Severance and property taxes
redoak at forestmeister.com
Tue Aug 5 05:15:02 EST 1997
Don Baccus wrote:
> In article <33E4CED2.37ED at whidbey.com>,
> Allan Derickson <alland at whidbey.com> wrote:
> >Don Baccus wrote:
> >I think you are falling into the trap of (a) believing that the
> >industrial land that is intensively managed makes up a large proportion
> >of total forestland (it doesn't),
> Define "intensively managed". Depending on that definition, you can
> argue the question, I guess.
> Regarding low-level westside coniferous forests - these are the forests
> I'm talking about, as I mentioned - these are mostly managed on a
> basis of clearcutting and conversion to even-aged, monospecific
> stands. Industry does this. The USFS intended to do so to all
> of its lands which fit this class of forest until lawsuits forced
> them to do otherwise. State forest lands are managed in this way.
> This is no trap, but fact.
> >>and (b) that the original native forests were all very diverse (they weren't).
> The forests I'm speaking of were - I said earlier that I'm not speaking of
> the monospecific forests such as Rocky Mountain lodgepole - certainly were.
> >Nonindustrial forestland is generally very poorly managed.
> From what point of view? From the point of view of conservation of our
> biological heritage, industrial forestland is very poorly managed. "Good
> management" is entirely subjective, as it depends upon the values you
> wish the forest to be managed for.
> >> >My point is that everything in nature is not infinitely diverse. There
> >> >is a broad continuum in which we exist. Even simple things have value.
> >> This isn't very helpful in a debate over how to manage forest resources,
> >> no matter how appealing a thought this is.
> >I think it is very helpful because it points out that is no one best way
> >to manage forest resources.
> I agree with this statement, but find it of little use because all parties
> to the debate over management of these resources agree to it.
> - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
> Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net
What you say is probably true for the west but not for the east
(excluding the southeast pine forests) where MOST land has in the past
been raped and pillaged countless times and has never seen a forester at
all. And since in the east many more species are usually present,
forests intensly managed by foresters seldom have the appearance of
monocultures. Although monoculutre may even be the desire of the
forester, it's too difficult to get there. We seldom plant trees in the
eastern hardwood forests. We work with whatever comes which is usually
10-20 species. I prefer to see red oak, but seldom will it make up more
than 50% of a stand. Here, a well managed stand looks far more like a
primeval forest than the other 90% of the land that never sees a
forester and just gets "high graded" every 20 years of so.
But I agree that in the west we should preserve and protect MUCH of the
remaining old growth and some of the government owned land should be
left to turn into old growth in areas of high visibility, or where
necessary to protect water bodies. I've read all the forestry lies about
how you can cut timber on watersheds and I've seen many cases here in
Massachusetts where such cutting resulted in mud flowing into public
drinking supplies. Back in the 80's there was a big problem with
giardisis in the water supply for Pittsfield Mass. and I attribute this
to all the heavy logging that went on in the watershed- as a result of
the propaganda of the state forestry school.
"The ONLY forester's web page in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts".
More information about the Ag-forst