Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (103784)	5/11/2005 6:38:14 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

The distinction between clearcutting and selection cutting takes a lot of explanation. Some times selection cutting is clearly inappropriate because wind will blow down trees with root systems that have developed under severe competition for space, as all trees in an unmanaged forest have. Trees in a dense forest stand hold each other up, so to speak, by dispersing the tremendous forces of wind. The soil can only hold so much root mass, so a dense stand has a lot of trees with poor root systems. Remove some, and the rest may blow down. The species, soil characteristics, wind patterns, topography, climate, amount of soil moisture, and many other factors have to be considered. Some times selection harvest is inappropriate because the trees likely to reproduce in such a system are problematic. This gets to be pretty technical, but species of trees have different levels of tolerance for shade. The tolerant trees are likely to be less valuable and have higher defect than intolerant trees. So if you want to encourage intolerant trees, you are not likely to get them with the selection method, because the intolerant trees do better in full sun. Some times clearcutting is inappropriate, but usually it is inappropriate for reasons that are other than scientific. A managed forest is much more amenable to choices between selection harvest and clearcutting because you can keep the density at levels that support healthy strong root systems. Thus, when you ultimately do make a harvest decision you have a better chance to be successful with the selection method, or with the clearcut method, which ever meets your objectives best. The problem is, most public forests are composed of unmanaged stands that developed under excrutiatingly high density. In order for a forester to work towards a managed forest, he must first harvest the unmanaged one. Often the best way to do that is with the clearcut method. Within the clearcut method there are many variations. All of them have particular benefits and costs. The taxpayers have funded endless debate over this topic. There is no way I can adequately discuss the subject, because it's a highly technical field that requires a lot of art to apply successfully, not to mention the political and social groundwork that has to go into every forest management decision. It's fine for people to pack a picnic lunch and enjoy nature, but forests have a lot of uses, and everybody has an interest in his or her own special use. All life involves death. Nature is ordered for some creatures to kill and eat others. If that weren't the case, we would be buried under tons of insects like a swarm of bees and standing on the shoulders of people three or four layers deep. Picnicing with your dogs has its place. So does hunting. Without predation, populations of prey animals get out of control and eventually collapse. Hunting is one form of activity that is more ancient than history itself, and it has a valid place in our world.

To: Grainne who wrote (103784)	5/11/2005 8:21:14 PM
From: Oral Roberts	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I'm a predator as are you. I accept that, you don't. When I kill an animal I'm thankful for the food and continuance of nature and I'm very grateful that I'm a very good shot and the animal died quickly. I don't try to create human thoughts in the animals head. This subject should probably just be left alone and we can agree to disagree:) Many can give you a better response on these forestry questions but I think clear cut is used instead of select cut because the forest has been neglected and hasn't been select cut. Many of our western national forests come to mind. You end up with a forest of skinny trees with shallow root systems that are all mature and need to be cut. If you cut half and leave half to grow they will blow down in the next wind storm because the other trees aren't there to hold them up. We have a lot of pine plantations in WI and you plant them very close together. If you don't harvest you end up with trees that are 50' tall and 8" around with no root system. A managed forest is much more productive then one that is not both for logs and wildlife from my way of seeing. As to clear cutting being linked to global warming I have to say BS. Now if your clearing a forest to put a parking lot and housing development, OK. But if your clearing for regeneration then bull. While that area may be warmer for a year or so that will leave quickly and if you believe greenhouse gases are to blame then the new forest removes much more CO2 then the mature forest.