iDRY Vacuum Kilns

Sponsors:

In EAB areas, what do you plan to restock with?

Started by wisconsitom, January 23, 2019, 10:44:42 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wisconsitom

Folks,

In areas where ash has been decimated-and where it had previously made up a good proportion of stands in the area-what do you, others, govt. agencies, private councils, conservation groups, etc. etc. intend to restock these stands with.......if that is even being discussed?  Interestingly to me...and in line with my opinions on the matter, a great deal of interest in the tamarack has developed for use in all these sunnier sites that are going to open up.  If we set aside the issue of exotic invasive shrubs like common buckthorn, etc.....what, if any agendas are you familiar with?

Of course, the elephant in the room is all that invasive buckthorn, honeysuckle, etc. just waiting to occupy ever-more area.  We're going to need to deal with that.  But I sure like that the tamarack tree is on people's minds here in E. WI.  BTW, once again, this has nothing to do with my own land, where thankfully, there is no buckthorn.  And we already have the tamarack tree (and roughly 6000 hybrid larch-a tamarack tree for the uplands...on steroids!).

tom
Ask me about hybrid larch!

Al_Smith

I've lost every one of them with the exception of small saplings .The ones that were fell before the bark had completely fallen off have sprouts from the roots and are doing okay .It seems like zillions of seed that had lain dormant have  given rise to a whole new crop .
I won't live long enough to ever see 100 footers again  but my great grandchildren might if they come back .--I don't replant anything .Mother nature has a better plan than I .

randy d

We are up in NC Wisconsin and Tamarack has some type of blight and the bigger ones are dying that happened 50 or 60 years ago to so not so sure how good Tamarack is to plant. We have a big problem with Blue Beech taking over after the hard wood has been cut. It comes in real thick and chocks out the more valuable trees we also have buck thorn in some areas. I would like to see more Maple or even Aspen come back. Randy

wisconsitom

Hi Randy,

Tamarack does have a range of pathogen and pest issues, but is not in trouble generally in our state.  It is a very vigorous tree in good sites.  And of course, can sit and mark time in acidic bogs, etc.

It always seems to surprise folks when I tell them that the number-one most common tree species in the un-altered forests of Minnesota, circa roughly 1840...was tamarack!  And in Wisconsin what was the absolute most common tree species prior to Euro-settlement?  Eastern hemlock.  You'd never know it now.  They were cut and wasted by the hundred-thousand, for nothing more than their bark, used in tanning leather, mostly in big tanneries down in Milwaukee.

tom
Ask me about hybrid larch!

randy d

We do have some Hemlock in the area mostly out by Tims Hill but around here where I live the deer eat it about as fast as it can grow so not much regenerate. the floor joist in my house are out of Hemlock the house is about 100 years old and still straight.  Randy

wisconsitom

Indeed Randy, the deer are disrupting the very species mix of the forest.  Where I am, in central Oconto County though, both hemlock and whiter-cedar are so abundant-and perhaps there is enough corn/soybeans/alfalfa, lol-that these species are regenerating fairly well, but in patches.  Some areas better than others, but at one time, an extremely common tree, not at all rare.  And big big big...back in the era before the big cut.

tom
Ask me about hybrid larch!

Klunker

Quote from: wisconsitom on January 28, 2019, 10:06:33 AM
Hi Randy,

Tamarack does have a range of pathogen and pest issues, but is not in trouble generally in our state.  It is a very vigorous tree in good sites.  And of course, can sit and mark time in acidic bogs, etc.

It always seems to surprise folks when I tell them that the number-one most common tree species in the un-altered forests of Minnesota, circa roughly 1840...was tamarack!  And in Wisconsin what was the absolute most common tree species prior to Euro-settlement?  Eastern hemlock.  You'd never know it now.  They were cut and wasted by the hundred-thousand, for nothing more than their bark, used in tanning leather, mostly in big tanneries down in Milwaukee.

tom
Tamarack was most common cause of its habit of growing in wet areas. lots of trees growing in a smaller area.
If you look at land mass covered with which forest/ecotype you'll come up with a different answer.
Same for WI, most common ecotype was Oak Savanna by land mass. There was very little to zero Hemlocks in the southern 1/2 of the state.

wisconsitom

Agree with your last sentence-these hemlock stands extended down to about where Wausau is now.  Your other statements, especially the one that says that oak savanna was the most common native plant community in Wisconsin at time of Euro settlement is simply not born out by the 1848 "Original Vegetation Map of Wisconsin", which is hanging several feet away from me at this moment.  Of course, it does depend to some degree on how you slice it.  But if one were to aggregate all the northern forest types into one...then bunch all S. WI plant community types into another basket...the northern type would still prevail, and by quite a margin.  Not necessarily saying that's the correct interpretation, but it is one that could be made.

The thought in MN was that tamarack occupied the greatest area of any tree species.  Not the way you describe.  I wasn't around, lol!

tom
Ask me about hybrid larch!

Klunker

As far as replacing Ash, I have some ash, not a dominate tree in my area. I'm about 1 hr south of you.
I have lots of over grown large Aspen, both Big Tooth and Quaking. I'm thinning them out hard core.
After that I'd guess Shagbark Hickory is my next most common tree, followed by Sugar Maple, Ironwood, Red Oak, Red Maple, Black Cherry, White Oak, Elm, and with a couple Beech, White Birch, Butternut, Black Oak, Basswood and Bitternut Hickory.

I'm not going to have any noticeable gaps or opens cause of the lost Ash. Not that I don't have a lot of them just that they are scattered here and there so it won't be obvious when they are gone.

I'm leaving all of my Ash standing. They will fall on their own. I see them as wildlife habitat 1st and foremost.

I have more than enough Shagbark Hickory, Ironwood and Sugar maple to remove to improve my stand diversity. Removed stuff will all go to heating my house. Any other species that I want to remove to improve the woodlot I kill by drill and fill and leave standing.

I'm trying to get more White Oak, Basswood and Beech. I'll be adding White Pine, Walnut and Hackberry.

wisconsitom

Great stuff, Klunker.  My son's woods near Cedarburg is full of dying green ash, many of considerable size.  Lots of hot-burning firewood, that's for sure.  We should have a mini-mill just to make stuff out of what's happening in his woods!

Bigtooth aspen is a grand species here in the north.  Just love those things.  As an aside, the hybrid aspen I'm working on with some partners is a combo of bigtooth purposely mated with white poplar.  We seek:


  • A tree that is 75% native, bigtooth aspen genetics.
  • A tree that features "figured grain".
  • A tree that will root readily from 12" forestry cuttings...currently not something that exists in the aspen world, although MR. MCG. (main tree breeder) is well on his way to creating just that.
  • An upland tree type, suitable for moist, well-drained areas from Maine to Minnesota, and adjacent parts of Canada.
  • Good stem form.
  • Good resistance to pathogens.
  • Low to no seed viability.
  • Typical rhizomatous aspen behavior.  A tree that will never need replanting, once established.

It's fun stuff.  I love native plant communities and in fact, that is largely my job here.  But there's just something about creating entities that did not previously exist that is highly engaging for me.

tom

Ask me about hybrid larch!

Klunker

WItom, thing about MN was a BIG chunk was not forest ecotype, much more Prairie than WI.
Prairie, Savanna or Oak Opens are probably one of the biggest land mass ecotype in MN back in the day. There is a similar map of MN to the one you ref. about WI.

Might of been lots of Hemlock in N. WI but to say they were the dominate tree. I don't know about that.
We all hear about the White Pine Forests.

I'm in the same boat as you, I wasn't around back then either.

Another interesting source of info on old pre-settlement vegetation is the original land surveys.
They will list swamps, tree species and size at given distances lots of interesting stuff.

We should get both the WI and MN maps and get together at a local bar and we could kick this stuff around. :D
Hopefully it could end without a fist fight. :D



wisconsitom

Hah...ultimately, def. no fist-fight with me, at least on this issue.  That is, unless you try to tell me that Wisconsin was a major prairie state.  All....and I do mean all low-resolution maps depicting where "prairies" were in the  olden days go right around WI.  But I know-the Ho-chunk were land burners.  Of course, the Ho-chunk were and are a S. WI tribe... Menominees, Ojibwes, Hurons, and other groups from the north were not land burners to any large extent, I think.  The prairies and oak savannas present in 1840's WI were all man-made.  If that's natural, in some folk's world...and I know with all the veneration given to tribes that were here before the Euro-settlement that that is considered "natural" by many, so be it.  I happen to lump all humanity in the same boat when it comes to disturbance of natural environments.  Some groups were better than others, but we should never forget that the Mayas pretty much abused their homeland out of existence.  And that in a place like Wisconsin, there would have been no prairies nor oak savannas without repeated, human-caused disturbance.  Or rather, where these plant communities would have arisen, they would simply be temporary features...on their way back to forest.

tom
Ask me about hybrid larch!

Klunker

Quote from: wisconsitom on January 29, 2019, 01:15:26 PM
Great stuff, Klunker.  My son's woods near Cedarburg is full of dying green ash, many of considerable size.  Lots of hot-burning firewood, that's for sure.  We should have a mini-mill just to make stuff out of what's happening in his woods!

Bigtooth aspen is a grand species here in the north.  Just love those things.  As an aside, the hybrid aspen I'm working on with some partners is a combo of bigtooth purposely mated with white poplar.  We seek:


  • A tree that is 75% native, bigtooth aspen genetics.
  • A tree that features "figured grain".
  • A tree that will root readily from 12" forestry cuttings...currently not something that exists in the aspen world, although MR. MCG. (main tree breeder) is well on his way to creating just that.
  • An upland tree type, suitable for moist, well-drained areas from Maine to Minnesota, and adjacent parts of Canada.
  • Good stem form.
  • Good resistance to pathogens.
  • Low to no seed viability.
  • Typical rhizomatous aspen behavior.  A tree that will never need replanting, once established.

It's fun stuff.  I love native plant communities and in fact, that is largely my job here.  But there's just something about creating entities that did not previously exist that is highly engaging for me.

tom
SHEESH!!, a cross between two of Hades finest trees!!!
I had a couple of White Poplar (I'm assuming you mean the same as what I call Snowy Poplar) at the last place I owned. It sent out shoots all over.
That along with Aspen, OUCH.
I ended up going to drill and fill to get rid of my large aspen, no market in my area for the stuff. And if you cut the stuff it sprouts all over the place. I have less problems with buckthorn than Aspen.
I guess in my area, North of your Son, we have a great diversity of very nice desirable trees that Aspen is considered "junk" wood not fit for firewood.
But in all seriousness all native trees have their place and none are "junk".

wisconsitom

I assure you aspen is not "junk" although I've heard much the same sentiment many times.  Consider this factoid alone;  Aspen is the nursery stand for a great host of later-succession forest types.  What, now we don't want early stages.  Just jump right in at the end?

I don't think you're crude at all, Klunker, but this general dismissal of aspen is wide of the mark.  Not because I say so, but because giant industry players feel quite differently!  I don't think the guys that run the largest land-owning company in N. America-that would be Weyerheuaser-would call aspen junk.

White poplar is "clonally" invasive.  That's child's play compared to entities that fly in birds' guts and then get pooped out all over the country side.  Utterly different scale of problem.

Now know this...there are already hundreds of thousands of acres of completely non-native, exotic poplar hybrids-not aspen-in areas as near to you as the U.P. of Michigan.  That cat is already out of the bag.  The stuff we're working on will be nearly-native, and again, of low to no seed-bearing ability.  Quite a different thing.

Firewood is the very last consideration I give to any tree or piece of wood.  

tom
Ask me about hybrid larch!

Klunker

The stuff I've read and that comes to mind is WI was about 5-10% Prairie. Dry, Mesic and Wet together and if one throws in Sedge meadows. How many trees per acre before a prairie becomes a savanna?
How many trees before a savanna becomes a woodlot? Lots of hair splitting to be done over a beer here.

As far as burning the land, I'm sure know one knows how much was made caused and naturally caused.

I've read some stuff on Oak Regeneration and the frequency of fire required to knock back the forest. They talk about 50-100 year burns making a difference.
Another change is the lack of leaf litter compared to what once was.

I'm working on about 2 acres of my woods that got nailed by winds this summer.
I'm changing it to more of a woodlot/savanna. Only Hickory and White Oak left standing.
Burned about 50 brush piles. Planted the burned areas with a tallgrass woods edge mix of grasses/forbs. I tried burning the leave litter several times this fall. Its hard to burn a hardwood forest.


wisconsitom

Klunker, I don't know if you are able or desiring to budget some $$ for this project, but the firm that we hire here at this stormwater utility to do "native vegetation management" is out of S. WI and quite well-versed in oak woodland burns.  If you pm me, I can provide their name. 

tom
Ask me about hybrid larch!

Klunker

I don't doubt the cat is out of the bag.
I look at forestry stuff on a small scale.
I know firewood is not even on the list for serious forestry stuff.
My primary concern for my place is wildlife.
I look to increase diversity of native plants.

I can agree with the planting of Aspen to start a forest. It would be a lot better than all of the planting Pine trees that was once in vogue as "land restoration" years ago.
I grad. HS in '76, not far from Cedarburg, we had a school forest that was Jack Pine, Red Pine and White Pine.
This was planted in the '60's. This was in area that had none of those as native trees.
These plantations are very rarely managed and become mono-cultures of Pine with no light getting to the ground. Not even buckthorn or Garlic Mustard can grow there so I suppose thats a benefit. ::)

wisconsitom

I also disagree with you about the value of "pine plantations' almost anywhere in our state.  Even if, for maybe as much as a twenty-year span, those floors under the pines are devoid of much vegetation, that too is a temporary situation.  Foresters speak of such plantations as having the ability "to capture the site for forest" and I completely agree.  Further, if one will just go a bit further out on my limb here...and take an honest look at some older pine plantations-we have the oldest such stands in the world here in WI if one is talking about "machine-planted"-one will see many other species beginning to move in, or having done so long ago.  Items like white pine, red maple, N. red oak, and others readily move into 60 and 80-year-old pine plantation sites.  If allowed to, they diversify a great deal over time.  All stands do.  The big big wh. and red (and hemlock!) stands that were cut back in the 1800s here were "long-term seral stands", meaning that while the pine/hemlock forest would not be classified as "climax" species association, a northern hardwood-mixed forest likely would for a given locale in that area- the pine/hemlock stand would in fact occupy the site for centuries if no major disturbance occurred.   So too with most white-cedar stands.....long-term seral stands.  Very little is able to change this.

I have  planted roughly 7000 wh. pine, red pine, Norway spruce, and hybrid larch on my property.  I have never heard/seen so many songbirds as i do whenever I'm in my ten-year old area of said species.  So too with animal burrows, deer bedding, you name it...these sites are full of wildlife.

My orientation certainly does differ from yours.  I am first and foremost a grower.  For example, the 37 deer we counted in our field the day before opening day of gun season....did not thrill me!

tom

Ask me about hybrid larch!

Klunker

When I talk about Pine Plantations, I'm talking the southern 1/2.
The state planted lots of them in the Kettles many years back.
These areas that the state planted have to be at least 75 years old.
Private areas followed.

If your going to plant for income don't you think that planting Black Walnut, Black Cherry and White Oak make more sense than Jack Pine, Red Pine and White Pine?
Especially in an area where there is very little to no market for pulp?

If your going to plant for land reclamation why not plant a diversity of trees instead of a single species?


The state bought 80 acres adjacent to my last place I lived at. It was previously privately owned by the Prange Family. It had a typical overgrown pine plantation on it. The state had some thinning done on it. I'd estimate it was about 30-40 year old planting at the time. It was a loosing proposition for the state. On the hardwoods they had them selective cut. Some very nice hardwoods in it. That was a money maker for the state. In the next 50 years which type of forest will generate more valuable?

If hardwood forests are more valuable and money is your driver why waste 75 years growing a relatively worthless tree, even if its partially worthless because of lack of market?

Its different in the northern 1/2, but in the south I'd love to see some evidence that planting a non-native low/no to negative value tree is better than planting even a slow growing high value native tree.









wisconsitom

Klunker,

My plantation was conceived of as a biological planting, intended to last a long time.  It is not primarily an economic venture.  That said, there are just so many problems with what you have stated.  I'm going to do my best to tackle them one by one;

First, an un-managed plantation-of any species or group of species-is not going to do well in many cases.  That is not the fault of the species, or group of species selected.  I don't know exactly where you are, but white pine is suitable pretty much anywhere in our state.

Second, you are not quite square, I think- in understanding what plant communities actually occupied the SE corner of our state.  It was the northern forest type that extended all the way down the lakeshore to where Milwaukee now sits (and likely beyond), not your oak/hickory type.  Guess what tree Cedarburg is named for?  There are also giant paper birches in my son's woods there.  I actually don't blame anyone for suffering from this misunderstanding.  The prairie/oak savanna people are by far the loudest,in any given room!  Half of what they say is BS.  What did you come up with...prairie/oak savanna/wet sedge meadow made up perhaps 5-10% of the land area of our state originally?  Hardly the main plant community type.  And of that amount, most of it, save for the sedgey areas, was man-made.

Third, the species you think I should be growing in my zone 4, NE WI location, are not native there, would not do well there, and what's more, I can grow all that stuff till the cows come home here in Appleton if I wish.  I bought the land I did out of love for that forest type, what I call in another thread, "the cedar belt".  I would be doing nothing short of ruining it with those southern tree types.

Mixture of species?  How does my list of 4 main types ( I didn't list those where there are just small numbers) not constitute a mixture of species, especially given this entire planting, minus any thinned stock we do take out and use, is intended to eventually blend in with my existing, 100% native forest?  Note too that the aspen work will only begin this spring.  Here I'm talking about those bigtooth/white poplar hybrids.  So that will be yet another element upon the land.  I have listed the species in my woods before, and that is a different list from what I've shown here.  Much diversity on that parcel of land...probably more than is typical.

Phase one going on here;  In addition to my mention of white-cedar, I also plan to attempt to get yellow birch and possible some other hardwoods going after a time, within thinned stand areas.  This must, of course, happen later.  All forestry is on a longer timescale than most other human endeavors.  Just because I may not mention something in any given post, that does not mean it is not something being worked on.

75 years?  When did I say that?  For many of the trees we've planted, it may be more like 275 years...if ever...that they get cut.  Biological planting, or if you will, legacy trees. But in the meantime, my hybrid larch is going to produce a sawlog in 20 years.  For the earliest we planted, that's ten years from now, if not sooner.  We've got just 6000 of those planted!  My white pine will surely follow with its rapid growth.  We will be thinning those trees but never removing entire stand. 

 Incidentally, the key species that I am going to continue to be promoting here is the white-cedar.  It will gradually colonize most of the site, especially given I am helping it along by digging small plants and moving them around, especially into gaps in the plantation area, which is upland from the cedar swamp.  They grow in upland situations just as well, if not better, than down in the swamp.

I get it that in just a few words it can be hard to grasp what someone else is saying/doing.  I'm pretty sure that if you got my whole story, you wouldn't be nit-picking every aspect of my (mostly unknown to you) operation!  I'm not trying to reproduce the "southern broadleaf forest"-the forest type that I think you especially like, and which did originally cover much of the south and southwest of our state-in NE Wisconsin.  Now given climate change, maybe I should be!  But I'm just not ready to give up on these northerners yet!


Thanks,
tom
Ask me about hybrid larch!

Klunker

Tom,
I think you and me are talking past each other.
I'm talking southern 1/2 your talking northern 1/2.
I'm not talking about your plantation.
I'm talking about the tens of thousands of acres planted by the state and private individuals in the last 75 years ago or so in the Kettle Moraine. Even now there are private owners that still plant pine. I highly doubt many plant them with the idea of EVER harvesting them. They are mostly "Land Reclamation" plantings. Converting old farm fields to "forest".

I view the planting of a mono-culture of pines in the southern 1/2 of the state as a uneducated fool hardy undertaking.
I might be wrong, I'm open to changing my mind. You haven't addressed the southern 1/2 of the state and Pines. What is the advantage of planting Pines in the Southern 1/2 of the state?

My neighbor planted a bunch of Scotch Pine 30-40 years ago. He planted them for Christmas trees in an area that was marginal for farming (slope). That market ended so he sold them as ornamental lawn trees that he transplants with a tree spade. That avenue dried up on him also. Now they continue to grow with no way to get rid of them. He won't be able to sell them for pulp, no market. His only hope is selling them for firewood to the summer campers. Nothing grows under these trees, and I mean NOTHING. Its a wildlife desert.

Planting Box Elder makes more sense than Pine around here. At least you can make syrup from them if your ambitious enough.

There is a guy about 2-3 miles form me that has a small plantation of Black Walnut. He planted spaced so they are growing tall and straight. I'll bet the value of his plantation of Walnut will exceed any Pine plantation acre for acre. And its a better place for wildlife than a Pine plantation is.

The only advantage I can see for Pine is the deer won't eat the stuff. They'll eat Oaks like there is no more tomorrow so they have to be protected for awhile. Walnut, Black Cherry need no protection tho.

Now if one just loves Pines and doesn't give a hoot about anything else thats fine. But as far as wildlife and wood products Pine is a poor choice around here.

So if you want to toss out some thought on this relating to the southern 1/2 I'd love to hear it. Your obviously a smart guy. I meant no disrespect to you.








wisconsitom

Klunker,

I did address the southeastern part of our state, the lakeshore counties-and again, not knowing exactly where you are... but I sense somewhere in the Kettle Moraine....you are in fact in the northern forest zone, not the southern broadleaf type that extended down around Madison, etc...

Or, you may be where the two types blend.  Again, I don't exactly know your whereabouts.

White pine was a part of the original forest in the Kettle Moraine area, and would be expected to support the same "wildlife" species as it always did there.  I am saying...again...that the vegetation of this state was divided along a SW to NE line...and that biologists long ago dubbed the area where these two zones inter-grade as "the tension zone".  Here in Appleton I live right smack-dab in the center of this tension zone, but just 58 miles due north of my driveway apron, I am solidly in the northern forest-type zone.  As one would expect, here in Appleton, one can look at 400-yr.-old bur and white oaks (Pierce Park, others) and then drive a few miles and be in the middle of a "cedar swamp"(Gordon Bubolz Nature Center).

I like the looks of Scots pine, but will no longer consider it for planting because it carries pathogens that can then go on to infect our state's commercially-important red pine resource.  No other issue with the plant though, and again...given enough time, no place under any trees is a biological desert.  Very old-school thought (hey, I'm mostly old-school too) but has been thoroughly trounced by more recent findings.  I can't address one single site that you might be talking about but which I can't see, but I can address things on the big statewide and regional scale.

I'm so into "native vegetation" that I can hardly stand to talk about it with many other practitioners in that area.  I think I know more than many of those folks....and that the stuff I/we are working with-these hybrid entities-are going to promote diversity within the northern forest, not limit it.  If you read carefully, you will note we've already taken pains (with the aspen clones) to limit or outright prevent gene introgression into surrounding native Populus (clones are essentially sterile).  So too with the larch plantation...researchers have already worked out the means to not pollute our native tamarack-should any be present near a larch plantation, by simply removing all larch within site when doing main harvest.  Larch is never shade-tolerant...they won't be "hiding" in the woods with the sugar maples....so so long as every visible larch tree is cut during that harvest, no gene introgression will be possible.  So I guess I'm saying.....if you really want to get down in this particular bramble patch with me.....it gets pretty prickly!  I'm not a beginner.  Nor am I a purist.  I could go on and on.....

All that said, I am a bit different from most of my associates in that I would actually welcome the chance creation of yet a new hybrid, one combining traits of our tamarack, with those of the species already combined in these hybrids.  I'm weird that way and would also like to see my hybrid larch go on to create a "synthetic species" on my property.  Check out that term if you wonder.

And finally, I don't think you and I have any problem, at least not that won't get ironed out as we get to know each other better.  I am kind of a weird guy on a forum like this and it often goes that way with me.  I have multiple agendas going on at any given time, all related to trees and forestry.....and am also involved with at least three national/international groups, pushing particular agendas.  Lots going on...but I may not always do so great a job of explaining!

Thanks,
tom
Ask me about hybrid larch!

brianJ

My acreage Ash is a pioneer species which perhaps has less to do with loving sunlight than being able to grow past tall grass and weeds its first year.   Anyhow in those spots it'll be sod or part of the crop rotation depending on the soil.   

Out in the woods there are very few small spots where Ash is more than 50% of canopy.   I can trust nature to take its course.

wisconsitom

Green ash definitely a pioneer species.  It will be interesting to see what occupies all the disturbed sites that surround areas like this.  So much green ash.  Dying rapidly now.  

White ash is a common component in our upland hardwood stands.  Very sad to see this fine tree decline.  Agree that not a big problem in mixed stands, etc.  But there are-at least in this area-just so many places where green ash took over.  Probably far beyond what it was doing pre-settlement around here.  I worry about buckthorn/non-native honeysuckles.

tom
Ask me about hybrid larch!

Thank You Sponsors!