Moss, Redwoods are a shade-intolerant trees, and like aspens and cherry, grow best in the open with lots of sunlight, like a clear cut. Believe it or not, the best way to harvest them for maximum regeneration is to clear cut them like White Pines. Of course, they can be clear cutted in "patches" which is more ecologically feasible.
Treesit Lawsuit Gets Bigger
- Thread starter Remedy
- Start date
moss
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- Carlisle, Massachusetts, U.S.
[ QUOTE ]
Moss, Redwoods are a shade-intolerant trees, and like aspens and cherry, grow best in the open with lots of sunlight, like a clear cut. Believe it or not, the best way to harvest them for maximum regeneration is to clear cut them like White Pines. Of course, they can be clear cutted in "patches" which is more ecologically feasible.
[/ QUOTE ]
So a selective cut to keep an ecosystem intact (preserve the plants and organisms that depend on old growth) and hold the soil down to prevent silting and overheating rivers and streams (good-bye salmon and trout) would require some forethought, ie: cutting in patches as Chucky suggests.
-moss
Moss, Redwoods are a shade-intolerant trees, and like aspens and cherry, grow best in the open with lots of sunlight, like a clear cut. Believe it or not, the best way to harvest them for maximum regeneration is to clear cut them like White Pines. Of course, they can be clear cutted in "patches" which is more ecologically feasible.
[/ QUOTE ]
So a selective cut to keep an ecosystem intact (preserve the plants and organisms that depend on old growth) and hold the soil down to prevent silting and overheating rivers and streams (good-bye salmon and trout) would require some forethought, ie: cutting in patches as Chucky suggests.
-moss
NickfromWI
Participating member
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
[ QUOTE ]
Moss, Redwoods are a shade-intolerant trees, and like aspens and cherry, grow best in the open with lots of sunlight, like a clear cut. Believe it or not, the best way to harvest them for maximum regeneration is to clear cut them like White Pines. Of course, they can be clear cutted in "patches" which is more ecologically feasible.
[/ QUOTE ]
Chucky, come on! You're talking about lumber. Your argument explains why the lumber companies are wrong. The lumber companies have been around for over 100 years? They haven't figured out a way to do sustainable logging in 100 years? If they clear cut a patch, 100 years later, it's still in their best interest to cut old growth. There is only one way to do sustainable logging of 1000 year old trees. Cut some of them down one year, next year move somewhere else, and so one. Then you have to wait a THOUSAND years 'til you go back to the first patch you cut.
Don't look at it as lumber, consider them trees. Your argument makes it sound like you think the best thing for the trees is to cut them down. I know that's not what you meant. You're talking about the best way to harvest them. The best way for them to live is to leave them alone.
Glen, hauling up platforms is a small price to pay to protect the entire tree. And feeding a person for a year can be done for what, a couple thousand? Also a small price for a tree that's work MANY thousand.
Do we really need redwood lumber anyway?
Moss, Redwoods are a shade-intolerant trees, and like aspens and cherry, grow best in the open with lots of sunlight, like a clear cut. Believe it or not, the best way to harvest them for maximum regeneration is to clear cut them like White Pines. Of course, they can be clear cutted in "patches" which is more ecologically feasible.
[/ QUOTE ]
Chucky, come on! You're talking about lumber. Your argument explains why the lumber companies are wrong. The lumber companies have been around for over 100 years? They haven't figured out a way to do sustainable logging in 100 years? If they clear cut a patch, 100 years later, it's still in their best interest to cut old growth. There is only one way to do sustainable logging of 1000 year old trees. Cut some of them down one year, next year move somewhere else, and so one. Then you have to wait a THOUSAND years 'til you go back to the first patch you cut.
Don't look at it as lumber, consider them trees. Your argument makes it sound like you think the best thing for the trees is to cut them down. I know that's not what you meant. You're talking about the best way to harvest them. The best way for them to live is to leave them alone.
Glen, hauling up platforms is a small price to pay to protect the entire tree. And feeding a person for a year can be done for what, a couple thousand? Also a small price for a tree that's work MANY thousand.
Do we really need redwood lumber anyway?
- Location
- Minneapolis
[ QUOTE ]
There is only one way to do sustainable logging of 1000 year old trees. Cut some of them down one year, next year move somewhere else, and so one. Then you have to wait a THOUSAND years 'til you go back to the first patch you cut.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't that be something. I don't know of a US company that looks much beyond the current quarter. What's it say that ex Vanguard Mutual Fund CEO John Bogle has written a book called The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism. Corporate excess and political influence is who we are. The times they have a changed.
There is only one way to do sustainable logging of 1000 year old trees. Cut some of them down one year, next year move somewhere else, and so one. Then you have to wait a THOUSAND years 'til you go back to the first patch you cut.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't that be something. I don't know of a US company that looks much beyond the current quarter. What's it say that ex Vanguard Mutual Fund CEO John Bogle has written a book called The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism. Corporate excess and political influence is who we are. The times they have a changed.
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
That is a long read but with a lot of good info...a sample:
<font color="green">The Sierra Club says, "You don't need a professional forester to tell if a forest is mismanaged - if a forest appears to be mismanaged, it is mismanaged." They want you to believe that the ugly appearance of a recently harvested forest is synonymous with permanent destruction of the environment. And yet, the unsightly sea of stumps is not nuclear waste or a toxic discharge, it is 100 percent organic, and will soon grow back to a beautiful new forest again. </font>
and, also, an interesting comment:
<font color="brown">May the Forest be With You </font>
<font color="green">The Sierra Club says, "You don't need a professional forester to tell if a forest is mismanaged - if a forest appears to be mismanaged, it is mismanaged." They want you to believe that the ugly appearance of a recently harvested forest is synonymous with permanent destruction of the environment. And yet, the unsightly sea of stumps is not nuclear waste or a toxic discharge, it is 100 percent organic, and will soon grow back to a beautiful new forest again. </font>
and, also, an interesting comment:
<font color="brown">May the Forest be With You </font>
NickfromWI
Participating member
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="green">... And yet, the unsightly sea of stumps is not nuclear waste or a toxic discharge, it is 100 percent organic, and will soon grow back to a beautiful new forest again. </font>
[/ QUOTE ]
And it'll only take hundreds....no...THOUSANDS of years /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
love
nick
<font color="green">... And yet, the unsightly sea of stumps is not nuclear waste or a toxic discharge, it is 100 percent organic, and will soon grow back to a beautiful new forest again. </font>
[/ QUOTE ]
And it'll only take hundreds....no...THOUSANDS of years /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
love
nick
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
It makes more sense to me to have these protesters become smoke jumpers and save entire forests from fire than have them occupy a single tree and collect unemployment or welfare from the taxes collected from the loggers making a living off a renewable resource regardless of the time it takes these trees to grow, mature , fall over and rot.
Mangoes
Participating member
- Location
- Greater Toronto Area
Kevin, if I had to guess I'd say you're a Flemming grad. /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif
moss
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- Carlisle, Massachusetts, U.S.
[ QUOTE ]
This is an interesting read ...
http://www.greenspirit.com/printable.cfm?msid=30
[/ QUOTE ]
You've got to agree with Patrick Moore's main message that the "forestry industry" is not evil. Of course it's not! It's the segments of the forest industry that want to take out the remaining tracts of particular species of old growth in an ecologically irresponsible manner that are evil
I have to quibble with some of Moore's points where he's either misinformed or glosses over complex situations. For instance he says several times that North American forestry practices have never led to an extinction of a single species. It's commonly accepted that the Passenger Pigeon became extinct due to overhunting. It is more complex than that. Market hunting was part of the picture but the destruction of hardwood forests in central and eastern North America (during the the transition from forest to agricultural land use in the 1800's) removed the mast crops that the Passenger Pigeon depended on. Once the Passenger Pigeon flocks were forced to feed on increasingly isolated stands of mature chestnut, beech and oak they became easy targets for market hunters. By the early 1900's there wasn't enough hardwood forest in the east to support the few Passenger Pigeons that remained. Let's just say that human caused deforestation was a co-conspirator.
The Ivory Billed Woodpecker may not be extinct but it has been on the brink for the last 60 years. The extensive cutting of southern bottomland forest is the cause of this magnificent woodpecker's current extremely endangered status.
These high-profile species are the rock stars of extinction scenarios. The unsung heros are the many plants and animals who have lost their place in old-growth ecosystems during the last 300 hundred years of North American land-use history. Moore points to clear cuts in the northwest that have completely regenerated to near old-growth like ecosystems. Remember, this requires substantial adjacent old-growth habitat to allow a newer forest system to rebuild. And the devastating effects of systematic large clearcuts are felt for a long time before such regeneration is possible. These effects include regional climate change, loss of water retention in the affected ecosystem, long-term degradation of river and stream habitats including native fish and amphibian species, land instability etc. etc. Sure, nature does this with fires and volcanoes but the results of methodical and persistent pressure of human caused deforestation over an extended period of time are huge compared to forest fires and rare catastrophic volcano events like Mount St. Helens.
One last quibble. Moore doesn't help his argument going up against E.O. Wilson. Wilson is a widely respected scientist of the highest integrity, Moore should kiss his boots and call it a day.
Moore is on target pointing the finger at urban/suburban land use practices, automobiles and our resource wasteful ways of living. But he undermines his argument with half-truths and inaccuracy.
Whew, longest post I've ever written. Wore my fingers to a nub.
-moss
This is an interesting read ...
http://www.greenspirit.com/printable.cfm?msid=30
[/ QUOTE ]
You've got to agree with Patrick Moore's main message that the "forestry industry" is not evil. Of course it's not! It's the segments of the forest industry that want to take out the remaining tracts of particular species of old growth in an ecologically irresponsible manner that are evil
I have to quibble with some of Moore's points where he's either misinformed or glosses over complex situations. For instance he says several times that North American forestry practices have never led to an extinction of a single species. It's commonly accepted that the Passenger Pigeon became extinct due to overhunting. It is more complex than that. Market hunting was part of the picture but the destruction of hardwood forests in central and eastern North America (during the the transition from forest to agricultural land use in the 1800's) removed the mast crops that the Passenger Pigeon depended on. Once the Passenger Pigeon flocks were forced to feed on increasingly isolated stands of mature chestnut, beech and oak they became easy targets for market hunters. By the early 1900's there wasn't enough hardwood forest in the east to support the few Passenger Pigeons that remained. Let's just say that human caused deforestation was a co-conspirator.
The Ivory Billed Woodpecker may not be extinct but it has been on the brink for the last 60 years. The extensive cutting of southern bottomland forest is the cause of this magnificent woodpecker's current extremely endangered status.
These high-profile species are the rock stars of extinction scenarios. The unsung heros are the many plants and animals who have lost their place in old-growth ecosystems during the last 300 hundred years of North American land-use history. Moore points to clear cuts in the northwest that have completely regenerated to near old-growth like ecosystems. Remember, this requires substantial adjacent old-growth habitat to allow a newer forest system to rebuild. And the devastating effects of systematic large clearcuts are felt for a long time before such regeneration is possible. These effects include regional climate change, loss of water retention in the affected ecosystem, long-term degradation of river and stream habitats including native fish and amphibian species, land instability etc. etc. Sure, nature does this with fires and volcanoes but the results of methodical and persistent pressure of human caused deforestation over an extended period of time are huge compared to forest fires and rare catastrophic volcano events like Mount St. Helens.
One last quibble. Moore doesn't help his argument going up against E.O. Wilson. Wilson is a widely respected scientist of the highest integrity, Moore should kiss his boots and call it a day.
Moore is on target pointing the finger at urban/suburban land use practices, automobiles and our resource wasteful ways of living. But he undermines his argument with half-truths and inaccuracy.
Whew, longest post I've ever written. Wore my fingers to a nub.
-moss
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
[ QUOTE ]
Kevin, if I had to guess I'd say you're a Flemming grad
[/ QUOTE ]
More like a crippled old tree climber. /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif
It hurts my old joints to climb but it's too much fun to stop.
Kevin, if I had to guess I'd say you're a Flemming grad
[/ QUOTE ]
More like a crippled old tree climber. /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif
It hurts my old joints to climb but it's too much fun to stop.
Riggs
Participating member
- Location
- Bryn Mawr , Pa.
Re: Treesit Lawsuit Gets Stupider
I watched that video last night . I've seen more violence in a playground (with little kids ). I thought by what I read here that this guy was choked and beat up. Another lawsuit wasting the courts time. Save your money remedy for a real lawsuit , your 15 minutes of fame are up. The last time I saw a guy getting choked he wasn't talking very much.
That tree probally couldn't wait to get cut down after listening to that non-sense. On the East Coast that guy would have gotten dropped with a straight right. Goodnight, and would've been afraid to sue. There has to be a better way to protect these trees than to send radicals in with no plan other than to cause a ruckus.
I watched that video last night . I've seen more violence in a playground (with little kids ). I thought by what I read here that this guy was choked and beat up. Another lawsuit wasting the courts time. Save your money remedy for a real lawsuit , your 15 minutes of fame are up. The last time I saw a guy getting choked he wasn't talking very much.
That tree probally couldn't wait to get cut down after listening to that non-sense. On the East Coast that guy would have gotten dropped with a straight right. Goodnight, and would've been afraid to sue. There has to be a better way to protect these trees than to send radicals in with no plan other than to cause a ruckus.
treebing
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- Detroit, Mi.
sorry to beat this seemingly dead horse, or scratch the bad rash as it may be in this case. Except I really hope that we keep on getting news about the fate of the lawsuit and that this discussion does go on in this forum because it is an extremely important one for everyone.
And Mangoes,
go look at a satelite photo of the island that holds Haiti and the Dominican Republic. The political border is evident from space. It happens to be on the side of the island that is red as opposed to green. Which side of this man made border are people starving? It is on the side where all the big trees got cut down. It is on the side where the trees were allowed to be raped, where nobody thought about the future or where people were so desperate for quick money that the trees were cut down. No tree sitters were there to stop it.
Very little can save Haiti now. They are in for an extremely rough road. I am glad we have people brave enough to climb those trees in order to save this country from the same fate. I am ashamed that there are people who share my passion for climbing that utilize their skills and knowledcge of trees to make a quick buck. Whores.
And while I watch people wasting perfectly good houses to build bigger ones, the argument that we need these resources is lost on me. We dont NEED to waste our trees for houses that are built out of vanity.
And Mangoes,
go look at a satelite photo of the island that holds Haiti and the Dominican Republic. The political border is evident from space. It happens to be on the side of the island that is red as opposed to green. Which side of this man made border are people starving? It is on the side where all the big trees got cut down. It is on the side where the trees were allowed to be raped, where nobody thought about the future or where people were so desperate for quick money that the trees were cut down. No tree sitters were there to stop it.
Very little can save Haiti now. They are in for an extremely rough road. I am glad we have people brave enough to climb those trees in order to save this country from the same fate. I am ashamed that there are people who share my passion for climbing that utilize their skills and knowledcge of trees to make a quick buck. Whores.
And while I watch people wasting perfectly good houses to build bigger ones, the argument that we need these resources is lost on me. We dont NEED to waste our trees for houses that are built out of vanity.
Riggs
Participating member
- Location
- Bryn Mawr , Pa.
"No tree sitters were there to stop it."
- I'll be honest with you here , I'm sick of this thread too , and I wish Tom would put a lock on it , Like say the >>>80 dollar throw ball bucket >>> If I see a person sitting in a tree that tells me one thing , That tree will be cut down soon ! End of tree , end of subject . If you go to war at least bring a knife . Takes money to stop money .
- I'll be honest with you here , I'm sick of this thread too , and I wish Tom would put a lock on it , Like say the >>>80 dollar throw ball bucket >>> If I see a person sitting in a tree that tells me one thing , That tree will be cut down soon ! End of tree , end of subject . If you go to war at least bring a knife . Takes money to stop money .
