Over-management for sugar maple

[Jeff]

Angry? No, but annoyed-only at people who skim a post, think they've got the gist, and blurt out stuff that is not related to initial post.

I've come to the conclusion that you are an angry man with an attitude. I've been repeatedly directed to your remarks about the forum and its members. If you want to remain a part of this group, this is your last chance. If you have negative thoughts about a post or poster, keep them to yourself. You can have as many opinions as you like but you better not belittle someone else.  Last chance.

[hacknchop]

In my area here there have been a lot of clear cut going for biomass got a lot of different people upset especially since it's become a common practice in the now thriving Mennonite community. I have come to the conclusion that if you want to have a say on what people do on their land buy it.

[Ron Scott]

Sugar maple continues to be one of our high value hardwood grade species here. We continue sustainable management for it in our northern hardwood stands.

[hacknchop]

I didn't mean that they are clear cutting hardwood stands it is mostly the mixed boreal . They  sure don't waste much , processor ,one grapple skidder and tub grinder put out at least 3 tractor trailer loads a day.

[nativewolf]

With the price the mills re paying for sugar maple I can see why people select for it vs other species.  However, that may be a fad and the thing to plant may be birch .

[barbender]

Yeah, planting for what's selling now could be 40-80 years behind the curve in northern climes. 

[hacknchop]

I agree red oak was the wood of choice 25 yrs ago hard mpl  was just making a comeback but yellow birch has retained its value, in this neck of the woods there are a few private pine plantations mostly red pine , but we have been as private land owners practicing sustainable harvest in hardwood forests including some who operate successfull maple products retail and bulk.

[Otis1]

I think this is my first post here..

A bit of background for context; I am a private consulting forester in Wisconsin, I live near Wausau, and have worked on private and public land all over the state.  I agree with all of the previous comments as to why there is so much sugar maple.  I disagree that it is currently and intentionally being excessively managed for.

Whenever I mark a timber sale on the Forest Service or DNR land the prescription usually states to favor oak, yellow birch, and basswood and discriminate against sugar maple. Unfortunately ash has become high risk, but maybe this cold weather will kill some of those bugs. So many stands in northern Wisconsin have tons of suppressed 6" sugar maple. The prescriptions also generally call for canopy gaps every 2-3 acres in order to encourage other species, I try to place them near oak and yellow birch.

The same prescriptions state not to cut hemlock or white pine unless it is a safety concern or for a skid trail. When I mark private sales; I try to keep the big hemlock and white pine they are both beautiful trees. One additional note is that even planting other species isn't really guaranteed around here, there are some places in the state that you can't even plant red pine without the deer eating it.


*edit third post. I really only post online after a few beers

[wisconsitom]

Otis, while you did state  that you disagree with the premise that sugar maple is being over-selected for...in the present, I think the stands I'm looking at..and that we're all looking at...are the products of past management decisions, not necessarily decisions being made today.  I think that was what i was trying to get at.

  At any rate, I applaud your conscientious approach to marking on public lands.  It sounds perfect.  Can you tell us....does your timber marking differ greatly when done for private landowners?  Is "the customer always right"?

Thanks,
tom

[petefrom bearswamp]

NY has approximately 3 million acres in the forest preserve mainly in the-Adirondacks.
No management whatsoever.
The powers that be call it forever wild, we forestry types used to call it forever rotten.
climax hardwood forest on the appropriate sites has been reached on nearly all of the state land, Beech Birch and Maple with Hemlock and White pine and a few incidental species.
The beech is collapsing in most areas leaving sprouts and the other species including lots of monster trees.
My northern hardwood woodlot here in central NY is mainly Hard maple and Cherry as I harvested all but about hundred Ash back in 2008-9  in dread of the EAB.
I am now in the twilight of my existence but my son, also a trained forester, retired from state service, will inherit management of this parcel.
Foresters and woodlot owners should live as long as Methuselah to see the results of their labors.

[Otis1]

In response to Tom's question about private landowners. 

I find that 99% of the landowners that I work with are more interested in management for wildlife and aesthetics over profit.  Most landowner's would rather have good acorn producing oak every year rather than a one time paycheck. Occasionally I get a landowner that is just looking at $$, in those cases we have a serious conversation about what the long term outcomes will be. A good conversation about the silvicultural characteristics of their trees goes a long way in explaining why you have prescribed / marked the trees the way you did.

In most of Wisconsin hunting land is the primary objective, so creating canopy gaps and encouraging new trees to grow is easy to get landowner's on board with. If even just for deer browse. I have found that most landowners are relieved when you tell them that their few scattered 100-200 year old white pine, red pine, or hemlock don't have to be cut. At the same time, some landowners may decide to get the value of those trees before it's laying on the ground from a wind storm. 

I guess the short answer to your question is that the landowner owns the land, I don't.  My job is to help them manage for their goals/ objectives within the bounds of what is silviculturally acceptable.

Completely unrelated, but I'm gonna throw this out there. The WDNR has an excellent Silviculture Handbook on their website. It has descriptions of pretty much every type of harvest, TSI, and cover types. It's a great reference. Just search for it on their homepage. 

 

[Log-it-up]

Hey all
 Regarding the post from maple flats I was talking to a forester In my area and the did a big beech cut and where thining them out , I asked how they got them from growing back he said they cut the stump 2' high they sprout then die off might be worth trying

[Southside logger]

Oddly enough I learned the other day that the demise of the passenger pigeon actually played a very large role in the transition away from oak and into the northern maple forest we see today.  Had to do with their migratory habits and the impact billions of traveling birds would have on a forested area when it came to breaking branches and smothering the ground with droppings.  

Funny how often modern science forgets recent history and the impact it has.   

[mike_belben]

Maybe modern science is a little too preoccupied with climate alarmism.  My kids watch reading rainbow and other throwback TV from my day on wifi.  What a different world it was. 

[nativewolf]

Maybe modern science is a little too preoccupied with climate alarmism.  My kids watch reading rainbow and other throwback TV from my day on wifi.  What a different world it was.

Well I think the Passenger Pigeon example just shows how fragile/dynamic nature is.  Humans can easily easily change huge ecosystems be it from killing all the passenger pigeons to introducing the EAB or Chestnut Blight.  To think that we can't change the climate just as easily is just...bizarre to me.   We didn't destroy the earth by killing the Chestnut but man..that was a kick in the nuts (pun intended) for the eastern hardwood forest.  I think more effort should be given to the question: "ok, so what now".  Frankly if it is going to happen we have probably already screwed the pooch and our best efforts to contain might not be enough.  So what do we do?  Will this mean Sugar Maple moves 200 miles north?  Does this mean I should cut my best Northern Red Oak and plant YP?  Will walnut still do well here?  Etc etc.  So many many questions I have and there are NO answers.  I would not mind some help from state agencies on this question.  "If so then what now"

[wisconsitom]

Nativewolf, there are actual documents out now, stating exactly what you seek.  I'd have to dig around and find the reference, but a wetlands conference I was at last year featured a listing of "climate change trees" that went something like this;  So for say Wisconsin, where I am....the chart might indicate paper birch...or white-cedar...is going to struggle in the warming that's happening...and that perhaps those sites might be occupied by things like bitternut hickory, swamp-white oak, and other more warm-tolerant species.  It's much more detailed than I can outline here, but such does exist.

The writing is on the wall.  And it ain't pretty.

tom

[Southside logger]

Ugg... And the cedar and black spruce forests I played in growing up were all barren and under a mile of ice in the not too distant past, but the same state agencies seem to want to ignore that little detail.