|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
|
Author
|
Sustainable forestry question | (Read 664 times) |
|
MJ Solaro
Administrator
Posts: 131
|
 |
February 22, 2008, 01:16:35 PM |
|
I understand that the state of Washington practices sustainable forestry insomuch that they only harvest 1.1% of the forests every year. In other words, for every one acre of forest harvested each year, there are approximately 99 growing elsewhere.
But is this really all that is required in order for forestry to be sustainable? I know that last month there was a lot of noise about some forestry methods, such as clear-cutting, that were employed by Weyerhauser, and whether they contributed to some of the massive flooding and mud slides experienced in Lewis County in general.
I also have heard about sustainable forest management, and this being a fundamentally different principle from sustainable forestry. It seems sustainable forestry is more about making sure we can continue to produce the resource (in other words, don't screw up the soil, water, or seeds or you'll short your supply), while sustainable forest management is more about the complete picture and impact on an ecosystem, and ensuring forests can continue to serve a broader purpose.
Does anybody know how far our state policies go? How far should they go?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
paul wheaton
Administrator
Posts: 1343
|
|
February 22, 2008, 05:17:16 PM |
|
Whelp, it depends.
Sustainable forestry is a rich issue. And it can be done really well (I think) while taking more than 2% every year.
Can be.
As for clear cuts ... I keep hearing from trustworthy sources that there are conditions where it is not only okay, but a really good idea. I'm not convinced, but I'm trying to keep an open mind on it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
rachael hamblin
Posts: 129
|
|
March 23, 2008, 01:59:06 PM |
|
Regarding clear cuts, what are the conditions where it is said to be a good idea? And what are the sources you're hearing this from? I haven't heard this before, I'm curious.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
paul wheaton
Administrator
Posts: 1343
|
|
March 23, 2008, 03:04:55 PM |
|
Regarding clear cuts, what are the conditions where it is said to be a good idea? And what are the sources you're hearing this from? I haven't heard this before, I'm curious.
As I said, I'm still skeptical.
But .... for one really fantastic example, take a good look at Sepp Holzer, the uber permie of the world, located in the alps of austria. Super steep land which he clear cuts, shapes and then plants with a diversity of trees. That is one example. But you need to do it right and in a timely fashion.
Of course, a lot of the folks that are leaning on the value of "the right kind" of clear cuts as an excuse to do the wrong kind of clear cuts, are mostly talking about the problems of the monoculture conifer forest. You have a lack of diversity and the conifers (sort of) poison the land so a diversity cannot grow. The clear cuts enable/allow diversity. So not only more species of vegetation can be supported, but more species of wildlife.
As with many things, the real answer is far richer than what I can convey here.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
permaculture.dave
Posts: 113
|
|
March 25, 2008, 04:25:41 PM |
|
I suspect that if time, place, and goals all line up right clearcutting can be the best harvest option in some places. For example, indigenous people in the Amazon have been clearcutting (or burning) areas for their villages for thousands of years. However, unlike the modern clearcut scenario they would let the land rest for a long time before returning.
This makes me think about how our human goals play into it. While I don't think it is a good idea to hack into relatively intact ecosystems and call it Permaculture, I do think that it can be appropriate to clear land that isn't healthy, vigorous, and diverse to make room for establishment of a human settlement. For instance, if I were to live on 20 year old lava in Hawaii with 90 foot tall Albizias towering over me, dropping babies everywhere, and suppressing the native pioneers, I'd may choose to whack them so I could establish some food plants and not battle seedlings all the time. It's difficult to grow all the food you need in the shade.
In terms of general forest management, I also like the idea of doing small patches of clearcuts when seed tree, shelterwood, and single-tree harvesting methods are inappropriate. If you want sun-loving, pioneer species to establish themselves (or regenerate) you need to give them light. Therefore, doing a number of clearcuts that are one to three acres in size may allow that to happen, thus increasing forest diversity. This is also called "group selection".
Of course, I think that clearcutting on extreme slopes, in sensitive watershed areas, and on a grand scale are all pretty lousy ways to "sustainably" manage forests.
Either way, I think that, like any other tool, clearcutting has a place in the foresters toolbox to be pulled out when appropriate.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
SueinWA
Posts: 313
|
|
November 12, 2008, 11:59:07 PM |
|
Original post: "I understand that the state of Washington practices sustainable forestry insomuch that they only harvest 1.1% of the forests every year. In other words, for every one acre of forest harvested each year, there are approximately 99 growing elsewhere."
I love that term "sustainable land management" that our government uses. It kind of makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, doesn't it?
Most of these are what are euphemistically called 'public lands'. Our bureaucrats rent them out to logging companies for stripping, rent them out to ranches for overgrazing, and let's not forget the mining companies.
Basically, our resources are sold off to the highest bidder. The highest logging bidder goes in, systematically downs every tree, shoves the poorer ones out of the way, and drags the biggest ones out, walks away, and sells most of the timber to foreign markets. Sustainable???
I'm not sure who the people are who tell the logging companies that YES, they can strip all the steep slopes they can reach, and YES, they can clear-cut right down to the water's edge, but I strongly suspect that some people in control are being paid off rather handsomely.
Did you know that several of the rivers in western WA used to be navigable by large ships? And do you know why they aren't now? Silt. All the topsoil that covered and protected our forests was washed down into the rivers. The heavier stuff is still sitting in the rivers (silt) and the lighter humus is in the Pacific Ocean. Logging companies protest all the time that their practices aren't what are ruining the rivers and the salmon populations. Yeah, sure, guys, we believe that because we're effing stupid.
Consider this justification for clearcutting: "One of the biggest myths about clearcutting is that it creates more soil erosion and compaction than other harvesting methods. In reality clearcutting is less damaging to site in terms of erosion and compaction, because you only disturb the site once during the life of the stand."
Did you get that? "...you only disturb the site once during the life of the stand". Around here, the life of a stand is about 30 years, so three times every century, the thin layer of humus and debris that has collected and composted under the trees is washed down into the rivers again.
Sustainable? It must have another meaning to them.
Oh, they replant, do they? And what do they replant with? Could it be with Douglas Fir? Mile upon mile of Douglas Fir? This is not diversity, so they must have another meaning for that, too.
Okay, students, what happens to very large stands of any kind of plant when a disease or major pest takes over? And then what happens? Mass aerial spraying of pesticides, which also wash into the aquifers. Many times, it doesn't work very well, if at all. Oh, well, we can log it off and replant it.
Sustainable forest conservation is just an empty phrase. But, then, consider the source.
Sue
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
|
|
