ENTS,
If I read Bob's post correctly, this client has a forest and has
hired a
consulting firm to produce a "management plan" with
the goal of
managing for old growth. So whether or not people think this is
a good
idea, this will be done. My input was keyed to providing some
suggestions that would result in a minimal management - a
hands-light
approach to the implementation.
One disagreement Gary and I may have, or may not - I should not
speak
for Gary, is that we both think the concepts of autopoietic
systems or
primary systems are a better scientific model for looking at
forest
processes than the idea of old-growth. I believe however, that
the term
old-growth is so deeply ingrained in our culture that it still
serves a
useful political and cultural concept.
In terms of Autopoietic systems and natural systems. There are
few
completely pristine system that are isolated from human impacts
and
operating in a an intermeshing of natural processes that would
be found
in an idealized autopoietic system. Most forests in the east
have been
impacted to some degree directly or indirectly by human activities.
Trying to answer the question of how much of an impact must have
taken
place before something is no longer a "natural system"
is pointless and
only leads to series of arguments with no clear resolution.
A better question would be if the the existing forest were left
on its
own, given the existing level of direct and indirect human
impact and
ongoing impact, will the adverse effects of these human increase
or
decrease over time? I consider invasive species, overbrowsing,
and the
like to be indirect human impacts. If these impacts would become
increasingly deleterious over time, then I believe some
corrective
action or management should be taken to allow the forest to
follow a
path directed by natural processes toward "old-growth"
rather than one
directed by these impacts.
If you look at what I suggested in my "plan" it is a
decidedly limited
approach. First was to access what was present in the forest in
terms
of resources and problems. The management portion of the plan
was
designed entirely to minimize or mitigate the negative impacts
of human
activities on the forest. One example was to remove invasive
species.
If there is a colony of Japanese
barberry in the forest, over time it will continue to grow and
continue
to displace native species. As see it the only viable option
would be
to eradicate the colony...
So to a large degree I agree with the concept of allowing the
natural
process to direct the evolution of the forest over time. I have
suggested nothing that was designed to speed the process or take
any
short-cuts toward that end. On the other hand, given the
widespread
human impacts on existing forests I feel some things should be
done to
counter these effects. If the final "plan" included
just dealing with
these negative human impacts, a management light plan of action,
that
would be a fine plan to my mind and the one most consistent with
the
overall concept of allowing natural process to follow their
course.
The only suggestion that I see as questionable is the idea that
we
should try to reintroduce species that have been lost to the
system
through human interference. This brings up the ideas of
threshold
values and resiliency which will be left to another post.
Ed Frank
Sept 29, 2007
Ed and Bob,
Here's something to
contemplate- in recent years, in Mass., most conservation
easements now require a forestry plan. Some forest owners want
a CE but aren't particularly interested in harvesting- I
suggest that if a good system is developed for "managing
old growth"- then that system could be incorporated into
some of the CEs- in fact, if such a system is developed via
ENTS, then ENTS could be referred to as a scientific basis for
such "old growth mgt.".
My slant on this is
that every woodlot can be managed for old growth- even very
young stands- and not just by doing nothing as Gary Beluzo
would suggest- but through silvicultural methods, speed up the
growth of young stands (of course the focus would NOT be just
on growing economical valuable trees- but trees that
would be part of a scientifically and aesthetically superior
old growth) - then as they mature, do less and less, at
which point I'd agree with Gary that doing nothing or almost
nothing is best. Since there are so few old growth stands and
even few "near old growth"- managing young stands to
become old growth might be seen by future generations as a
great thing- because then they'll have far more old growth
stands to enjoy than otherwise. We'll plan ahead for 7
generations.....
Joe
Sept 29, 2007
Which reminds me of
Bullard Woods in Lenox- when I first saw it in the '70s, it
looked great, no sign of anyone doing anything in there- then
at some point about a decade ago- I think it was the town
cons. comm.- they cut down dead or dying trees- perhaps to
"protect the public"- I was aghast- for me, it
ruined the place (fresh stumps, logs on ground, trails made by
machinery)- sheesh, we need to "protect" people from
falling trees? That type of "management" should
absolutely be avoided in the proper "scientific mgt. of
old growth".
Regarding invasives-
I don't have anywhere near the hatred of invasives as
most "enviros"- hey, those plants/animals are
organic- sure, they'll alter past ecosystems, so what? That's
life..... And, I suggest it's virtually hopeless to try....
though, I think old growth is far more resistant to invasives.....
Anyways, enough for
now.
Joe
ENTS,
The topic of managing for old growth has
many chapters left. I would suggest that what we really intend
is the managing for one of more characteristics that we
associate with forests that have been designated as old growth
and are thought to be most representative of what was here in
pre-settlement times. These characteristics often include
large trees free of lower limbs and with spreading crowns,
pits and mounds on the forest floor left from trees that
ahve fallen in the past and decayed, standing snags and
cavity trees, mature plant colonies of native species, logs in
varying stages of decay on the forest floor, and canopy gaps from
blow downs with regeneration in the gaps to create a mult-aged
forest, albeit one that mey be dominated by older rather than
younger trees.
Landowners wanting to manage for old
growth may, in fact, be thinking of aesthetics of big trees
and/or habitat for certain species of animals. We need to
distinguish between what can be created through
management efforts over a few decades and what requires
centuries or millennia. The two types of "old
growth" are not equivalent and there is a place for both.
For instance, trees that have lived for 400 to 500 years carry climate
signatures and a record of environmental impacts and events
that cannot be created by merely growing trees to impressive
sizes in 60 to 70 years. So, old growth that represents a
store house of environmental information and niches that take
centuries to develop won't be the same as young, designer old
growth. But this point does not diminish the importance of the
latter type in meeting the specific objectives of a landowner
and in fostering appreciation for forests and keeping the
landscape wooded. We need t o explore all aspects and
motivations and never lose sight of the objectives to be
realized by specific landowners on specific sites.
Bob Leverett Sept 30, 2007
ENTS,
...So, old growth that represents a store
house of environmental information and niches
that take centuries to develop won't be the same as young,
designer old growth.
Excellent comment,
Bob! That ancient dichotomy of nature without man and nature
with it with the following subsets:
-
nature prior to
mankind, the magnificent Creation of infinite complexity,
beauty and spirituality
-
nature with
"primitive man", that is Paleolithic man, with
limited ability to alter nature regardless of their
motives, though some significant changes have been brought
by Paleolithic man over thousands of years, such as
(possibly) the elimination of the Paleolithic mega fauna
and the continued burning of large grasslands
-
nature with
post Paleolithic man, with far greater power to alter the
Earth, in the early stages using all the power at their
disposal with little concern for the future- highly
destructive
-
a more advanced
mankind, once Republicans are extinct <G>,
exhibiting a strong sense of the need to harmonize with
nature, the Omega Point of Teilhard De Chardin, when
foresters can fuse the best ecological thinking with the
ability to produce wealth from nature for a reduced human
population while also creating designer old growth with
such sophistication as to incorporate a high level of
environmental information, abundant niches and awesome
aesthetics- not quite the autopoietic forests of Gary
Beluzo, given that Republicans still rule the world
(<G>), but if the naked apes can continue to evolve-
perhaps something even greater than autopoietic..... or at
least in my fantasies...... once the forestry
profession frees itself from the forestry Holy Mother
Church. <G>
But this point does not diminish the importance of the
latter type in meeting the specific objectives of a
landowner and in fostering appreciation for forests and
keeping the landscape wooded. We need t o explore all
aspects and motivations and never lose sight of the
objectives to be realized by specific landowners on
specific sites.
Very, very few
forest owners have the slightest clue about the potential of
their forests....... instead, they are man-ipulated by the
socio/economic/political "classes" which struggle
for that resource.
More later on
"managing for old growth"- I need to paint my
porch. <G>
Joe Zorzin,
Sept 30, 2007
Bob:
I agree totally with your post. We probably can manage for
certain traits or characteristics of an old growth forest but
we will not be able to manage old growth forests unless of
course they are "anthropogenic". If we define our
best forests to be natural then "forest autopoiesis"
requires that the regulation of homeorrhetic processes be
internal to the system (basic definition of autopoiesis). I
become very skeptical when folks say they are going to
"manage a natural system" (oxymoron). Management of
course is becoming more and more acceptable by the general
public. There are now Planetary Engineers that have proposed
many management solutions to biosphere-wide problems. Here are
just three of the proposals being taken seriously by
reductionistic scientists:
1. Add iron to one or more ocean gyres to increase
productivity of photoplankton and thereby reduce atmospheric
CO2
2. Add a combination of chemical "haloscrubbers" to
the stratosphere which in theory would tie up the CFCs,
thereby reducing the ozone hole
3. Put gigantic mirrors mounted on satellites in orbit that
would illuminate and warm areas of the earth that now will not
support crops (Russian scientists)
Fortunately, there is a new generation of scientists that are
using system theory tools and methods to model natural
ecosystems. The results of their efforts have given them
insight into just how complex and dynamic natural systems are
and that humans do not have the understanding nor capacity to
manage them. The old reductionistic, linear cause and effect
view of how nature works, is gradually being replaced by
circular logic causation, "correlation coupling" ,
chaos/antichoas theory, and nonlinear feedback loops.
Lee and Bob,
Both efforts are becoming increasingly less realistic in places
like New England where the forest is continues to become
fragmented, with large gaps in habitat isolating genomes. The
edge of these forest remnants will continue to erode because
because edge/interior ratios allowing sunlight, pathogens,
exotic species, etc to influence old growth forest processes.
E.O. Wilson's "Island Biogeography Theory" has great
import in evaluating biodiversity islands in a sea of human
sprawl. Gap Analysis is also used to mathematically evaluate the degree of "contiguity" in natural habitats. The
Appalachian Mountain chain represents that last real
opportunity we have to maintain a continuous natural corridor
from north to south in the eastern U.S. In the wake of global
warming this corridor becomes vital if species are to migrate
northward and persist.
Gary Beluzo
Tim,
This is why it is so vital that we leave any remaining LARGE
natural systems intact with no management in the interior and
limited management in a buffer area surrounding it. The
idea of continuing to cut or change in any way remaining old
growth forests is absolute megalomania on the part of forest
managers. There is plenty of forest to manage, leave the
most natural systems alone.
Gary Beluzo
J
The proper role of
a forestry consultant, who is asked by a forest owner to
"manage for old growth" (or any other policy
decision) must be to present to the owner the full array
of options- options that lay out the trade offs between
ecology, aesthetics and long term economics. Anything less is
unprofessional. If the owner chooses an option that will have
negative effects on the forest, then the forester ought to
"walk"- which happens to be the first principle of
the Forest Guild. The SAF's code of ethics says the forester
must do what the owner wants, even if with negative
consequences to the forest - as if that were ethical.
Joe Zorzin, Oct. 1,
2007
Lee/Bob-
I understand both sides of that coin, and not being a splitter
any more, and leaning towards lumping, I think that managing for
old-growth characteristics is such a large step in the right
direction, that we should encourage those steps...I am no less
immune than others to the concerns as to the ends of such management,
ie, I'm for long-rotations, like towards perpetuity, in most
cases. There's just not enough untrammeled land left!
-DonB
October 03, 2007
What about the landowner with the tiny 40 acre or less parcel
which
either has no "old growth" left, or represents a tiny
remanant with
edges recently created? My parents left us a 15 acre
parcel with
four white oak giants in a low area with limited equipment
access for
which we have estimated ages in the 400 year range. When a
horizontal
limb 9 feet in diameter near the trunk of one of these trees
gets
dropped across the road by accumulated wet early fall snow a
volume of
wood sufficient to heat a 2000 square foot house for two years,
preservation of "old growth characteristics" is pretty
problematic.
E Daniel Ayres
Time flies much
faster than we like- this is an important question- I suggest
that such properties could designate some acreage to be
"managed" (with my apologies to GB) for the long
term as "future old growth". As we know, many Native
Americans believed it's important to think ahead for 7
generations.
Now, just think if
we could convince thousands of forest owners to do this- we
won't see the results, but future generations will. Most
forest mgt. plans never mention the subject of old growth--
but they often claim the virtues of "multiple use"
without considering the immense value (usually not yet
recognized by society) of old growth- so they should do
so. We could then debate if such acreage should have any
special treatment to enhance the stand's development as old
growth, as Bob Leverett referred to as "designer old
growth" or simply leave it alone- this might depend on
the stand, if it's been high graded, then some enhancement via
silviculture might be useful- if it's mid aged stand of nice
trees, perhaps doing nothing is the best thing to do.
I suggest it would
be nice to get the idea out that ALL forestry plans should
have SOME acres put aside. Most states have tax programs for
forest mgt.- but those almost always call for harvesting on
most acres, eventually- I don't know if any states allow some
acreage to be put aside- perhaps Mass. could be the
first! So, perhaps ENTS could offer this suggestion to our
beloved forestry "leadership". Actually, here in
Mass.- at least one property has old growth recognized in the
state tax plan- the Rowley farm in Sandisfield- the first plan
written 30-40 years ago specificed that the old growth hemlock
stand must be protected- I wrote the past 2 plans and kept
that in there. I showed this stand to Bob and Gary 8-9 years
ago. Recently that property was purchased by the state.
Old growth is a
good example of ecosystem values not yet measured by society-
some way must be developed to put a price tag on such stands-
with such measurable value, more will be protected or
developed- doing so will take away the temptation to sell the
trees to the wood industry- which has the habit of
telling owners that those trees are "overmature".
The extra value put on the old growth must be reflected in the
real estate value.
Old
growth stands have been identified and documented as small as 5
acres so there is room for a small old stand in a 40 acre lot
that doesn’t necessarily have to be 5 acres. You
could have several small stands and manage them to promote
“old growth
attributes”.
I
just finished a forest management plan and a forest cutting plan
on a 50 acre woodlot in Petersham, MA. As
I was walking a
few of the bidders through the lot on the day of my timber
showing, one logger remarked why I was leaving some big old
pines that were starting
to show signs of decline. I told him that part of the plan is to
leave some “biological
legacies” scattered through the area (rather than designate a
specific no
management area) for
wildlife and aesthetics. In
addition, some of the big unmerchantable multi-forked wolf pines
will be girdled which will create snags for more wildlife
opportunities. Snags
can also be considered an old growth attribute as are big old
den trees, etc. It’s
hard to get through to some loggers, but I try! And this is just
one more reason why foresters need
to be involved in all commercial activity on private land,
otherwise the exploiters will destroy those attributes and
legacies that may take centuries to get back.
Mike
Leonard
Gary,
I agree that we should be preserving any and all large natural
systems. I also believe we should be either protecting or
rebuilding the corridors that connect these parcels. I completely
agree that we should be protecting the remaining old
growth forests in as much of a hands off manner as possible.
These forests should also be studied with a great sense
of urgency so we can better understand the complexity and
resiliency that has allowed them to persist for such a long
period of time.
But, in some cases, we will likely have to apply some
management if we want these systems to continue. Take Cook
Forest for instance. I remember noticing the total lack of an
understory in many places due to the large deer population. If
you do not take steps to control the effects of the deer then
eventually the overstory will die off and be replaced with a
much different forest comprised of shrubby plants and
invasives that deer do not like or can't eat fast enough. Old
growth forests do not exist in a vacuum. No matter how
protected, or how "unmanaged" they are; they are
still going to be impacted by outside forces and the
management practices that we apply to other areas (such
as the continued ridiculous fish and game management practice
of creating more early succesional deer habitat in areas
that are already over flowing with deer).
I have also seen a lot of forests that have been so
manipulated and mismanaged that they will take centuries to
return to a state of "autopoietic" balance.
I think we should take what we are beginning to learn
from old growth forests, apply our knowledge of the likely
effects of climate change and the spread of invasives, and
help these lands to recover a little more quickly through long
sighted management practices.
I would love to just leave the forests alone and watch them continue
to survive and prosper. But unless 5 billion or so humans
magically disappear, taking there impacts with them, forests
will not continue to survive in the form in which we
co evolved. As they transform rapidly in response to our
actions they will likely cease to support us. When
this happens we will either cease to exist or, at the
very least, will find it increasingly difficult to
sustain anything close to our current standard of living.
Tim Sullivan - October 03, 2007
From: Edward Frank
Sent: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 9:23 pm
Subject: Ecosystem Approaches
ENTS,
The problem with many ecosystem
approaches is that people tend to think of them as team
events in which each organism plays a role in the sense of
"Let's Take One For the Gipper!" In
actuality it is each organism for themselves in a
free-for-all battle for resources. There may be
alliances (symbiosis) in which there are temporary
partnerships that are mutually beneficial, but as soon as
one partner no longer benefits it is back to the fray.
There are inter-relationships between the success and
failure of certain organisms, because they are linked
together through a common food source or resource
requirement, or even a predator/prey relationship upon each
other, but does not mean they are working together. There
is no self sacrifice of one species for another in the war
for resources. Nobody takes on for the ecosystem team.
The overall pattern may resemble a team trying to
achieve a goal, but on an individual species basis it is
everyone for themselves. There is talk of functioning
ecosystems, What exactly is meant by this? If
there are plants and animals present and they are feeding
upon each other, or plants are growing in sunlight and the
soil it is functioning. Stability is a myth.
These ecologies are always in the process of changing from
one configuration to another. So there is a constant
state of transition. At any one point, so long as
there are living things present that are interacting and
feeding upon each other or using resources there is an
ecosystem present. It may not be what you imagine as
an ideal state or a idealized ecology, but it is an
ecosystem. If a forest is badly overrun by invasives,
attached by insects, chopped up by logging, and then left to
sit for a hundred years, you will get something at the end
of that time which will be a functioning ecosystem, it may
not be stable, it may be in transition, bit may be ugly
to look at, but if it is not completely barren there will be
an ecosystem .If someplace is not barren it will
have an ecosystem of some sort.
Ed Frank
Yes, regardless of what we do (short of creating a
"paved paradise") some sort of ecosystem will remain.
The questions are - will this resulting ecosystem resemble
in any way the slowly changing system our species evolved
with over the millennium, and will this new ecosystem
support the quality of life (both economically and emotionally)
that we have grown accustomed to?
We have been running a very large, very uncontrolled
experiment on our environment for the past century and will have
very little recourse if we do not like the results.
Tim Sullivan - October 03, 2007
To repeat my plaintive cry:
1. MANage the systems we have screwed up because in many
cases those systems are not going back to a homeorrhetic state
for a long time unless we undo the perturbation, and
2. LEAVE the autopoietic systems alone. They do just
fine without our interference. We have few if any
remaining autopoietic forests in Massachusetts.
Gary
Of course "biological legacies" in a sea of management
is a far cry from an autopoietic, no management area- we need
those as well.
Gary
On Oct 3, 2007, at 5:48 PM, Mike Leonard wrote:
Old
growth stands have been identified and documented as small
as 5 acres so there is room for a small old stand in a 40
acre lot that doesn't necessarily have to be 5 acres.
You could
have several small stands and manage them to promote
"old
growth attributes".
I
was referring to private forest land. There are
plenty of no management areas on the vast areas of public lands.
And
if you think there is a “sea
of management” out there, you
are obviously misinformed.
Very little private forest land is managed using solid
silvicultural principles. I’ve
spoken with foresters from the south, the Lake States, as well
as all over New England and in my business and travels and
it’s the same
old story: rampant highgrading is the rule on private lands
despite huge
forest bureaucracies “spreading
the message”.
I
also take issue with your thought that biological legacies are a
far cry from no management areas. Since
there is so little real old growth left in the east, thoughtful
silviculture can speed up the development of old growth
attributes which over time will be very similar to real old
growth.
On
some small woodlots (20 –
100 acres),
it might make sense to set aside some
no management areas while it might make better sense to do what
I just described. ...
Mike
Leonard
-----Original
Message-----
From:
entstrees@googlegroups.com [mailto:entstrees@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Gary A.
Beluzo
Sent:
Wednesday, October 03, 2007 8:02 PM
Of
course "biological legacies" in a sea of
management is a far cry from an autopoietic, no management
area- we need those as well.
Gary,
I feel your plaintive cry. I just also feel that there is
not a single forest on this planet that we have not interfered
with either directly or indirectly.
Are some of these forests strong enough to resist our
interferences without outside assistance? Sure, if we do not
continue to compound the problems. But there are also other
currently "undisturbed" forests that could likely
benefit from some well thought out interventions that are
not motivated by short term political or economic agendas.
Otherwise these forests will likely be knocked out
of their naturally evolving balance and into a state that will
require more intensive human management for centuries to come.
This preventive management does not have to mean deciding what
plant species will exist in what numbers. But, it may
mean slowing down the spread of non native invasives, or
restoring the balance of predator and prey species to control
habitat degradation from wildlife populations, etc., etc. At
the very least we need to buy these forests the time and space
to evolve and migrate in conjunction with a changing
climate.
How do we buy this time? Lets start by talking seriously
about population control and conservation. This is a problem
we can't simply build and invent our way out of. It is the
building and inventing that put us here in the first place.
Yes technology will be a big part of of the
solution. But, just like the forests need time to evolve, we
need time for our ability to cooperate and create to
catch up to our ability to selfishly manipulate and destroy.
Unfortunately this evolution won't begin until the general
public and elected leaders gain some of the
understanding, respect, and humility shared by many members of
this list. I have been watching this slowly start to
happen over the past decade. We just need to help it move
along at a much quicker pace.
Tim Sullivan
October 06, 2007
ENTS,
In the deep south most of our forest areas are about 70-90
years old. During this time frame the trees get quite large as
you all
know due to our long growing season. How can we help stop the
forest
service from cutting these remaining areas? Clearcutting
practices
have been the norm here for years! Select cutting should be the
norm.
My last question is why has the forest service planted nothing
but
superior pines, which don't even produce pine cones! Some forest
areas
were allowed to regenerate naturally, but not many. I've seen
many
Oaks cut just for pallet material in the Fed. Govt.,and much
waste of
timber. Make them from plastic not wood! I understand we need to
harvest timber but not they way we have been doing it, there
needs to
be more conservation and better management. I think we need to
help
get more Old Growth put aside as wilderness areas and forbide
any
harvest! The rare plants, animals and insects should be saved
before
we destroy them all. How can we at ENTS, the Premier measuring
team
stand by and let these forest be lost forever? What does ENTS
say!
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Tucei
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 8:59 AM
Subject: [ENTS] Re: Managing for Old Growth
ENTS, In the deep south most of our forest areas
are about 70-90
years old. During this time frame the trees get quite large
as you all
know due to our long growing season. How can we help stop
the forest
service from cutting these remaining areas? Clearcutting
practices
have been the norm here for years!
I can't claim to
know much about southern forestry, but from what I've read,
it's often claimed that clearcutting is the best silvicultural
method- in the south and west- because those species most
desired MUST have full sunlight (whether naturally seeding in
or by planting). It may be that they do need good sunlight,
but it's absurd to suggest that they need huge clearcuts. I
suggest that the real reason to do huge clearcuts is that this
lowers the cost of logging operations- thus lowering the cost
of the wood raw material- that is, the people using the wood
raw material don't want trees to be expensive- they want the
raw material for THEIR industry to be cheap, just as all
industries want their raw material cheap.
Huge clearcuts make
for cheap harvesting because the logging machinery doesn't
have to be careful prancing around trees to be left- they just
wipe everything out- allowing for maximum speed. And, it takes
very little time for the responsible "forester" to
lay out such a clearcut- almost no effort at all. Basically,
clearcutting is simple minded- turn the forest into the
equivalent of a multi year corn crop- clearcut, bulldoze the
site, burn the slash, plant trees with machinery- then leave
it alone until the next clearcut- the result, cheap raw
material.
Uneven aged, multi
species silviculture by contrast takes more effort- the
forester needs to have a good understanding of forest ecology
and the extremely complex economics of developing a forest
with many species and many age classes. The result
however will usually be far more valuable trees (veneer and
quality sawlogs) - which is good for the owner, but not good
for the industry that wants to buy those trees- their raw
material costs soar. In the south, industry mostly wants raw
material for pulp- growing premium logs is NOT what they want.
If it's their own property, this may make sense- because their
goal isn't to maximize value production in the forest, but in
the mill.
Uneven aged, multi
species silviculture results in forests that look much more
"natural" because they ARE much more natural. They
don't necessarily favor one or two species or one or two
"crops". In an ideal forest managed this way,
eventually you can have very mature forests- with very large
trees of many species- which, economically speaking means that
the ownership HAS MADE AN INVESTMENT in the forest- like
leaving lots of money in the bank to produce interest- keeping
the investment level high and only occasionally removing the
interest, that is perhaps a fourth or a third of the trees per
acre every 15-20 years.
Such forests, to
me, are almost as aesthetically satisfying and almost as
biodiverse as true old growth forests- and believe it or not,
they can be far more economically rewarding to the ownership-
which of course goes against the lame
industry/bureaucratic/academic lies and propaganda.
So, if such forests
can produce MORE wealth and offer MORE biodiversity, why isn't
this type of forestry more common? Because, as suggested
above- their is a huge difference in interests- industry wants
cheap raw material- and the forestry establishment (no, not
100%, but most of it) supports the desires of industry because
they are paid to do so- thus, the forestry establishment has
sold out.
Select cutting should be the norm.
My last question is why has the forest service planted
nothing but
superior pines, which don't even produce pine cones!
As noted above,
industry wants cheap raw material and this is how you get it-
the economics of superior pines isn't likely to be good for
the owner, but it will be for the industry. It's the same scam
as Monsanto selling farmers seed that will produce crops that
can't produce more seed. It's always better to work with
natural regeneration- the trees will be better suited to the
site, more resistant to disease if resistant trees are left
for seed.
Some forest areas
were allowed to regenerate naturally, but not many. I've
seen many
Oaks cut just for pallet material in the Fed. Govt.,and much
waste of
timber. Make them from plastic not wood!
It's OK to make
them from wood if it's low grade wood- almost certainly
cheaper and better than plastic pallets- using oil based
plastic is a waste of the oil resource, which results in
boneheaded presidents trying to conquer countries with oil.
Very well managed forests will not produce a lot of
"pallet stock"- but instead, produce a lot of
premium logs and veneer- extremely valuable products. Since we
the public own the public forests, don't we deserve to have
economically productive forests? Economics based on the
ownership's economics, not the economic of the wood industry.
I understand we need to
harvest timber but not they way we have been doing it, there
needs to
be more conservation and better management. I think we need
to help
get more Old Growth put aside as wilderness areas and
forbide any
harvest! The rare plants, animals and insects should be
saved before
we destroy them all. How can we at ENTS, the Premier
measuring team
stand by and let these forest be lost forever? What does
ENTS
say! Larry
Mike,
Most of the public lands have been cut at some time in the
past (that is why Bob and I have identified so little old
growth (about 0.1% of the total DCR owned lands)).
Perhaps "solid silvicultural principles" are not be
used, however the land has still been MANaged in the sense
that human beings have altered the composition of the forest
and so have chosen a new trajectory for the forest (i.e. the
increase in northern red oak, red maple, etc even in lands
that are not regularly cut).
Perhaps thoughtful silviculture can speed up development of
old growth ATTRIBUTES but it certainly can not reinstate
autopoietic processes by the very nature of management.
I am simply providing an alternative view, based on
my understanding of how forest ecosystems work. I am not a
forester so I don't see through sivilculturist eyes. And while
I certain appreciate the efforts of my Teutonic ancestors in
terms of silviculture there is a real need for systems
forestry now by everyone.
Gary Beluzo - October 4, 2007
Joe:
Personally, I take great pleasure in identifying oversize and
very old trees in my forestry plans with a strongly worded
statement mentioining the unique aspects of that paticular
area.
Old growth forest is not common in WV but there is much more
of it on private property than most people realize. All
you have to do is come into an area with 30-45" DBH
chestnut oak knowing that 14" trees in the same area are
150 to 250 years old. Depending upon how long it has
been since the last forest fire and how active the eartheorms
are there may not be much left rotting on the ground.
You guys have been keeping a very interesting thread alive!
Russ Richardson - October 05, 2007
Gary:
I think you are being heard but unfortunately by the
choir...how do we get foresters to care?
Russ Richardson - October 05, 2007
Russ,
Thank you for your comment. I guess we just keep at it!
I believe we are on the doorstep of a major paradigm shift in
science. We need new vocabulary and new ways of
investigating and describing complex dynamic systems. The
reductionistic method is still very important for uncovering
linear cause-effect relationships. The problem is that
most complex systems cannot be explained by simple, linear,
cause-effect relationships. The traditional,
reductionistic science, testing a single variable in a
controlled environment, does not emulate what happens in a
complex dynamic system when humans MANage that system. Our
simplistic understanding of how some of the processes work
will be insufficient as humans continue to poke stir, and
manage the environment, particularly as it becomes more
global. There are dangerous proposals in the works:
Dump iron into the ocean to increase planktonic productivity
thereby bringing down the global CO2 level
Inject complex organic molecules to the stratosphere to
compete with CFCs and reduce ozone depletion
Put large mirrors in orbit on satellites and redirect sunlight
to areas that currently do not support agriculture
Genetically modify trees and create plantations from forests
to provide the wood of the future
Can you see the problem? In each case we seek to apply a
simple solution to a complex system without really knowing the
nonlinear consequences...
Complex dynamic systems have:
homeorrhetic characteristics
"emergent properties" resulting from the interaction
of many complex processes
positive and negative feedback loops (i.e. circular and
nonlinear logic rather than simple, linear, cause-effect
logic)
chaotic, antichaotic, and poised subsystems
tipping points
beyond which the system may spontaneously change
"state" and settle into a new dynamic equilibrium
We should exercise the "precautionary principle" and
learn more before we mess around.
Gary Beluzo - October 05, 2007
TOPIC: Managing for Old Growth
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/browse_thread/thread/86754bcbfd37959f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 3:44 am
From: "Mike Leonard"
Bob,
My most important rule for loggers: don't scar up or do
unnecessary
damage to the high quality residual trees/stand!
Minimizing sedimentation, ruts, and slash is important but the
above is
most important.
Mike
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 10:50 am
From: "Gary A. Beluzo"
...There are just too many references
in the literature and the field to the contrary. In addition,
whether a species is endangered (potential for extinction),
threatened (potential for becoming endangered), special concern
(potential for becoming threatened) or not state-listed should
not
determine whether or not we value old growth forests. Also, I
disagree that old growth is "big trees". For example,
on Mt. Everett
there are old pitch pine trees that barely make it up to breast
height. We need to stop seeing old growth as just "big, old
trees"
or we will lose all of our natural systems.
...The only areas that have any chance of long-term
preservation are the
old growth stands that Bob and I have identified and mapped, a
scarce
0.1% of the total. But even these stands are very much
threatened by
being eroded from the outside due to past fragmentation,
isolation,
and both invasive species and environmental conditions that
favor
shade intolerant species.
Gary
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Managing for Old-Growth Structure
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/browse_thread/thread/f42a6eacc0cfff31?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007
From: Anthony D'Amato
ENTS,
As Dave Orwig alluded to a couple of weeks ago, Paul
Catanzaro and I
have produced a pamphlet outlining various passive and
active management
strategies for restoring old-growth structural elements to
woodlands in
southern New England. If anyone would like a PDF or hard
copy of this
pamphlet, please contact me and I will be happy to provide
you with
either form.
Thanks,
Tony D'Amato
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 6:25 am
From: "Mike Leonard"
Good Job Tony.
You can download the pamphlet called "Restoring Old-Growth
Characteristics" at http://www.masswoods.net/
The important points are:
1. Opportunity exists to restore old-growth characteristics in
our
current forests (both public and private)
2. Doing so will create better wildlife habitat for a wider
range of
species.
3. Active management is better than passive management as we
look to
improve old growth structure.
4. Opportunities will be better in woodlots that have never been
cut or
have never been high-graded.
Our Current Use law, the Chapter 61 Forest Land Tax Law gives
tax breaks
to landowners who enroll and commit to timber production while
the
Forest Stewardship Program encourages all forest values. So a
policy
question would be does the encouraging of old growth attributes
conflict
with the timber production mandate of our current use law? I
don't think
it does, but it needs to be clarified.
Mike Leonard, Consulting Forester
On 10/12/07, Mike Leonard wrote:
Gary,
OK
while there may be a few plants, lichens, and mosses a bit more
abundant in old growth stands, I
have never heard of any wildlife species dependent on old growth
in southern New England. Out
west, we have heard so much about the spotted owl which cost
thousands of jobs.
Well if the barred owl pushes the spotted owl out (as it is
doing), will the ecosystem collapse? Of
course not!
[The big picture is being
missed] We
practicing field foresters are
the key if the goal is to improve the percentage of old growth
(or stands with old
growth attributes) from
< .1% while
protecting and managing as much private forest land as we can.
It certainly
isn’t the bureaucrats, academics, and so called non-profits
who do nothing but feed off forestry issues!
Finally,
way too much is made of individual species and that is why the
endangered species laws are in drastic need of revision so
they look at whole
ecosystems rather than every little weed or bug.
Mike
On 10/12/07 Gary Beluzo wrote::
... I have a graduate degree in Evolutionary and Ecological science (Global Ecology actually) and that most of my thinking and work concerns SYSTEMS ecology. Most of us on the ecology end DO take a big view it is just that many foresters continue to see only the economic value of a tree that is cut down, sawed up, and delivered to the consumer. Be honest, are you interested primarily in timber production (utilitarian) or doing what is best for a given forest ecologically? Even if that means no cutting.....I have forester friends and although I respect their knowledge of silviculture and believe that they are trying to do the right thing, it is still how much timber that can get out of a particular stand....that's the orientation, that's the world view, that's the paradigm.
I have no economic interest, in fact I have little anthropogenic interest in preserving forests...someone has to speak for other species in our environment. They ought to exist because it is an inherent right and ecological value.
I agree, the Endangered Species Act needs to be overhauled drastically. Instead of protecting the cuddliest species we should be looking at the system and realize that the cuddly species are an EXPRESSION of the system in a particular point of time and space. Life is a PROCESS not a PRODUCT. A 3.9 billion year continuous and unbroken process, species are but nodes of that process. Some day we will focus on the process (system interactions) rather than the product (wood)..
Gary
Mike-
I feel "every little weed or bug" is what an ecosystem is
defined
by--we need to allow an old growth forest to steep and simmer at its
own pace.
Steve Galehouse
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 15 2007 4:04 am
From: dbhguru
Steve,
I am in basic agreement with you, but realistically, the steeping
and simmering has to take place on preserved lands, be they public
or private. That still leaves managing for some old growth
attributes on non-preserved lands to meet varying objectives of
forest owners/managers. The mistake that resource managers and
consultants frequently make is to think that the latter approach is
sufficient for all forested lands. The reason is that they have an
entrenched belief, held consciously or unconsciously, that the
highest use of a forested property is to produce commercially
valuable products. They consider preserved lands as idle and
wasteful. Consequently, they will always advocate for active
management approaches and minimize preserved areas. Silviculturist
Tom Bonnicksen even advocates actively managing the forests in our
national parks.
Bob
Date: Fri, Oct 12 2007 9:47 am
...As one who was actively involved in helping delineate forest
reserve boundaries for Savoy Mountain, Mohawk Trail, Monroe SF,
Mount Greylock State Reservation, and several other areas, I can say
without ambiguity that the reserve concept provides us with very
little assurance/insurance of a permanent hands off policy by DCR.
There is nothing in the way of statutory protection in the current
reserve concept. It is all an administrative set aside from within
the executive branch. I wish that were not the case, but it is. DCR
has not proven reliable enough to be trusted on along term basis. In
addition, nowhere near 100,000 acres have been set aside in forest
reserves at this point. The 100,000 is presently only paper. The
actual acreage set aside is around 50,000. I can say definitively
that the mainstream environmental groups are not that confident over
the current situation. Whatever strategies they feel they must
follow to work with those in power, they are neither blind nor
stupid
. They track DCR performance, as do you, albeit along different
lines.
On the habitat point, you are basically correct. There are no
charismatic species of plants or animals in Massachusetts that we
know of that are dependent for their survival on our small areas of
old growth. We do know that species of mosses, lichens, and
liverworts do exist that depend on long-term decay cycles that
typically occur in old growth. Work done by Dr. Steve Silva in Maine
has identified around 25 major lichen species. A scientist, formerly
with Harvard Forest, Sarah Cooper-Ellis, identified a number of
mosses that, if not old growth obligates, are close to it. From
inten sive studies in Pennsylvania, there are species of warblers
such as Blackburnian that aren't absolutely dependent on old growth
ecosystems, but thrive in far greater numbers in old growth hemlock
stands. Other species that have been presumed to require old growth
type environments such as the Indiana Brown Bat have proven not as
rare as once believed. It is true that environmentalist rushed
things a b
it on some of their pronouncements.
However, the composite processes that shape old growth ecosystems
and the scientific value of extremely old trees cannot be faithfully
replicated via the limited management actions that typify creation
of wildlife habitat, leave a few legacy trees, and mitigate logging
damage. The climate record of trees that date back in to the 1700,
1600, and 1500s is proving increasingly valuable to scientists.
Speeding up the decay cycles to produce snags for wildlife habitat
is not an equivalent process to retaining ancient trees that record
environmental events over centuries.
In terms of managing limited areas for old growth characteristics
across the forested landscape, I acknowledge that this can be done
for small subsets of the fauna and flora, and it is a worthwhile
direction to take to try to find a semblance of a balance between
diametrically opposed objectives, especially on private lands. But
before resource managers on public lands congratulate themselves,
the efficacy of forest management actions for old growth
perpetuation must be put into perspective. Some old growth
characteristics can be enhanced to fulfill different purposes, but
the results don't lead to a fully functioning natural system with
all its components working in the manner that Gary Beluzo describes.
For instance, take the Great Smoky Mountain National Park. There are
ove r, 1,700 species of flowering plants that have been cataloged in
the Park. There are 130 species of trees, with as many as 50 in
areas as small as a few acres. At least 27 species of salamanders
call the Smok
ies home as do 21 species of snakes. Bird habitat in the Smokies is
off the charts. The number of lichens and mosses are also off the
charts and the number is growing. The sheer number of species, the
extremely complex forest structure, and the scale of the dimensions
of the trees, with at least 11 trees species reaching astounding
dimensions produce a level of ecosystem complexity that is far
beyond simple management strategies to mimic. There is a second
world of living, interacting life forms in the canopy of the Great
Smoky Mountains forests, 100 to 150 feet above the forest floor.
Will Blozan and other ENTS see that ecosystem and never cease to be
amazed and impressed.
However, management objectives that are timber and wildlife focused
usually concentrate on 3 or 4 species of commercially valuable trees
and about the same number of game animal species. For the
timber-focused, other species are, basically, just hitchhikers. Even
where intentions are the best, there is usually a telescoping down
of forest complexity in managed forests - even when old growth
attributes are valued and management strategies attempt to mimic
natural processes. I suppose forests could be managed toward
objectives where that wouldn't necessarily occur and I hope future
research will point us in that direction. As we move geographically
farther north and the remaining areas of natural forest diminish in
size, forest management and restoration strategies seem more
visible, and perhaps, plausible. But we won't know how successful
management can be toward mimicking natural processes unless we have
fairly large tracts of un-fragmented forests left to nature. TNC
research sugg
ests 15,000 acres as a minimum size in our area and that
determination partially drove the forest reserve concept.
However, there are state lands that don't fit the intentions of
forest reserves and I'm referring to urban state parks. The Robinson
SP debacle is a clear example of why environmental organizations are
becoming increasingly distrustful of the Bureau of Forestry. Green
certification was and still is the driving force behind DCR's
attempts to manage Robinson for future oak and pine production. They
have no interest in sassafras, black birch, yellow birch, white
birch, shagbark hickory, pignut hickory, sycamore, tulip poplar,
black gum, white ash, green ash, eastern cottonwood, hop hornbeam,
American hornbeam, black cherry, and certainly not red maple. They
are defining forest health around the regeneration of 2 or 3 species
of oak and of white pine. Talk about myopia.
One final point, I would raise. If we cynically look at the 100,000
public acres of tentative forest reserves as a buyoff of the
environmental community, then do we also look at the remaining
400,000 acres; to be actively managed, as a buyoff of the timber
interests in the state? One might suggest that timber was the
primary reason for creating the state forests in the first place,
but it wasn't the primary reason for creating state parks, at least
most of them.
The major environmental groups do not object to active timber
management on the bulk of the state forest lands, but they want both
honesty and competence out of the Bureau of Forestry. That is not
too much to ask. But so far, they have gotten neither. However, the
Bureau is the land manager for the state's forests and they hold the
trump cards, so environmental groups have to work with the Bureau.
The environmental groups aren't selling out, just pursuing their
legitimate objectives and they have come along way toward accepting
both management and non-management objectives. But it isn't their
role to cure the ails of the forestry world.
Bob Leverett
Fri, Oct 12 2007 4:40 pm
As a follow-on to the last e-mail on managing for old growth, the
diversity and complexity of the forests of places like the Great
Smoky Mountains and Congaree national parks are remindful of the
complexity of tropical forests. I've never heard anyone seriously
talk about "managing" a jungle. The bewildering array of
plants and animals stagger the imagination and render silly any talk
of managing them. Humans strive to simplify a jungle by clearing the
land and planting individual crops. However, as one moves north or
south, the number of species of trees, vines, and other plants
decreases within a forested environment. Eventually we reach a
number that appears manageable. But management usually devolves to a
form of cultivation for a very few species of trees and animals of
high economic value.
Bob Leverett
Date: Mon, Oct 15 2007 1:47 pm
From: Bob Leverett
Larry,
With respect to the first reference, Dr. Anthony D'Amato is on the
board of Friends of Mohawk Trail State Forest and along with Dr.
Dave Orwig, Professor Gary Beluzo, and myself, the foremost experts
on old growth in Massachusetts. I would have to add Dr. Charles
Cogbill to the list, although his primary area of expertise lies to
the north of Massachusetts.
I was pleased to see that Tony has expanded his research interests
into managing for old growth. I think that what he and Paul propose
expand the tools for speeding up some characteristics. But what I
especially like is his insistence that a significant population of
larger older trees be permanently left - legacy trees.
Sometimes a powerful concept is captured by the adoption of a single
term or phrase. Legacy trees seems to work for lots of forest
managers and I admit that I like the term. I was initially skeptical
about prescriptions for managing for old growth because they seem to
focus almost exclusively on wildlife habitat, but the later
prescriptions have expanded.
Bob
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Managing for Old Growth
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/browse_thread/thread/86754bcbfd37959f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 16 2007 3:32 am
From: "Mike Leonard"
Bob,
Shouldn't the Forest Reserves be covered under the EOEA Article 97
Land
Disposition Policy?
According to the "Statement of Policy", the EOEA and its
agencies shall
not sell, transfer, lease, relinquish, release, alienate, or change
the
control or use of any right or interest of the Commonwealth in and
to
Article 97 land. The goal of this policy is to ensure no net loss of
Article 97 lands under the ownership and control of the Commonwealth
and
its political subdivisions.
Among the procedures for disposition exceptions is that you must
obtain
a two thirds vote of the legislature in support of the disposition,
as
required under the state constitution.
By the way, I attended an excellent MAPF meeting last Friday which
was
supposed to feature Eric Freyfogle, Professor of Law who wrote the
excellent book called "The Land We Share", but because his
flight was
delayed his associate Jamison Colburn of Lewis and Clark Law School
spoke.
Jamison talked about how property rights have evolved, takings, and
how
conservation easements have become the most popular way to protect
land.
By 2003, an average of 825,000 acres PER YEAR was being encumbered
by
some form of conservation easement nationwide!
However, a conservation easement is just a property right; a
government
agency can still take and develop! In addition, a landowner could
theoretically buy back an easement (unification of title).
The rest of your response about species diversity is very
interesting
and I generally agree. But the complexity and diversity that you
seek is
more appropriate for public lands. However, that doesn't mean
foresters
cannot achieve some of these complexities and diversity on private
land.
Give us some credit!
Mike
|