Forest Management for a newbie.

JimiFromMI jimifrommi at aol.com
Fri Aug 21 08:21:30 EST 1998


In article <35DD5180.B93CEF57 at forestmeister.com>, Joseph Zorzin
<redoak at forestmeister.com> writes:

>Subject:	Re: Forest Management for a newbie.
>From:	Joseph Zorzin <redoak at forestmeister.com>
>Date:Fri, 21 Aug 1998 06:52:48 -0400
>
>Tracy. E. Thieret wrote:
>> 
>> Folks,
>> 
>> I own a few acres (11) near the Adirondacks that is overgrown with trees
>> and I suspect that it would be prudent to thin some of them out.  One
>> area (a couple acres) is a small pine forest populated with trees spaced
>> every 10 feet that have green needles only near the tops (30 feet up or
>> so).  The remainder is mixture hard/softwoods with some LARGE multi
>> trunk pines (>1foot diameter each) and some moderately sized hardwoods
>> and a multiude of smaller (3-6" trunks) trees.
>
>> 
>> What are the rules to follow in doing the thinning.  Should I touch it
>> at all, leave it alone..  Keep the big ones and cut out the little
>> ones.  One tree every 20 or so feet....
>> 
>> I'm clueless.  There's got to be somebody on this list who knows more
>> about this than I do.  I've got a chain saw and I'm ready to go but I
>> want to do the right thing.
>> 
>> Tracy.
>
>In the pine section you may notice that many have broken, twisted or
>multiple tops (leaders). This sort of damage is common and caused by the
>white pine weevil. You won't go wrong if you remove about a third of the
>trees, looking for the worse third to remove, especially those with
>damaged tops.
>
>In the mixed species area, look for species of higher value such as
>oaks, sugar maple, ash and cherry. Try to favor these by removing lower
>value species such as poplar, red maple, beech, birch, basswood. Most
>softwood would probably be of lower value compared to the better species
>of hardwood. This of course is a generality because a tree may the right
>species but a poor specimen- so it should be removed in that case to
>favor a good specimen of a relatively "bad" species. Once again, you
>probably won't go wrong removing about one third of the trees- or one
>third of the biomass.
>
>Don't worry too much about the smaller trees, but if you do get into
>thinning them, just look to benefit the more valuable species.
>
>Prune the better pines, up to 17' height if you can find yourself a good
>pruning saw but not more than about 1 every 20' on average. The goal is
>to prune those that will likely remain until a final rotation- at least
>as far as a strict economic consideration- but if you get into it, just
>keep pruning all you want.
>-- 
>
>Joseph Zorzin, Yankee Forestmeister

I suppose this answer (provided by a qualified forester -- which I'm not)
assumes that  your management goals are for obtaining future timber revenue. 
You must ask yourself and decide what your goals are for the land before doing
anything.  Ideally, you would have a forester walk the land with you as all
parcels do have their own uniqueness that can not be identified readilly over
the web.

A shit tree from an economic point of view may be worth its weight in gold from
a wildlife or aestetic point view.  Even standing decaying trees have the
potential of being "priceless" if for instance, your favorite bird is a
woodpecker.

What are your goals?




More information about the Ag-forst mailing list