No the other poster didn't. But thanks. Sorry to hear about you and a "neighbor" First off I thought about your comment, I think you misconstrued my intention. I don't care about logging. I'm not a forester but am aware of the many different methods goals and uses for woodlots. You can do what you want with your woods! I think you presumed alot about my intention so please let me explain. From my perspective.... We pay alot more in taxes to keep the woods unlogged than we'd make logging them. Unless we are playing games with word use I don't understand what" property rights" and "destroying" have to do with each other. The payout to have the woods permanently altered ( for MY use destroyed)for the rest of my lifetime or the rest of the time were here before moving, doesn't outweigh the small amount of cash logging would provide. I would have to be broke and desperate. In this case more specifically the ash can rot, and I'll get to them when I do. I would literally light cash on fire before bringing equipment in to log.... Just for ash.....In my situation....It's not a matter of "property rights" but greed/desperation for cash vs. how and what I (and most private land owners that i know) use our woods for...the neighbors had their woods "managed" thousands of bdft is rotting because it wasn't worth it to bring in equipment. They basically thinned a mismanaged stand.....Others I know it's a different story. The standard of living is so low, logging is a welcomed cash influx. I understand different standards of living across the country and my own state, and that it might only cost a few thousand or hundred in yearly taxes, so logging is a relief or profitable....But not here. And not for me. Here you can subsidise the tax burden with forest management and logging, but you won't get close to offsetting it. The best Forester would live deep in the red. Having a low impact management and diverse Forrest is what I want. If that confuses you then I cant explain it any differently. I have everything from old growth stands to 15 year old -Field growth. Keeping our private trees that are 300+ years old is priceless. Keeping the old growth alive for whoever comes next is priceless. Keeping my sugar Bush that I sugar every year is priceless. Etc etc etc..... So hopefully ive expalined myself enough compared to whatever presumption you had and hopefully my rambling makes sense.
I am ok with woodlots being managed.. For several reasons; my 12 Acre Wood lot, needed to be made safe as a tornado, extremely rare my area, came right through it. at the time I had my four and six year old nephews living with me. And every time the wind blew you could hear widow-makers break and come Crashing Down. Not safe, the loggers instructions were to take every softwood down and every broken Hardwood down. I gave up some monies to have most of the tops chipped or piled. The growth in 12 years has been amazing. Wildlife has come flocking back. My neighbor have about 600 acres of woods they have managed by forrester. Ice storms, wind events damage trees, they are select cut every ten years. I know the loggers who I used, usually break it up into 100 acre parcels, pine areas are "heavily" cleared. Sugar maples and other money trees much less so. It is extremely educational to go for a walk with logger and forrester 5 years after a cut in area and listen to the discussion. The farm has a couple 100 acres tracts that are "left to nature" or not touched. Last walk included that area. Shocking to see differences, no sunlight, so no new growth, very limited wildlife, but strangely serene and oddly quiet.
I tried to presume nothing, hence my statement about being confused as to your viewpoint of timber harvest destroying a woodlot. Yes, I see your viewpoint. Don't necessarily agree with all of your sentiments, but hey, it's a big world and I know many that disagree with my viewpoints. Well, that's a more personal issue. I happen to be one of those that lives just above the 'fringe' financially. Wife is retired, single income household, and there's not a lot left after the bills are paid, but there's always enough to keep the food fridge, and the beer fridge filled, so it's not so bad. I have benefitted financially when we had the lot timbered in the past, it netted approx 13% of my annual pay when we had it done. I cannot afford to burn cash and let the Ash rot, that is not something that is advisable in my circumstance. We did not buy this property with any intention of timbering at any point, and have only had it timbered once out of necessity. It is our home, and I enjoy the woods and hunting. That's why we're here. You enjoy your land, I'll do the same here.
I wasn't trying to insinuate, the ash comment wasn't meant for you but "another poster" You seemed to want an explanation or my meaning of "destroy" Which I did not feel compelled or comfortable to give. But I tried to thoughtfully and efficiently explain. I have friends and family that rely on logging, so I'm not judging.
I think you explained your position well, and I understand your perspective on your old growth trees and younger. I also understand that you want to preserve that for future generations. I get caught up in language quite easily, as it is something that tends to be misused more and more. When you use the term "destroy", my mind goes to the true definition of destroy, not merely your conception of what is disruptive to the forest. The EAB will not "destroy" our woodlot, there will still be trees, but it will have an immense impact on the woods that we have. So much so that I figure I will not be able to recognize the woods here in the coming years, compared to what exists now. I further know that as a singular person with a chainsaw, ATV, and cart, it is highly unlikely that I can harvest all of the ash that is on the property, which means that much of it may likely go to rot, which in my opinion is complete waste. BTW, I feel the same way every time I see a deer dead on the roadside, what a waste. That animal could have fed a family for some months, but instead it's rotting away and feeding the crows.
Crows need to eat too and so do the fungus and other organisms that live on wood decay. What is not useful for me is still useful on my property. Rotted wood, leaves, etc. is the future of my soil.
Rutland prepares for removal of trees due to ash borers RUTLAND, Vt. (AP) Officials in Rutland, Vermont, are preparing to remove all of the city's ash trees in response to the arrival of the invasive emerald ash borer. The Board of Aldermen voted unanimously Monday to have the Public Works Committee meet with Public Works Commissioner Jeffrey Wennberg on the plan to remove all 355 ash trees in Rutland. The Rutland Herald reports Wennberg says he will discuss communication with the public with the committee. The insect was first found in Vermont in February and communities across the state of Vermont have begun to respond to the threat. Wennberg says waiting for the trees to die from infestation would double removal costs, so the city will have to begin removal efforts quickly.
The fools have not learned a thing. It will not stop the borers and all they will do is waste taxpayers money.
I didn't read that they were trying to stop the Borer, just that it's cheaper to drop them now, vs when their dead.
Quote from article.... "Wennberg says waiting for the trees to die from infestation would double removal costs, so the city will have to begin removal efforts quickly."
Why would the removal costs double if the trees are dead? I would think all they would have to do is cut them down, then let the hoarders and scroungers take care of the removal. A couple years ago there was an article in our local paper saying that ash trees had been cut down and anyone with a truck and chainsaw was allowed to come get the wood. I'm not sure, but I think it was in an accessible part of a state park near the swimming area. I would have taken advantage of it, but could not miss work.
I used to work up there, but it is a good 40mi drive, and I have many Ash here at home to worry about. I think I heard some crazy number like 12% of the trees in VT are Ash. Sigh. I intend to harvest what I can for lumber. Sadly most of it is in peak growth (about 14” dbh). And I’m cutting all the misshapen ones for firewood. I’ve dealt with felling dead Ash before, and am not excited about repeating that again. I should note that the response in the article regarding Rutland is not what the people I listen to are recommending. I suspect Rutland is in more immediate jeopardy of bugs blowing in from NY than they are from VT bugs on the other side of the mountains, downwind.
Very-dead Ash can be dangerous to fell. Hinges fail when felling, widow-maker branches fall when driving felling wedges.
That makes sense. I have very little experience felling trees. I try to work the ones that are already down.
Dead trees are/can be rather hazardous to climb which would then require [more] aerial equipment and/or cranes , and green wood is much easier to chip with less sharpening.
In Halton region west of Toronto the Conservation Authority and Townships are removing all Ash trees on government property. Whether in forest tract or side of road. Our property borders a Conservation property and creek. the tree contractor piled around 75 ash logs for me. They said with all of the Ash in the area being cut down there ia an abundance of firewood for the next couple years in the area. And they were removing so many trees they did not want to haul them and have to deal with them. Now i need to clear ash from my 6 acres. And we have a few already dead from EAB.
Welcome aboard Milton dave This site is full of great, friendly people. Is it safe to assume you heat with wood also? Pellets? Here's a link to our introduction thread. Introduce yourself here !
