Old growth forest logging

Don Baccus dhogaza at pacifier.com
Tue Jun 17 09:13:32 EST 1997


In article <e+SMCIAPUSpzEwc3 at thopkins.demon.co.uk>,
Theo Hopkins  <thopkins at thopkins.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>D. Braun is correct, but is talking about what is known as 'sustained
>yeild forestry' when he says that there are more trees in the US than in
>1900. He is correct, both in terms of numbers of trees, (more trees
>because they are smaller), and in terms of timber volume, ie, the total
>cubic meters (or board-feet in the un-metricated US) within the US
>forest estate.

>But....

>'sustained yeild forestry' is yesterday's definition of good forestry.

The forestry Dave's referring to has not been managed in a sustained 
yield manner for decades - we've cut beyond sustained yield.

Also, clear cutting with replanting of single-aged, monoculture stands is
only one way of managing for sustained yield.

Another way is low-volume selective logging.  There are a few private
companies that do this (a very few, most liquidate at a much higher
rate than the USFS has over the past 50 years).  The best example
in Oregon, in our ponderosa pine country, did so for decades but
got sold upon the death of the patriarch.  The new owners immediately
doubled the cut, of course.

>The Rio Summit also required nations to preserve bio-diversity, be it
>spotted owls, very obscure lichen or bluebells*.

Much closer to home, US law has required the USFS to do so since the
early 1970s.
-- 

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
  Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list