Re: Pernambuco, the wood not the state on the bulge of Brazil (longagain)

Yep, the number of cords of standing hardwood here in MI increases every year by almost the amount harvested, and still the clamor for more and more "preservation" by those who live in the cities and think a tree is as exotic as a orchid.

Don't speak to me of "old growth" and such, just think of the natural succession after a fire....

I am not for saving the termite at the expense of a man's job,

Hi Leif, I don't know which expert you heard allegeding about pre-pilgrim forest land or the data he used. I guess there would be more forest land, just not sure about more forests. I don't know who cruised the timber in the forest lands from the Ct. river to the pacific before the pilgrims arrived or which tribal language the data is in. :) I do believe and agree with your alledger that here in Florida, at least, we probably have much more Brazilian pepper, carrotwood, Australian pine, ficus, and eucalyptus than ever before.

I'm no Druid evangelist urging people to embrace trees, and I don't know which is the most important of the multiple causes for wild fires. We 'control burned the woods' annually in the turpentine days. There were few huge wildfires then, and the pine forest floor was healthy and green. I had read an article and although not a 'world famous treatise' (VBG) I thought it might be of topical interest to woodturners. I had no intent to push an agenda.

With respect and best regards. Arch

Fortiter,

In the state parks in Florida, they are mandated to burn 25% of their land every year to qualify for funding. They need to burn to control exotic species such as those listed by Arch. Some years of low rain, they can't burn, so the brush really accumulates, leading to national news stories about Florida going up in flames.

We have the same problem in New England, with open pasture quickly turning into brush - birch and poplar woods, then later becoming spruce - fir and pine forest. Not much problem with exotics, the winter cold keeping them at bay.

Earle Rich Mont Vernon, NH

Greetings and Salutations....

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 12:03:18 -0700, "Leif Thorvaldson" wrote: *snip*.

I have heard that myself, but, frankly, I am suspicious of it as being a self-serving statistic. I suspect that there are two things that are ignored by that statement. First off, the likelihood is that much of that land is "new growth" timber, consisting of monoculture "tree farms" and tiny trees of 18-24" or so. Quantity and quality are two very different parameters. If I have 1000 acres of land, covered with 8' tall pine trees that are 2" in diameter...I STILL have just as much a "forest" as 1000 acres covered with old-growth trees that are a couple hundred feet tall and 25' in diameter. WHich would you rather hike though? Which brings up my second point - that sometimes the statisticians are pretty lax about what qualifies as "forest land". The "tree huggers" (which, frankly, I have some sympathy for, even if I do not agree with their WHOLE position) are often fighting to save the small patches of "old growth" forest left in the USA. I don't think that is a bad thing, actually, as having an undisturbed ecosystem around can be very educational and worthwhile. In any case, if we DO have so bloody much forest around, then why has 2x dimensional lumber shrunk in size over the years, and shot up in price so much? Also, if the forest situation is so 'great', then, why is the QUALITY of that wood so bad?

SNIP >>>>>>>

============================================ Dave, A couple of things at work here. First, many of the tree farms harvest as soon as they have a commercially viable crop. That means you "may" get a 2X8 out of the main trunk, but it may have bark inclusions on it. A pine farm with full grown trees is rare to see. And hard wood farms are much harder to find. Most of the "forest land" they cite in their statistics was once hard woods, but were at some point clear cut and replanted with pines or firs, either for the construction trade or for paper pulp mills. My family has 400 acres of mountain propety in north east Alabama that is growing hard woods. We have naturally occuring oaks, hickory, pecan, gum, dogwood, maple, and pine. We have the larger trees harvested about every 15-20 years. That way, we always have a good growth base to prevent erosion, and allow natural tree growth by thinning out the over head periodically. It also allows a good locale for hunting. The loggers don't like this system very much as they would find it easier to come in and clear cut every thing, send the larger trees to be milled, and the rest sent to pulpers.

So, there may be more "forest land" than 100 years ago, but a lot of that isn't "forest" in the way most people think of that word. When all the trees are the same kind, the same size, and panted in rows, it's hard to think of yourself being in a forest.

Ken Moon Weberville, TX

Good summary from someone with experience, Ken. Are you a city dweller? ;) Arch

Fortiter,

"Ken Moon" wrote in news:JPvhc.3464$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

snips

I remember driving the length of Michigan's Upper Peninsula about forty years ago and noting that it seemed like every tree was the same height. And, of course, they were (plus or minus a couple feet). It looked more like a field of corn than a forest. Most of the UP forest was logged off in the late 1800's and replanted much later; probably as a Conservation Corps project during the Depression. The good news was that the trees had indeed been replanted. The bad news was it looked just like a farm,

You must have driven M-28, and your memory is probably fooling with you a bit. You drove through a very large swamp in the central part (Seney Stretch), sand flats so poor they barely grow jackpine, which does not reproduce naturally, but only after being burned, and then, I would speculate, you ducked down and drove through Escanaba to Wakefield.

Had you taken a drive a few miles either side of the highway, you would have been in dense hardwoods as the terrain rose. Hardwoods are never "farmed" as Ken says, unless you're talking aspen pulp, which is clear-cut and allowed to sprout from the roots. If an opening is made to allow a bit of light to the floor of the forest, you can get cherry, perhaps poplar and maybe an ash, if the ground is wet. Else, the climax trees are left to grow in the low light areas. Depending on where you are, the forest will end up being beech, birch and maple, birch, maple and oak, or hemlock, fir, cedar and spruce. Climax forest is monotonous, deserted, and dim. It is the existence of openings which allow forage for ungulates, rodents and songbirds, as well as a relief from the monotony of species in a climax forest.

Oh yes, the acid swamp is also extremely susceptible to fire in drought years, but provides so little nutrition in wet that it can't grow trees unless it's given some drainage, which they are doing to a small extent in the stretch.

Lastly, a quick study of your logging history would cause a revision in your dates, and would also let you know that hardwoods have expanded since the pines were logged. They were not as common in the old days, because of the acid soil. Fire sweetens it a lot. That's one of the problems up in the Adirondacks and such, where fire has been controlled for so long that the only runoff is acid, and the lakes are granite-bottomed. Protecting the trees has cost the fish.

================================ Arch, I'm about as close to a city as I care to be. We're about 20 east of Austin, TX, about 1/2 mile from the Colorado River.

Ken