What is responsibly managed woodland? How does this differ from deforestation?

Question

How does woodland management differ from deforestation?
What are the benefits/disadvantages of well managed woodland?
Can we take a yield of timber without damaging the eco system or clearing the whole of the woods?
Is there a connection between health of a woods and varying 'ages' of trees from sapling to fully mature tree?

Thank you some excellent answers.

The thing I am really interested in is the management process itself, such as cutting broadleaf trees in winter so that they regrow from the stump; coppicing.

Also the 'legacy', what is left in the ground to kick start the nutrient recycling. In comparisom to clear, fell and burn, which would destroy all the 'legacy'.

As I understand it providing you don't take the stump out, then there should be less impact on the eco system as it is still in place. Is this correct?

Similarly the equipment to remove the 'yield' trees is lighter weight so it does not compact the soils and the branches, bark and leaves are stripped on site and left to return to the soil. What else do they do to manage woodland responsibly? How does this differ from the process of deforestation?

Answer 1

Good question Bella!

Hubby and I cannot wait until we have enough land for our own personal wooded area.

In commercial terms woodlands are usually the same tree. Very often they are genetically altered trees, produced in labs...something that would not happen in nature, EVER.

They produce them to grow faster, straiter, fewer branches, more heat, cold, moisture, dry tollerant...whatever they want.

They are a crop just like any other row crop. Instead of taking a year to grow though, they take 5-35 years. (5 years for the pulp wood toilet paper is made from)

This land is almost always privately owned. I do not like strange genetically altered, mono crop forest, which provide little food, or diversity for other plants/animals/insects. On the other hand, these forests DO support some life, just not in the same abundance a natural forest would. One also has to remember, they are privately owned, privately managed. People don't think of walking up to the corn farmer, or chaining themselves to his equipment, because he planted a genetically altered mono crop, and is now about to harvest it, and disturb the wildlife habitat the corn field is. Frankly some of those forests are the same thing, they just have a longer growing season than most crops. Of course the trees are replanted right after being harvested.

Growing up in the Pacific Northwest I've seen a LOT of logging. I remember VERY clearly 28 years ago, when we first moved to Snohomish, Washington. I would see logging trucks ALL the time that had ONE GIANT tree on them. Actually the tree was cut up into many sections, so the one tree filled many logging trucks. The trees were GIGANTIC in size. I truely hate seeing the old growth cut down. As far as I'm concerned not one single inch more of the old growth should be cut down. The U.S. A. only has 10% of its old growth left. The U.K. does not have ANY of their old growth left.

My husband was a helicopter mechanic, when I met him. I spent a LOT of time at logging camps, and fire camps, when I traveled around with him while we were dating. The helicopters were used mostly for either logging, or putting out fires (thought they certainly did other jobs).

I spent a lot of time in the California Redwood forests. Gorgeous area, with some truely impressively old trees. The way the Redwood forests are currently managed and harvested, in my personal opinion is simply wonderful. They go in and log selective trees. They pluck the harvested trees out with grapples on the helicopters (no roads built in the forests). The helicopter takes the trees to a special wide spot, where the road is, and all the heavy equipment can work. A good helicopter pilot can keep TWO loading zones so hopping busy they can bairly keep up with him. The Redwoods are replanted of course. In the mean time, there is a small clearing in the understory where small bushes grow, and provide more food for the wildlife that lives there. More food actually than if the forest had simply been left alone. So, YES, there is a connection between trees of varying ages and trees that are all the same age.

There can be a wonderful, and balanced middle ground between our need for lumber, and deforestation.

By the way, I know what is causing the most deforestation here in the U.S.A. right now, and it is NOT logging! Hands down, it's suburban sprawl.

We first moved to the Seattle area 35 years ago, when I was a small child. I remember clearly the vast numbers of hills covered with trees. That was only 35 years ago. Now Seattle still has a lot of trees....but what you see are rows and rows of roofs of houses, with a few scattered trees. It's the same all over the United States.

Suburban sprawl is leathal to productive farmland, forests, and wildlife habitat.

When we finally have enough land for our own private woodlot, it will be wonderful. We plan to plant many different types of trees. Some will be wood we will burn for our household heat....of course the most of that type of tree will be planted. Some will simply be for autumn color, or food for wildlife. Others will be planted because they grow into fine fencepostes, or are used to make furniature. Others still, like walnut, and sugar maples we will be planting, because they will produce food for future generations...we are already too old, and those trees too slow growing to see them produce for us.

I grew up spending a great deal of my life hiking, and riding horses in forests. A well managed and cared for woodland can be vastly more productive, both for humans and wildlife, than one left totally alone.

~Garnet
Homesteading/Farming over 20 years

Answer 2

Robert is right. Managed forests are selectively cut leaving the small trees to grow until they have commercial value. Sometimes there are clear-cuts which are then replanted. In my area of western Maine there is almost no land that has not been harvested at least once. Young trees are important as a food source for deer and moose. If the forest was not cut there would not be many young trees because the mature trees would block the sun from reaching ground level. The only canopy openings would be where an old tree has fallen. One lumber company near me now harvests five times as much wood as they did in 1950. They do this on 20% more land than back then. This says more for the advdntages of well managed woodland than anything else i can think of. There is a connection between the health of the woods and the ages of the trees. There is a bigger connection between the diversity of tree species and the health of a forest. If a timber company plants only one type of tree, they can lose their whole forest to a destructive insect or diseaseIf there are many types of trees the forest will survive because most tree diseases are specific to one type of tree.

Answer 3

are you talking about mono culture tree farming

a horrific concept .

Have you ever been in one of those ,its hell on earth a single specie polluting the ground ,that can only survive with fertilizers ,needing twice as much water as a regular forest ,with no animals except plagues of insects that are controlled with pesticides.

Bill Mollison calls these atrocities standing desserts
the trees are planted for the chainsaw nothing else .

Or do they go into indigenous forests and selectively cut trees ready for the mill,letting the rest grow before they come back and then get them as well .meanwhile replanting a single specie that has more commercial value,

And so slowly exchanging the indigenous forest for a mono culture ,slowly raping the place instead of all in one go

Escaping the wrath of Environmentalists ,by calling it -responsibly managed woodland.

I hope that i am wrong.

However,

If they replant diverse with many species and create clearings for regrowth (in Africa this is the elephants job)and also plant bushes ,such as coffee in Mexico (but up north they also got bushes ),and maintain a diverse forest ,the soil quality can be sustainable ,and if there is enough variation in wild life especially birds ,there is less risk of plagues .Fertilizer should not be necessary

And this I would call responsibly managed woodland.

Maybe it is like Organic Farming and Organic Farming and we also got responsibly managed woodland or responsibly managed woodland.
both having different meanings

NOTE
the age of a tree means a lot
100 small trees maybe have the same Environmental effect as one big one ,talking about the amount of carbon it absorbs ,precipitation ,the amount of water it pushes under ground ,the heat it absorbs or releases ,and the agents it can support (fauna and insect life that belongs or relates to the tree )

DEFORESTATION
happens for many reasons and usually means the end of trees period.

Although there is deforestation so as to make way for mono culture tree farming ,the first money made is from timber of the old forest,

But more often than not agriculture replaces the trees .if not Tar and cement .

Answer 4

Deforestation means exactly that;-{ removing the forest.
In the early days, this was done to clear the farm-land.
But it's destructive, by definition, & cause soil erosion.

Woodland management treats the trees as a crop.
Removing mature trees without damaging young ones.
Planting new trees to replace the ones removed.
This retains the underbrush & ground-cover for protection.

It requires modern portable equipment to do this well.
Trees have to be cut & lifted out, not dragged with lines.
Mature trees provide shelter for saplings to develop.

Answer 5

Well, I don't like promiscuity. I think it is disgusting to need to be 'satisfied' sexually by more than 'just one person' when pregnancy is something that must be avoided to accomplish that desire. And diseases have to be screened for, and on guard for. In a perfect world, without pregnancy..., why be so tied to one person? That would be so sad. But.., in a world where pregnancy has to be strategically avoided? That is way different. There should be more loyalty/devotion associated with coitus. Edit - How is having a subjective reason for being against something 'falling back'? Why say that unless you are trying to build-in to us the idea that to have a subjective reason is to have a weaker, and inferior position? Like the reason should be 'scienced out' to be worthy of inclusion to the debate. I just look down on a person who 'needs' sex like that. I esteem them very low.

Answer 6

complex situation. browse over google or bing. that will could help!