iDRY Vacuum Kilns

Sponsors:

What is a truly "healthy" forest?

Started by BrandonTN, August 15, 2007, 04:03:08 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BrandonTN

I have a friend who is a consulting Restoration Ecologist; he restores native plants, and weeds out the exotic, in Tennessee.  I visited his farm yesterday, and he asked where I wanted to go in my forestry career.  I told him that I'm interested in Silviculture and would like to be involved with timber harvesting.  He brought up the point that healthy forest to a timber-harvesting forester, may be slightly different from a healthy forest to a wildlife conservationist.

My question:  After thinnings and applying silvaculture principles, when a forester says: "Ok, now this is a healthy forest."  Does he mean that strictly upon the basis of it being healthy for timber production only?  Can a mixed species forest that is producing maximum, or near maximum, timber be ecologically healthy?  Can wildlife live in a forest that is prime logging material?

 
Forester, Nantahala National Forest

crtreedude

Hi Brandon - look up the terms Dauerwald and Continuous Coverage Forestry.  The problem with mono culture is that it is more at risk to become unhealthy.

But, that doesn't mean a mono culture is necessarily bad - for example, what if a mono culture is making it possible to leave other forest intact and virgin?

So, how did I end up here anyway?

Texas Ranger

My question:  After thinnings and applying silvaculture principles, when a forester says: "Ok, now this is a healthy forest."  Does he mean that strictly upon the basis of it being healthy for timber production only?  Can a mixed species forest that is producing maximum, or near maximum, timber be ecologically healthy?  Can wildlife live in a forest that is prime logging material?

In the order you asked.
Maybe, depends on the forester and landowner.  Same answer.  Yes.  Yes.

A plantation is a healthy plantation, an old growth southern yellow pine forest is an adult plantation, mostly SYP, and a few other species, clean under story, and a biological desert (the sand kind) for most wildlife. 

You need to think more in terms of even aged, and uneven aged management.  Plantation or natural.   I have stands that I have managed for 40 years, cutting every 12 or 15 years.  Wildlife abounds, healthy forest, hardwood pine mix,  and a pleasure to walk in.  The problem is in the merchandising, robber barons tern it into a war zone, a good forester maintains the land and forest for the future generations.

Every condition that existed pre-white still exist, to a certain extent.  If you leave a stand alone, over the next couple of hundred years, it will revert to the pre-white type. 

It is or can be ecologically healthy if the land owner wants it to be, and if he picks the right forester.  Here in lies another flaw, original landowner dies, his heirs strip the land for the fast buck.  See a lot of that.

Fred mentioned mono-culture, which in today's terms is a plantation.  But, in the pre-white days the southern yellow pine that stretched across American could also be called a mono-culture, as well as some of the western species, Alder and Aspen come to mind.

There is no one answer, it is the land owner, and the forester, and the future.
The Ranger, home of Texas Forestry

Ianab

A forest can be 'healthy', but modified. They can also be modified by natural effects, fires, drought, hurricanes etc.
The actions of man will alter the types and age of the trees, that affects the wildlife and the whole system. It changes the makeup of the forest and what life it supports. Wether thats good or bad depends on your point of view.

In terms of wildlife - a partially logged forest may actually be a more inviting habitat for many animals. There is more undergrowth and young regenerating seedlings, a mix of open ground and trees is a more inviting habitat for most larger wildlife. Like the others have said a mature 'oldgrowth' forest can be a pretty bare place under the canopy. A regenerating forest has young vigorus trees.

So the definition of 'healthy' will depend on if you ask a conservationist, a hunter or a logger. The ideal is some mix I guess.

Cheers

Ian
Weekend warrior, Peterson JP test pilot, Dolmar 7900 and Stihl MS310 saws and  the usual collection of power tools :)

Ron Scott

From the Dictionary of Forestry:

Forest Health, the perceived condition of a forest derived from concerns about such factors as its age, structure, composition, function, vigor, presence of unusual levels of insects, or disease, and resilience to disturbance.

Perception and interpretation of forest health are influenced by individual and cultural viewponts, land management objectives, spatial and temporal scales, the relative health of the stands that comprise the forest, and appearance of the forest at a point in time.
~Ron

tonich

Quote from: Ianab on August 15, 2007, 07:31:16 PM
The ideal is some mix I guess.

This sums it up!

I never deal with ecologists. They have always been weird to me. At least, those who I know.  ;D
Nevertheless, your question can rise an interesting and useful discussion.

WDH

I don't think there is such a thing as a "healthy" forest in nature.  Nature just is, and things are just are....Remember the Lion King?  It is just a big circle. 

Healthy is a human contrived term.  A volcano could blow and wipe out an area.  Plants, animals, and bugs soon re-colonize.  Is that healthy?  To who, the bugs?

My issue with the concept of "healthy" is that is solely a function of your personal prejudice and personal bias.  I know what I think is healthy because of how I have been educated, both in school and in life.  It is probably different than yours.  In many places in the west and the northwest on National Forest land, commercial timber management has been halted.  While we were logging, we were affecting the natural cycle.  If nature does it on her own without our help, the timber grows old, senesces, fuel loads build up, the fire wipes it all out.  It all starts over again with a new mix of species.  After eons, the same old big trees are there again.  Then, the cycle repeats itself.  Is that a healthy forest? 

Man only gets in the middle and interupts the cycle for a while for his own personal benefit.  If man like cow meat, he selects for cows.  If man is scared of bears, he selects against them and pushes them out (for cows which he likes). 

In the end, we are just part of the Big Circle :-\.
Woodmizer LT40HDD35, John Deere 2155, Kubota M5-111, Kubota L2501, Nyle L53 Dehumidification Kiln, and a passion for all things with leafs, twigs, and bark.  hamsleyhardwood.com

crtreedude

Another thought and then I am over my limit for one day. Lets say you have a town with only Southerners in it who shall we say aren't too dark of skin.  ::) Everyone one them just might be very healthy - unless of course they are eating Grits and then we wonder... Don't mistake diversity and healthy.

For a forest to be healthy does not mean diverse. That would be a ecosystem. It is nearly impossible NOT to have animals if you have a forest - diversity of animals probably requires a diversity of trees.

Also remember that most pioneer species of trees tend to group together - cottonwoods, pines, etc into relatively pure stands - and tropical one that does the same is teak. (and yes it is a pioneer species and can't stand competition), but the trees of a mature forest tend to be more diverse here - like up to 200 or more types in a single forest. Not sure about northern forest.

So, how did I end up here anyway?

straightree

It can be difficult to judge if a forest is truly healthy, but it is quite easy to compare two different forests, and conclude than one is healthier than the other. A mixed forest, for instance is healthier than a single specie one, because this one may be destroyed by a pest. I have a forest that was mainly chestnut, but fortunately there were also other species. Chestnuts are perishing because of blight, but the other species are replacing them.

WDH

Quote from: straightree on September 12, 2007, 05:37:48 PM
A mixed forest, for instance is healthier than a single specie one, because this one may be destroyed by a pest.

Excellent point.
Woodmizer LT40HDD35, John Deere 2155, Kubota M5-111, Kubota L2501, Nyle L53 Dehumidification Kiln, and a passion for all things with leafs, twigs, and bark.  hamsleyhardwood.com

Greg

Quote from: Texas Ranger on August 15, 2007, 06:10:39 PM
My question:  After thinnings and applying silvaculture principles, when a forester says: "Ok, now this is a healthy forest."  Does he mean that strictly upon the basis of it being healthy for timber production only?  Can a mixed species forest that is producing maximum, or near maximum, timber be ecologically healthy?  Can wildlife live in a forest that is prime logging material?

In the order you asked.
Maybe, depends on the forester and landowner.  Same answer.  Yes.  Yes.

A plantation is a healthy plantation, an old growth southern yellow pine forest is an adult plantation, mostly SYP, and a few other species, clean under story, and a biological desert (the sand kind) for most wildlife. 

You need to think more in terms of even aged, and uneven aged management.  Plantation or natural.   I have stands that I have managed for 40 years, cutting every 12 or 15 years.  Wildlife abounds, healthy forest, hardwood pine mix,  and a pleasure to walk in.  The problem is in the merchandising, robber barons tern it into a war zone, a good forester maintains the land and forest for the future generations.

Every condition that existed pre-white still exist, to a certain extent.  If you leave a stand alone, over the next couple of hundred years, it will revert to the pre-white type. 


I have a problem with this statement. Pre european settlement, there were not HUGE pressures due to non native diseases and invasives.

Here in SW Ohio, some of our parkland and other forested areas is dominated in mature Ash, with honeysuckle everywhere on the ground and in the understory. When EAB kills all the Ash, all honeysuckle is going to go ape sh*t, and create dense thickets where natives will a real hard time re-establishing. (Not even getting into the garlic mustard and ailanthus issues.)

This is current a hot button issues for me, as I've been involved with a local township greenspace program. The general concensus I hear from alot of folks is that buying up land or locking it away with a conservation easement and applying "benign neglect" will lead to permanent, healthy greenspace and/or forests.

I am not so sure. I think it takes more than that, and am trying to get people to think about more active management/aggressively dealing with invasives, along the lines of Dauerwald and similar approaches.

Cheers,
Greg

straightree

Greg, I think that bening neglect, or no action, is an extreme, as it is an extreme a monospecies plantation for timber production, usually of rapid growth types. I am for a midle way. Actions depend a lot of actual stand condition, but it should be possible to stablish management practices with the objective of improving all aspects of forest: timber, wild life, biodeversity, aesthetics, recreation. I think a good objective is to favor mixed species forests, of uneven age, consisting mainly of local species, but considering also some non-native ones.

crtreedude

I would define healthy as a sustainable forest - one that serves the needs of all neighbors, whether human or not. Just like a healthy diet isn't just what I want to eat.  ::)
So, how did I end up here anyway?

mdvaden

Quote from: BrandonTN on August 15, 2007, 04:03:08 PM
I have a friend who is a consulting Restoration Ecologist; he restores native plants, and weeds out the exotic, in Tennessee.  I visited his farm yesterday, and he asked where I wanted to go in my forestry career.  I told him that I'm interested in Silviculture and would like to be involved with timber harvesting.  He brought up the point that healthy forest to a timber-harvesting forester, may be slightly different from a healthy forest to a wildlife conservationist.

My question:  After thinnings and applying silvaculture principles, when a forester says: "Ok, now this is a healthy forest."  Does he mean that strictly upon the basis of it being healthy for timber production only?  Can a mixed species forest that is producing maximum, or near maximum, timber be ecologically healthy?  Can wildlife live in a forest that is prime logging material?

 

Ha...ha...ha... :D :D :D

On a small town forum, I just replied about a similar forest related discussion, stating that I feel there's a big gap between a healthy forest and  "healthy forest" management logging.

That's because a healthy forest is not about healthy trees. Its bout healthy forests, which means healthy flourishing soils.

But I also keep in mind, that one forest can't be managed just like another forest.

The day that soil and micro-organisms are the first thing that comes to most silviculturists minds when "healthy forests" are mentioned, will probably be the day when we are on the right track to healthy forests. But not so much when trees are the first thing that comes to mind.

In western Oregon anyway.

Brian Beauchamp

Quote from: tonich on August 16, 2007, 05:29:39 AM
Quote from: Ianab on August 15, 2007, 07:31:16 PM
The ideal is some mix I guess.

I never deal with ecologists. They have always been weird to me. At least, those who I know.  ;D


Are you including yourself in that statement?  ;D ...because as a forester, you are an ecologist!  ;) :)

tonich

Quote from: Brian Beauchamp on October 21, 2007, 11:04:21 AM
Quote from: tonich on August 16, 2007, 05:29:39 AM
I never deal with ecologists. They have always been weird to me. At least, those who I know.  ;D


Are you including yourself in that statement?  ;D ...because as a forester, you are an ecologist!  ;) :)

Of course!
But believe me, there are some, who are even more weird than I am.

Some of them believe cutting trees is not good ( :o)… which statement I couldn’t find in any silviculture textbook, nor proven by my overall practice so far. ;) ;D

Rocky_Ranger

I got'ta get in on this fray, seems "healthy forest" is getting taken into a discussion (since an ecologist was mentioned) as climax forest.  A healthy forest can exist in anything from a pioneer species monoculture forest to a climax forest.  Just because it's a climax doesn't mean it's healthy or not, just depends on what's the particular forest is being subjected to.  Pioneer plantations of loblolly or shortleaf pine are extremely healthy, as long as a pine beetle or pathogen doesn't come to town.  In silviculture we generally try to step back one successional "step" to not subject the biome to pressures of a monoculture, while also capturing growth not found in a climax system.  Of course I'm talking production forestry here, not intrinsic values. 

I think a healthy forest is like a good cup of coffee (or whiskey), you really can't explain what it is but know it exactly when you experience it.....

8)
RETIRED!

tonich

Good point, RR!

It appears that almost all the successions are undesired – still they lead to loosing the pioneer species. I always use to take one step back or even more, when dealing with regeneration of pioneer species. Sometimes, my decisions are not popular, but I try to convince the owners and organizations concerned.
A very good tool for keeping and ruling the desired forest structure (incl. climax) is Selected Wood. Its main merit is sustainability (as already mentioned above).

BrandonTN

QuoteThe day that soil and micro-organisms are the first thing that comes to most silviculturists minds when "healthy forests" are mentioned, will probably be the day when we are on the right track to healthy forests. But not so much when trees are the first thing that comes to mind.

That agrees with me.

I think what I was meaning to ask at the beginning of this thread is: Can there be such thing as biodiversity ("healthy" is the term I used) on a land used for timber?

I also liked how WDH objectified the whole approach to nature.  A nice existential dose for the day.  ;D  It's always good to keep the idea of different viewpoint...keeping an open-mind is essential. 
At the same time, the nature of my humanity is to be part-time sentimental, and it has stubborn requirements of biology:  It requires my environment to be arranged in a certain way, thus I strive to keep them that way. ;)

I liked to see more "sustainable forestry", ecologically speaking.  And a mass change of lifestyle for Americans; to adopt values not as materialistic, but more utililty-minded.  Like: value a car for it's use, not only its "style" or huge $$ value.  To consume less plastic, to use more recycled goods.  To generally lower wants.
If that could happen, atleast a little accross the table, in the home of common Americans, would that not be signifcant enough to change our situation to a more land-respecting one?
Forester, Nantahala National Forest

Geoff Kegerreis

Quote from: BrandonTN on August 15, 2007, 04:03:08 PM
I have a friend who is a consulting Restoration Ecologist; he restores native plants, and weeds out the exotic, in Tennessee.  I visited his farm yesterday, and he asked where I wanted to go in my forestry career.  I told him that I'm interested in Silviculture and would like to be involved with timber harvesting.  He brought up the point that healthy forest to a timber-harvesting forester, may be slightly different from a healthy forest to a wildlife conservationist.

I would agree with him on a general basis, as long as he is aware that there are foresters out there who participate in timber harvesting yet also work in other areas as well.


QuoteMy question:  After thinnings and applying silvaculture principles, when a forester says: "Ok, now this is a healthy forest."  Does he mean that strictly upon the basis of it being healthy for timber production only?

It depends on the forester.  "Ok, now this is a healthy forest." is a subjective statement, or rather more appropriately it is an opinion.  Next time you hear some "forester" say those words, ask him if he has sampled the nematode populations and whether he has determined that they are at adequate levels or not.  My point is, terms "healthy" and "ecosystem management" (the latter being a truly ridiculous idea) are subjective, lack information and generally are false statements.  Just because the trees are well stocked, healthy and the woods looks great doesn't mean it's "healthy".  The forest is a huge array of organisms having both independent and dependent roles.  It would take an enormous amount of resources to assure every aspect of the forest is healthy.  There are reasonable levels to take management based on it's focus.  My opinion is if the primary focus is commercial timber production, the forest is going to be lacking in ecological roles - simply because the manager has traded those roles to improve timber production.  Still - a forest in that condition (optimized for timber production) is WAY better off than having been mismanaged via a "high grade" or other exploitive logging process.

QuoteCan a mixed species forest that is producing maximum, or near maximum, timber be ecologically healthy?

It will be lacking components to produce and sustain some ecological processes.

 
QuoteCan wildlife live in a forest that is prime logging material?

Spotted owls live in "prime logging material".  If you clear cut it, it will move on to another stand that suits it's habitat preferences.
On the flip side of the coin, White tailed deer may move into a stand of deciduous timber that they've never been in if it's clear cut.

Wildlife habitats are very diverse.  What lives in a forest is dependent on lots of different criteria - not just the way it's managed.

So the answer is a "yes" in regard to some species that prefer that environment and "no" for those that do not.
[/quote]

I have an active lifestyle that keeps me away from internet forums these days - If I don't reply, it's not personal - feel free to shoot me an e-mail via my website (on profile) if there is something I can help you with!  :-)

Montanaforester

Scott Kuehn

Forest health is 2 rings/inch

Ron Wenrich

I've seen some hardwood guys talking that they thought 1/4" dbh growth/year was pretty good.   

Are you getting that kind of growth in Montana?
Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Cedarman

I can be healthy today and come down with the flu tomorrow.  An ash can be healthy today and dead 2 years from now from EAB.
A forest can be healthy today,(lack of diseases and weather problems etc), and headed for big changes tomorrow.

The question seems to be, Can we make the forest what we want it to be? Can we control the environmental and human things that will change the forest?

Nature doesnt' give a squat about trees or animals.  Each animal and plant will do its best to survive with the conditions at hand.  Some make it most don't.

Healthy is a human determination, not natures.

Good and bad are human inventions.  Nature doesn't know the meaning.
I am in the pink when sawing cedar.

jim king

Cedarman:  That is one of the finest answers I have seen.

Just a note from the South, here we get about an inch in dia per year of growth and some species over 2 inches.

Jeff

Quote from: jim king on January 07, 2008, 11:57:41 AM
Cedarman:  That is one of the finest answers I have seen.


I really like that one as well. :)
Just call me the midget doctor.
Forestry Forum Founder and Chief Cook and Bottle Washer.

Commercial circle sawmill sawyer in a past life for 25yrs.
Ezekiel 22:30

Gary_C

Quote from: Cedarman on January 06, 2008, 08:00:53 AM

Nature doesnt' give a squat about trees or animals.  Each animal and plant will do its best to survive with the conditions at hand.  Some make it most don't.


Ya, I like that answer too. It is also the reason why the "Endangered Species Act" should be repealed. It's nothing more than humans trying to control nature, usually at the expense of other humans.   
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

SwampDonkey

I have heard 4 inches in 10 years. But we don't get that in hardwood (forest grown) unless intensively managed. And it's not managed for much more than pulp and firewood up here, if there is veneer or logs it's a little bonus.  You've seen that forest grown ash with 24-28 rings to the inch?  And ash grows faster than hard maple. Also it depends on the point in time or rather, development stage and crown class/position of the tree. You will notice quite a difference in growth over time when a tree reaches 8" dbh onward if it's a dominant tree. That ash up there was a dominant tree. Now you could cut an orchard grown black cherry and find it grows about 2 cm a year. I cut one a few years ago that was 54 cm on the stump and 1 cm/ring, so 2 cm a year. Based on diameter increment, fir grows a lot faster than hardwood and a bit faster than spruce, W. pine even quicker in good conditions. Hardwood grows faster in height.


I like Cedarman's explanation as well.  :)
"No amount of belief makes something a fact." James Randi

1 Thessalonians 5:21

2020 Polaris Ranger 570 to forward firewood, Husqvarna 555 XT Pro, Stihl FS560 clearing saw and continuously thinning my ground, on the side. Grow them trees. (((o)))

Montanaforester

In Montana, only in the best conditions can we get 2 rings/inch, but it can be done.  In my opinion, a faster growing stand has more insect and disease resistance, better cone crops, etc, plus it grows more wood for the mill.

The agencies around here are really into "Restoration Forestry" which is just as hard to define as "forest health."  We call restoration forestry "Once upon a time forestery."  That was then, this is now.  We can mimic the past, but never duplicate it.  Especially in fire dominated ecosystems.  It doesn't mean we need to cut every big tree for the mill, or convert every stand to a plantation, but there is just no way we can replcate the past.
Scott Kuehn

Forest health is 2 rings/inch

mdvaden

Quote from: Montanaforester on January 07, 2008, 06:20:47 PM

The agencies around here are really into "Restoration Forestry" which is just as hard to define as "forest health."  We call restoration forestry "Once upon a time forestery."  That was then, this is now.  We can mimic the past, but never duplicate it.  Especially in fire dominated ecosystems.  It doesn't mean we need to cut every big tree for the mill, or convert every stand to a plantation, but there is just no way we can replcate the past.

Which is exactly why I headed one of my pages with "forests are not renewable"  :P

Replaced, maybe.

Phorester


This also begs the question, what is a virgin forest?  Some landowners I work with tell me they want their forest to be "just like a virgin forest".  So what in hell is a virgin forest?  Personally, I'd say that in my area it would be the first forest that evolved after the glaciers scraped everything down to bedrock, then began heading North about 16,000 years ago.  (sorta like the yankees in 1865, but slower.   ;D ) That first forest after the ice age was jack pine and fir, which you wouldn't get established here now even if you planted one since the climate is so different now.

I think they really mean they want a forest like what was there before European man came on the scene, as if this completely destroyed the forest forever more.   ::), so they think the "true" ,"natural' forest is what existed before "man" contaminated it.  Oddly enough, such a forest would look a lot like what's here now, except it would have more oak and also American chestnut, and less yellow poplar and red maple.

Ron Wenrich

I'm thinking that most people think of a virgin forest as one that fringes on the climax forest, and has large trees.  Climax forests in this area had a lot more white oak and hemlock versus the other species.  But, there were still vast forests of white pine, which is more indicative of the introduction of fire or disease to the stand.

Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

jim king

This thing about "Virgin Forests" drives me crazy also.  Here in the Amazon about 1 in every 50 trees falls over every year due to heavy rain, disease or something.  Does that mean in 10 years when a good percentage have fallen over it is no longer a virgin forest ?

Is it possible the words "Virgin Forest" are simply being confused and abused and made acceptable by the fanatic ecologists like as if loggers are killing little old ladies?  As we think we have a natural rotation of about 50 years in the Amazon does that mean we have NO "Virgen Forest"  ?

I am confused also.  Now you throw the carbon credit thing at me and I want to disconnect my internet.


Ron Scott

From The Dictionary of Forestry.

Virgin Forest an original forest, usually containing large trees, that has not been significantly disturbed or influenced by human activity--synonym primary forest-- see old-growth forest
~Ron

Phorester


I can go along with that definition of a virgin forest, which is what I was getting at in my earlier post. But as Ron says, I'll bet the average person doesn't realize just how far back in history they'd have to go to get to a virgin forest condition.  Man has been in my geographical area for around 14,000 years and has had a great influnce in the forest ever since, starting with the wholesale use of fire to burn vast acreages every year.

Phorester

JIM, as the last couple of posts suggests, I think the concept of a virgin forest refers to a lack of influence by man, not to the lifespan of individual trees. 

As has been stated, it's a human concept.  Some forest ecologists and historians say it started with the writings of Thoreau (On Walden Pond) and others who first attempted to explain and romantize the concept.

ID4ster

A healthy forest is one that functions properly. By that I mean that the biological agents that make up a forest from the soil and soil organisms to the leaf litter and downed wood to the understory vegetation to the overstory vegetation (i.e. timber) to the tree crowns and the wildlife, insects and pathological organisms that inhabit the entire forest at that particular stage of succession are functioning as they should. Insect and disease attacks are at endemic levels and wildlife and vegetation supluses are removed either naturally and/or in a planned manner (timber harvesting, hunting, prescribed fire). A forest can and should be healthy at any stage of its succession from establishment through the seral stages to the climax forest. It is up to the landowner to decide which stage or stages of forest succession that they want on their property and then utilizing the forester's knowledge and skill to achieve that goal.

A healthy forest is pretty plastic. Meaning that you have a lot of options and biological leeway to achieve that landowners goals. As I often tell landowners and forest owners that I work and interact with, A healthy forest will let you have 95% of everything that you want. Wildlife, timber production, aesthetics, clean water, recreation and soil fertility. Can you have 100% of everything? No. Mother nature doesn't provide that and neither can you. Can you have 100% of some attributes? Yes but you'll have to accept less than 95% (sometimes significantly less) on some of your other attributes. Can you have a healthy forest under those conditions? Maybe. 

To answer your questions; Is a healthy forest based on timber production only? No you can have an empahsis on wildlfe and still have a healthy forest that produces a lesser amount of sawtimber. Or it can produce greater amounts of clean water (watershed for a munincipality) with lesser amounts of timber or old growth wildlife. As long as you are in the parameters defined by the biology of the area you can still have a healthy forest. Can a mixed species forest that is producing maximum or near max timber be healthy? Yes it can but you might have less of some other attributes but that is the landowners decision. Can wildlife live in a forest that is prime logging material? Absolutely though the type of wildlife will be determined by the successional stage and how much structure and habitat (snags, large downed wood) that is in the forest. All these questions deal with the science and art of silviculture along with the ability to educate and work with the forest landowners that you come in contact with. As you gain experience and knowledge of the area that you work in a lot of these decisions will be easier to make and to communicate to the landowner. But then that is part of the challenge and fun of being a professional forester. Not everyone can do that.

A couple of final points. Generally a mixed forest is healthier than a monocultured one simply from the aspect of disease or insect resistance. Sometimes a monoculture is unaviodable ( Ponderosa pine types here in the Pacific northwest come to mind, I'm sure that there are others) and you'll have to deal with them when you encounter them. That's just the way it goes since ma nature calls the shots. Both mixed and monoculture forests can be very healthy and productive. Its just that one may require more monitoring that the other. As Phorester and others have pointed out virgin forest is an unattainable goal. Human kind has been utilizing the forests since they moved into the areas shortly after the ice sheets retreated. Anyone that fails to believe that simply needs to look at the tools found on the Ice man over in Italy. Wood and copper both  were extracted from the forest and the earth. So any type of forest that is untouched by man would also require no humans at all to be present. Pre european forests here in north america were heavily influenced by the indigenous peoples that were here from coast to coast and they were not the deep dark old growth primeval forests that most people imagine as a virgin or ancient forest. The historical record clearly shows that a seral stage savannah type forest was more productive in terms of food production which was far more important to someone trying to get something to eat than a stand of large old trees.

So yes a forest can be healthy in a lot of different ways and produce a lot of products. Its up to you and the landowner on what that will be and how you want to achieve it.




Bob Hassoldt
Seven Ridges Forestry
Kendrick, Idaho
Want to improve your woodlot the fastest way? Start thinning, believe me it needs it.

ibseeker

BrandonTN, if you're interested in sharing your insights and knowledge with a landowner in need of help, I'll be in Maryville from March 15th through April 4th. It would be a great help for me to have someone walk my forest with me and offer suggestions or observations. I'd also like to talk with your friend, the Restoration Ecologist. I'm looking for all the input that I can get. If that doesn't work out then that's fine, I've still learned quite a bit from this thread.
Chuck
worn out poulan, Stihl 250SC, old machete and a bag of clues with a hole in the bottom

Thank You Sponsors!