Here is yet another article about the benefits of clear cutting. I wasn't sure where to put this thread because it benefits all species.
Clear cutting is good? whod've thought?
- Thread starter Chickencoop96
- Start date
Mattt
Well-Known Member
Perfect place to put it. Couple of conversations going on here about this. I believe it, hunted Hickman county years ago around cuts and took a lot of deer. Been finding quail in them all over the south in the last decade or so. Just cut about 90 acres, 30 of which is a clearcut. Had more songbirds almost immediately. Can't wait for year 2 and 3. Will be cutting in fire lines as soon as I have time.
We really need it over here in South Cherokee bad lol. The state could potentially have one of the best deer hunting wma's in the mountains if they allowed clear cutting.
BlackBelt
Well-Known Member
When sunlight can hit the forest floor all species can benefit from the under-growth that springs up.
On my parcel I am clearing 1/4 to 1/2 acre plots here and there for just that reason.
On my parcel I am clearing 1/4 to 1/2 acre plots here and there for just that reason.
Mattt
Well-Known Member
Agreed the powers that be have pretty much totally screwed up south Cherokee.great they have a turkey. I'd rather have grouse and trout
I can agree if it is a properly managed enterprise!
I am currently reviewing a property that has been / is being clear cut in Stewart county hundreds of acres in great swaths left devoid of topsoil and a highly erodible substrate exposed and unmanaged! The bottoms are equally devastated by the resulting erosion layering / silting in over existing soils and habitat. I am referring to over 1000 acres as a desert devoid of life or the ability to generate life for years. About 100 acres that is an open gravel deposit on a ridge that has no soil and could only be restored by hauling in thousands of tons of soil, compost, matter to decay and years of planting and erosion control. This place hurts my sole. It reminds me of the worst of the coal strip mines I have seen.
Yes clear cuts can be a great thing for all species. But we must be mindful of the soil and slopes. We must be mindful with a plan for after the cut and return to review for areas of need.
I am currently reviewing a property that has been / is being clear cut in Stewart county hundreds of acres in great swaths left devoid of topsoil and a highly erodible substrate exposed and unmanaged! The bottoms are equally devastated by the resulting erosion layering / silting in over existing soils and habitat. I am referring to over 1000 acres as a desert devoid of life or the ability to generate life for years. About 100 acres that is an open gravel deposit on a ridge that has no soil and could only be restored by hauling in thousands of tons of soil, compost, matter to decay and years of planting and erosion control. This place hurts my sole. It reminds me of the worst of the coal strip mines I have seen.
Yes clear cuts can be a great thing for all species. But we must be mindful of the soil and slopes. We must be mindful with a plan for after the cut and return to review for areas of need.
Right, but speaking specifically for South Cherokee WMA there is practically no logging going on what so ever and there hasn't been for a while it seems. the place is so big it could easily be managed and still turn a profit on timber, while diversifying the environment. yes you can over-clear-cut, but that's not case in South Cherokee
Clearcutting in moderation helps all species. Turkey, Grouse, Quail, Deer, and yes even Bear. as far as the streams go, I have seen plenty of trout in certain areas. those streams are only going to hold so many fish though. in most of the streams it is mainly Smallmouth. Which I personally enjoy fishing for.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2020
- Messages
- 3,838
Cut a bunch down and sell the 2X4s to Lowes, PLEASE!
BSK
Well-Known Member
Clear-cutting has and always will have its place in timber and wildlife management. But I prefer to see it done in patches. I'm not a fan of a thousand contiguous acres clear-cut.
I have a hard time getting my head around clear-cutting being a positive thing. It seems like select cut to open the canopy and clear undergrowth is a better solution but, I'm a cybersec guy not a biologist, so what do I know.
DoubleRidge
Well-Known Member
There is a portion of our family land that was once clear cut and literally cleared to make open field....best I can tell it was done pre 1950...it has since returned to forest...few red oak, several dogwood, cedar and some very impressive poplar....our Forester references this area as "old field growth timber"....in the earliest aerial images I can find (1954) you can clearly see field....in my lifetime it's been forest...then two years ago we worked with our Forester and took some large poplar from these areas and opened up the canopy....this generated some amazing new growth.....so the cycle continues..... renewable resource when managed correctly.
As BSK said...and I agree....clear cutting can have it's place.....and I'm not a fan of giant areas being clear cut either....but doing it in patches can add fantastic diversity to a property....and diversity benefits a wide variety of wildlife.
As BSK said...and I agree....clear cutting can have it's place.....and I'm not a fan of giant areas being clear cut either....but doing it in patches can add fantastic diversity to a property....and diversity benefits a wide variety of wildlife.
Last edited:
DoubleRidge
Well-Known Member
I'm not a biologist or arborist either....but you are correct in that select cutting to open the canopy....allowing sunlight to the forest floor creates a healthier forest verses a closed canopy old stand....much more beneficial to wildlife as well.
I've heard it said many times that a deers world is 36" to 48" from the ground up.....what they eat, drink and bed in is all in that zone.....so thicker select or clear cut areas (done correctly) serve to benefit wildlife much more than closed canopy old open timber.
I feel like each person you ask would have a different take on this because each person has different motivational reasons (ie, money from timber, I love trees, etc.) Hard to get a clear, concise answer that doesn't involve outside motivations and preconceived notions. You know, the same as every other subject since the beginning of time. None of us are ever objective on anything.
BSK
Well-Known Member
It's all about diversity. Studies exist that show the more the canopy of a forest is removed, the greater the diversity of plant species that grow back, with the highest diversity being for clear-cut areas (zero canopy remaining). This is also true of bird species using the area. The greatest diversity of songbird usage is in an early-stage regrowth clear-cut. Now that said, I wouldn't recommend all timber harvests being clear-cuts. I want to see diversity of timber harvest practices as well. I would use a mix of clear-cutting, heavy thinnings and moderate thinnings. The one timber harvest I don't like for wildlife production is light thinnings where only the most valuable trees are removed.
Another positive aspect of clear-cutting is that it lets Natural Selection work with timber regrowth. Because all saplings are starting from zero in the same year, only those with the genetic make-up to grow fast, tall and straight win the race to sunlight. This usually produces better quality timber at maturity.
Without question there are some real downsides to clear-cutting as well, and that is why those decisions need to be made on a site-specific basis.
In addition, there are ways to keep from having to constantly clear-cut more timber to get the same benefits from the earliest stages of regrowth (basically, the first 4-6 years). In essence, there are "restarting" techniques that can be used over and over again in the same area to restart the regrowth process instead of having to cut a new patch of timber.
Makes sense from a thought perspective. From a logical perspective it's just hard to see it. Cut trees = good for trees. On the surface that sounds bad. I'm sure the benefits you've outlined are spot on though.
In my experience with clear-cutting it seems to lead to a lot of erosion. Everything is a hill where I live so that's a real concern.
Keep in mind, I'm not arguing either side of this, just thinking through and understanding.
DoubleRidge
Well-Known Member
I feel like each person you ask would have a different take on this because each person has different motivational reasons (ie, money from timber, I love trees, etc.) Hard to get a clear, concise answer that doesn't involve outside motivations and preconceived notions. You know, the same as every other subject since the beginning of time. None of us are ever objective on anything.
True.... everyone has different motivational reason to manage forest land in different ways....but over decades land and wildlife managers have learned what works and what doesn't work and we have the benefit of their experience....and as mentioned each property is site specific....one size doesn't fit all..... erosion is absolutely paramount in a timber harvest project....agree.
DoubleRidge
Well-Known Member
[QUOTE="UCStandSitter, post: 5326362, member: 22422"
Keep in mind, I'm not arguing either side of this, just thinking through and understanding.
[/QUOTE]
I understand what your saying....and I'm certainly not arguing in favor for clear cutting....I've seen some clear cuts that truly hurt my heart.....but in the same breath I hear some people (not you) get angry ever single time they see any clear cut....and in some cases that cut is the best thing that could have happened to that area (site specific)....but like you said in a previous post...everyone has different goals, objectives and view points.
Keep in mind, I'm not arguing either side of this, just thinking through and understanding.
[/QUOTE]
I understand what your saying....and I'm certainly not arguing in favor for clear cutting....I've seen some clear cuts that truly hurt my heart.....but in the same breath I hear some people (not you) get angry ever single time they see any clear cut....and in some cases that cut is the best thing that could have happened to that area (site specific)....but like you said in a previous post...everyone has different goals, objectives and view points.
What's interesting is that in my area, I've seen greater habit improvement from fires than clear cutting. Same basic premise without as much erosion. Obviously that is harder to contain than a clear cut though.
DoubleRidge
Well-Known Member
Totally agree....that fire is an amazing tool where applicable.....burning in a closed canopy forest can be challenging for a variety of reasons...and we need sunlight to the forest floor to get the full benefit..... but when it can be done in a controlled low intensity way....the benefits are huge....great point.
