high grading is FOREST POLLUTION

[ForestFair]

 Joseph Zorzin <redoak at forestmeister.com>
wrote:
>
>Definition- HIGH GRADING. Cut all the good trees, leave all the bad
>trees.

That's not a definition of highgrading that tells all, since what makes "good
trees" is not the same for everyone.  Perhaps" marketable trees" is closer to
the mark.

I have a lot of "good trees" that are still very small, and not even the worst
of the highgraders would take them now -- still, they ARE good trees. 

And it isn't size alone, either, because I have a lot of "good trees" that are
enormous hemlocks (not of interest to a commercial outfit) which are "good" for
lots of other reasons.

And then, there are some monster oaks that have some damage that makes not so
desirable to a logger -- but they are the source of good acorns for oak
regeneration, and the wildlife that feed on them..

"Good trees" lie in the eye of the beholder.

But you're right -- highgrading is a practice that is all too common, and it
deserves a worse reputation than clearcutting has.  Still, the public thinks
that clearcutting is always bad (not so) and doesn't have a clue about
high-grading, which is potentially more damaging because people don't recognize
when it is being done, and its consequences.

ForestFair at aol.com