Page 2 of 2

Re: Forest Service considers knocking back old-growth forest

Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2014 11:03 am
by RayA

I believe you're likely correct that they're not talking about true old growth. But I do think the idea of cutting older stands to create regeneration is overdone in many areas, and is possibly a justification for commercial activity, or at least a reason for foresters to exist. I fully admit that I'm a wood consumer, as we pretty much all are, and the wood we want/need has to come from somewhere. But I think we would be much wiser to leave a substantial amount of acreage alone to become true "old growth" again. Nature will certainly always create openings of various sizes in forests, and there's already plenty of young woodlands (that probably always will be young). I question how many cutting rotations a given forest can withstand before there's degradation in the quality of the land to grow more trees; I believe eventually the soil may be essentially "burned out", just as with over-farming the land, albeit a longer time. I could go on and on, but I think everyone gets my point... more of a general rant than a comment on the specific plan mentioned in this post.

Ok, it's Christmas day... hope all of you have a joyful, peaceful day!

Re: Forest Service considers knocking back old-growth forest

Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2014 1:00 pm
by Joe
If, the forest that is NOT old growth- were managed with the best possible silviculture, not only would those forests produce MORE wood needed by the economy, but also, much of it could LOOK fairly old. Managed forests with good silviculture doesn't HAVE to look heavily cut. I've always believed in light harvesting- or what I call my "one third rule of thumb":

And, by managing INTELLIGENTLY all the non old growth forest, all remaining old growth can be preserved forever.