Myth
We are running out of trees.
Fact
Nationwide there has been an increasing surplus in growth over harvest since 1952. The U. S. Forest Service inventory of Michigan indicates that we are harvesting only about 40% of annual forest growth.
What is the definition of that 40% figure? It could be, for example, that 40% of the neww seedlings are harvested. Of course I realize that is not at all what they mean, but how do they arrive at that figure? :P lw
LW, that is inclusive of all trees deemed mechantible. 8)
Myth
At the time of European settlement pristine forests stretched almost unbroken from the Atlantic Ocean to the Great Plains, unaffected by humans.
Fact
Native Americans and nature had a heavy hand in the management of our forests with man-caused and natural fires and other natural disasters which left the forest cover in patches of trees and grassy openings in between.
The 40% figure is the volume growth of wood fiber usually in the sawtimber diameter classes. In PA, we are growing trees twice as fast as we are cutting them.
You will have ingrowth, which are those trees that grow from poletimber into sawtimber. This is where a great deal of the volume comes from.
You also have growth from trees going from one diameter class to the next.
This is offset against mortality and removals.
Another factor in volume is the amount of acreage available. Since 1952, which was given as a base year, a lot of those abandoned farms have added to the amount timbered acres. Much of this has now become sawtimber stands. In 20 years, development and land fragmentation may reverse the trend.
I've seen some of these statistics, and although they are interesting, they have to be a little more detailed. In PA, our fastest growing species volume is soft maple. In some areas, red oak is decreasing in volume. That indicates that high grading may be a problem. Although volume has increased, it is in a lower quality species, at least in our area.
Usually the inventories are many years out of date. The most recent data I have for our state is from an 1989 inventory. I would be real interested to see what a newer inventory shows after the past 10 years of logging pressures.
Myth
Forests are the lungs of the earth and produce all the oxygen we breathe.
Fact
Most of the oxygen in the earth is produced by phytoplankton in the ocean (over 80%). Forests are useful as carbon sinks and absorbing pollutants, but are minor players in the oxygen cycle.
Several of those details of what trees are growing how fast vs harvesting, and replacement timber- were discussed in the 2-year battle here over the 'Forestry compact' issue here in Maine- which has failed twice. Both sides seem to present biased and polarized, oversimplified views of the facts in order to sway the voters. There are more politics and heat in it than facts and light. The author of the twice-failed amendment is now running as a green candidate for governor. I fear he will NOT get my vote. >:( lw
Myth
All clearcutting is bad.
Fact
Nature's "clearcuts" (fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.) were nature's way of managing most ancient forests. Notable exceptions were western hemlock and white fir in the West and northern hardwoods in the East. The forest conditions that preservationists would like to return to were shaped by these forces. Clearcutting and prescribed fire have helped to save Kirtland's warbler nesting sites in Michigan.
If "all clearcutting is bad" is a myth, then would "all clearcutting is good" be a fact?
You have to watch how you phrase your myth or you open yourself up to some really bad questions.
The fact is that clearcutting can be good and clearcutting can be bad. It depends where and why it is applied.
In a real world, a smart man should realize that the inverse of a falsehood is not necessarily a truth, nor is it necessarily a falsehood either.
I get a kick out of arguments I read in the paper or listen to on radio or TV where the premise is set at the beginning of the program or paragraph on which all the arguments are based throughout the article, with no consideration given for the validity of the premise. There is so much time wasted by reporters who are editorializing about things of which they have no knowledge and who have set their own invalid premise.
One of my favorites is "Guns kill people so we should do away with guns so people won't be killed." This is an invalid arguement, but hours are spent defending it by people who are 'looking for a cause'.
Since "all clearcutting is bad" then no tree that has found an existance in a crack in the sidewalk of a city should be cut. An arguement like that may have city dwellers looking for a roof over their heads before too long because the city would soon be a forest. Hmmmmm............ :D
I wish people would stop arguing!
Most people would do well to listen a lot more and ask questions of people they think they disagree with - and then try to find some common ground.
I also wish people would stop running their mouths just to fill airtime on television.
It's almost enough to make me open up a book and read something! :P
why a book Rav when we have the funny story thread right here? :)
I opened up a book recently......it was one of my wife's novels..........there was nothing in it. :-/ :D
Myth
Tom reads his wife's Novels
Fact
Tom's wife does not write novels.
Tom if you want to read, try the book I told you was my favorite as a yungun.
My side of the Mountain (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140342486/ref=pd_bxgy_text_2/104-4866095-3229558)
I plan to Jeff. Hope it is geared for the 12 year-old mind.
This is actually a discussion about syllogisms, no?
1. Major premise: Joe Blow's property was clear-cut
2. Minor premise: Joe Blow's land never grew another tree, nor sustained any wildlife.
3. Conclusion: All clear-cutting is bad.
It's just a debate tactic used to refute true logic, and ignores the facts of what Joe Blow did to his land after clear-cutting, how it was managed previously, what the optimum use for the land would be (and who that would be determined by), as determined by modern forestry techniques (which may be proven wrong after we are gone), and many other variables. Without the benefit of knowing these other variables, a true premise cannot be acheived, save in merely epistemological terms. I think that the Turkeys and Deer and Partridge on the state clear-cut across the line from me liked the clear-cut that was done there 10 or so years back. So did the loggers and the lumber companies. The "greenies" wouldn't even know that it was clear-cut then, they would drive past without noticing. My premise, if you will indulge me, is that mankind IS a part of nature and does not have the power to destroy it as so many arrogantly claim. We appoint ourselves as the caretakers, as we should, as the only rational beings on the planet. Nothing has intrinsic value. Value can only be determined by a being capable of the concept of value. Geez, I'm rambling now! 8) :D :D :D
[size=12]ALL COWS EAT GRASS.[/size]
:o :P ???
Anytime any of y'all have a hard time knowing the truth, just ask me and I'll set you straight...cause you can trust me..............knowing that I only speak....THE TRUTH ;D
Jeff,
My Side of the Mountain is one of my all-time favorite books, too! I read it to the kids every year!
:P
Do you think I would understand it, Rav, or is it over my head. :-/
I saw a horse eating grass today. Does that mean ........that a horse is a ..............................Nah !!!, I don't buy that. :D
Myth
Virgin Forests were ideal for all forms of wildlife.
Fact
Wildlife populations of most species are at an all-time high because of (not in spite of) timber harvesting and other forest management activities. Timber management tends to improve habitat for most wildlife.
A discussion in a seminar I attended for Forestry Stewards lead me to believe that "old" forests that were heavily canopied and devoid of understory were unfriendly to wildlife.
Nothing to eat, nowhere to hide, no shelter from the elements, etc. as opposed to forests that were managed to produce openings, edges, food, snags and other shelter.
The second scenario seems a lot more friendly to me.
Yes, though some wildlife species prefer old growth virgin forests as their primary habitat (such as the spotted owl), most prefer the diversity of managed forests for food, shelter, cover, etc. to maintain viable populations.
Key words are "all" and "most". Conflicts over the use and management of our forests can largely be accounted for by the many myths that are accepted as facts by a large part of our population. A recent Newsletter of the Michigan Forest Association stated these Myths & Facts for information and education.
Timber Beast,
I had a nine hour course one time in all this "stuff" and they were titled: Philosophy 101, Logic 101, Ethics 101. When I finished, that which I thought I had learned, I hadn't. That which I reasoned, I hadn't and that which I thought was moraly correct was in doubt. :-/ After 30 years of teaching 12 year olds the following happened: That which I tought was learned, That which was reasonable for them was and that which doubtful no longer is. I then went to full time sawmilling, logging and timber consulting and a strange thing happened. Reality settled down, reasoning became simple, and right became the correct thing to do. 8) 8) 8)
I have to disagree withTom when he said, "A discussion in a seminar I attended for Forestry Stewards lead me to believe that "old" forests that were heavily canopied and devoid of understory were unfriendly to wildlife." :-/
I have to agree with Ron when he said, "some wildlife species prefer old growth virgin forests as their primary habitat"
Over on North Beach in Fort Pierce (Back in the 1960's there wasn't much housing over there), there were Australian Pines between A1A Highway and the ocean (This strip of "forest" was about 75 to 100 yards wide and was known as "The Pines"). There were a lot of bushes along the perimeter but when you got into the trees there was no understory, just a thick carpet of pine needles. It was sort of like walking into a big room. Even though it was heavily canopied and devoid of understory, I can attest that there was plenty of wildlife in there...........at least during my Junior College days.
8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
Re: Wildlife and Land Mgmt
Just to expand a little on what Ron S. said
Nearly anything done (or not done) to a natural landscape will be beneficial to some forms of wildlife, and detrimental to others. The key is knowing the habitat requirements of a target species and making sure that habitat is available.
Unmanaged "virgin" forest is good habitat for forest interior birds and many amphibians. Most other species thrive in a managed environment. Providing habitat for all wildlife is only possible on large tracts of land.
I think the jist of the myth is that man's manipulations only hurt nature, and any resource extraction is hurting the environment. Of course everyone in this audience knows that just isn't the case.
Charlie,
I agree with the "college pines" being active with "wildlife". A prime location.
Did you ever run into Mel Fisher in Fort Pierce?
The mention of opening creation in forests for the benefit of wildlife brings to mind one case. Remember the huge controversey over drilling for oil and gas in the Pigeon River Country State Forest here in the Nothern Lower. Oh my God! it was going to so detrimental and destroy the character of the forest and ruin it for the elk herd and all the other wildlife. Welllll Guess what? The creation of all those oil and gas well pads was of great benefit to the elk, deer etc. They love these openings. The sound of the well equipment doesn't bother them in the least. Wells in the northern part of the forest are running out now and being pulled but the openings remain and the oil companies are landscaping them and planting them to meadow mixes, a mixture of grass, clover and fescues. I've also planted some fruit bearing shrubs in some of these clearings as part of my job with the DNR. When the wells are all gone, the pipe lines pulled, and pumping stations dismantled the clearings are still going to be there benefitting the wildlife. Oil and gas exploration in the PRCSF really wasn't that bad after all.
Ron, I don't recollect ever seeing Mel Fisher but he was well known.........he was a wheeler dealer, he was............ From what I understand, if you dealt with him...he was going to come out on top. :o
Yes, Mel is a famous professional treasure hunter out of Fort Pierce. He made the extremely wealthy find of the shipwreck Atocha. He also has a museum in Fort Pierce I believe.
I have a diver friend who worked on some of the salvage with him.
Myth
Many species have become extinct as a result of timber harvesting.
Fact
In North America virtually no species has become extinct because of timber harvesting.
Myth
Forests should be preserved. We should use other products instead of wood to save trees.
Fact
Forests are Renewable. The only constant thing about forests is continual change, even without the hand of mankind. Trees are grown with energy from the sun, which is free, and manufacture of wood products takes less energy and causes less pollution than the manufacture of possible substitutes for wood, which are largely manufactured from non-renewable resources.
Heard on the radio this week that a Georgia outfit has come up with a way to make kenaf into studs. They grind it up and make a mixture that can be formed into "lumber". Billed as termite proof.
what is Kenaf? I heard that same thing on the radio but missed what they were making them from.
Pleae hurry with a reply on this one. 8) Inquiring minds want to know. I might have a new sideline in my milling business. :D
Kenaf is a fiber plant. It's an annual plant that would be grown in a field, similar to hemp. It gets real tall. Over in Europe I've heard they'll make fiber boards, similar to OSB, out of hemp, so I suppose you can do the same out of kenaf. I wouldn't imagine any 2X4 would hammer real well.
http://www.kenafsociety.org/
Suffice it to say that fiber crops have there own set of problems.
ps-Hope that's quick enough for you, Frank. But I don't think you'll be sawing kenaf anytime soon.
Sounds like another flash-in-the-pan fad, to me. Remember a few years ago when they came up with the fence posts made from recycled disposable diapers? ::) I don't seem to be seeing a lot of them around, now. :D
Most all of the USDA-Forest Service & other public land picnic tables are made of recycled milk jugs. They are of dark brown wood color, harder to carve on, move, steal, or burn up. More vandal proof.
Also, less maintenance due to weather and they don't have to be stained on a regular basis.
Yep, it does not sound as though it would grwo here anyway. I woke up to twn inches of snow this morning. It sounds as though this is a warm climate type of critter. Besides, I would have to get a smaller saw, most likely a band, :D to cut the stufff. then I wold be worried about the over-run, if I was getting enough or not. ;D
It seems like I've seen articles about someone making lumber out of wheat too. So this is probably the same type of deal. What you have to remember is that they need GLUE to put this stuff together. I think glued up products have their place and do produce a cheap and stable alternative to wood, but the stuff is hard on saw blades and the dust is very hard on lungs. :o :o
I still vote for trees and the free energy to produce it from the sun. Just think how much more energy it will take to produce all the ingrediants for this and combine em together to make a stud. Might be cheeper, but less enviromental friendly I will bet
Charlie, I remember that panel, it was wheat straw. Neat claim was that it pulled up enough silica in life to be fire retardant. Never saw it hit the shelf ::). So howcum we keep trying to make building products out of little stuff and toilet paper out of big stuff :-/.
Alternatives are always worth considering, I've seen bamboo scaffold 60 stories tall :o. Not bad for grass. :D
I got into it with a guy over my wood consumption. Most of the timber I get was grown in under a human lifetime. A relatively small amount of energy turned it into a shape that I made into a wall....Blown foam, high input wonder materials and vinyl from dead dinosaurs just doesn't seem to me to be the rational alternative.
I saw a report on one of the synthetic deck boards having a mysterious oily "bleed", I appreciate your clearing it up DanG :D
Myth
Nature knows best.
Fact
Nature "knows" nothing! Foresters can improve on nature by using a knowledge of biological facts to direct natural processes. Forests can be grown and managed much more efficiently with scientific management than when left to nature. Nature can be brutal, as witnessed by disastrous fires, hurricanes, and volcanic eruptions.
'Nature' as perceived, embodies the sum total of all the living and natural forces currently at work. Growth and decay, the competition of multiple species- the history of the area, are to be seen by those who take the time to look. The lessons having been learned- to whatever extent they are- we then have an opportunity to try our hands. We have a specific focus (or foci) and will try to optimize these. Usually we are trying to make money, which does not enter into nature's equations, though many species are afforded a living within the 'natural' scheme. Many of them have to scrabble for it, however- much as we are doing. lw
Nature must bust a gut laughing at man's feeble attempts to alter natural occurances, but man is resilent in his effort to alter things. === Americans have altered things to the point that most live like kings of but a short time gone by, in the overall scheme of things.====I think the expression of : "May You Live In Interesting Times" has always had a translation of : " Interesting Times Are-- To Every Person-- A Result Of Each Individual Utilizing One's God-Given Mind "
There is no Mother Nature! It's every specie for themselves! One against the other. Trees have consorted to destroy mankind but were unfortunate enough to be bound to the ground. They do the best they can by waving their limbs and branches to create enough wind to wreak havouc on mankind! If you don't believe me, next time it's windy, go look at the trees....they're all waving their limbs in concert! Watchout for the trees! Don't be caught in the forest alone after dark! :o :o :o :o :o ;)
There is a book out that says that plants have intelligence. Actually, they are more intelligent than animals.
All species, whether plant or animal, tries to expand their range. Animals have a hard time doing this, since plants often keep their populations in check. But plants have developed usefulness to animals and have them expand it's range.
How else would corn go from Central America to Europe and Asia? How about Chinese chestnut to the US? Sitka spruce to the UK?
Of course, some of them have made great adaptations and are now really hard to get rid of. Kudzu comes to mind. Some of these have been so succesful, they have pushed native plants aside where they are now getting rather rare.
Florida is a Biological Nightmare with the introduction of plants-fish mammals -birds- monkeys -reptiles and people !!
Ya mean like da water hyacinths and da walking catfish? Da hyacinths will jes choke outta river or lake and dem walking catfish have lungs. If'n ya poison da ditch or lake deys in, dey jes walks across da road to de other ditch or lake. :o Of course Minnesota is experiencing that too. Those Transatlantic freighters have brought all kinds of foreign critters and vegetation into lake Superior and then they spread out over the state via unsuspecting fishermen. :( :(
The worlds getting smaller every day and isolation exist in very few places. It's been said that 98% of all organism's that have ever lived are now extinct. It's estimated that there have been 55 to 60 billion humans on the face of the earth and with 6 billion living now that means that 1 out of every 10 that has ever been is present now. The numbers are not in humans favor.
I've heard that half of all the people ever alive on this planet are still alive. All natural populations will build in intensity until they collapse due to overconsumption. The populace weakens, disease sets in, and then collapses.
Ron --You just bumped the ante up to 50%. And with a lot of idle folks playing in labs with all kinds of tiny- tiny bugs, your askeering me. I'm gonna run get some life insurance !! :o :o
Myth
When people use wood, they cause the loss of forests.
Fact
There is about the same amount of forest cover today as there was 100 years ago, even though we consume more wood per capita than any other region in the world.
Forests are renewable and sustainable.
QuoteMyth
snip
Forests are renewable and sustainable.
Amen to that! :) lw
I agree with Ron that forests are sustainable,when managed as working forests.I have had the privilege to work where my dad's dad, felled trees in the 1930s& 40s.It is now beautiful second growth.And our district, is now putting up commercial thinning sales,in blocks that my dad logged in the 1950s.
But, vast areas are now,houses,golf courses, and a large ski resort town.Thousands of acres, are now managed for non forest use.Not by Foresters,but, by developers.
Fact:Forests are renewable,and sustainable.