🚀 go-pugleaf

I want to agree with the assessment of logging caused damage. Two plots ,
each about 100 acres, bordering our land were recently clear cut using
whole tree to the dock and power limbing /bucking equipment methods.
Grapple skidders and just as many bulldozers as chainsaws. The result looks
just like scenes of post WW1 damage. If no clearing/ replanting is
undertaken on these two plots it will be next to impossible to find a
remaining tree without some logging induced damage.

If they are replanted it might make some sense, but only if short term
money matters.

BTW the sawyers are also very lucky people for another reason; they are the
first people on the planet to see the inside of a tree that may be hundred
of years old; and you sure can discover some interesting stuff inside a
tree. 

Richard Barnes
Skwaller Holler Sawmill

Ron Wenrich <woodtick@lebmofo.com> wrote in article
<01bc8749$23c66c20$148792cd@woodtick.lebmofo.com>...
> 
> 
> Joseph Zorzin <redoak@forestmeister.com> wrote in article
> <33BA3DC5.730C@forestmeister.com>...
>  
> > The people who really know what's in the trees are the mill sawyers.
> 
> > But, a short answer to your question is that most damage to the trees
in
> > my area is caused by BAD logging in the past. Logging equipment can
> > easily rip the bark off the trees and run over exposed roots. 
> 
.  Log
> length skidding would reduce damages, but few loggers will take the
effort
> required.  Grapple skidders have caused more damage, especially to
> saplings.  The higher the mechanization, the more the damage.  Of course,
> since most stands are not let go to maturity, a lower logging cost is
> needed to justify the lower product value, hence more mechanization and
> less care.
> 
> RDW
> 
>