Clear cutting is good? whod've thought?

[Chickencoop96]

Cut a bunch down and sell the 2X4s to Lowes, PLEASE!

Right! LOL bout have to take a loan out these days.

 

[Chickencoop96]

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.

Oddly enough i have seen a few spots where they do prescribed burns in south cherokee but i'm not sure how often nor the range.

 

[Chickencoop96]

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 agree with this completely

 

[Chickencoop96]

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.

The site specific basis is definitely key i think. definitely would hate to see entire mountain tops stripped and damaged. all over the forest.

 

[BSK]

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.

Cutting trees good for trees? No. Probably letting trees live out their lives and die naturally is what's best for trees. But if you're going to harvest timber for wildlife, clear-cutting has its place.

And yes, clear-cutting - actually, any cutting - on steep hillsides has its problems, erosion being one of the primary ones. That's why Streamside Management Zones (SMZs) of uncut and undisturbed forest should always be left along valley bottoms; to catch eroding soils.

 

[BSK]

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.

As long as the fire is hot enough to kill the trees. Dr. Craig Harper from UT has done some of the best "fire in hardwood environment" research to date. Basically, what he found is that the tree canopy must be opened by timber harvest or fire-killed trees to see much of any benefit from fire. Burned areas must have sunlight reaching the ground to see regrowth, and if the canopy is still a full canopy, no sunlight to produce any regrowth after the fire.

Most just don't want to work with fire hot enough to kill trees. First, it's dangerous to work with a fire that hot (nearly impossible to contain). Second, the landowner gains no monetary benefit, unlike harvesting the trees, which can be extremely lucrative with lumber prices being what they are right now.

 

[UCStandSitter]

As long as the fire is hot enough to kill the trees. Dr. Craig Harper from UT has done some of the best "fire in hardwood environment" research to date. Basically, what he found is that the tree canopy must be opened by timber harvest or fire-killed trees to see much of any benefit from fire. Burned areas must have sunlight reaching the ground to see regrowth, and if the canopy is still a full canopy, no sunlight to produce any regrowth after the fire.

Most just don't want to work with fire hot enough to kill trees. First, it's dangerous to work with a fire that hot (nearly impossible to contain). Second, the landowner gains no monetary benefit, unlike harvesting the trees, which can be extremely lucrative with lumber prices being what they are right now.

Very true. The fires I was thinking of were not intentionally set. The area drastically improved the next couple years in terms of hunting though. It was incredible.

 

[BSK]

Surprisingly, one of the major factors in how effective clear-cutting can be on future forest growth is: What is your deer density? This seems like a strange consideration, but one food source deer truly love is new hardwood sprouts - both stump sprouts and acorn sprouts. And sadly, their favorite hardwood sprouts are the ones most landowners/hunters are most concerned with: red and white oaks. If a property has a high deer density, and not enough acreage is cut, deer can wipe out all of the red and white oaks sprouts as the cut area begins to regrow. Ultimately, this produces a regrowing forest of just poplar, sourwood, elm and hickory.

 

[squackattack]

I am harvesting three spots on my property right, they will be my favorite harvest method a clear cut/regeneration harvest. They are spread out across the property. Ranging from six to 13 acres. They are in different aspects, elevations, and adjacent to different timber types. I am clear felling all trees left to create an even age stand. This creates the best timber quality. I hope to burn them to help change species composition in favor of oaks and forbs. We will see though, I really want great turkey brood habitat, but might just get marginal deer bedding for a few years. I'll take it though. Just more about turkey, even though they seem harder for me to manage for. Clear cuts are only as good as you set them up. If you let undesirable trees and invasive species to get established,then you are in for a nightmare. What I see with clear cuts is they are not done correctly. Erosion is a problem with all harvest methods, it is easier to see in clear cuts though. They have a place just like everything else.

 

[Mattt]

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.

Agree 100%

 

[Mattt]

I did an 87 acre out of 100 cut. 30 acres total of clearcut the rest in 5-10 trees per acre. Gonna use fire in a 3-5 year rotation depending on how regrow they does. If last years test was any indication it'll probably be a 3 year rotation

 

[RoyalPrudent]

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.

this is exacly right. We have to suppress wildfires for safety, but these fires are what would have historically provided habitate diversity. This is why we have to cut instead.

 

[squackattack]

Really comes down to if you can stand to look at it. Aesthetics.

 

[BSK]

Really comes down to if you can stand to look at it. Aesthetics.

Clear-cutting is UGLY. Butt ugly. But I keep telling clients, deer love ugly. That's a hard sell to those who live in pristinely manicured gated communities.

 

[squackattack]

Clear-cutting is UGLY. Butt ugly. But I keep telling clients, deer love ugly. That's a hard sell to those who live in pristinely manicured gated communities.

I had a boss tell me quite frequently if the stocking is greater than 50% unacceptable growing stock a clear cut should be considered. As a young man trying to tell typical rural landowners that idea, it never went well.

 

[hoghunter65]

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.

Back in the 70s they used to do a lot of clear cutting at South Cherokee and there was some fantastic hunting, but for some reason they just quit, this wasnt twra, it was the forest service selling to these lumber companies.

 

[MickThompson]

Back in the 70s they used to do a lot of clear cutting at South Cherokee and there was some fantastic hunting, but for some reason they just quit, this wasnt twra, it was the forest service selling to these lumber companies.

It was the "green revolution" figuring out they could sue the government and tie up sound management in court

 

[Mattt]

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.

Agree completely. Like anything else done right can be phenomenal done wrong and takes literally decades to fix