Indiana DNR - Why trees are being cut in Yellowwood Forest

[bwframe]

Don't un-managed forests burn to the ground on their own with some regularity?

 

[Cameramonkey]

Don't un-managed forests burn to the ground on their own with some regularity?

\

Just look to California. That is where the highest concentration of tree huggers are. That, sir, is a prime example of what poor forestry management is.

1: leave it alone. Its natural!
2: dont touch it, nature will take care of it!
3: No, seriously, we mustnt touch it because nature must run its course!
4: massive fires fueled by all the dry crap the hippies above wouldnt let us touch.

 

[yetti462]

Uh.....just so much wrong here. Not really sure where to start.

I take it you haven’t hiked the clear cut sections in MMSF. They aren’t just “growing back” and they weren’t properly “re-planted”. The clear cut sections are now a bunch of sticker bush filled ****holes, and they’re choking out any trees that get started there. Lots of ruined old growth.

I use that forest area very frequently, and what they did pisses me off. I’ll never live long enough to see it how it was.

"I agree wholeheartedly ! Owning some wooded recreational land that borders Owen Putnam State Forest, I see firsthand (unfortunately) the result of the so called "managed logging". Beautiful old growth stands of trees disappear, and like you, I'll never live long enough to see nice regeneration .... if it happens at all ! "

This "old-growth" you are referencing is all second/third growth. Go find some 1935 era aerial photos, you'll see that much of the forested landscape we have now was denuded of trees back then. The reason we have the oak forests we have now is because of the disturbance the settlers did from the mid 1800's to early 1900's. The abuse of the land, burning, grazing etc favored oak regeneration. The constant die back of the oak sapling tops caused the roots systems to build. When the land was abandoned and left alone the oak sprouts took off.

As foresters we need to cause disturbance to maintain Oak for future generations. Our disturbance is logging. Through logging we allow light to the forest floor increasing regeneration. The implementation of fire simulates grazing, it top kills the overstory killing the shallow rooted trees while strengthening the oak root systems. The oaks then have energy to coppice with an advanced root system being able to compete with the faster growing poplar.

Timber is a crop and needs harvested to maintain forest health. What happens to corn when you wait to harvest it in the spring? your yields will suck. Same with timber, when you wait too long you'll find that a large percentage of trees have died and gone down hill. If you believe in God, then you understand that nothing lives forever. Trees don't. You can see it first hand in Spring Mill. Go drive through Donaldson's Woods. You'll see tree after tree standing dead or blown over. Underneath is Beech and Maple (shade tolerant trees) no Oak.

As a forester I don't pick on healthy timber, most regeneration openings I make are of trees that NEED cut. Trees mature, when the stand is overmature and dying then I start it over. You can pick on trees that are going downhill in a stand and realize that all the trees are of the same age class. While some might be healthy they are not long for this world. What I'm saying is if you get the dying/low vigor trees and leave a tree of the same age, likely the tree you leave will be dead when the stand is re-visited 15-20 years down the road. It's like putting a 95 year old person in a nursing home, you might get a few more years but are likely to loose them in the near future. Same with trees, I know its a cruel analogy but it's true. In addition stands are regenerated to remove areas will the trees simply will not improve with time. For example an patch of trees damaged by fire years ago, start them over. Another ex. is to benefit species selection, removing non-native pine the get native hardwoods.

Do this for me, go to a woods that's been cut, count the rings of growth on the stumps. Likely you'll realize that the "old-growth" forest you are in was bare ground not very long ago. Go to those briar thickets filled with wildlife in 15 years and see what it looks like.

I am a forester and understand management. I encourage the anti logging groups to go to workshops put on by your nrcs, local dnr and learn about timber management.

 

[Bucky623]

.....I am a forester and understand management. I encourage the anti logging groups to go to workshops put on by your nrcs, local dnr and learn about timber management.

How would I find one of the workshops? I’m not anti-logger but I need to learn more about forest management.

 

[yetti462]

^^Get ahold of the district forester for your area. They will put you on a email list for landowner workshops where local foresters meet at a client property and give educational tours of the woods. You can find your district by getting on IDNR website or going to local nrcs office.

 

[bocefus78]

"I agree wholeheartedly ! Owning some wooded recreational land that borders Owen Putnam State Forest, I see firsthand (unfortunately) the result of the so called "managed logging". Beautiful old growth stands of trees disappear, and like you, I'll never live long enough to see nice regeneration .... if it happens at all ! "

This "old-growth" you are referencing is all second/third growth. Go find some 1935 era aerial photos, you'll see that much of the forested landscape we have now was denuded of trees back then. The reason we have the oak forests we have now is because of the disturbance the settlers did from the mid 1800's to early 1900's. The abuse of the land, burning, grazing etc favored oak regeneration. The constant die back of the oak sapling tops caused the roots systems to build. When the land was abandoned and left alone the oak sprouts took off.

As foresters we need to cause disturbance to maintain Oak for future generations. Our disturbance is logging. Through logging we allow light to the forest floor increasing regeneration. The implementation of fire simulates grazing, it top kills the overstory killing the shallow rooted trees while strengthening the oak root systems. The oaks then have energy to coppice with an advanced root system being able to compete with the faster growing poplar.

Timber is a crop and needs harvested to maintain forest health. What happens to corn when you wait to harvest it in the spring? your yields will suck. Same with timber, when you wait too long you'll find that a large percentage of trees have died and gone down hill. If you believe in God, then you understand that nothing lives forever. Trees don't. You can see it first hand in Spring Mill. Go drive through Donaldson's Woods. You'll see tree after tree standing dead or blown over. Underneath is Beech and Maple (shade tolerant trees) no Oak.

As a forester I don't pick on healthy timber, most regeneration openings I make are of trees that NEED cut. Trees mature, when the stand is overmature and dying then I start it over. You can pick on trees that are going downhill in a stand and realize that all the trees are of the same age class. While some might be healthy they are not long for this world. What I'm saying is if you get the dying/low vigor trees and leave a tree of the same age, likely the tree you leave will be dead when the stand is re-visited 15-20 years down the road. It's like putting a 95 year old person in a nursing home, you might get a few more years but are likely to loose them in the near future. Same with trees, I know its a cruel analogy but it's true. In addition stands are regenerated to remove areas will the trees simply will not improve with time. For example an patch of trees damaged by fire years ago, start them over. Another ex. is to benefit species selection, removing non-native pine the get native hardwoods.

Do this for me, go to a woods that's been cut, count the rings of growth on the stumps. Likely you'll realize that the "old-growth" forest you are in was bare ground not very long ago. Go to those briar thickets filled with wildlife in 15 years and see what it looks like.

I am a forester and understand management. I encourage the anti logging groups to go to workshops put on by your nrcs, local dnr and learn about timber management.

This guy gets it. As much as I didn't want to, I just harvested about 1/3 of my trees. They were to the point where there were going to start going downhill, or already started.

The woods was all maple and beech from a high grade cut many many many moons ago. My few oaks and hickorys were released to get more sunlight. Much of my ground was bare dirt and leaves...no understory growth at all. Little to no wildlife.

I've already seen an increase in wildlife in just 6 short months since the cutting. The brushpiles are critter magnets. I can't wait to see the new growth I get this spring. The trails I seeded this fall in oats/wheat/ clover drew in tons of deer, turkeys, rabbits, etc. I wouldn't be able to grow that stuff without sunlight. Sure, it looks bad at first, but good things come of it.

 

[Hawkeye]

Everyone keeps talking about "old growth" in IN. I had the impression that there is no truly "old growth" in the State or if there is, it is very limited. I look at "old growth" as forest or grove that has never been cut down. Im pretty sure, for example, that HNF is "new growth" form the 1930's or so. If somebody can correct me, I'd be happy to stand (or sit) corrected.

 

[Bucky623]

^^Get ahold of the district forester for your area. They will put you on a email list for landowner workshops where local foresters meet at a client property and give educational tours of the woods. You can find your district by getting on IDNR website or going to local nrcs office.

Thanks Yetti.
If anyone else is interested you can find the district forester for your area here:
DNR: Indiana District Foresters

 

[woodsie57]

Uh.....just so much wrong here. Not really sure where to start.

I take it you haven’t hiked the clear cut sections in MMSF. They aren’t just “growing back” and they weren’t properly “re-planted”. The clear cut sections are now a bunch of sticker bush filled ****holes, and they’re choking out any trees that get started there. Lots of ruined old growth.

I use that forest area very frequently, and what they did pisses me off. I’ll never live long enough to see it how it was.

Agreed- somebody's pocketing a lot of cash by raping our public forest properties and leaving an unusable s###hole in its place. If they removed or at least stacked the unused tops so the area could still be walked thru/ hunted or otherwise enjoyed, it wouldn't be such a slap in the face.

 

[ghitch75]

Agreed- somebody's pocketing a lot of cash by raping our public forest properties and leaving an unusable s###hole in its place. If they removed or at least stacked the unused tops so the area could still be walked thru/ hunted or otherwise enjoyed, it wouldn't be such a slap in the face.

but deer rabbits grouse about any wild life loves tree tops for homes and cover...........it is a crop....

 

[caverjamie]

Agreed- somebody's pocketing a lot of cash by raping our public forest properties and leaving an unusable s###hole in its place. If they removed or at least stacked the unused tops so the area could still be walked thru/ hunted or otherwise enjoyed, it wouldn't be such a slap in the face.

It's comments like this that causes our breakdown in meaningful discussion. Who is pocketing a lot of cash, please tell me? If we go back to reality - it all has to be accounted for, and the net revenue accounts for about 70% of the annual operating budget for the DNR forestry section. The rest comes from the state coffers via taxes.

I won't speak to your opinion of the impact, you're entitled to your opinion, but remember the forest isn't necessarily there just for you and to provide easy walking, easy hunting, etc although that is part of a multiple use management program. The big issue is one of scale. Do you look at it from the scale of a property, or state forests as a whole, or from the scale of all DNR public landholdings? The state forest is there for timber management primarily, the backcountry areas are also for management but no openings/clearcuts in those areas. The rest of the DNR property (parks, nature preserves, and to an extent reservoirs and fish and wildlife areas) are the no harvest areas for those who despise tree cutting - something for everyone. But some will say state forests also need to be subdivided into cutting and non-cutting areas. I point back to the other DNR non-harvest areas in that case.

 

[caverjamie]

I agree wholeheartedly ! Owning some wooded recreational land that borders Owen Putnam State Forest, I see firsthand (unfortunately) the result of the so called "managed logging". Beautiful old growth stands of trees disappear, and like you, I'll never live long enough to see nice regeneration .... if it happens at all !

There is no old growth on Indiana state forests, at least not according to the generally accepted definition of either Type I or Type II old growth.

 

[woodsie57]

It's comments like this that causes our breakdown in meaningful discussion. Who is pocketing a lot of cash, please tell me? If we go back to reality - it all has to be accounted for, and the net revenue accounts for about 70% of the annual operating budget for the DNR forestry section. The rest comes from the state coffers via taxes.

I won't speak to your opinion of the impact, you're entitled to your opinion, but remember the forest isn't necessarily there just for you and to provide easy walking, easy hunting, etc The state forest is there for timber management primarily
There's where we disagree- timber management is maintenance, not the reason for the forests existence. The mess the loggers leave behind is sloppy and shows a lack of respect for what is the publics property. If they were cutting on their own land, i suspect they'd do it differently

 

[ghitch75]

It's comments like this that causes our breakdown in meaningful discussion. Who is pocketing a lot of cash, please tell me? If we go back to reality - it all has to be accounted for, and the net revenue accounts for about 70% of the annual operating budget for the DNR forestry section. The rest comes from the state coffers via taxes.

I won't speak to your opinion of the impact, you're entitled to your opinion, but remember the forest isn't necessarily there just for you and to provide easy walking, easy hunting, etc The state forest is there for timber management primaril

There's where we disagree- timber management is maintenance, not the reason for the forests existence. The mess the loggers leave behind is sloppy and shows a lack of respect for what is the publics property. If they were cutting on their own land, i suspect they'd do it differently

how do you remove tons of weight and drop trees without some mess???........you must crack some eggs to make a omelet.......too for the work it takes they only make pennys per board foot

 

[woodsie57]

Easy- you make an omelette, you put the shells in the trash, - not leave them all over the kitchen floor.

 

[iauffenberg]

it is all about the money i worked for dnr for years and have seen thing that would make you wonder about motive. Health of forest or money Well money is the driving factor in logging state ground.

 

[Knight Rider]

Of course it’s about the money and I prefer it that way. What’s the alternative model?

 

[caverjamie]

Easy- you make an omelette, you put the shells in the trash, - not leave them all over the kitchen floor.

You want those tops left behind and scattered about - the stem is mostly stored carbon but the top fine branches and leaves contain much of the nutrient load in that tree. When left behind to decay that nutrient content is returned to the soil on site

 

[yetti462]

Easy- you make an omelette, you put the shells in the trash, - not leave them all over the kitchen floor.

When you go trying to drag tree tops they skin up all the residual timber. That's why tops are left where they lay. The decomposition of the tops too returns nutrients to the soil and adds cover for wildlife.

I believe state law states that state forests were designed for timber production. The HNF used to be managed, it now is a over mature forest with no cover for wildlife. The FS gave into the libtards and are scared to death of a lawsuit. It now sits in a state of waste. Go hike there or a state park.

I mentioned earlier, the timber sale on the yellowwood according to my buddy who buys timber for a reputable company, contained a lot of dead trees, Ash from the EAB and Poplar from the drought. He too mentioned that the hiking trail could not be used for logging. A new trail had to be made to the side of it in attempts to keep the huggers happy.

The DNR has a video on their site that interviews one of the involved foresters for this sale. You'll notice that he mentions the history of this tract and believe it or not, It has been harvested a couple of times before.

 

[ghitch75]

ok they are taking a little under 6 trees per acre the loggers are making $40.00 a tree.....do the math......most of the trees are dead or dying.....just a clean up cut.....nothing more nothing less.....

just a little fact.......i have 50 acres and had a sawyer give me a estimate to have selective cut and will pull around 70k to 90k depending on the market.....so they are just making wages on the yellowwood cut....

https://www.indystar.com/story/news...od-forest-and-150-k-offer-preserve/858921001/