so ago she bought another couple pieces of land and she's been having a hell of a time getting it switched over.
Here in central Alberta we are deforesting far quicker than it can possibly grow.
In an industrial forest setting...sort of like a registered retirement savings plan. Instead of one withdrawal every 400 years, how about 5 withdrawals ... every 80 years. We call it the green circle theory. Establish, develop, then harvest. Most folks don't like the science of growing an industrial forest...silviculture...they only believe in their idealogy. Great forest video.
Here in Sweden they have a nasty tendency to replant the clearcut with monoclonal spruce of central European stock instead of domestic spruces. Also they are logging at a faster rate than the regrowth form what I have heard.
We have some clear cuts up here that are 5-10km long in some cases . I wouldn’t say they ruin the forest as they replant and the shrubs , tag alders etc all grow quick. One clear cut I moose hunted 10 years ago is completely overgrown now and you can’t see 10 feet. Another 20 years ago is well a forest now .
What if you'll harvest only part of old trees, like thinning them? Would it be a better practice for the forest? Probably not possible with big machines, but doable on a small scale - by the property owner, for example.
I believe they call that "Selective logging". It's been done successfully for ages, but I don't think it's really viable at the kind of volume that the timber industry demands.
Can you show us how to tell the different trees apart? I enjoy the videos and also live in Oregon.
I thought I heard you say we can’t use fire to manage forests.
Did you mean to say we choose not to allow fire and to use fire to manage forests?
Good overview and discussion starter
I think you are on the money
The redwoods will regrow from the stumps
Here where I live(NZ) redwood is very fussy where it grows well but clonal planting material helps with this at a cost .
P. radiata is our main crop it grows on a wide range of sites and a export market is established
Keep up the good work
What is your opinion on diversity of tree species within a plot i.e. every third tree they plant 'x variety' then every sixth tree plant 'y variety'. Would this help reduce disease between trees for example? Great video and simple explainer for a man like me who lives in a city and never really seen more than 10 trees side by side in nature
Personally i find it stressing with clear cuts, lots of managing is needed in the years after the clear cut.
Like most things, its a mixed bag of good and bad with a heavy dose of pragmatic reality. I think its one of those things where we can likely always do better. Mix species. Maybe leave patches not replanted to let them be brushy in the interim. Careful regulation around size of clear cuts (I understand to be already present in many areas).
Im a tree man. Deer, Bear Elk & critters love clear cut when the shrubs grow....Timber companies are not stupid they want to cut again in 50years....In the 60's they sprayed 2.4.D (agent orange ) all over here in southern Oregon....Although Trout & other fish can be harmed if its all mud.
Trying for the best outcome it's the bright side of the road. It's something it's clear going.
Are controlled fires used today if so how often ?
Lot of ways to do forestry right, lot of ways to do forestry wrong. Having big company forest management beholden to Wall St stock holders may not be good idea. At 6:06 you show old growth with sealed over smaller stump. Those seal overs are kept alive from big trees roots. Cutting "lids" off can produce nice figured round for a craftsman. Thanks for trying to help us overcome nature deficit disorder.
I think your a smart man .
What?! You’re telling me I shouldn’t be angry about what I wanted to be angry about? THAT makes me angry! What’s the issue again?
Are we able to grow enough trees to keep up with demand?
What is the difference between fire scars and clearcuts? Fire scars have irregular shapes and widow makers. Clear cuts have straight lines. Both help retard forest fires.
Too bad the replanted clear cuts don't have more diverse trees. Doug fir monoculture is good for business, but more Hemlock, Madrones, cedars, ponderosa pines and so on are good too.
I've seen both sides of this coin and as usual the truth is somewhere in the middle ground. However the timber industry wants to handle their land is one issue, but the fact is our USFS is doing a piss poor job of managing public lands. Period.
I think good and bad is generally a matter of perspective. What’s good for me, might be bad for you. What’s good for a mountain lion, might really suck for a deer herd. Wolves may be great in a National park with no other management available but bad for the rest of the predators including hunters. Every living organism on the planet uses its available natural resources including us. Is that good or bad or just is? Heck I’m not even sure you can say a forest is “natural” if it looks a certain way. They are constantly changing and only look a certain way during a certain time period. Im a former logger and pro logging and I’ve also been a crop duster. Both are currently vital. They aren’t good or bad. Can best practices change and become better? Well that depends on what someone considers better. To some, that will mean more efficient and productive. With an ever increasing population than may very well be “better”. To others, perhaps with more means than some, better would look like a picture postcard as they don’t care about cost. So the only real answer is 🤷🏽♂️ 😁👍🏼👍🏼
What do I think? I think thoughts! A timber guy talking about big timber guys. Who am I gonna believe? A chiropractor talking about medicine or a doctor talking about medicine? How may homes will be burned in a wild fire? How many homes will be built from clear cut? Hmmm. Does good with a little or some bad make a villan?
Perspective matters
I just bought ten acres in Sandpoint Idaho and the adjacent property to my west is Stimpson lumber with 240 acres. Stimpson logged it 2 or 3 years ago and I plan to move there in another 2 years, the land should be nicely forested in a decade and I look forward to hunting and hiking it.
I thought some beetle was eating all the douglas firs
What’s the replanting industry like in the US?
It's way down fromwhat it was in the 1970's, mostly because we finally caught up with a lot of the backlog. I was a professional treeplanter during the 70's and over that decade we saw the industry peak - it terms of contracts offered - and begin to decline through the 80's. Many of the small, independent contracting companies that came into being during the boom years folded as a result of the declining number of offerings. That's not a bad thing. There's still plenty of planting to do, always will be, but probably not to the extent that was done in the past.
@@robertbooth3699 Interesting! Thanks for the response. I tree planted in Canada as a student and it seems like a larger industry.
A balanced perspective, bold strategy for the internet. My house is made of wood.
The USDA is a resource management agency, resources are to be exploited in this culture. As long as all of this moves us closer to producing the worlds first trillionaire we can be sure we are on the right path!
Oregon has a property tax on private forest land. This makes it necessary to create income. Hence periodic timber harvests that create local jobs and forest products. Change the tax policy if you don't like timber harvesting.
My neighbor in Washington State has 79 acres of forest land and pays $167.00 a year. What is the tax rate for forest lands in Oregon??
I looked up a tree farm in Clatsop County Oregon. 239 acres and yearly tax is $2069
Yes and no, if it’s a clear cut of a monoculture tree crop and it’s then managed for timber production than not really. If it’s true old growth timber that’s clear cut and replanted with a monoculture for tree crop production then yes, it’s damaging.
Hardly any old growth left, but the rise of plantation forestry has issues.
I miss the sawmill
It’s amazing what industry and humans can do. Nearly made whales extinct, removed Bison and Wolves and grizzlies from most of their range. Decimated the “big trees” or old grow forests. Industry is in the process of altering the climate. Growing 8 billion people on the planet is a problem. We can only hope the forests can be spared being further devastated than they have been.
I always told “tree huggers” we are an approved , slow moving fire, taking merchantable timber, keeping shade, taking out wood before it rots and falls over. Opening the canopy so something other than mushrooms grows, broadcast burning to take out root disease causing duff”excessive needle build up. “ we did the broadcast burns at the time the winds over the ocean brought in the warm moist air, the particulate mixed in, cooled off, poof, snow. So thank you again, see you in the next ice age. lol, I remember when we did these things, the news asked the question,”Are we entering the next ice age?” . Too bad these teaching were not mandatory. Take care.
Monocultures always collapse, It's complicated. Don't forget though, when choosing the lesser of two evils; evil was still chosen. How about goats?
We need the trees more than we need the weeds. Survival is useful.....weeds, not so much.
Herbicide = AGENT ORANGE
Ridiculous! Facts matter. The herbicide used now, while not totally safe, is nowhere near the same as agent orange. Gimme some real info so you're not stirring things up with false info.
I'll just say the general public doesn't even get to scratch the surface of what goes on in how to manage forests. Give a thanks to your local foresters and silviculturists.
At what cost to other people. Selfish industry.
If it was managed properly, we would not have to spray and clearcut. Look at the uk now.
@@kevinmaclean5904elaborate
@@kevinmaclean5904at the cost of providing people with various products made from renewable material? So selfish
Saving them
Destroying the forest !
Good evening, Mike. Hope all is well. Good video. Don't confuse people with "facts."
Interesting that other than the shots of land he helped replant as a boy, in offering a vision of what things will look like he keeps using images of forest that wasn't clearcut and saying "it'll probably look like this" or "it oughta end up like this" .... Well, go out and find examples then and "Show don't Tell." Otherwise, your points are not credible.
Historically evil there are plenty of alternative replacement to timber.
honestly, if you want something taken care of make sure it involves a profit for anyone providing the care. the thing that makes timber profitable is to allow sawmills to harvest the trees.
you hit the nail on the coffin, NIMBYers will claim they want there perfect forest but we need wood, so instead of just making it impossible to do anything, see we need wood and manage the forest accordingly.
Wondering, are they planting the new breed of poplar that grows three times faster than regular pines? They do this in Georgia and else where, but to my knowledge they aren’t in Washington and Oregon yet. Georgia pines have no wood grain to speak of, just straight white boards! Ugly to look at!
Here in northern California, Sierra Pacific has replanted their clearcuts with fast growing pines for many years. I disagree with this practice, mainly because they don't usually replant the native species, and these pine plantations are definitely not a forest.
replace timber with hemp, two years of hemp gives you the same amount of fiber as a forest rotation.
cutting a tree down destroys it
cutting a forest down destroys it.
planting trees dosnt replace them for decades, or even centuries, depending on the tree type....which until then, its still "destroyed"
so yes, it is destroying the forest for any one currently living who will never experience the new forest, but could of experienced the one if it wasnt cut down........ maybe its saving them for future generations, but the current ones, will never know it.
Wise men plant trees whose shade they will never sit in, or however that quote goes. They won't save it if it's company land. The same process will be repeated down the line, but maybe using controlled burns or large amounts of pigs instead of poisons. But honestly, with the way the world is going - it probably doesn't matter whether or not forests thrive. The people that will inherit this Earth don't really deserve anything valuable or beautiful.
@arbhorrent planting a tree dosnt justify having cut one down
And neither you nor anyone else gets to deciede what other people deserve....even less so when they dont even exist yet.
@@ZOMBIEHEADSHOTKILLER Well unless wood products cease to exist, where's it gonna come from? Maybe reuse rotting planks? I advocate for building from stone and metal, but that also has to come from somewhere. Maybe all 8 billion people can go live in caves, eat fungus and leaves that regenerate and own or create nothing, so that we don't have to use any of Earth's finite resources. Also, people follow laws set by people that actually do decide what other people deserve, that's how it's worked since humans formed civilizations. I can't decide it myself of course, I'm a peasant just like you are.
To say that they're saving the forests is to say God made a mistake in His creation. That's just incorrect.
😂😂😂🇬🇧😂
I support the timber industry, right up until they install gates that prevent me from reaching public lands. Looking at you weyerhaeuser, you suck.
Captain obvious channel