tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448259913624206180.post6710142494881675442..comments2023-11-29T07:06:55.168-05:00Comments on Central Pennsylvania Forestry: Logging in Lower BurrellDavid R. Jacksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10274227503840900875noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448259913624206180.post-81027260605170593752016-12-11T10:16:08.793-05:002016-12-11T10:16:08.793-05:00The comments by Jim Finley show that there is stil...The comments by Jim Finley show that there is still a significant difference of opinion between practicing foresters and Penn State Forestry when it comes to select cutting. However, I would make the observation that many of the foresters advocating select cutting are Penn State graduates who are adapting to the realities of commercial timber harvesting. Their purpose is to generate reasonable income while keeping both short and long term regeneration in mind.<br /><br />We landowners have no ax to grind, and are trying to adapt to what makes good sense. <br />As described in my previous posts, the logic presented by Jim Finley is contradicted by experience in managing my 400 acres woodland parcel in Centre County. As a refresher, the first hardwood harvest on this parcel in the history of the earth was conducted in 1995 and a second one was completed in December 2016. Select harvests were performed both times and the volumes and monetary values were nearly identical.<br /><br />I assume that the recommended alternative to a select harvest in 1995 would have been to clear-cut the area to achieve uniform age growth. This being the case, there would have been no harvest in 2016, and a lot of healthy trees would have been consigned to pulpwood.<br /><br />Concerning the conclusion that smaller diameter remaining trees are unhealthy, I recall a visit I had with Jim Stiehler, a state forester, in the early 1990s. We were touring the property and standing near some white oak stumps where a small quantity of firewood had been taken to widen a trail. He pointed out that two of the trees were of different diameter, and gave me a quick lesson in how one same-age tree dominates the growth of another nearby by capturing the light, and how the less dominant is not necessarily unhealthy but grows more slowly. However, it is true that some of the less dominant may get choked out and die, but this just contributes to the nutrition of those that remain.<br /><br />After our first harvest in 1995, I noticed that what we had left was a lot of healthy smaller diameter trees. The same is true after the recent harvest.<br /><br />I recognize that there is a real possibility that the next regeneration may not be as robust as the first, and the time might come when a clear-cut is advisable. However, it obviously was not the thing to do in 1995.<br /><br />In my opinion, generalized policies should be viewed with caution, and sound practices should be tailored to each situation. For example, in my frequent travel from Northern Virginia to Centre County, I see a lot of mature woodland where clear-cutting is the only sensible method of harvest. This is because the forests have matured to the extent that there are no small trees and the understory barely exists. <br /><br />This is illustrated along Route 350 as you climb the mountain from Bald Eagle to Sandy Ridge. Most of the game lands woodland that you can see has never been harvested and is over-mature. Near the summit, a limited area has been clear-cut and the regeneration is spectacular.<br /><br />In the case of harvesting in Lower Burrell, long term regeneration was likely less important than retaining 25 acres of beautiful woodland to look at. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br />Edward Jedrziewskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6448259913624206180.post-9718648311505565802016-12-06T16:09:39.222-05:002016-12-06T16:09:39.222-05:00Dear Ms. Thomas,
Your November 20 article, “Loggin...Dear Ms. Thomas,<br />Your November 20 article, “Logging Effort above Route 56 in Lower Burrell a Labor of Love,” has reached far and wide. Since its release, I have received notes from several colleagues and it was even listed on the Society of American Forester’s eForester website.<br /><br />As a bit of background, I am the Ibberson Professor of Forest Resources at Penn State, Pennsylvania extension forester, and the Director of the Center for Private Forests at Penn State. My entire career has focused on the sustainable management of forests.<br /><br />There are many threats to the sustainability of Pennsylvania’s forests – insects, diseases, wind, weather, parcelization, and timber harvesting. As a forester, I understand silviculture, which is the art and science of managing tree species composition, forest structure, growth, and regeneration or renewal. Harvesting is the tool of silviculture and should lead to improved forest conditions or set the forest on a path for renewal. Unfortunately, too often select harvesting is the chosen tool for prescribing timber harvest treatments. In a select harvest, the focus is on what to remove and not on what to leave for the future of the stand and in the process it tends to lead to “taking the best and leaving the rest.”<br /> <br />The harvest described in your article focused on taking the “biggest trees” of some species (red oak, maple, poplar, and cherry for example from your piece) and leaving the smaller trees to grow for some future harvest. This approach and argument is flawed. Most of Pennsylvania’s forests are, in forestry parlance, even-aged. In an even-aged forest, tree diameters will vary widely; however, most people interpret diameter as representing age. So, a harvest designed to take the biggest trees first is akin to culling the fast growing trees first. Or, said another way, it is like taking the winners of the Kentucky Derby to market and leaving the losers to grow and breed for future races.<br /><br />If you had the chance to study forest stand development, you would see that some tree species grow faster than others and those trees generally require more light to germinate and grow. A select cut takes those trees first. Doing this often reduces species diversity. Sometimes with only one select cut an entire species cohort is lost. With repeated select cuts diversity is sure to be reduced. Then too, with select cutting, taking the biggest and best of the species, seed source is sure to be lost and there is seldom enough light on the forest floor to allow seedlings of light loving species to develop. The bottom line is that while select cuts sound good, they end up depleting the forest and leading to unsustainable outcomes.<br /><br />Select cuts focused on the treatment described in your article do not represent the “love” you conveyed; rather, they are abuse of the forest. Others hear the term “select” cut and the logic seems right, but it doesn’t work. As a result, too many harvests are leading to less healthy, less resilient, less sustainable forests for the future, and, yet, people think it is the right thing to do.<br /><br />I’ve attached two articles to this note that warrant sharing with your readers. I appreciate that they fly in the face of your earlier piece. Forest owners deserve to hear another perspective on caring for our forests today so that future owners and others enjoy healthy and diverse forests tomorrow.<br /><br />If you would like to discuss this perspective further, I would be happy to talk with you.<br /><br />Thanks for taking the time to read and consider my concerns and the concerns of my colleagues who shared your piece with me.<br /><br />Respectfully,<br />Dr. Jim Finley<br />David R. Jacksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10274227503840900875noreply@blogger.com