On 12/4/95, Dan writes:
> Bret Diamond writes,
>
> >I truly believe that 80-90% of the uproar over forest
> >management would cease, if the logging of old-growth would stop.
>
> I disagree. Here in Maine we have essentially no old growth. But there we
> are facing a ballot initiative that would effectively outlaw even-aged
> management by limiting canopy openings to 1/2 acre and removals to 1/3 of BA
> in 15 years.
>
> Bret,
> How do you feel about even-aged production silviculture of native forests on
> privately owned land?
Before I can give an honest opinion, I'll need a little education first.
In regards to the ballot inititiative, I'm assuming that it pertains to
public land, and I'm assuming that even-aged management is a nice way of
saying clearcut, ( I think that the "temporary meadow" designation in
Option 9 has a much nicer ring to it...) and that by limiting the canopy
openings to a half acre or less, that would effectively limit
clearcutting to 1/2 acre or less as well. Are these stands all of the
same species, or are they mixed? Are they on slopes, and, if so, what
degree? What is their orientation to the sun? How old are the stands?
And what do you mean by "1/3 of BA in 15 years?
In regard to even-aged management on private lands, I think the
key issue is a watershed analysis. If the proposed clearcutting on
private land will denigrate associated public land, then I think that
should be taken into consideration. I'm also concerned about the level
of nutrient cycling in the soil in clearcut areas. What percentage of the
biomass is returned to the forest floor? The bottom line I guess is that
if there are no real effects to either wildlife (corridor impedement,
habitat destruction, etc.) or to the watershed as a whole, then
clearcutting on private land is ok by me. I'll look forward to your
answers to my questions.
Bret Diamond
Oregon, USA
diam9018@tao.sosc.edu
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0