ENTS Mission and Valuing Young Growth

ENTS Mission and Valuing Young Growth

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The ENTS mission and valuing young growth
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/browse_thread/thread/4cbd12ab56866c18?hl=en
==============================================================================

From: "Joseph Zorzin"

Yuh, I'd like to see a full size version of that graph. By the way, it seems that you folks emphasize measurement of individual trees, but not so much the context of the forest that the tree is in.

We foresters, in theory, are supposed to be able to describe the entire stand. We tend to develop a sense of a stand as being good, poor, excellent- whatever. We get turned on by high quality stands even if the trees are young or not rare species. I can appreciate a strong love of and interest in exceptional trees, but I think you miss something if you fail to appreciate the wonders of a fine stand because it lacks gigantic or ancient trees.

It makes me think of the body builder crowd which ooos and ahhs over somebody like Arnold- but which might be missing subtle qualities in somebody with more modest dimensions but who excels in other ways.

One variable which says a lot about the future potential of a stand is site index. A stand might be modest looking- young and dense with common species, but if has a very high site index, a forester should be able to perceive the future exceptional forest.

It's the old canard of not seeing the forest for the trees. I can think of one stand of magnificent sugar maple in Pittsfield, Mass. The stand had been thinned previously, leaving only the nicest looking maples. By the time I marked the stand for a harvest- the largest maples were about 25" DBH. As individual trees, then, they were not particularly large. But, since they had been growing freely due to the previous thinning, and it was an exceptional site- they were incredibly vigorous. The bark on these trees was almost perfectly smooth- almost unheard of in sugar maples that size- almost as smooth as healthy beech- with a very attractive bluish-whitish-grey color. I think it would be unfortunate if tree lovers failed to see the beauty of these trees because they were not gigantic or extremely old.

Perhaps sites with such exceptional potential need to be protected in order to produce exceptional, large and old trees for the future. If you think how nice it is to find some old trees which happens to exist because they were left from old harvesting, or are in the middle of nowhere and thus inaccessible- possibly in areas with only a modest "site index"- just imagine what the Earth can do on exceptionally rich soils now occupied by farms and Walmarts. So, an addition to finding remaining old growth, we ought to be envisioning "future old growth" and where we can protect such properties for future generations to enjoy.

Now, if I could look forward to being around several centuries, I'd love to manage a stand starting with bare dirt- perhaps planting some trees and letting others come in on their own, then every 15-20 years, remove/harvest some. The goal wouldn't be to maximize timber revenue- the goal would be to produce a work of art- an forest which eventually would contain a wild mix of many species of many sizes. The focus would be on growing an aesthetic masterpiece- the stand that is, not individual trees- the forest would be my canvas. And, in that forest I'd place "object d'art"- sculpture, rock gardens and walls, etc.

The highest form of this "forest art" would be so sophisticated that it would simultaneously produce great timber value, over time- far more than occurs with the "run of the mill" of what passes for "forestry". I actually believe that this is what all foresters ought to do even if they can't stick around several centuries- passing the torch to others after several decades. After all, why should we treat Mother Nature any other way? For those who don't think of nature as Mother Nature, just contemplate that one day you'll die and be put back into the bosom of Mother Nature- believe it or not, you're going there. Of course most people who subscribe to this list, if not all, are nature lovers so they can appreciate this perspective- it's just unfortunate that we live in a society that prefers to trash the Earth to enjoy their selfish desires.

Currently, a forest that I did a nice thinning in 6 years ago is being trashed by a large "wood products firm" owned by a "professional licensed forester" and which has a full staff of "licensed professional foresters"- the owner is a guy who often rants against Mike Leonard and myself for "ranting" against timber beasts. I recall talking to Ross Morgan, a consultant in Vermont- he lamented the fact that many of the properties he managed for decades are now being trashed by the wood products industry with their "professional foresters"- and, Russ Richardson of W. VA has complained about the carbon industries in that state who planning on whacking many of his managed forests.

Is there any reason why we should not be ferociously angry about the continued destruction of the forests? Saving some remaining old growth won't help much the people of this planet in a century from now- a planet with double or triple the population and a lot more paved over landscape. But the few of us who aggressively speak up against the wood industry and their lackeys in government and the phony forestry "orgs" get little support.

'nuff ranting for this morning.

Joe

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 9:11 am
From: dbhguru@comcast.net

Joe,

I think that all of us in ENTS see the forest as well as the individual trees, albeit each in a highly individualistic way. It isn't an either or proposition. Speaking for myself, that is most definitely the case. My 20-year preoccupation with old growth forests began by thinking about the ecosystem as a whole. However, it is true that those of us who created ENTS conceived the organization as one devoted primarily to the celebration of trees - valued as individuals. There are several reasons why the founders of ENTS chose the tree versus forest course - but in a nut shell, to fill some glaring niches. One niche is being addressed by our preoccupation with tree measuring. The art and science of accurate measuring of individual trees has been, and still is, bypassed by timber specialists. As a result, forest and tree literature is replete with outdated and inaccurate information on species maximums. One of our new projects is to help correct the outdated and inaccurate maiximu
m species size information in "Silvics of North America". That is a big job because, the information in Silvics on virtually every species is either imprecise or flat wrong. Rather amazing when you think about it. .
Picking up on your thread, looking at a well-managed forest and recognizing its potential is a more difficult task for the non-foresters - but by no means impossible. We appreciate the effort being made, by foresters such as yourself, Joe, to engineer an attractive, economically and ecologically functioning forest, but I doubt that many among us have faith that what may be currently well managed is guaranteed to remain so. When you pass on, or new owners come along, what will happen? If history is the teacher, the forces of exploitation will continue ruling the timber community and ignorance will rull the landowners despite the best efforts of the small group of you avant garde foresters.
Speaking for myself, I can find beauty in a young stand of trees that are well formed and have unblemished bark. I also note that such stands are a rarity in New England, probably as rare as old growth. And that should make us all ferociously angry.

Bob

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 1:49 pm
From: dbhguru@comcast.net

James,

Actually, I believe most, if not all, Ents on this list have a sense of forest appreciation that transcends their specific interest in big trees. An outsider might not conclude this from scanning the bulk of our communications, and in this respect, our fervor for reporting tree measurements is misleading as to the breadth of our interests. That iscertainly so for the scientists. For example, Lee Frelich is a forest ecologist, as opposed to a "tree ecologist". His focus is the forest. So not to worry, we Ents are children of the forest. Where tastes vary, though, is in what kind of forests we prefer, i.e.the ones shaped primarily by human hands or by natural processes acting over long time periods.
It would be interesting to conduct a survey of Ents with one question posed. The question would be: If you had to choose between time spent in a natural forest versus a human-engineered forest, which would you choose? The assumption is that you couldn't do some of both. You had to choose one or the other exclusively. My guess is that the majority of Ents would choose the former over the latter. What are your thoughts on that? A good follow-up to the above question would be to have the responder explain the reasons for his/her choice.
Pushing the envelope further, there are follow-on questions that could be asked to plumb the depths of Ent interest in managed forests of varying types. This would interest Joe tremendously. The wording of the questions could be crafted to spotlight the problems with what Joe commonly observes across the landscape in the name of "managed" forests. In Massachusetts, and elsewhere in the Northeast, what usually passes for managed forests are abominations. Yes, there are examples of forestlands that were raped in the past and are now being brought back by foresters who have a dedication to the principles of good forestry. Those forests might not be much to look at now, but hold promise for the future. People looking at a forest being restored would need to know the history of the site to make a good judgement about what was going on there. But regrettably, the weight is on the other kind of woodlands, i.e. forests that aren't being restored, but are continuing to be mismanaged
. Exposing who is doing the mismanaging and who concurs and what needs to be done to turn the situation around is Joe's life long mission.
The challenge that Joe presented in his last e-mail is really better directed toward the forestry profession as a whole, encouraging the profession to live up to its principles and take the long term view. To put it bluntly, this has yet to happen on anything close to a profession-wide basis. Individual foresters do it all the time, but across the profession there is far more lip service than substance. Yet reading all the fluff in forestry brochures and literature meant for public consumption, you'd never know there was a problem. Were the forestry profession suddenly to rise up and take a public stand for good, long term, sustainable forest management and be willing to call address the wide scale problem of high grading, liquidation cutting, unneccessary clearcutting, etc., the the lights would go on outside the profession. There would be far more willingness on the part of the environmental community to actively advocate for wide scale forest managment as the desired fo
rest paradigm - with sufficient forest preserves of course.
In fairness to the foresters, there was an attempt to put real teeth into ethical pronouncements and led to the creation of the Forest Stewards Guild and the development of the concept of ecoforestry. Of course, Joe knows all this. He's a very clever fellow and is indefatigable in goading his profession to living up to its calling. He constantly challenges non-foresters to get involved with forestry issues, especially environmental groups with a clear interest in the state of our forests. The big problem is that Joe and a couple of others don't hold the power and the environmental groups have no choice but to deal with those who are in power. To put it in my finest southern vernacular, the situation sucks.

Bob

-------------- Original message --------------
From: James Parton <hawthorn_ent@yahoo.com>

>
> Joe,
>
> I really like the way you think here. There is more to a forest than
> it's individual trees. Trees do not have to be old or unusual to be
> valuable and beautiful. ENTS site documentations should not be all
> about how big trees are or how unusual a tree is but should have a
> description of the forest as a whole. One must be able to see the
> forest as well as the individual trees. The animals contained within
> are also part of the forest biome as well.
>
> James Parton

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 2:36 pm
From: "Joseph Zorzin"

Well, regarding the enviro groups having no choice but to deal with those who are in power, as Thoreau said in "Civil Disobedience":

"Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform."

Joe

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 6:15 pm
From: Carolyn Summers

I would rather walk through an unmanaged forest than a managed forest. I
have both, so I can compare. The unmanaged forest is more aesthetically
pleasing. There are many more plants to look at beside the trees. I.e.,
more diversity. It is just a more interesting place to be. Most important,
however, there are no scars from human interference. When I see the scars
from logging activities in my managed forest, it upsets my sense of
equilibrium. Walking in the unmanaged forest relaxes me and I can keep my
peace of mind.
--
Carolyn Summers
63 Ferndale Drive
Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 10706

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 7:10 pm
From: James Parton

Bob,

Yes, I agree that most of us ents see the entire forest as well as
outstanding trees. I have nothing against the tree measuring aspect of
ENTS. ENTS methods of measuring are surpassed by no one and our elite
measurers can set a lot of records straight. We must never get blinded
by the trees & be unable to see the forest as a whole. But as you have
said, I don't believe that is a problem we really have.

On first impulse I would choose a natural forest, that is if they are
such a thing left. As Will has pointed out to me, they are no forests
left in the east that has not been touched either directly or
indirectly by man. No virgin forests. I would have said Cataloochee
but the adelgid was inadvertainly brought here by man. But you
probably mean " Natural " as being unmanaged or not human-created.
That can be good or bad. An unmanaged forest, though natural, if not
protected can be logged at will, highgraded, and the end result be a
stunted inferior forest. A human-engineered one, while artificial
would probably have regulations concerning its use and in fact may be
an healthy forest. It may not be " old growth " but still may have
positive attributes. I hope you guys get what I am trying to say......

Those in power usually have only one thing in mind. m-o-n-e-y!

James Parton

Carolyn,

Perhaps you haven't seen a managed forest done right- as they can look very good, often better than unmanaged forests- at least once a few years go by after a harvest. Unfortunately, at least 95% of what passes as "managed forest" deserves a "C" grade at best.

The subject of aesthetics in a managed vs. unmanaged forest is at the top of my interests and I've been intending to write about. I will someday.

Joe

== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 9 2008 9:12 am
From: ForestRuss@aol.com

Joe:

You are far too kind to our fellow foresters...a C? If forest management
practices were graded on a curve most of what I encounter would be a D at best.

Russ

== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 9 2008 9:14 am
From: "Joseph Zorzin"

Thanks Russ- by the way, some of us thought that the Forest Stewards Guild was going to be the chorus- and perhaps in some parts of the country it is- but at least here in the northeast, it's a very weak group- politically. It puts on nice meetings to discuss nice stuff, but it abhors any friction with the establishment.

Joe

== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 9 2008 9:17 am
From: "Joseph Zorzin"

Well, it's Sunday morning and I'm trying to have a Christian attitude of forgiveness. <G> You're right about the "D" grade- which is why not only should we create a new profession, the way modern medical doctors went arose out of Medieval medicine- and, create a New Guild.

Joe

== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 9 2008 10:33 am
From: dbhguru@comcast.net

Joe,

Your solution of creating a new profession has always sounded good to me. You'd need a university/college willing to establish the associated curriculum. I know you've related it many times in the past, but would you care to relate it again for the benefit of the Ents?
I'm thinking that dismantling the current forestry establishment would take at least 50 years, but creating an avant garde school of forestry that folds in all the values that true custodians of the forests must embrace would be a start. It would also be worthwhile to review current forestry curricula across the forestry schools of the nation. Maybe there are a few out there that are already close to what you espouse. I know you don't like SAF, but I wonder if that organization has the profiles of the various schools of forestry as a place to begin an evaluation.
I can think of a few other foresters who would agree on the "D" grade. Since that is a pretty stern performance evaluation, can you outline for the Ents in ENTS, what actions, behaviors, and state's of mind, political leanings, etc. lead you to issuing the near failing grade?

Russ,

Assuming that Joe is willing to answers these questions first, afterwards would you provide your own evaluation? Thanks.

Joe and Russ,

So long as we don't deal in personalities, I think that this topic is well worth discussing on the ENTS list. If non-foresters are going to be willing to get behind you all, they need to know exactly where you are coming from. The more broadly applicable your descriptions are the better.

Bob

== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 9 2008 5:13 pm
From: Carolyn Summers

I might agree with you that managed forests can look nice when they¹re not
being logged. My own managed forest is managed as carefully as we can, but
looks a mess from the recent logging. Honestly, if 15 years pass, maybe it
will look ok again, more like my unmanaged forest, but I can¹t imagine
anything as gorgeous as an old growth pine forest in the Adirondacks of
which I¹ve only seen pictures, or the giant Thujas near Seattle on the west
coast, which I have walked among. In Eastern forests, the ground layer is
very important to me - the trilliums, violets and other wildflowers - and
that¹s what gets totally ripped apart by the skidders, etc. But if I could
walk anywhere, like, ³beam me up Scotty², I would go to an old growth
forest, maybe Adirondacks, maybe Tongass, maybe Zoar Valley. The main
reason being, that I would find more peace, and therefore more pleasure, in
viewing nature untouched by human hands. Nothing against human hands, I
have them, too, but sometimes I¹d like to get away from them.
--
Carolyn Summers
63 Ferndale Drive
Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 10706

== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 9 2008 6:22 pm
From: Carolyn Summers

Russ,

If your managed forest hasn¹t been logged in the last 15 or so years, it¹s
entirely possible that I would find it quite beautiful. And maybe I¹m
kidding myself that I could tell the difference between yours or Joe¹s
managed forest and an old growth forest. Obviously, I haven¹t seen your
work. And I¹m not trying to bash managed forests; after all, I have my own
and I have hopes that it will recover from this unfortunate logging. I was
merely trying to respond to the question as posed.
--
Carolyn Summers
63 Ferndale Drive
Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 10706

== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 9 2008 7:27 pm
From: "Henry W. Peters"

Carolyn,
Come & visit the Porcupine Mountain State park some time if you are
able. Parts of it have been logged (until about mid 1940s, when the
park was more formally formed), but parts of it have some actual
primordial old growth, particularly hemlock, & there are some hard
woods that also can change how you look at the worlds potential for
longevity! It is claimed that the mix of "virgin" forest
to cut over land is about 50/50. In any case, one can sure tell the
difference (usually). The total area of the park is over 60,000
acres.
Little it be known, that Aldo Leopold was active in obtaining the
realization of the proposal for this park, for one thing that he did, was
write a powerful polemic essay, called the _"Last Stand."_
It can scare you to read this 1940s essay, as his prescient views of the
relevant issues, regarding forest protection, are most evident in this
little writing.
Of course, also germane to the particular discussion at hand; old growth
or non old growth, & as a issue of slight contrast to the above, this
should not be an either or question. Read _"Sand County
Almanac"_ sometime... Mr. Leopold rescued (more or less) some
very over used land in southern Wisconsin... Then, along these lines, we
should not forget John T. Curtis (whom Aldo Leopold, during his stay at
the University of Wisconsin, appointed to help develop & run the
growing botany program. I believe he also had a lot to do with
developing the arboretum in Madison WI), & his very important land
mark book:_ "The Vegetation of Wisconsin, An Ordination of Plant
Communities."_ This book documents (best available methods) the
changes in landscape, due to a variety of events, including glacial &
human induced changes. Some important plant ecological baseline data
(& not just trees, you will take note)! Lots of maps, lists &
photos.

Henry

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 10 2008 2:44 am
From: "Joseph Zorzin"

Re: [ENTS] Re: The ENTS mission and valuing young growth. Carolyn, Russ and I aren't trying to compare an old growth forest with a properly managed forest- we're comparing a properly managed forest to an unmanaged second growth forest or mismanaged forest.

Joe

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 10 2008 8:46 am
From: Bob Faber

Hello

I am new to the organization and have benn following
with great interest the various subjects via email
eminatiing from the site.

I live in rural northeast Ohio and have observing
various logging operations for years. It can be quiet
ugly. We have a several logging companies (some
Amish) that use horses and they don't tear up the land
as much. But not all horse loggers are equal. You
have to pick the right company, even when dealing with
the Amish, and get references.

Bob
Hiram, Ohio

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 10 2008 12:27 pm
From: dbhguru@comcast.net

Bob,

Welcome aboard. We always like to hear from new members and hope you'll be a regular contributor. As you will see, the subject matter is quite broad on the ENTS list. The key is to feel free to participate. We're all equal in the eyes of the trees.

Bob

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The ENTS mission and valuing young growth
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/browse_thread/thread/4cbd12ab56866c18?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 13 2008 1:39 pm
From: "Joseph Zorzin"

----- Original Message -----
From: <dbhguru@comcast.net>
To: <entstrees@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 1:33 PM
Subject: [ENTS] Re: The ENTS mission and valuing young growth

> Joe,
>
> Your solution of creating a new profession has always sounded good to
> me. You'd need a university/college willing to establish the associated
> curriculum. I know you've related it many times in the past, but would you
> care to relate it again for the benefit of the Ents?

********* As we've seen, moral failure is all too prevalent in the forestry
world. It's my opinion that the best immunity against that moral failure is
a top notch education founded on an undergrad degree in ecology/biology and
instead of a grad school, you then go to "forestry professional school" to
learn the skills of a field forester. This professional school will teach
standard forestry skills but it will include a very advanced training in
financial analysis. IMHO, it's impossible to be a good forester without
understanding the true economics of forestry; that is, how forests can
produce wealth via the application of intelligent silviculture, the rate at
which that wealth can be produced, while factoring in ecosystem values as if
they are real, which they are, even if society doesn't yet recognize them.
With that solid rooting in ecology/biology, standard forestry techniques and
thorough understanding of the real economics of forestry- I think the
student will be immunized from the numerous moral dilemmas I've been
pointing out for years. Well, for most people anyways- as we've seen with
the governor of NY state, a great education doesn't always help you fight
off temptations. <G>

> I'm thinking that dismantling the current forestry establishment
> would take at least 50 years, but creating an avant garde school of
> forestry that folds in all the values that true custodians of the forests
> must embrace would be a start. It would also be worthwhile to review
> current forestry curricula across the forestry schools of the nation.
> Maybe there are a few out there that are already close to what you
> espouse. I know you don't like SAF, but I wonder if that organization has
> the profiles of the various schools of forestry as a place to begin an
> evaluation.

********** Since the SAF, by an act of Congress, is the only organization
with the authority to certify forestry schools, it must have some
methodology to do this. But the history of the SAF is that it has supported
reactionary policies- so it's methods for reviewing forestry curricula can't
be trusted. I was old by Steve Harrington, former Coordinator of the Forest
Guild, some years ago, that the Guild has considered trying to also get the
right to certify forestry schools- once again, the Guild has some great
ideas, but the Guild has always need a big of of Viagra, which it apparently
can't seem to get a prescription for. <G>

> I can think of a few other foresters who would agree on the "D"
> grade. Since that is a pretty stern performance evaluation, can you
> outline for the Ents in ENTS, what actions, behaviors, and state's of
> mind, political leanings, etc. lead you to issuing the near failing grade?

********** Forestry, real forestry, is extremely rare. Real forestry is
rooted in ecology, using silvicultural techniques, to realize potential
economic values while fully including ecosystem values without passing costs
to society (externalities). Most of what passes for forestry is merely
logging with the word "forestry" pasted on it- like all those state red
permit signs hung up on Massachusetts high grading projects until recently
which identified the activity as a FORESTRY PROJECT. Essentially, forestry
has been a huge lie- little more than propaganda, not very sophisticated,
but sophisticated enough to fool most people- just like the idiot in the
White House. <G>

> Russ,
>
> Assuming that Joe is willing to answers these questions first,
> afterwards would you provide your own evaluation? Thanks.
>
> Joe and Russ,
>
> So long as we don't deal in personalities, I think that this topic is
> well worth discussing on the ENTS list. If non-foresters are going to be
> willing to get behind you all, they need to know exactly where you are
> coming from. The more broadly applicable your descriptions are the better.

********* Give this a thought- the enviros have fought hard to protect
wetlands, rare species and habitats, particularly nice places for parks and
wilderness areas- but, all of that together amounts to a trivial amount of
the total landscape. Is the rest important? If the rest of the landscape is
paved over while the forests are high graded and clearcut, is that OK with
you? If it is, then you can forget about this email. If it's not OK, then
you need to learn more and do something about it.

Joe

==============================================================================
TOPIC: THE Porkies Expert
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/browse_thread/thread/c2c65a99f6095493?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 15 2008 9:15 am
From: dbhguru@comcast.net

Henry,

You need to become acquainted with Lee Frelich who I strongly suspect is the most knowledgeable person on the planet with respect to the ecology of the forests of the Porcupine Mtns. Lee got his PhD roaming around those woods for a number of years. So, as a reminder to all Ents, for THE authoritative voice on the ecology of the Porkies, seek no further than our esteemed vice president, Dr. Lee Frelich.

Bob

Home