high grading is FOREST POLLUTION

Joseph Zorzin redoak at forestmeister.com
Thu Nov 19 14:45:11 EST 1998

Ted Kegebein wrote:
> High Grading, IMHO, is an economic issue---not pollution, Mr. Joseph.
> American Forests have been High Graded for centuries, and yet all those
> great genetics you seem so worried about have somehow managed to
> propagate themselves. Instead of having 90% great genetics, perhaps it
> is reduced to 25%, given enough time the good genes will reinsert
> themselves.

Pollution only by analogy of course.

> However, I am NOT defending the practice--it shows poor management,
> laziness, and provides bad economic returns, but please don't blow it
> out of proportion. Your definition of "pollution" is far off base.
> Wildlife seems to love a High Graded stand, they have hollow trees, open
> areas where sunlight promotes new growth, and many of the "weed" species
> that are left have excellent mast or foliage they can eat.

We can do that for wildlife WITHOUT high grading. I frequently leave
hollow trees and there will ALWAYS be weed species, whether I like it or
not. So, high grading doesn't add anything. It isn't the end of the
world I agree, but professional foresters should act like it is; because
we're trained to do good forestry; which high grading is not.

> So, there can be mildly acceptable High Grade logging, especially if the
> landowner is more interested in wildlife than timber production. Nature
> will outlive them.
> And yes, if I wish to High Grade my personal property, it is none of
> your business.

But you wouldn't, because you're OBVIOUSLY too smart for that. <G>

Because it's a dumb thing to do. And nobody benefits.

> Ted Kegebein

Joe Zorzin, Professional Mud Forester
z-mail, list server, for the Massachusetts forestry revolution of '98
read about it at http://forestmeister.com/z-mail.html

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list