Rethinking the ENTS role/MTSF   dbhg-@comcast.net
  Apr 17, 2004 14:51 PDT 

ENTS:

    The e-mails of the last few days about big/tall tree lists and adopting new measures, an upcoming study of tree growth in MTSF by FMTSF and ENTS, tree naming ceremonies, the ENTS website, the cancellation/postponement of our April event in Asheville, the general list chit chat have all prompted me to seriously think about the ENTS mission. Are we on track? Are some aspects of our overall mission getting ignored or shortchanged, while others are being beat to death? Is doing more of the same necessarily better? Lots of questions to think about.

    Our original purpose in establishing ENTS was to celebrate trees and important forest sites in art, prose, poetry, music, photography, mythology, medicine, and science and to develop historical documentation for the trees at important forest sites such as Cook Forest, PA, the GSMNP, Congaree Swamp NP, MTSF, Hearts Content, the Porcupine Mtns and other important eastern big tree sites. We also pledged ourselves to develop good measurement methods for the common tree measures of circumference, height, and crownspread.

    Over the past several years, the historical documentation mission has been combined with science and sport to the benefit of the big tree sites. If we've over done it on tree height measurements, it is because our predecessors had failed to get the measurers of the great forest sites and we needed to make up for dearth of reliable data. We're still making up for the short fall, but we're getting there.

    Along the way, we adopted a compromise measure of site potential, productivity, and current achievement called the Rucker Index. We routinely compute the index for new sites and polish up the indices for existing sites. We understand what we're doing, but it can appear to others that we give too much weight to an index. However, all of the central players can give a dozen reasons off the top of their heads as to why two indices with the same magnitude may represent non-comparable situations - even if the two sites contain the same species. But do we convey our understanding from our tree measurements? No, we don't. We can improve upon the communication of our interpretations. How might we do that?

    Let's take my forest icon - MTSF. Its Rucker index presently stands at 134.5 based upon the maximum heights of the 10 tallest species. We often cite that statistic when comparing Mohawk to Cook Forest, Zoar Valley, and other exemplary sites. However, what does the 134.5 really tell us? Do we have a few exceptional specimens in Mohawk growing among a far more ordinary distribution of trees? To answer this question, we need to extend our base of measured trees.

    If we do a Rucker index by species and then average the 10 species indices, we get 126.1 for Mohawk as compared to 134.5 for the maximums. The average is 94% of the maximum. The range runs from 91% to 97% of the maximums - except for one species, American beech, which is 85%. The index of 126.1 is based on 100 trees instead of 10. But can we now picture the canopy of the Mohawk forest? No, because we included only 10 species in our indices.

   If we increase the number of participating species from 10 to 13, we drop the index of the maximums to 129.6 and the index for the averages to 121.6. Why 13? Well, that is based on the limitations of our current database. We should extend the count to 14 to include all the commonly distributed species. Were we to do that and were we to extend our searches, we'd end up with an index of about 120. Were we to take the process to include the top 16 species, we'd likely get about 118. So going from 10 to 16 species and including the top 10 of each species would drop the index from 134.5 to about 118. Do we now have a complete picture? Far from it.

    Even the extension of the sample base from 10 trees to 160 trees leaves important questions unanswered. Do most of the superlative Mohawk trees grow in a limited region? Even more restrictive, do they grow in a contiguous area? Is there a ceiling to floor range for the canopy within the areas that aren't too young or that represent marginal growing conditions? Can we, for example, expect to see a canopy that commonly makes it to a particular height threshold (say 100 feet) in just about any place we might look where growing conditions are reasonably favorable? These questions and others have to be answered if we're to gain a truly complete picture of the Mohawk forest in terms of vertical structure.

    So from our existing database, where can we go to provide a more realistic picture? The following statistics provide us with a starting point.

    1. Rucker Index based on maximums for 10 tallest species: 134.5
    2. Rucker Index based on averages for 10 tallest species: 129.6
    3. Rucker Index based on maximums for 13 tallest species: 126.1
    4. Rucker Index based on averages for 13 tallest species: 121.6
    5. Rucker Index based on averages for 14 tallest species: 120.0
    6. Rucker Index based on average for single tallest species: 159.5
    7. Rucker Index based on average for single shortest species: 99.3
    8. Number of species reaching 150 feet and over: 1
    9. Number of species reaching 140 feet and over: 2
    10. Number of species reaching 130 feet and over: 6
    11. Number of species reaching 120 feet and over: 11
    12. Number of species reaching 100 feet and over: 20
    13. Tallest single tree: 164.2
    14. Number of trees measured to over 160 feet: 5
    15. Number of trees measured to over 150 feet: 60
    16. Number of trees measured to over 140 feet: 162
    17. Area encompassing very high growth potential: 600 acres
    18. Area encompassing high growth potential: 1200 acres
    19. Age range of tall trees: 80 to 350 years
    20. Common age range for tallest trees: 120 to 200 years

   So what kind of a picture do the above statistics paint? Do they suggest pockets of super trees? Do they tell us what percentage of the canopy surpasses 80 feet, 90 feet, 100 feet in height, etc.? By region? By terrain type? By aspect? By elevation? Overall? Do they tell us what the forest of the future might look like? No they don't. To get a complete picture of the vertical structure of Mohawk's forest, we still have a long, long way to go. It would help immensely to have a cumulative height distribution for a site. What % of the canopy surpasses 80 feet, 90 feet, 100 feet, etc. This kind of distribution along with a picture of the contribution made of each species and all the current maximums is where we're headed next with MTSF.

   So, are we mesmerized by the sport statistics that we have fun teasing each other with? Hardly.

Bob
Re: Rethinking the ENTS role   Edward Frank
  Apr 17, 2004 16:57 PDT 

Bob,

An excellent summary of what is being done a MTSF to promote the ENTS
mission. I believe we as an organization are making progress on a wide
variety of fronts toward meeting those original goals. Each person can
contribute in his own way toward pursuing those goals. I don't believe it
is necessary for everyone to become statisticians or detail a single forest.
There is much that can be done. We need to at this stage to pull together
the diverse work people are doing across the eastern US and Canada under
our canopy. The criteria should not be so much what kind of contribution
they are making, measurement, exploration, data analysis, photography, or
writing. The criteria should be the quality of the effort and results.

Not everything is successful, so the cancellation of the Ashville event is a
disappointment, but not a cause to reevaluate what the organization is
trying to do. Nor do I feel we are trying to take on too much at once. We
will accomplish what we can. When we talk about projects which we don't
have the time to pursue, it still gives us food for thought when planning
future endeavors. I would also encourage people to continue to write or
start to write descriptions of the various sites. Prose can be as valuable
tool as statistics and it allows the inclusion of impressions or details
that are hard to quantify.

My feeling is that we should continue on full speed ahead and see where it
carries us. If things work out, others will come along for the ride and
continue our progress. Maybe we can make a difference in how forests are
seen by the general public and the forestry profession. Maybe not. I
think some progress is being made in how trees are being measured. Stay
the course everyone.

Ed Frank
Re: Rethinking the ENTS role   Phil LaBranche
  Apr 17, 2004 18:10 PDT 

-Bob and Ed,

     As a new comer here I try not to open my mouth
and be out of line, but contribute when I think it's right. I'm one of Gary
s students, and that is why I originally started coming here. However, it's
the professionalism of the group that has kept me here. While I didn't
understand a lot of what was going on in the beginning, I've learned a lot
during my short tenure here. This isn't just an online group only here to
pass time and judgment. Instead, ENTS is an organization that has me
inspired to look at the forest in a new light. Not everyone here agrees,
but THAT is what leads to new ways of doing things.

       This post started out with a lot to do about
measuring and indexes. First, it's of my opinion that while it can be
important and exciting to log tall trees, there is more we need to know.
Yes, there are tall trees in MTSF. The question that is in my mind is why?
And how? While the heights and diameters are good data collections, I think
it's a case of not seeing the forest through the trees. Instead of
concentrating on just one aspect of the forest, why not take what data we
already know and expand upon that. This way, we are more aware of what we
have, and that gives a better background to protect those very forests.
Another item ENTS could look at are soil, among other things. As for the
indexes, this is where I get lost. I've picked up on more than one, and the
numbers throw me for a loop. Could there be a Index 101 class for the
uninitiated??

Phil
RE: Rethinking the ENTS role   Ed Frank
  Apr 17, 2004 19:01 PDT 

Phil,

Feel free to comment as often as you like on whatever issue you like.
What I see is that we are a diverse group of people, each of whom have a
different idea of what is important. Bob, for example is interested in
trees across the entire eastern US, but concentrates most of his efforts
on MTSF, providing greater depth of information on that forest. Others
would like to see a broader overview of eastern forests be taken. They
would like to see efforts being spent documenting new olds growth and
big tree sites, rather than detailed work on a particular woods. Others
would like to see a wider variety and number of trees at each location
measured. Some are interested in one particular type of data, others are
trained to take other types of data. I see ENTS as an umbrella
organization where the results of these diverse efforts can be shared.
Some people on the list also are excellent at integrating information
from these separate sources. There is no reason why we can not continue
to collect more information on a broad scale while some work to provide
more detail on areas like MTSF.

I am interested in the MTSF research. I have encouraged Bob to submit a
copy of a report he has already finished on the area for inclusion on
the website. I am also interested in Cook's Forest, GSMNP, and all of
the other areas encompassed by the groups effort. Personally I do not
believe I would have become involved with the organization if the focus
of the group was making a more detailed analysis of MTSF. The more
focused the topic, the fewer people have an interest in working on it.
ENTS needs to maintain broad-goals. Individual efforts within that
canopy, such as the detailed work being done at MTSF can be held up as
a shinning example of what can be done. On the other hand, the broader
efforts are needed to provide perspective on what is being found at
MTSF. Say you have 60 pines over 150 feet... What does that mean? How
does that compare to other localities? Is it something common or
unusual? Is it worth mentioning? The broad-based background is
important to develop a complete picture as much so, if not more than a
detailed view of a particular site.

For a discussion of the meaning of The Rucker Index and how it is
calculated, what multiple iterations mean, what is a combined Rucker
index, etc. I would refer you to the website under the measurement
section. Read the discussions to better understand what is being
discussed in the discussion list. Some things, like the Rucker index
for a particular species, that Bob referred to in his post, is a new idea
that has not been discussed yet and is still being played with.
Essentially it is the average of the tallest 10 specimens of each
particular species in a study area. If there are enough of them then
they can be used to calculate a multispecies Rucker index for the site
by averaging the average heights of the average heights of the top ten
species. The other comments referred to creating a Rucker index
including more than 10 species. Again these are ideas Bob is beginning
to play with, and which I hadn't seen before a couple days ago. But
check out the website and see what is there. I have tried to include
every field trip and important discussion from the discussion list since
its inception somewhere on the website.

Ed Frank
RE: Rethinking the ENTS role   dbhg-@comcast.net
  Apr 17, 2004 19:37 PDT 

Ed:

   Good discussion of the multiple directions we need to be going in. I think you've really caught the spirit of ENTS. Certainly everybody should not be doing what we're doing in Mohawk. Broad approaches integrated with highly concentrated, site-specific areas will provide us with many worthy problems to work on.

   I should point out that the species-specific Rucker index is actually Colby's idea. He presented it in a private e-mail to me a few weeks back and I'm just now getting around to experimenting with it. It will be a topic to deal with for those of us meeting in MTSF tomorrow.

   One reason we're saturation measuring Mohawk is so that we'll eventually have enough data to back off and see what general predictors work best to capture the detail and allow us to predict averages and ranges. We're finally getting a large enough database to do that.

   When I update the detailed MTSF study, I'll definitely send you a copy for posting. The current study is already outdated. We are moving pretty fast now and we have the full backing of Massachusetts DCR to do even more detailed studies. More on that in a few days.

Bob
RE: Rethinking the ENTS role   Joseph Zorzin
  Apr 18, 2004 03:18 PDT 

As the "Madman" forester here, who has little to contribute to the
description of old growth or specimen trees- I will, aside from the
occasional anti forestry establishment rant, be looking to see what the
relevance of ENTS research has to the other 99.9999999% of the forests,
much or most of which is grossly abused or ignored.

I can see that such research indicates just how big trees can get.
That's interesting- but I'm not so sure that 99.9999999% of the forestry
"community" cares about how big they can get- it's more concerned with
short term profits and the continued flow of tax dollars into
bureaucracies. I can't recall ever, having attended hundreds of forestry
meetings, anyone showing the slightest interest in big trees.

Big trees surely are fascinating- but it's kinda like the sports freaks
who love to watch some superman on the football field doing his thing-
while ignoring the other "grunts" who the superman needs to show his
stuff. It's the love of the superlative, the exception to the rule. It's
a rather narrow subject. It's an important one, but we need to get a
grip on why it's important. Will foresters show any interest other than
"oh, nice tree, cool, but so what?".

As a forester, I would like to know things like:

- just how big can trees grow on a certain site?
- now that I know how big they can grow, how long will it take?
- now that I know how long it will take, at what point is the tree
financially mature, assuming of course it's not on "protected land"?
- once I know when the tree will be financially mature, are there
reasons to not cut it?
- in my ideal multi species uneven aged forest (Daurwald), what
relevance is "big tree info" to me- since I don't want to grow a stand
to super size, then clearcut it and start over again- I want trees of
all sizes and species
- if a site is known to grow super white pines, how well will it do
growing other species?
- what sort of index can be designed to measure the overall health of an
entire stand, which may contain many species and many age classes?


I could ask another 100 such questions, but I have to head out for a
day's work.

The Madman
RE: Rethinking the ENTS role   dbhg-@comcast.net
  Apr 19, 2004 04:25 PDT 

Joe:

   Many of the posts Lee Frelich, Colby Rucker, Will Blozan, and I have made speak to just the questions you ask. If you review a sample of the posts we've made that list tree measurements, you'll realize that many of the trees are not large, just tall. They have high height to diameter ratios and though age data are not included, they are fairly young. We are looking to develop all kinds of site profiles to address the question of both growth realized and growth potential over time. The question of how long certain species maintain satisfactory economic growth on certain sites has intrigued me for a number of years. One reason the question stays uppermost in my mind is that I see much evidence that the foresters have not satisfactorily answered this question for the good growing sites in western Massachusetts and many are therefore inclined to cut trees as soon as they perceive diameter growth is slowing significantly. In the case of a good dozen foresters with whom I've walked the woods, I don't think this is the case, I know it is.

   We're getting ready to put in about a dozen plots in MTSF to monitor growth rates and absolute volume accumulation as functions of species, and a large array of site variables over time. Susan Benoit and I briefed Jim Damaio last Wednesday and he gave us the full go ahead. We were looking at the first location yesterday. My hope is to get the Forest Stewards Guild involved with us to help us design the plots and provide input on the data to gather.

Bob
RE: Rethinking the ENTS role   Lee E. Frelich
  Apr 19, 2004 06:14 PDT 

Bob:

I agree with you. All of Joe's questions listed below can be answered by
obtaining data from remnant old growth stands. That is exactly what I have
done in the upper Midwest, which is why so many foresters are at my door
with questions all the time.

Lee
RE: Rethinking the ENTS role   Robert Leverett
  Apr 19, 2004 06:30 PDT 

Joe:

A few more thoughts on the growth monitoring experiments at MTSF. What
we're looking to do is to establish baseline data for natural
regeneration on a selection of sites that we believe support unusually
high growth rates. Yesterday, we measured a white ash on Totem Brook
that was no more than 70 years old (65 would have been a minimum age).
It was 119.3 feet tall by my calculations and had a breast high diameter
of 23 inches. Its point of major branching was at 80.5 feet above its
base. What would this tree have achieved at say 50 years of age? What
might it achieve in 100 years? How well is it doing for the location,
i.e. what do we think the maximum site potential is for ash?

After leaving the Totem Brook site, Howard Stoner and I went to the
Elders Grove and took a start of growing season set of measurements for
the huge Saheda Pine. We got a number of different results from various
locations that establish a minimum height for the tree of 162 feet and a
maximum of 164. Most of our measurements were at the high side of this
range. I settled on a measurement that gave us 163.6 feet and while I
believe this height to be a little on the high side, by June, it will be
less so. Incidentally, this tree was measured in 1994 at 160.1 feet via
transit. Will Blozan climbed it in 1998 and we taped one of its growth
sprigs to 158.3 feet as a conservative measure based on where the plumb
line touched the ground relative to the root mass. That measure could
have easily been 158.6 or 158.7 feet, if not more. Assuming Will got the
highest leader of the many he had to choose from, then the most probable
height for the tree is about 162.5 feet. If we assume there was a leader
at 159.3 and the tree is now 162.5 feet, then the average annual growth
rate would be 7.7 inches per year. Given what has been occurring for
other trees, this is not unreasonable, though it still seems slightly
high.
    If we go back to the 1994 measurement of 160.1 feet and allow for
Howard's 164.2 feet as the best measurement, we get an average growth of
5.5 inches per year, which seems more likely for the Saheda Pine. So
what is its height? We're going to have to do a lot more measuring to
include possibly use of a transit again. Saheda is giving us a real
challenge and we've got a very narrow window of time to get good
measurements. For me, that's next weekend's challenge.
     Saheda is 43.2 inches in diameter at breast height. It is arrow
straight - one spectacular pine. People who visit Saheda fall in love
with that great tree. What would most rank and file wood products
industry people see in the tree? Boxes, flooring, lawn furniture,
toothpicks, paper? I'd hope not, but fear that might be the case. Where
do most foresters fit into the picture? Well, certainly some would see
the above, but by no means all. I'm pleased to say that the ones I've
taken there have approached this great tree with reverence.
     What did Saheda look like at ages 50, 100, 150,and now at
approaching 175? Enquiring ENTS minds want to know. After we gather data
on the youngest of the Mohawk pines and all ages up to the Saheda, we
may be able to say. That's where we are headed.

Bob
RE: Rethinking the ENTS role   Robert Leverett
  Apr 19, 2004 07:18 PDT 

Lee:

   In the case of MTSF, in addition to the old growth, we are fortunate
to have second growth stands from very young to very mature available
for us to study and none of the areas have received the periodic
massacring that private lands so commonly have to endure. Several of the
Mohawk stands of interest have gotten a kind of second wind and are
growing rapidly both radially and vertically. I'm unsure of whether this
is climate-induced or part of a natural pattern. The rapid radial growth
of the northern red oaks in the Shunpike area of Clark Ridge that Neil
Pederson verified is an example of this second wind. The oaks are
growing radially now faster than they were at half their age. They are
presently between 100 and 130 years old.

   It is pretty obvious to me that there is lots left for us to learn in
western Mass about the growth patterns of our trees over a span of fully
150 years. The local notion that most species of trees are pretty well
done by the time they reach diameters of 12 to 16 inches strikes me as
at the least strange given what I routinely see.

   Trees may not maintain acceptable economic growth for 200 years, but
the idea that they're ready for plucking at between 40 and 60 years just
doesn't jive with what I see in the high growth areas of a good three
dozen sites in central and western MA. I have to conclude that many, if
not most, foresters work with highly degraded forestscapes and just
haven't come to fully realize it. Well, that IS what all the high
grading discussions point toward.

   If we can make a contribution toward opening eyes, I for one, believe
that the great land stewards of the past will smile down on us.

   BTW, what are common misconceptions that you encounter from wood
producers about forest growth? Would you bed willing to share some of
the common misconceptions and comment on how widespread they are?

Bob
RE: Rethinking the ENTS role   Robert Leverett
  Apr 19, 2004 08:21 PDT 

ENTS:

One final e-mail on this subject. It might seem to the infrequent
reader of the ENTS posts that the preoccupation of the handful of
frequent posters is pursuit of big or tall trees for aesthetics or
sport. That is truly an enjoyment for us, but far from our primary
mission. Lee Frelich, Ed Frank, Colby Rucker and others stress the
importance of the science we pursue and they are absolutely correct in
their focus. Our objective is to understand the limits of natural
regeneration in producing forests over time as a baseline against which
ecologically sensitive management practices can be developed and
evaluated. Concurrently, there is the historical documentation mission
for important big tree sites which involves public education.
   The indices we have experimenting with are the tip of the iceberg.
They serve to draw our attention to specific sites as unusual, but the
height indices we've been reporting are far from sufficient. Lee Frelich
is the actual architect of the full measurement protocols we'll be
using. In terms of the ENTS work to be done, we're just now at the front
door.
   Those of us promoting site preservation and a range of values will
keep up the public drum beat over the big/tall trees, but the real
scientific work will be going on behind the scenes.

Bob
Re: RE: Rethinking the ENTS role]    Joe Zorzin
   Apr 21, 2004 13:09 PDT 
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Leverett <dbhg-@comcast.net>;
Sent: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:30:38 +0000
To: ENTST-@topica.com
   
Subject: RE: Rethinking the ENTS role


<<A few more thoughts on the growth monitoring experiments at MTSF. What
we're looking to do is to establish baseline data for natural
regeneration on a selection of sites that we believe support unusually
high growth rates.--Bob>>

As I pointed out in my previous response to this thread, this sort of research has been done- which is not to say that it can't be improved upon- especially by factoring in ecosystem values- which would show the tremendous benefits to society and the planet by doing GREAT forestry, not the slaughter that goes out there and which passes for forestry by our worthless forestry establishments.

 <<Yesterday, we measured a white ash on Totem Brook
that was no more than 70 years old (65 would have been a minimum age).
It was 119.3 feet tall by my calculations and had a breast high diameter
of 23 inches. Its point of major branching was at 80.5 feet above its
base. What would this tree have achieved at say 50 years of age? What
might it achieve in 100 years? How well is it doing for the location,
i.e. what do we think the maximum site potential is for ash?-Bob>>

The answers can be found by looking at existing "stocking charts"- they do exist-such charts often show the potential over a series of site indexes- a "family of curves".

 
<< The Saheda [Pine in the Elder's Grove]  is 43.2 inches 
in diameter at breast height. It is arrow
straight - one spectacular pine. People who visit Saheda fall in love
with that great tree. What would most rank and file wood products
industry people see in the tree? Boxes, flooring, lawn furniture,
toothpicks, paper? I'd hope not, but fear that might be the case.- Bob>>

Actually, having done "timber showings" several score times- I know what many would say, "ayup, it probably has red rot". Actually, many species start to lose value once they reach a certain size due to predictable decline in quality. Many very large pine have red rot- most very large hemlock have "shake". Many large hard maple and cherry have defects. Although loggers and mills like big trees, they actually prefer the low end of the large size for this reason. Oak however usually doesn't lose quality with large size. Much of this problem with defect in large trees could be avoided if actual silviculture was practiced, such that the very best were left to large size- trees deemed by the "professional forester" to be free of such defect.

Certainly it's understandable that people who earn a living in the "wood products" business will view trees as RAW MATERIAL, not as a long term investment of wealth. What's not acceptable in an ethical world is that the forestry establishment offers far more support to those with the short term desires to meet the short term needs of industry- defending, condoning, and approving of the worst high grading and clearcutting, as exemplified by what happened on the street where I live- the establishment made light of it- the new Chief said I was being "emotional". Let's see, I'm emotional for objecting to horrendous practices. If a medical doctor complained about horrific bad medical practices, would he be accused of being emotional?


 <<Where do most foresters fit into the picture? -Bob>

There's a full range- because nobody is pure angelic or purely devilish, not even me. <G> I get tempted too- if I'm marking a nice stand, and I see a "borderline tree" which is one close to maturity- and if I'm broke, I may try to convince myself to mark it and make the buck. I usually fight off Satin at such times. <G>

Hey, let me give you an example. I'm now recruising a property in Stockbridge, one of my biggest clients, who owns the entire north side Monument Mountain. One of the first stands I walked into I said to my helper, "wow, check out this maple stand, hardly looks like any cutting has taken place here- most trees are in the 16-24 size class." Most trees in the stand are of very good quality. I had to think about it before I realized that I did a timber sale in here only about 10 years ago. Now, the stand is stocked with mostly veneer quality hard maple. Further along, there is a section where I was going to mark- but didn't as I had a bad case of sciatica- instead of marking it I gave instructions to the logger on how to cut the stand- the owner wanted that section done too- the logger is one of the best- but he ended up cutting it much harder. At least he cut most of the culls and low value species too- but now the basal area is below the C level and the average tree size is 10-12"- AND HE'S ONE OF THE BEST LOGGERS. To him, it made perfect sense.


Joe
Re: RE: Rethinking the ENTS role]    Joe Zorzin
   Apr 21, 2004 13:09 PDT 
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Leverett <dbhg-@comcast.net>;
Sent: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 15:21:54 +0000
To: ENTST-@topica.com
   
<< One final e-mail on this subject. It might seem to the infrequent
reader of the ENTS posts that the preoccupation of the handful of
frequent posters is pursuit of big or tall trees for aesthetics or
sport. That is truly an enjoyment for us, but far from our primary
mission. Lee Frelich, Ed Frank, Colby Rucker and others stress the
importance of the science we pursue and they are absolutely correct in
their focus. Our objective is to understand the limits of natural
regeneration in producing forests over time as a baseline against which
ecologically sensitive management practices can be developed and
evaluated. -Bob>>

That is important- a contribution for sure, but even more important is the research done by carrying out different types of silvicultural work, while also doing the hard economic study- however, as I've said several times in this thread, much of this has been done- the problem of bad forestry isn't a science/info problem- it's an ethical problem. That's why the establishment doesn't want to discuss ethics- it pretends that the problems are educational in nature- which is nuts, nuts, nuts.

<<Concurrently, there is the historical documentation mission
for important big tree sites which involves public education. -Bob>>

The study of big trees is important because big trees are very groovy- the reasons they are groovy have little to do with mainstream forestry- they are groovy on ecological grounds- regardless of the economics- they have more to do with "ecosystem values"- but now the important thing to do is to turn ecosystem values into a real economics- something other than the economics of logs- that is, a giant tree, even if it's losing it's log values, is contributing other tremendous economic values to our society and planet- these values MUST BE COUNTED- this is something wholly different than ordinary forestry economics, which is too shallow to tackle that problem. These other values must be recognized- then you can say to public or private forest owners/managers- that the reason they should cut a certain tree or stand is that those ecosystem values are substantial- more substantial than the value of the logs.

However, if those ecosystem values are recognized only in theory and not in practice by all of society, then those values will be lost- the society at large MUST recognize those values in tangible ways. I believe Karl Davies once suggested that forest owners should get tax breaks, not just on their real estate taxes but also on their income taxes to account for such value production. I'm sure many other ways can be thought up to reward forest owners for those currently intangible ecosystem values- that and only that will get results from many forest owners. As it is now, just plain traditional forestry economics already justifies great forestry- if we add ecosystem values, the quality of forestry practices will go up a quantum level- and those who carry out such great practices will have to be rewarded too- so that the situation will be unlike now, where doing great forestry often hurts those doing the best work- leaving those great trees in the woods as a long term investment hurts the forester too- unless you stick around long enough to benefit from that investment- a stick-to-it-ness that takes a great deal of stubbornness and determination.


<<The indices we have experimenting with are the tip of the iceberg.
They serve to draw our attention to specific sites as unusual, but the
height indices we've been reporting are far from sufficient. Lee Frelich
is the actual architect of the full measurement protocols we'll be
using. In terms of the ENTS work to be done, we're just now at the front
door.
     Those of us promoting site preservation and a range of values will
keep up the public drum beat over the big/tall trees, but the real
scientific work will be going on behind the scenes. -Bob>>
Re: RE: Rethinking the ENTS role]    Joe Zorzin
   Apr 21, 2004 13:10 PDT 
I've been busy cranking out mgt. plans- but now I'll get a chance to comment on this thread.


----- Original Message -----
From: dbhg-@comcast.net
Sent: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:25:19 +0000
To: ENTST-@topica.com
Subject: RE: Rethinking the ENTS role


<<Many of the posts Lee Frelich, Colby Rucker, Will Blozan, and I have
made speak to just the questions you ask. If you review a sample of the
posts we've made that list tree measurements, you'll realize that many
of the trees are not large, just tall. They have high height to diameter
ratios and though age data are not included, they are fairly young. We
are looking to develop all kinds of site profiles to address the
question of both growth realized and growth potential over time. The
question of how long certain species maintain satisfactory economic
growth on certain sites has intrigued me for a number of years.- Bob>>

There has been quite a bit of research like this done already- Karl Davies was more on top of it than me- I have a large file folder filled with copies of research reports he sent me. He studied much of this research and concluded which was the best- which I think is what he sent me.

 <<One reason the question stays uppermost in my mind is that I see much
evidence that the foresters have not satisfactorily answered this
question for the good growing sites in western Massachusetts and many
are therefore inclined to cut trees as soon as they perceive diameter
growth is slowing significantly.- Bob>>

Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again- many simply have zero interest in growth- they are interested in what's there now- it's NOT a question of science- it's a question of ethics and professionalism. The are not in the business of growing trees, they're in the business of selling logs. However, of course, the establishment wants to frame the problems as science problems- I think it's a huge mistake to fall into that trap- then we end up discussing research reports for next hundred years. That's a diversion- the research that already proves how defective the current wave of timber harvesting is- has been done. What would be far more productive would be if the enviros tackle the true political side of the problem- which of course is more difficult. Like I said, much harvesting is utterly unconcerned with the potential growth- so if you eventually come out with some dissertation showing that better silviculture, and longer rotations is highly intelligent for multiple reasons, those same bad characters will laugh when they hear about it. Take my word for it. I've been in the trenches on this for 30 years.

<<In the case of a good dozen foresters with whom 
I've walked the woods, I don't think this is the case, I know
it is.-Bob>>

Listen, they really know better. When I studied silviculture and forestry economics back in the age of Woodstock, I read research that discussed great silviculture, that gave the financially maturity for various species, based on site index, quality of stems, going interest rates, etc. This is ancient history and ancient knowledge and taught to most foresters- at least it used to be until the education went into a decline in recent years- such that, I believe, U.Mass. doesn't even offer a forestry economics course- which means that they need to offer it again, not that we desperately need new research.

It's all about what sort of filters you have over your eyes when you look at a forest- if the filter is seeking to distinguish "which trees can I mark/sell/cut right now and make a buck on"- then that's what you'll do- if you put on the filter that distinguishes trees which are truly financially mature and can be spared from the forest in order to not reduce the biodiversity and/or wildlife and/or aesthetic values- then that's what you do. The choice is theirs- it's NOT about science, it's about ETHICS.

If they actually do not know any better, than that's proof of the poor quality of forestry schools, at least around here. But, I suspect, quality nationwide is rather poor, as I see very poor policies by the SAF. It's also proof of the failure of the license law, which has licensed people who don't know these BASICS.

<<We're getting ready to put in about a dozen plots in MTSF to monitor
growth rates and absolute volume accumulation as functions of species,
and a large array of site variables over time.-Bob>>

The most critical item to be determined, around which decisions ought to be made, given that other concerns will be factored in, is the rate of growth of value- such that the timber resource can be seen as any other financial investment. This vision is what Karl harped on for years and he dug up much of the best existing research. Such a hard core financial investment point of view, contrary to those who'd fear such a perspective would lead to clearcutting and high-grading, actually shows the need to do great silviculture, leaving the best trees to large size. So, it's not just that a tree is healthy and growing but how fast is value accumulating on existing value?

Way back in that Age of Woodstock, the textbooks told us that good specimens of white pine and the "good hardwoods" like cherry, hard maple, ash and others- ought to be allowed to grow well into the 20" dbh class. It often turns out that maturity from that point of view is still way earlier than biologically maturity- so therefore it seems to be a bad conclusion, but if everyone actually did this- the forests would be far better- healthier, more diverse and worth far more.

On public forest land, since the "alternative rate of return" of government is so much lower than the private sector, that justifies the public forests being managed even more conservatively- that is the forest that is actually managed at all- and of course, much public forest should be left alone in perpetuity for all those other values that only government is big enough to acknowledge, all those ecosystem values.

... material deleted...

IT'S NOT ABOUT SCIENCE, IT'S ABOUT ETHICS.

<<We were looking at the first location yesterday. My hope is to get the
Forest Stewards Guild involved with us to help us design the plots and
provide input on the data to gather.- Bob>>

Despite what I said above, some further research will be useful, only I don't want a push for reform to wait until it's done- we already have enough info to send in the marines. <G> I have proof of their "weapons of mass destruction" - all I have to do is look out the window to the state approved massacre, one which is certified under Smartwood!


Joe
Re: RE: Rethinking the ENTS role]    Joe Zorzin
   Apr 21, 2004 13:10 PDT 
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Leverett <dbhg-@comcast.net>;
Sent: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:18:12 +0000
To: ENTST-@topica.com
   
<<Lee:  In the case of MTSF, in addition to the old growth, we are fortunate
to have second growth stands from very young to very mature available
for us to study and none of the areas have received the periodic
massacring that private lands so commonly have to endure. Several of the
Mohawk stands of interest have gotten a kind of second wind and are
growing rapidly both radially and vertically. I'm unsure of whether this
is climate-induced or part of a natural pattern. The rapid radial growth
of the northern red oaks in the Shunpike area of Clark Ridge that Neil
Pederson verified is an example of this second wind. The oaks are
growing radially now faster than they were at half their age. They are
presently between 100 and 130 years old. -Bob>>
That's because the stand was very dense when young- but oaks tend to knock out their neighbors and thus lower competition for light and the soil- once they've done that, they're off and running.

Of course, doing a thinning in any forest will accomplish much the same- most stands are growing about a third as fast as they'd grow if kept thinned down to the "B" level of stocking- by periodic light harvests, such that the stand develops into an uneven aged type- and is KEPT THAT WAY.

<<It is pretty obvious to me that there is lots left for us to learn in
western Mass about the growth patterns of our trees over a span of fully
150 years. The local notion that most species of trees are pretty well
done by the time they reach diameters of 12 to 16 inches strikes me as
at the least strange given what I routinely see.- Bob>>
Many species of trees are indeed mature in that size range- including white birch and poplar. They do mature quickly then start to die off and/or develop serious defect. Many individual specimens, by the billions, are financially mature far earlier than they should- because they are poor quality specimens for any number of reasons- past logging damage, disease, forks and other reasons. The fact that so much logging is 12 or 14" diameter limit harvesting is NOT due to the idea that the perpetrator actually believes that this is good forestry- they may say so, but if you push them, they back down- then they fall back on the "the owner made me do it" theme. I doubt any forester would actually claim that cutting premium quality oak, hard maple, cherry, pine and others at 12-16" is really the right thing to do- it's the PROFITABLE thing to do, especially after you convince the owner that it's OK, by the method which Karl Davies called "the 3-5% scam"- a subject you all can read about on his web site which is still up.

<<Trees may not maintain acceptable economic growth for 200 years, but
the idea that they're ready for plucking at between 40 and 60 years just
doesn't jive with what I see in the high growth areas of a good three
dozen sites in central and western MA.- Bob>>


Well, maybe, maybe not. There is a definite distinction to be made between biological maturity and financial maturity and pathological maturity. Financial maturity is simply the rate at which the tree is producing value as a function of its existing value- and that's usually far earlier than biological maturity. If a 200 year old pine stand is producing 500 board feet per acre per year and the stand has 35,000 bd. ft. then it's rate of value growth is only 1.4% (assuming that each board foot of pine has equal value). The idea being that you don't manage the individual tree, you manage stands. If a stand has 10,000 bd. feet and is growing at 500 board feet per year, then it's growing at 5%- a not bad rate of growth by today's standards, but if you thin the stand and keep the individual trees with the highest growth, as they're all growing differently, then you can raise that rate of return substantially. To do that, it may mean taking out some small, some medium and some large trees- that's what real silviculture is all about- it's NOT about diameter limit cutting- which is just plain stupid.

Based on what I've said above, some trees should be harvested at very young ages, some at very old ages- so it's not one or the other- that's very important- if proper financial considerations are made. Some consideration will produce uneven aged, multi species forests, at least here in the northeast.

<<I have to conclude that many, if not most, foresters work 
with highly degraded forestscapes and just haven't come to 
fully realize it. -Bob>>

There not so dumb- they know what's going on- they know that they're not practicing real forestry when they purposefully high grade. It's NOT a lack of knowledge, it's a lack of ethics. Many know that the forests are degraded because they made it that way! Hey, Mike Leonard came out of the closet on this- he admits to once having been a high grading timber beast- then he heard the voice of God tell him, "thou shall not high grade any more, dude" and he reformed himself. But when he was a bad boy, he knew it- so when he saw the light, or heard the word, whatever, he can now doing great forestry.

<<Well, that IS what all the high grading discussions 
point toward.- Bob>>

No, because your conclusion is that they don't know any better- they do know better and the entire forestry establishment knows better- it's not about science and knowledge, it's about CORRUPTION AND GREED, with full support of the establishment which gets well rewarded for their cooperation, by steady paychecks, medical insurance, and outrageous pensions.

<<If we can make a contribution toward opening eyes, I for one, believe
that the great land stewards of the past will smile down on us.
     BTW, what are common misconceptions that you encounter from wood
producers about forest growth? Would you bed willing to share some of
the common misconceptions and comment on how widespread they are? -Bob>>
================================

<<Lee E. Frelich wrote:  That is exactly what I have
done in the upper Midwest, which is why so many foresters
are at my door with questions all the time. >>


Maybe many are- but what about the majority who are out there high grading to beat the band? The bad boys aren't stupid, they are unethical- so all the research in the world isn't going to fix the problem, what will fix the problem is when the forestry academics, forestry bureaucracies, forestry professional groups and enviros all decide they won't tolerate any longer the bad guys. Stop fooling yourselves into believing that further great research is going to solve the problem - IT WON'T, TRUST ME.
Re: Re: Rethinking the ENTS role]    Joe Zorzin
   Apr 21, 2004 13:26 PDT 

Other sure indicators are an abundance of sugar maple reproduction, in all stages from seedling to saplings to small "sawlog" size. Such stands are the classic for all uneven aged mgt. since the best species on the site, sugar maple, can succeed itself with little effort- so it's easy to develop an all aged stand. Of course when fine specimens of other species are found, they should be grown to large size too- so it won't turn into a monoculture.

One other indicator I notice even if the stand has received a state approved mutilation, is that very black, damp, rich top soil. Such stands often have lots of springs and streams and they are often difficult to "log" without erosion, compared to dry oak sites. They usually need to be "operated" under frozen ground conditions only.

Such sites are most common, in the Berkshires, on limestone bedrock.

Z



------ Start of Forwarded Message ------
From: dbhg-@comcast.net
Sent: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:59:09 +0000
To: ENTST-@topica.com
Subject: Re: Rethinking the ENTS role


Russ:

     The areas dominated by sugar maple and white ash and a generous
sprinkling of basswood on Clark have most of the rich woods indicator
species for the area. There is abundant squirrel corn, Dutchman's
breeches, blue cohosh, wild ginger, dwarf ginseng, foam flower, bane
berry, and maidenhair fern. There is some American ginseng. There are 12
or 13 species of ferns.

Bob
Re: RE: Rethinking the ENTS role]    dbhg-@comcast.net
   Apr 22, 2004 04:21 PDT 

Joe:

   I've asked a good dozen foresters if they can point me to the kind of research that we're planning to do at MTSF and so far none has cited any research that is specific enough. Nor have any of them shed any light on what they think the stands that interest us are presently doing or are capable of doing except maybe for some broad board feet projections. We're interested in developing growth models that tell us what individual trees were probably doing 50 years ago, are doing now, and what we can expect from them over a span of perhaps 200 years if left to grow on their own. We're interested in rates of accumulation of biological mass and growth curves for specific tree dimensions.
   
We intend to do our research across a wide geographical range of sites. We don't want to mix trees from Central Pennsylvania with trees from Michigan with trees from North Carolina with trees from western Massachusetts to arrive at some impossibly broad averages. We want to investigate how these places differ from one another so that we eventually can profile about a dozen species - to our satisfaction.
   
The kind of growth models we plan to develop and the kind of highly site specific information that interests us may not prove that useful to silviculturists, however, don't bet on it. The forestry world isn't beating a path to Lee Frelich's door for nothing. He tells them about how natural processes progress and what stands do on their own beyond projections of board feet. He tells them things they don't know. They couldn't pull the information out of existing sources and many along the way have made egregious assumptions about what Mother Nature was doing or is capable of doing.

Bob
RE: RE: Rethinking the ENTS role]    Robert Leverett
   Apr 22, 2004 10:12 PDT 

Joe:

   A few additional comments on what we seek to determine with the
research that we're proposing. What are the individual trees in our
plots doing? What independent variables do we need to identify and track
to explain the tree growth that we measure? We will develop complex
multivariate regression models to explain the growth we measure at each
study site. Lee Frelich will handle the heavy analysis.

   Has this kind of modeling already been done? Well, if it has, nobody
has been able to direct me to the sources. I'm quite open to considering
any relevant research. I was given some volume models from SUNY about 6
years ago (USDA FS research), but the charts didn't extend far enough to
cover trees like the Thoreau, Ice Glen, and Tecumseh Pines. They had
other limitations and I was forced abandon trying to apply them.

   I did try to apply volume models to some of the Smoky Mountain
hemlocks that Will climbed. Again, the same problem. The models didn't
pertain to trees of those sizes. So, we took circumferential
measurements at intervals of a yard and developed our own volume models.

   Because of whole tree chipping that is so prevalent now, there may be
models that have been developed that can be broadly applied. However,
I'm weary of models that mix species across a wide range of habitats and
geography. We learned the hard way from Karl Davie's research that just
because a model carries a USDA stamp of approval on it doesn't guarantee
much. Good research is jumbled with bad.

Bob   
RE: RE: Rethinking the ENTS role]   Joseph Zorzin
  Apr 23, 2004 05:27 PDT 

...post deleted...
RE: RE: Rethinking the ENTS role]    Robert Leverett
   Apr 23, 2004 08:41 PDT 

ENTS:

   Well, I guess Joe told me. He's dropped off the list again - went
into hiding. My response to him was going to be the following. Guess he
won't see it. Too bad. It's presented below primarily for its
entertainment value.

=====================================
Joe:

      Reference your comment” “Burl-belly, you don't "get it". I've
tried to explain to you and others countless times, but you just don't
get it”. Joe, Joe, pardon me, my friend, but I do get it. Have for a
long, long time. Hell, I’d have to be a total moron, if I didn’t, having
read your meticulous, colorful, highly repetitive internet explanations
a few thousand times.
      
I have absolutely no illusions about our research at Mohawk. Is it
somehow going to transform forestry ethics? Of course not. How could it?
Why, on Earth, would we think our tiny little efforts carried out in a
location completely obscure to 99.99% of the forestry world could have
such an impact, especially when 99.97% have no interest in what we’re
doing - at least by your accounting? We’re not proposing the research
because we’re trying to reform forestry. We want to do the research
because we want the answers to the questions we pose and we’re not going
to get those answers by asking some wood producer with saw dust in his
eyes, a Biltmore stick in his hand, and visions of board feet dancing in
his head. Nor will the answers come from academics who concentrate their
research in high tech, plantation forestry.
      
Now, should we be doing something else with our time? Should we
abandon everything except trying to build coalitions with the few
foresters with whom we share common ground? Possibly. Is that the point
you make? If we aren’t totally focused on forest abuse, primarily within
the private sector, then we’re wasting our time? Just playing?
        
In our minds, should preservation be our only focus? Of course
not and it isn’t. It certainly isn’t mine and that’s why I keep this
list open to forestry discussions as well as the primary work of ENTS.
It is why I participated in NEFR and why I am promoting forest practices
discussions within the HCC forum and at the scheduled conference in New
Hampshire in September. But, heck Joe, I’m no more of a miracle worker
than you are. I can only do what I can do and then the chips (not wood)
must fall where they may. How successful have the internet rants really
been? Really!
        
With respect to your observation: “I sense that most would
rather do this research thing because it's infinitely easier than
political fighting, especially since it's more polite- politics is dirty
- and that's OK by them, because they have already abandoned the vast
majority of forest to the timber beasts”, others will have to speak for
themselves, but that certainly isn’t the case for me. On the other-hand,
if those of us in the environmental community are serious about reaching
out to different forestry groups to search for common ground “ain’t
gonna happen” if we stay in perpetual attack mode. We’ll have no more
success than you’ve had.

Having said that, it doesn’t follow that any of us in ENTS should roll
over and play dead, nor have we. We in ENTS have helped draft
legislation (Susan Benoit), gone to numerous meetings (several of us),
engaged in plenty of debates (several of us), delivered sermons in the
forest (me), helped organize groups of like minded souls (me), written
editorials and articles (several of us), signed petitions (several of
us), lobbied congressional representatives (several of us), to name a
few things. We’re NOT setting on our thumbs. Hey, we’ve even ranted on
the internet, and that’s okay too.

Consider our MTSF projects as us doing pure research to answer
questions that are not answered elsewhere. If one day our work finds
limited application in any of the applied sciences, then we will be all
the more pleased, but that isn’t really why we’re doing the research. I
think I’ve said enough.


Bob