I've heard this comment about old practices of "new" forestry in
the Pacific Northwest too many times to let it slide. If you're
referring to the "new" forestry reported in Isaac 1956 ("Place of
partial cutting in old-growth stands of the Douglas-fir region",
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research Paper
#16), I suggest you re-read it a little more carefully. The studies
reported in that paper were done in old-growth stands (a practice not
contemplated by "new forestry") and were, if you read the methods,
basically high-grading operations. Thus it was no surprise that
survival and growth of residual trees was poor. It was a half-hearted
attempt, at best, to try something other than clearcutting in PNW
forests. If there are other studies that you refer to, please cite
them. (I would agree, however, that Leo Isaac and many of his
contemporaries made many valuable contributions to forestry and
ecology and are still well worth reading.)
Andrew Gray
graya@fsl.orst.edu
=========================================================================
"On any old growth forest there are high grade trees and low grade trees,
trees of good species and trees of inferior species." Thus starts the
article entitled " Profitable logs; economic selection in logging", by
T.T. Munger and A.H. Brandstrom, November, 1931, The Timberman
33(1):27-30, 32-34. Parenthetically, this article and others of that time
period make an enlightening read for those who persist in believing that
"new forestry" in the PNW is in fact "new". Been there, done that, got the
t-shirt! ;)
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0