🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jul24.001800.2759@news.mentorg.com>, 
jhurst@renfield.mentorg.com (Jim Hurst) writes:
>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.

I agree.

>>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.

Probably a case of my limited exposure.  Stands dominated by one type of
tree were indeed capable of producing very nice harvests.  Mixed stands near
the same area produced the best harvests (in one case, 300 meter3/ha, with
just as much left standing, ca. 50 year rotation).  Sorry if I came across
as some kind of world's authority on this subject- I just saw some things
that bothered me, and presented some ideas for the experts to shoot at.  
Some of the pure stands which were selectively logged earlier this century 
did have hemlock problems, BTW.

>
>>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.

Point taken.  Actually, I was trying to sell selective logging in this point,
but came across as a clearcutter.  I believe that the advantages of selective
logging on many sites should be more than evident to everyone.

>
>>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...

So now's your chance... What's happening in the US PNW on this topic?
(If nothing- what do you think should be happening?)

>>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...

The main problem was in terms of species, not size.  Spruce and pine were
selected, leaving behind a variety of less valuable trees.  Even when trees
were clearly marked for harvest, contracters in operational trials could
not resist plucking out the high value trees.  The mindset will have to change
if selective logging is to be successful.  Small local concerns familiar
with the area and connected with the economy are not a concern- it is the large
companies that are a problem.

As for seed trees- yes we're doing it.  Leaving the best behind makes sense.
If only that type of selective logging had been done in the eastern forests
of North America...

>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.  

Good idea.  Does it affect lumber quality?

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

(See above)


>>	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.

This was not an industry observation- it was my own.  On sites
that had been previously selectively logged, I took a look at quite a number
of stumps of recently harvested trees with other foresters.  We were all
convinced that the phenomenon was a real problem.  The cores were very dense,
up until the point that release occured.  After release, growth rings became
much wider- separation from the denser core was frequent.  It just did not
look like high quality wood.  I wasn't looking for negative effects- it just
confronted us.  On the worst site, there weren't really even any patches- just
tree removals (ca. 30%).  This may only be a problem in some of our colder
forests where growth is normally somewhat slow- but who knows?  I know of no
formal research on the subject.
>
>	"Industry>  No, we can't do it that way, the trees grow TOO FAST!"
>
>Really?

This is not an industrial viewpoint.  It is my own.  I do not speak for
industry, nor would I care to.

>
>>	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.  

It wasn't just the edges- there was quite a `zipper effect' up there in the
Interior.  This was only a problem where the so-called `mini-clearcut'
patches were tried, or where so-called `harbor patches' were left behind.  It 
was not hard to figure out that it would occur- you
are right that it is not a rocket science.  My point is that industry
is feeling the pressure to attempt these mini-clearcuts even in areas with
high winter wind velocities.  What I see is a desparate attempt to call
lots of different things selective logging in order to appease the public,
in areas where such techniques have no business being practiced.

>
>>	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.

This sound about right.  In your own terms, its not a show-stopper.
Another factor to consider, though.

>
>>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.

We agree.  I was referring to Interior forests.

>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?

Again, it depends on the site.  For just one example, there are places which
used to be predominantly cedar which were planted to fir and are now being
switched back to cedar.  Sadly, we are still fighting natural
succession in other places.  As for coastal old growth- I am convinced that 
it will never be the same.  As for Salmon- the battle that almost erupted 
between Canada and the U.S. over dwindling stocks (mainly due to the loss of 
old growth in the US PNW, IMHO) speaks clearly on that point.  We have no 
essential difference of opinion here.

>
>>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.

I disagree.  In B.C., herbicide use has been brought to a virtual standstill
except in the boreal forest, and it is coming to a halt there.  This has been
one of the biggest contributing factors to NSR land, which has swollen to
1.5 million hectares.  It is a site specific matter- on about *10%* of all
sites!  Perhaps there are fewer weedy sites south of the border, but we
have a ton of problems up here.
>
>>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?
>

Keeping in mind that I don't speak for the government, I am also in favor of
a different kind of land stewardship here- I don't see the curret TFL system
as a very desirable thing.  (As an organic farmer, I view any type of mass
efficiency system with great skepticism).  All efficiency really means to me
is more unemployment and less self-reliance.  I just wanted people to know how
reliant we are upon the resource.

>>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.

No big disagreement.

>Let's quickly review some of the problems associated with clearcutting:
>
>	Soil compaction & erosion.
>	River sedimentation
>	Increased risk of landslide (steep slopes only)

Not necessarily true.  Depends on soil profile.

>	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

Glad you included the last point.
>
>>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.  
>
The trouble is, the distinction between public and private land is somewhat
blurred under the TFL system.  It is the Interior I am concerned about- and
it is not all just scrappy unproductive forest.  What I don't like is the
public dictating forest management policies from fear rather than wisdom.

>>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?

In the Interior- blowdown, and the high cost on difficult terrain are a
few of the reasons.
>
>>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.

I agree.  I was referring to perfectionism, not perfection.  Our obsession
with efficiency got us into our current mess.  I just don't like obsessions.
>
>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

All good ideas.  But I don't see how the free market is going to help us limit
population, and I don't see other materials replacing the demand for wood. 
Steel is not a renewable resource.


Disclaimer:  I do not speak for the Government of Canada, Natural Resources
Canada, the Forestry Industry, or anyone other than myself.  Which is really
too bad.


  RICHARD WINDER                    Title: Visiting Fellow
  Forestry Canada                   Phone: (604) 363-0600
  Victoria, B.C.                    Internet: RWINDER@A1.PFC.Forestry.CA