🚀 go-pugleaf

RICHARD WINDER writes:

> ... I recently got a 
>chance to see some operational trials of selective logging techniques of the 
>type that the public is demanding.  What I saw was partially encouraging,
>and partially disturbing.  I hope that advocates of selective logging will
>respond to some of these comments and observations:

With pleasure!

>1.)  There is no general prescription, be it clear cut or selective logging,
>that works uniformly well for all sites.

Hmm, given the range of forest types we might discuss here, this seems
like a truism.  Yet I maintain that there are many forest types, some
of which are found in BC (temperate rain forest) where clearcutting is 
an inappropriate silvicultural prescription.

>2.)  Selective logging tends to work the best where ecozones merge to
>produce very diverse stands, or where patch size has been well managed.

Umm, why so?  I've seen some very nice selective harvest units in stands
of pure D. fir.  What's wrong with that?  The problem of replacing D. fir
with hemlock via natural regeneration needs consideration, but it's 
certainly not a showstopper.

>Productivity on some of these sites is staggering, even with selective
>logging.  

Harrumph!  "Even with selective logging"  8^) Gee, makes it sound like a 
silvicultural handicap.  There are quite a few advantages to maintaining
a high level of standing wood/capital with a continuous revenue stream.

>Clearcutting on these sites does not make sense.  Believe it or
>not, industry is feeling the pressure and responding.

Nice to hear.  There's not much visibility into BC forestry here in 
the US PNW, we're a bit introspective at the moment...

>3.)  Selective logging has many problems:

>	a.) Highgrading was evident even in experimental plots,
>            leading to selection for undesirable trees.
>	    This problem could be solved, but the speed at which
>	    selective logging is going to be implemented may prevent that. 

Hmm, why is this a problem?  There are different types of highgrading.
Leaving large trees with mechanical damage but desirable genetic attributes 
(for natural reseeding) seems a good solution.  And once the big pumpkins
get canker or heartrot, why cut them anyway?  The idea of cutting a rotten
500 year old tree to grind for pulp when you can get better fiber from a 10
year old cottonwood seems ludicrous.  Welfare logging...

Some selective foresters, like Collins Alamanor in n. CA, manage rather
intensively, but they select trees that are suffering disease and damage.
This way, their stands get healthier and more valuable, rather than 
being degraded by highgrading.  

Maybe you could be more specific about what they're doing and why it's 
perceived as a problem?

>	b.) For small patches, quick release produces poor quality timber
>            (problems with core splitting, poor wood density and uniformity)

Hmm, never heard that one.  Makes sense.  What are small patches?  How much
canopy closure are we talking here?  Is this the "mini-clearcut?  How
mature is the research on this?  I've seen lots of trees cored, and looked
at different release rates, but never heard it considered a problem.
With all due respect, I'm not convinced.  It'd be interesting to see some
quantitative stuff.  I've seen so much industry resistance to selective 
harvest on public lands in the US, that I sometimes suspect their motives,
sad to say.

	"Industry>  No, we can't do it that way, the trees grow TOO FAST!"

Really?

>	c.) Blowdown problems in many areas are quite severe

But figuring out where blowdown problems will occur is not rocket science.
This is just another factor to figure in when developing a prescription.
Routine stuff on the Mt. Hood National Forest, for example.  And we get
much more wind damage at the edges of clearcuts than in selective units
where half or more of the trees are left.  

>	d.) The operational costs can be much higher

The operational costs probably ARE higher.  Then again, there are a whole
new set of amenities produced, and a set of operational costs avoided.  
The cost factors I've seen run from 5 to 15%, as reported in the AFSEE 
journal, excluding added amenities and avoided costs.

For example, selective harvest units don't require replanting, with any 
luck.  They don't need the same applications of fertilizers and pesticides.
These costs, which are subject to 50+ years exposure to the discount rate,
can make selective harvest quite attractive to all but short-term thinkers.

>4)   Where fires are frequent, forest succession is adapted to large scale
>     regeneration.  Another point from the B.C. Environment report: we are
>     now generating more forest than we are harvesting in B.C., thanks to
>     silvicultural activities.

Well, I've heard that there's an inverse relationship between fire frequency
and amplitude.  Stand replacement fires are more typical where the frequency
is low.  Clearcutting mimics stand replacement fires much more than the 
low intensity, patchy fires common to D. fir or Sitka spruce forests.  If 
you're talking more about the drier interior forests, like jack or lodgepole
pine, yes.  D. fir, ponderosa pine, sika spruce, well, imho, forest 
succesion is adapted to, in large part, *survive* big fires.  No way this 
is mimicked by clearcutting.

As to the point about generating more forest, don't you think it's possible
there are qualitative difference between what you're consuming and what 
you're producing?  I mean, those little monoculture tree farms MacBlo is
pumping out don't much resemble native forests, now, do they?  What do the
salmon think?

>5)   Emphasis on selective cutting will acclerate the demise of chemical weed
>     control methods for political and practical reasons, in the absence of
>     practical alternatives.  This will increase the amount of NSR
>     (Not Sufficiently Restocked) forest area, and therefore logging demands
>     on other sites.

I've heard this one before, I think it's more a site specific matter.
There ARE cases where there is not much alternative to spraying (like 
a mature devils-club understory) to keep down the competition.  I was
pushing selective harvest on a BLM manager, and his response was essentially,
"Oh no, if we can't clearcut and burn, we'll turn forest into scrub."
The very thought was painful to him.  But it appears that this is only 
the case in isolated instances.  In high risk areas, one can augment
natural regeneration (down here we only get good seed generation every 
five years or so), but again, this is another issue to be addressed in a 
prescription, but not a show stopper.

>6)   In previously harvested areas of the rainforest, such as Sombreo beach,
>there are clearly areas where regeneration proceeds apace.  There are also
>areas that are not regenerating properly, and should never have been cut.
>If the new species of canopy insects etc. currently being discovered are
>to be preserved, if the Island's microclimate is to be preserved, clearly 
>some of the forest ought to be preserved outright.  However, lumber is at the 
>heart of B.C.'s economy.  Someone has to grow the trees, somewhere.

Right.  I grow trees, with intent to sell them on the free market.  But 
why should public lands be abused for the benefit of a few?  And why should
private individuals like me have to compete with government subsided 
dumping, which clearcutting is when environmental costs are counted?

>I think I'm like a lot of people in this issue- caught in the middle and not
>sure what to think.  I definitely think we should preserve a significant
>part of coastal old growth, just because its there.  I cannot speak to the
>detailed motives behind the currently old growth logging plans.  

Commendations on a approaching a complex and multi-faceted issue as just 
that.  It is my considered opinion that clearcutting is an inappropriate
silvicultural technique for public lands in the Douglas fir region.

Let's quickly review some of the problems associated with clearcutting:

	Soil compaction & erosion.
	River sedimentation
	Increased risk of landslide (steep slopes only)
	Increased suceptibility to insects and disease
	Increased fire risk
	Reduced wildlife habitat for interior species
	Damage to fisheries
	Loss of aesthetic, recreational, and spiritual value

>But a trend 
>of preventing clearcuts everywhere really scares me, for reasons I've outlined
>above.  

Lets talk about it.  If one must harvest scabby, low value wood like lodgepole
pine, then small clearcuts are probably a reasonable way to do it.  Or on
the flat coastal plains of the SE US.  In the douglas fir region, clearcutting
is an unnatural and destructive practice that damages the productive 
capability of the land.  If people want to do it on private land, fine, so
long as they don't damage public values like water quality.  If they want
to do it on public land, they need to produce compelling evidence that is
it in the public interest.  

>There are reasons that early attempts at selective logging in some 
>areas of B.C. were abandoned, and they don't all have to do with economics.

	Such as?

>Environmental perfectionism could do us in just as quickly as environmental
>devastation.  Some day, our species will be too numerous for any forest to 
>generate the wood that it demands- that is biggest problem our forests face.

I think we are rather a long way from having to worry about environmental
perfection.

Fortunately, we have the most powerful technology humans have developed to 
date to apply to the problem - the free market.  Here in Portland, certainly
one of the lumber capitals of the world, steel studs are at a breakeven cost
with wood, and several homebuilders offer them as a free option.  Slightly more
expensive, they're lighter, stronger, last better, and are easier to work with.

If the destruction of our forests is subsidized by government policies that
sell them off for below their value, then yes, demand will destroy them.  If
we value them more highly, and live in societies wealthy enough to afford the
luxury of environmental protection, we will have forests for our grandchildren.

					Cheers,

					Jim Hurst