U.S Forest Facts and Figures

[jj]

are you paraniod ?


I said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jj

That's what grows in the eastern part of the USA. Oak trees and Maple trees can be weeds, except where the blight that's adapted to Maples is making serious headway.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To which you irrelevantly, disputatiously and deceptively replied:

so you're saying that they're counting saplings as trees to get those numbers ?

You're simply deceptive, you are not engaging an argument, and your representations of my positions are dishonest.

Given your demonstrated behavior in this thread, I'd say that "paranioa"(sic) is a situational disease when dealing with you.

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Yes, so you replied to my posting, not his, about his suggestions?

Am I missing something here? I don't think so.

If you havent noticed, genius, Tricky hasnt replied yet. You have.
Thus, Im having a conversation with you about it. Logic. Try it.

More land in the west, last I looked.

why don't you try "looking" at the forestry facts that are being discussed here.

An interesting assertion, but hardly born out by the facts. You've just exhibited outrageous behavior, try not to be astonished when somebody calls you on it.

"astonished" eh ?
"outrageous behavior" eh ?

maybe Im just having trouble seeing how "outrageous" Im being.
Can anyone else see my "outrageous" behavior ?

 

[celter]

Reasonable forest management does allow for both cleanup and logging. Clearcutting is just as bad as a forest fire, and causes many of the same problems.

Hi jj,
Fires, like clearcuts are not always bad (unless you're a human who's just watched his timber license go up in smoke). Fires are a natural, and often beneficial part of the lifecycle of many forests; we don't like them for selfish reasons.
Many pines have serotinous cones, which means they wont germinate without fire. Many shade intolerant species only grow when a site has been cleared, either through fire, slides or clearcut harvesting. They need warmth and direct, unfiltered sunlight.
Clearcutting is a political hot potato, but its not always bad.
Also, there's a big difference between a 100 acre clearcut and shaving the side of a mountain.
Cheers

 

[Tricky]

can you or Tricky provide any evidence that shows how these forests in the Wests are being replaced with a monoculture that was not originally there ?

Here's one link about Texas hardwood forests. Sorry. Don't have time to go into depth. I'll try to catch up later.

 

[jj]

If you havent noticed, genius, Tricky hasnt replied yet. You have.
Thus, Im having a conversation with you about it. Logic. Try it.

If you're having a conversation with me (and you aren't, you're simply being rude and deceptive) discuss my positions, not his.

Simple courtesy.

why don't you try "looking" at the forestry facts that are being discussed here.

Et tu?

"astonished" eh ?
"outrageous behavior" eh ?

maybe Im just having trouble seeing how "outrageous" Im being.
Can anyone else see my "outrageous" behavior ?

Appeal to the masses - Misleading Rhetoric 101

 

[jj]

Hi jj,
Fires, like clearcuts are not always bad (unless you're a human who's just watched his timber license go up in smoke). Fires are a natural, and often beneficial part of the lifecycle of many forests; we don't like them for selfish reasons.

I don't think that my statement disagrees with yours.

I should have been more specific, though.

I was thinking of the kind of fire one gets after 100 years of total fire control, not a low-grade fire that takes out snags and clears brush, doesn't crown (much at least) and doesn't take out all the mature trees. The kind, in other words, that kills, rather than releases, the fire-adapted seeds.

Clearcuts I have doubts about. Aside from erosion, and chance of possible soil chemistry changes (well, the "Forest of Glen Orchy" in Scotland comes to mind here ) I have some doubts (no, I don't have a citation) regarding the replant stock and its genetic diversity.

 

[jj]

Clearcutting is a political hot potato, but its not always bad.
Also, there's a big difference between a 100 acre clearcut and shaving the side of a mountain.
Cheers

Oh, obviously. A small "clearcut" leaves some erosion control, wind shelter, wild genetic material, etc. I'm thinking of the kind, indeed, where they have just stripped the side of a mountain. For some exhibitions of that, drive through Montana sometime.

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Appeal to the masses - Misleading Rhetoric 101

Im giving up on you. Maybe I've had a long day.....because you're coming from 60 different directions to simple questions Im asking.

could you at least define this statement for me ? That is all I asked in the first place.

"Oak trees and Maple trees can be weeds, except where the blight that's adapted to Maples is making serious headway."


the statement doesnt make sense to me.

 

[Bearguin]

Celter.

Couple of questions. Are lodgepole pines native to central BC? And by native I do mean going back hundreds of years before logging was big. Cause that's all I seem to see in my neck of the woods (someone please laugh at the pun).

And, aside from pulp, what are the new forests being planted going to be good for? The lodgepole just doesn't seem to grow large enough for much else. Seems hard to get a sheet of plywood out of them.

I'd like to see less focus on the logging and exporting and more focus on value-added processing. Sort of the keep the jobs home idea.

I've visited some old-growth Cedars in the Whislter area where the terrain made in uneconomical to log. Huge things that I do wish we had more of. I think some areas should be left unlogged if these beauties can remain.

 

[jj]

"Oak trees and Maple trees can be weeds, except where the blight that's adapted to Maples is making serious headway."


the statement doesnt make sense to me.

It's a simple statement of fact. Norway, Silver and Swamp Maples, and Pin Oak, at least in NJ, are actually being controlled because they were overrunning everything else. A maple blight that is killing off some (not all, it seems even adjacent trees have substantially different sensitivity) Silver, Sugar, and rarely Norway maples is, however, combatting the spread of Maples.

I know that parts of PA are having the same problem. I moved out of there last fall, so I doubt that it's changed too much since then.

(We had two silver maples (old, established trees) that we managed to save by fertilizing the (*&&*( out of them, so that they grew some new cambium faster than the old was blocked, no idea how that will continue to work out.)

Frankly, speaking as someone who's lived in the east, I have no idea how you would AVOID having oak and maple trees. I don't dislike them, and I surely do believe that there is a great deal of forest covered in them, because I have no idea how you could avoid it.

Ditto birches and common beech, but to a lesser extent. Birches are usually colonizers and don't last. (I don't mean the wifty little ornamental ones that die in 10 years, either.) On the other hand, they spread in fields/grasslands almost as fast as the honey locusts...

 

[celter]

Celter.

Couple of questions. Are lodgepole pines native to central BC? And by native I do mean going back hundreds of years before logging was big. Cause that's all I seem to see in my neck of the woods (someone please laugh at the pun).

And, aside from pulp, what are the new forests being planted going to be good for? The lodgepole just doesn't seem to grow large enough for much else. Seems hard to get a sheet of plywood out of them.

I'd like to see less focus on the logging and exporting and more focus on value-added processing. Sort of the keep the jobs home idea.

I've visited some old-growth Cedars in the Whislter area where the terrain made in uneconomical to log. Huge things that I do wish we had more of. I think some areas should be left unlogged if these beauties can remain.

Yes, lodgepole pine is native to BC, - and plentiful.

New forests are not planted for pulp. All furnish for pulp comes from sawmill residues as well as dead trees taken when harvesting sawlogs.

Lodgepole pine grows in very dense stands and unless the stand is managed (thinned out) the trees may not get above 3 or 4 inches at the butt. Having said that, forest products companies that log are required to take everything down to a 4 inch top diameter. A log of that size will yield 1 or 2-2x4's if straight

I also would like to see more value added production. The problem has not been in adding value though, that's easy. The challenge is in adding margin. Its a very competitive, international business and we have trouble competing with sectors where the wages are a fraction of ours. One of the reasons we do so well with big mills producing commodities is that we've largely replace the $25/hr grunts with machinery.
Competitive advantage I guess.

 

[celter]

Oh, obviously. A small "clearcut" leaves some erosion control, wind shelter, wild genetic material, etc. I'm thinking of the kind, indeed, where they have just stripped the side of a mountain. For some exhibitions of that, drive through Montana sometime.

No need to go to Montana, Unfortunately, I can just look out my window. Thankfully, we don't do things the way we used to.

Clearcutting is a complex issue and I think its best left to science to decide how and when it's used. Unfortunately, harvest method decisions are largely made by politicians on the basis of beliefs expressed by a largely uninformed public. Many groups opposed to logging have used clearcutting as an emotive issue to sway the public against forest product companies. Again I really feel that when clearcut size is capped (its 40 ha max where I am), it can be an appropriate strategy for managing certain stands, particularly when the species is known to be shade intolerant..

Here are a couple of links that suggest clearcutting isn't all bad. The second one is an essay by Greenpeace founder, Dr. Patrick Moore

http://www.clemson.edu/extfor/publications/fortp19/summary.htm
http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues/the_log.cfm?booknum=5&page=4
http://www.vdof.org/mgt/forest-mgt-prac.shtml

 

[jj]

Clearcutting is a complex issue and I think its best left to science to decide how and when it's used. Unfortunately, harvest method decisions are largely made by politicians on the basis of beliefs expressed by a largely uninformed public. Many groups opposed to logging have used clearcutting as an emotive issue to sway the public against forest product companies. Again I really feel that when clearcut size is capped (its 40 ha max where I am), it can be an appropriate strategy for managing certain stands, particularly when the species is known to be shade intolerant...

Well, when you're talking to me, you're preaching to the choir on this one.

Let's say I find the hysteria generated by both some of the green types and some of the big businesses both scientifically and ethically bankrupt.

As usual, I'm a moderate in an extremist's world.

 

[WildCat]

I can't help but wonder what the dwellings inhabited by environmental extremists are made of? If there are any here please tell. Sod dugouts? Caves? Concrete domes?

I once got a girl mad at me because during a discussion of the environment I commented that a city dweller like myself (my apartment has 5 units on just under 2000 sq. ft of land) was much more of an enviromentalist than someone (like her ) who lived in the hills of California on 6 acres of land. She just didn't get it, even when I asked her what if everyone got 6 acres of land for themselves? The Chicago metro area alone would have to be 65,000 sq. miles! That's 10,000 sq. miles more than is in the entire state.

 

[JAR]

I believe State and National parks with forests try to keep them in existence.

 

[a_unique_person]

One of the major problems is not the US as such, it exists as part of the rest of the world. For example, the imports from Canada are up. Saying that just because the US is not destroying it's forests, or turning everything into monoculture, is not the same as saying that other forests in other countries are OK. For example, many asian and pacific countries are being subject to unsustainable forestry practices. The US imports a lot of timber from outside it's own borders.

And there is nothing wrong with using wood. However, much of it is used in wasteful ways, eg, wood chipping. At the same time that there is much debate over forest policy in Australia, many sawmills are closing down but exports of wood chips are rising.

 

[jj]

I believe State and National parks with forests try to keep them in existence.

Well, you'd better try some political action, then.

 

[rockoon]

(We had two silver maples (old, established trees) that we managed to save by fertilizing the (*&&*( out of them, so that they grew some new cambium faster than the old was blocked, no idea how that will continue to work out.)

It sounds to me like you are fighting nature to enforce your precious diversity.

This is my big beef with the environmentalists. They oppose anything and everything until they want to mess with nature themselves. Then its no holds barred with some quaint justification catch term such as "diversity".

And dont even try to claim that humans created the "problem" - the "problem" was inevitable. We just changed the timing.

 

[jj]

It sounds to me like you are fighting nature to enforce your precious diversity.

House value, appearance, then, you're saying didn't matter?

Your performance as a mind reader won't win any million dollar prizes.

This is my big beef with the environmentalists. They oppose anything and everything until they want to mess with nature themselves. Then its no holds barred with some quaint justification catch term such as "diversity".

Well, that's good. Why don't you take this crusade to the people who are doing this? What's more, what's this bit about "diversity"? Nice choice of a loaded word that usually gets used in affirmative action arguments.

In short, go beef at the people who you're upset at, and stop trying to unsuccessfully read my mind.

And dont even try to claim that humans created the "problem" - the "problem" was inevitable. We just changed the timing.

I see. Dutch Elm disease was "inevitable", then? Ditto chestnut blight, Japanese Beetles, ...

Of course, it was inevetable that the diseases arrived in force, and were dispersed much faster than nature usually spreads things.

How is that?

It's quite uncivil, not to say offensive, of you to pick me to crusade at somebody else about. If you're upset with somebody who's doing what you say, why don't you go crusade at them and leave me alone?

 

[rockoon]

It's quite uncivil, not to say offensive, of you to pick me to crusade at somebody else about. If you're upset with somebody who's doing what you say, why don't you go crusade at them and leave me alone?

I didnt crusade. Its quite uncivil, not to say offensive, of you to make things up.