Problems with how we log

[nekred]

When I did my graduating essay in university I actually looked at this exact same question and used examples from all over the world. In 1990's our forestry management thinking was based on forestry practices develepoed in in germany in the 17-1800's. Where a natural forest was being replaced with tree farms to increase production of desirable/marketable wood.

This carried over into the New world and slowly the paradigm is shifting from stand managment to landscape management. In Canada Resource Management is setup as an atagonistic system between resource users. Whoever has the stronger political power gets their way and special interest groups are thrown a bone now and then. This is slowly changing where integrated resource managment is becoming more common the problem is it is still based on conflict resolution (politics) to determine managment.

You have APOS, AFGA, ABA, ATV Association, foredtyr companies, greenpeace, oil companies, pipeline companies etc. all fighting over a pie and evertyime a deal is made it is cut into smaller pieces.

In Iceland there was a similar problem with Salmon managment. Offshore fisheries were catching most of them so inshore fisheries which supported tourism were starving. Overall the Salmon population was crashing because in order for an offshore person to make a living they needed a certain catch rate. This was fine when the off-shor fishing population was small but in 1960 now children of fishermen got their own boats and so the fishing population doubled. Nobody could survive on half so they came to realisation that everybody was starving and something had to be done.

There was a fellow who came up with a plan. The offshore salmon fishery would be closed down and thos e in the industry had the option of taking a government buyout, or converting to becoming a shrimp boat with government funds.

This brought the salmon back which was phase 1.

Pase 2 which happen concurrently was the government also boght out all the inshore fisheries and the diveided each major spawning river up into parcels and was re-distrubuted back to all salmon fishers including those with offshore who took the buy out vs the conversion.

Today Iceland has a thriving slamon fishing industry that is inshore based that has a large component of tourism. people come from all over Europe to fish for Iceland's salmon. Now instead of shipping salmon to the rest of the world, the rest of the wprld comes to iceland to catch their own!

This paradigm change was great. On the West Coast DFO brought this Icelandic fellow over as a consultant and after seeing two round tables... packed up and went home because what was happening is that everyone wanted their piece of the pie, aboriginals, commercial fishermen, fishing guides, and recreational fishers. They did not realise that the pie was in fact disappearing and everone needed something where there was co-operation vs conflict...and it failed.

Same thing in our landbase today. Paul Maser has writen many papers and is known as a great land resource management mediator. I studied his work extensively. I originally planned a career in resource management but life changes. I needed to make more money!...

This is a good thread and I could go into the gist of my grad essay which really was not a popular plan because it was a criticism of the current paradigm along with solutions to create a new paradigm. It was presented to a panel consisting of industry, environmental extremists, parks people, government etc. while it was not popular I got very high marks because I defended the essay for 2 hours when I had to answer some very difficult questions. In the end I was applauded and I see that some change has come from it.

In my essay which was presented in 2000 I said there are a few indicators that will happen because of our current land managment parctices.
1) More resource conflict
2) Forest pest outbreaks such as MPB
3) Increased severity of fires in Urban/forest interface

Since my essay alll of these happen on a time frame faster than I even predicted.

The solution again is to look at the big picture. Instead of having specific resource managers working on a landscape. Instead to take a holistic sustainability based ecology based approach.

[bigshell]

Originally Posted by CBintheNorth

No mixed forest where I was.
I should have taken a pic to post.
The forests were of varying age from 5 years to 21 years (of course there was a nice little sign to tell me) and there was NO poplar. The reason I notice was that as we came over a hill, I could see the sea of green. There was no yellow, no red, nothing but green pine needles as far as the eye could see.

I guess it just got me wondering why we let them cut down all that poplar only to let it lay there and rot or be burned without replacing it. They return it to a forest, but it's not the forest that was there.

Poplar trees do not grow from seed Poplar has evolved to grow from root runners.So if there were poplar on that cut block they will grow from root stock there In fact cutting down a poplar causes a panic reation in the root to send up shoots....So if there are no poplars on this cut block now it means there were'nt any when it was logged..

[CBintheNorth]

Originally Posted by bigshell

Poplar trees do not grow from seed Poplar has evolved to grow from root runners.So if there were poplar on that cut block they will grow from root stock there In fact cutting down a poplar causes a panic reation in the root to send up shoots....So if there are no poplars on this cut block now it means there were'nt any when it was logged..

So then could you explain to me why there are piles of poplar 15' high and 50 yards wide waiting to get burned, while 50yards behind the windrow is a block of 6' tall pine?

[Zanzibar]

Originally Posted by bigshell

Poplar trees do not grow from seed Poplar has evolved to grow from root runners.So if there were poplar on that cut block they will grow from root stock there In fact cutting down a poplar causes a panic reation in the root to send up shoots....So if there are no poplars on this cut block now it means there were'nt any when it was logged..

I'm not being a wise guy, I know poplar grow from roots, but is all the fluff that flies in the spring just fluff, and not seeds?

[Matt L.]

Originally Posted by Zanzibar

I'm not being a wise guy, I know poplar grow from roots, but is all the fluff that flies in the spring just fluff, and not seeds?

He's referring to aspen poplar, you're referring to black poplar.

[Dark Wing]

Originally Posted by CBintheNorth

So then could you explain to me why there are piles of poplar 15' high and 50 yards wide waiting to get burned, while 50yards behind the windrow is a block of 6' tall pine?

Huh..... 6' pine. Wouldn't it take a tree 8 - 10 years for a tree to grow that height. Tree's are planted as saplings roughly around 7- 10" in height. Blocks are regenerated with cones from the same block that the trees were harvested from. Im not a big fan of Weyerhauser's (sp?) scarifying practices from a hunters perspective. Their blocks suck to walk through when the mound the crap out of it. My arm chair opinion would be that they would regenerate more naturally with out the mounding as well as planting pine. Mind you I've seen old Canfor blocks that were completely choked out with willow and poplar so maybe there is a method to their madness.

[Matt L.]

Originally Posted by Dark Wing

Huh..... 6' pine. Wouldn't it take a tree 8 - 10 years for a tree to grow that height. Tree's are planted as saplings roughly around 7- 10" in height. Blocks are regenerated with cones from the same block that the trees were harvested from. Im not a big fan of Weyerhauser's (sp?) scarifying practices from a hunters perspective. Their blocks suck to walk through when the mound the crap out of it. My arm chair opinion would be that they would regenerate more naturally with out the mounding as well as planting pine. Mind you I've seen old Canfor blocks that were completely choked out with willow and poplar so maybe there is a method to their madness.

Bingo!

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Huntnut

Unfortunaly Rocky scarification ... a necessary evil in order for some cut blocks to reforest.

OMG! I see dead stumps still in the ground ....in all the hundreds of old cut blocks where I hunt or have hunted. With lots of high pine happily growing. And animals.

Put the books down and get out there.

Nothing - absolutely nothing - will live or even willingly travel through the torn-up abominations that you call scarifying. If you tried to ride a horse through it, you'd kill the horse. If you walk through it, you risk your legs and knees. Wild animals don't like it, either, except for mice, rabbits and squirrels.

That may be good enough for you but it is not good enough for me and many others who are waking up to these heavy-handed, myopic practices.

[colin455]

I can't get into the species argument. I just don't have the knowledge.
I do have the knowledge that when recently logged areas look like WWII carpet bombed areas or moonscapes. Ruts approaching 4'+, misc scattered small trees and branches that ARE impassible to everything larger than field mice; wildlife is not going to just reappear.
Why is it other provinces are not allowed to 'moonscape' logged areas and Alberta can?
Before anyone says I don't know about the wildlife situation - KMA! I have been around forests, logging and hunting for over 40 years.
It takes many years longer for large animals to return. Even they can't walk in that crap.

[JohninAB]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

OMG! I see dead stumps still in the ground ....in all the hundreds of old cut blocks where I hunt or have hunted. With lots of high pine happily growing. And animals.

Put the books down and get out there.

Nothing - absolutely nothing - will live or even willingly travel through the torn-up abominations that you call scarifying. If you tried to ride a horse through it, you'd kill the horse. If you walk through it, you risk your legs and knees. Wild animals don't like it, either, except for mice, rabbits and squirrels.

That may be good enough for you but it is not good enough for me and many others who are waking up to these heavy-handed, myopic practices.

Now this is funny! Thanks for the laugh.

[nekred]

Originally Posted by JohninAB

Any of you so called experts ever read a Forest Management Plan? Ever reviewed the reforestation standards? Ever checked into landbase balancing? Ever did a sivilculture plan?

Ever wondered how does a forest company maintain their cut while oil and gas is removing productive forest landbase? In one forest management unit, the productive forest landbase has been reduced by close to 20% by oil and gas development since 1980's. Hmm, and yet no one seems to get their knickers in a knot over that.

I would recommend the OP contact the forestry office in GP and discuss their conerns with someone in the know or the forest company doing the replanting. Not listen to so called experts on here who seem to be bonafide experts on every issue known to mankind or at least they think so in their own little dimension.

You make excellent points for the forestry company and you illustrated my point of how political things get between different resource users. Easy to see how an Us and Them mentality hampers co-operation.

Oil and Gas concerns are underground and forestry concerns are above the ground. To an oil and gas company trees are a nuisnace, to a forestry person they are money.

I have conducted PHA's written SP's in accordance with Foerst Managment plans in two provinces. I can honestly say I have never prescribed planting pine because drag scarification is a much better alternative for pin regeneration.

Every area has a differnt plan because of its different ecology. The moisture regime, nutrient regime and climate dictates what will grow on each site. Chances are what was there naturally is what will end up there eventually if we give it enough time.

There are many broad statements made on forest practices by people that do not understand. The pine forest in alberta is a fire-rgenerated stand. Othere areas are a fire maintained stand, and some fires is not a part of the landscape on a regular basis at all.

In many boreal forest areas after a fire the Aspen will regenerate first, and as it grows to maturity since it is shaded out then the spruce forest comes in under the aspen canopy. eventually the aspen dies out and the spruce becomes the dominant canopy. However when you have a multi-structured divers forest with Aspen snags, and young spruce this creates great habitat for many species. birds havd snags for nesting sites, grass grows under canopy for grazing with spruce pockets for cover. Eventually the spruce takes over and shades everything else out until it is regenerated by fire...

In other areas Pine will take over first.

However this is a 200-400 year process and most forestry companies wnat to manage things on a much dhorter rotation because their AAC is dependant on having a short rotation.

So there are things companies do to manage stands to create volume. Such as mounding (providing microsites for spruce trees to get on drier sutes above the grass) Stand tending, thinning, sprayiong.

Continue this long enough and you get into where Germany and Swededn were in the 1950's where the soil is so depleted becsue the primary succession stage is essential for soil regeneration. Also when things are managed with a monoculture it makes it very prone to a specific pest or disease.

My solution is to log in a way that approximates the natural regeneration event, fire, whether it be fire or decadence. ensure the nutrients are left on site and manage on a natural rotation basis vs an artificial rotation, but free all of our landbase up for integrated resource managment and do not exclude activities in perpetuity. (ie. Parks)

There are examples all around us for mismanagement. elk and wolf issues in Jasper and Banff. Major fires in urban interfaces.

Have parks worked into the rotation system. Oil and gas development is also temporary when we look at the biological forest cycle.

Hpowever this would take a complete paradigm change... and co-operation.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by nekred

My solution is to log in a way that approximates the natural regeneration event, fire, ...

A voice of sanity!

Not to belittle your studies - which are no doubt important - but many old trappers, bush rats and Indian elders would agree with you.

It seems to be nearly impossible for mainstream scientists, news people and the masses to see the big picture. They are pretty good at coming up with new words, though.

[Huntnut]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

OMG! I see dead stumps still in the ground ....in all the hundreds of old cut blocks where I hunt or have hunted. With lots of high pine happily growing. And animals.

Put the books down and get out there.

Nothing - absolutely nothing - will live or even willingly travel through the torn-up abominations that you call scarifying. If you tried to ride a horse through it, you'd kill the horse. If you walk through it, you risk your legs and knees. Wild animals don't like it, either, except for mice, rabbits and squirrels.

That may be good enough for you but it is not good enough for me and many others who are waking up to these heavy-handed, myopic practices.

Put the books down??? I used to walk through cut blocks for a living-I bet I walked through more and swa more in a week then you have in a life time. I guess all the deer, moose and bears that were in those cutblocks flew there according to you. I never said it was good enough for me-I simply stated how it was done.
As JohninAB said...thanks for the laugh

[JimPS]

Originally Posted by nekred

In Iceland there was a similar problem with Salmon management. Offshore fisheries were catching most of them so inshore fisheries which supported tourism were starving. Overall the Salmon population was crashing because in order for an offshore person to make a living they needed a certain catch rate. This was fine when the off-shore fishing population was small but in 1960 now children of fishermen got their own boats and so the fishing population doubled. Nobody could survive on half so they came to realization that everybody was starving and something had to be done.

There was a fellow who came up with a plan. The offshore salmon fishery would be closed down and those in the industry had the option of taking a government buyout, or converting to becoming a shrimp boat with government funds.

This brought the salmon back which was phase 1.

Phase 2 which happen concurrently was the government also bought out all the inshore fisheries and the divided each major spawning river up into parcels and was re-distrubuted back to all salmon fishers including those with offshore who took the buy out vs the conversion.

Today Iceland has a thriving salmon fishing industry that is inshore based that has a large component of tourism. people come from all over Europe to fish for Iceland's salmon. Now instead of shipping salmon to the rest of the world, the rest of the world comes to Iceland to catch their own!

This paradigm change was great. On the West Coast DFO brought this Icelandic fellow over as a consultant and after seeing two round tables... packed up and went home because what was happening is that everyone wanted their piece of the pie, aboriginals, commercial fishermen, fishing guides, and recreational fishers. They did not realize that the pie was in fact disappearing and everyone needed something where there was co-operation vs conflict...and it failed.

Good post Nekred.

It’s amazing what Iceland has done to regain control of their economy, resources and freedom.

Central bank debt slavery put the Icelandic economy in near ruin. The people of Iceland took back control from the bankers and said no to a debt the nation did not owe. They arrested the bankers and the agents in the government. Iceland broke up the banking cartel monopoly on the money supply because it had a choke hold on their economy.

Their economy is rebounding since the bankers are no longer in control.

They tossed the crooked bankster gangsters in prison, fired the government, rewrote the constitution, wrote off all debt created through fraud and more recently, they voted in a referendum to take greater control of natural resources such as fish and geothermal energy,

Why isn't the Canada doing the same?

Because if we did, it wouldn’t be very pretty and it would not occur peacefully.
Hundreds of criminal bankers, corporate CEO’s and dirty politicians would be hanging on street lamps from coast to coast.

And besides that, Canadians are just a bunch of complacent sheep.

Jim

[albertadeer]

Originally Posted by CBintheNorth

So then could you explain to me why there are piles of poplar 15' high and 50 yards wide waiting to get burned, while 50yards behind the windrow is a block of 6' tall pine?

You need to take some classes in reforestation.....


And yes...give your head a very big shake....


I have walked thousands of kilometers south of GP doing anything from Pre harvest assessment and block layout to Regeneration surveys and Permanent sample plots.


Im in Slave lake making sure the old Virginia hills burn is growing back as it should....Yep...lotsa pine.....

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by bigshell

Poplar trees do not grow from seed Poplar has evolved to grow from root runners.So if there were poplar on that cut block they will grow from root stock there In fact cutting down a poplar causes a panic reation in the root to send up shoots....So if there are no poplars on this cut block now it means there were'nt any when it was logged..

There is tons of mis-info in this thread

You are right that poplars can reproduce asexually/vegetatively. However, if the cutblock is scarified aka trenched, there will be no living poplar roots to send up shoots.

Poplars do also reproduce by seed. They flower ever spring.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Clear cutting isn't the problem. A forest fire is a natural clear cut.

The problem is scarifying and leaving an ungodly tangle of stumps, holes and wreckage that will support nothing but squirrels, mice and rabbits for years.

Look at clear cuts from the 60's and even 70's. The stumps were cut short and left in the ground (like nature does it). Those areas supported wildlife within a couple-3 years.

I agree. Scarification should be outlawed. The erosion alone in awful.

Originally Posted by albertadeer

Give your head a shake.....

All they plant is pine? ya maybe if thats all they cut. Lots of spruce being planted

The reason you didnt see any poplar or aspen...Cause non grow up there!

Nose mtn is a great example. Small areas of deciduous but over 90% pine and spruce.


I do think they are cutting more then the forest can handle, but they do reforest them back to what it was when it was timber cruised.


And those sea's of green that dont hold any animals....yea, keep thinking that

There are lots of 100% pine planted blocks in AB. Some that are hundreds of Ha.

[BeeGuy]

The greatest differences I have seen in forest management practices were a result of forest managers. Those drawing up the plans.

Houston forest products in Houston, BC and Tolko in the North Okanagan do a really good job.

CanFor in BC, and AB forest practices were always pathetic IME.

[dantonsen]

yup just keep on complaining, wiping your butt and living in wooden frame structurss, lol. it is funny how Albertans complain of forestry practices yet praise oilsands developement.

[JohninAB]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

There is tons of mis-info in this thread

You are right that poplars can reproduce asexually/vegetatively. However, if the cutblock is scarified aka trenched, there will be no living poplar roots to send up shoots.

Poplars do also reproduce by seed. They flower ever spring.

No living roots you say? Interesting concept but unfortunately not correct. Just some more misinformation posted on this thread.

[JohninAB]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

A voice of sanity!

Not to belittle your studies - which are no doubt important - but many old trappers, bush rats and Indian elders would agree with you.

It seems to be nearly impossible for mainstream scientists, news people and the masses to see the big picture. They are pretty good at coming up with new words, though.

Sure like to know the color of the sky in your world. Your comments are entertaining though if nothing else!

[danger7]

The spraying practice may speed up the growth of the target trees but at what cost to frogs , toads etc. and typically doesn't reforestation start with grass then willow,poplar then spruce. It takes many more years to grow a forest than people have patients that's for sure.

[albertadeer]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

I agree. Scarification should be outlawed. The erosion alone in awful.



There are lots of 100% pine planted blocks in AB. Some that are hundreds of Ha.

You dont have to tell me, But they plant pine cause thats what will grow. And aspen/poplar comes naturally. Though sometimes it doesn't work like it should.

And i hate scarification to....I fall in ripper drags everyday!!! Damn things always full of water. And now they have a thin layer of ice on them, hidden assassins....

[Forest Techer]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

There is tons of mis-info in this thread

However, if the cutblock is scarified aka trenched, there will be no living poplar roots to send up shoots.

This is definitely incorrect. All you need is a section of root a few inches intact to allow it to sucker from. There are thousands of blocks trenches in this province that the aspen is thick as dogs hair. In fact not only does it still allow suckering in the trenches but you've also exposed mineral soil that will allow aspen to establish from seed as well. You can't really stop the stuff from growing. There are ways that encourage suckering less then others.

Any cutblock with significant aspen and was trenched will certainly have aspen after and in most cases aspen will be the dominant species on that site unless you thin or spray. Goes for poplar too. Birch less so but depends on site.

If the anecdotal evidence in this thread were Bourne out you would have many happy profitable forest companies. Unfortunately it's not the case.

[CBintheNorth]

Originally Posted by albertadeer

You need to take some classes in reforestation.....


And yes...give your head a very big shake....


I have walked thousands of kilometers south of GP doing anything from Pre harvest assessment and block layout to Regeneration surveys and Permanent sample plots.


Im in Slave lake making sure the old Virginia hills burn is growing back as it should....Yep...lotsa pine.....

What I wouldn't give to have taken some pictures! Oh well, my bad.

I'm curious, how would these brain-growing classes you speak of change what I saw while standing in the middle of it all? If I shook my head really hard, would we understand each other better?

I see your in the forestry sector, makes a lot of things more clear to me. Here I thought I was getting some unbiased info.

And in case you lost the map...YOU'RE OVER 300 KMS away from where I'm talking about, I should hope the forest looks different.

[CBintheNorth]

Originally Posted by dantonsen

yup just keep on complaining, wiping your butt and living in wooden frame structurss, lol. it is funny how Albertans complain of forestry practices yet praise oilsands developement.

Nobody ever said we don't need wood products. The complaint actually was about what we put back after we harvest, not the harvesting.

And no one has picked on the oil and gas sector because as relative as it is,that's a topic for a different thread if you don't mind...

[impatient_hunter]

The scarification is to replicate trees falling over and pulling up the soil with the root ball, as it would occur after a fire. While yes it is nasty to walk through, an area that has burned recently is also nasty to walk through due to all of the trees that have fallen.

Yes aspen do grow vegetatively out of the roots, but they are also very fragile. So if an area is logged during the summer, there will be a much higher chance of them being damaged and not growing. And in many areas if they do, non-native grass species (ex: Calamagrostis) have grown enough already that they block out the sunlight and consequently kill of the young aspen and poplar.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

There is tons of mis-info in this thread

You are right that poplars can reproduce asexually/vegetatively. However, if the cutblock is scarified aka trenched, there will be no living poplar roots to send up shoots.

Poplars do also reproduce by seed. They flower ever spring.

You are right. Poplar do reseed, but the majority of regrowth is from roots.
And both species reseed about as well, which is not very well at all.

I can't speak to reasons for planting Pine other then perhaps it is because Pine grows much faster then Spruce given the same conditions.
In some soils Pine is a far better option the Spruce.

We don't grow Fir or Ceder in this province. Our climate isn't good for those species.

I don't know what all goes into the planning, I do know about planting techniques and standards. And I am certified in regen. But none of that qualifies me to make forest management judgments.

However, I do have concerns about how our forests are replanted and about the practice of scarifying cutblocks. I just don't feel qualified to argue one side or the other.

Personally I don't like the way it is done, but maybe there's a good reason.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Personally I don't like the way it is done, but maybe there's a good reason.

$$$ and I think as someone pointed out, tradition/habit.

There is a vast spectrum of forest management in our western most provinces.

From what I have seen, there is a relationship between the value of the timber and the investment in reforestation.

I have not seen a positive relationship between ease of extraction and an increase in reforestation investment, in fact quite the opposite.

I have witnessed many 'inefficient' extractors but never anything so abysmal and unacceptable as those cuts surrounding gas leases around Fox Creek. SunPine was pretty bad too.

Just my experience.

[50/50]

An interesting read.

I can add a bit of information.

The martinni plow that was used is the late 80's left a huge impact on the landscape . I have gone back to look at it 25 years later. The scars on the landbase are still there.


At the time, we believed the furrows would fill in naturally. Didn't really happen. We changed the natural flow of melt water and how the snow melted creating downstream issues.

In the 90's , we tried Ripper scarification. It didn't have the results we wanted. It's seldom used now except for area's that "need " decompacting.

Go back in time to 1980's Peace country. Aspen was considered a weed . There was no market for it nor management.. We wanted to eliminate it. Put the ripps as close together in order to prevent aspen from suckering.

We made a mess.

My bad...

( But the white spruce that we planted are growing )