The neighbor had some trees select cut and the timber-er girdled a bunch of trees. I do not know why he would do this to some trees. The land owner was selling the land and knew that...did they do it to kill weaker trees or bad trees. I see no value to cut rings around certain trees and leaving them to stand dead or fall later.
Thanks
Off site species, low grade species, non commercial species, could be a number of reasons. With no information of location and cover type, or land owners desire, hard to say.
What did the neighbor say? Was fairly common back in the day for stand improvement.
Pa Teeny
Welcome to the Forestry Forum.
Tell us a bit more, and your location in your profile will help with your questions.
One reason as mentioned, to girdle and kill trees is so one doesn't have to deal with removing the wood.
Some trees cause more damage when you fell them than what they are worth. We marked trees to be girdled if they were poor species, and were a hazard to cut. If you have nice regeneration, sometimes you don't want to drop it onto the regeneration. But, with it being a poor species, girdling will eliminate the seed source, and provide for wildlife habitat.
Have you not seen that one show on Discovery about the people in Alaska, they girdle trees so they have dead standing firewood. So they do not have to stack it as long before burning.
Do you just cut around them with a chainsaw?
First , Welcome to the forum.
Second, "select cut " means the harvester only cut the trees he selected, the good ones.
BUT , He obviously removed the cull trees by girdling as Ron has posted which is good forestry.
Nothing wrong with girdling trees to kill them as they die and deteriorate with the falling down occurring mostly vertically over several years resulting in less damage to the residual stand of trees.
Quote from: Raider Bill on October 28, 2014, 04:05:00 PM
Do you just cut around them with a chainsaw?
Lee, you first have to visit the ladies dept at the local shopping mall.. and girdles are prolly hard to find any more ;D ;D
But yes, chainsaw cut about an inch or so deep around the tree... and from experience, a bit deeper to kill some elm trees.
I have had some beech that didn't die because I didn't cut deep enough. They can be a plague around here. Banjo
We always had 3 rings around the tree. That would kill them, as long as you got below the cambium layer.
Quote from: beenthere on October 28, 2014, 07:26:43 PM
Quote from: Raider Bill on October 28, 2014, 04:05:00 PM
Do you just cut around them with a chainsaw?
Lee, you first have to visit the ladies dept at the local shopping mall.. and girdles are prolly hard to find any more ;D ;D
But yes, chainsaw cut about an inch or so deep around the tree... and from experience, a bit deeper to kill some elm trees.
I'll keep that in mind if I ever go looking for a girdle BT.
One more advantage about killing them in place is even if they fall sideways after, they will be brittle and probably 50% less weight hitting the trees you want to keep. ;D
We had to stop this common practice due to the liability of leaving a safety hazard by leaving potentially hazardous trees to fall on for other forest users i.e. hunters, mushroom and berry pickers, hikers, firewood cutters, etc.
Good point, Ron.
I am assuming this is in relation to publicly accessable forests and a sue crazy public. Will they still sue if a piece of a dead tree falls on them. Probably.
I think the practice is still a good practical tool for private forests. When it is your own place, hopefully you are smart enough not to camp under a dead snag, or to walk through the area when it is loaded with glaze ice or in a high wind. Granted, dead trees can fall or drop pieces on a calm day. I've been there. There are always dead trees in a forest and alway some danger going in there. Also crossing a street, flying, driving your car, going swimming, or just being asleep in your house when it catches fire or gets hit by a tornado. Life is full of risks, most of them aren't even noticed. The chances of being under that tree when it falls is very low.
Just sayin'. :snowball:
I was given a brief snippet of a case a number of years ago where someone was going to sue a utility company because a tree fell on his daughter and killed her. They were sitting on a bank and they were fishing. The tree apparently gave way and fell over. The creek had washed out underneath the roots, if I recall. The tree was live and had no signs that it would fall over. I never heard anymore about the case, so I don't know if anything became of it.
There are certain hazards you just can't guard against or foresee.
All private land in Mississippi is posted by law. If you are on it with out permission you are trespassing. Don't know if that would make a difference in a law suit or not.... It might not in some places, but I think it would here. Banjo
In Vermont, and Maine, land is open unless posted. Landowners are not liable if someone gets hurt while using others' land uninvited.
With a chainsaw, the kerf is so narrow that trees will sometimes grow back over it. Two or 3 girdles around the tree as Ron suggests instead of just one is much better. A single girdle with an ax or hatchet will work, but you need to actually cut a groove into the tree, by chopping downward, then upward. Doesn't have to be deep, no more than an inch past the bark.
Quote from: CJennings on October 30, 2014, 08:09:15 PM
In Vermont, and Maine, land is open unless posted. Landowners are not liable if someone gets hurt while using others' land uninvited.
I don't know about Maine, but in VT you lose that liability protection if you are charging for the use of your land.
It seems our original poster was a one time er an didn't like what that they have seen. Banjo
I hadn't noticed that. I went back and noticed the tone was apparently looking for support for the idea is that killing trees is bad.
Oh well. Interesting discussion anyway. ;D