Talk:Clearcutting/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Clearcutting/Clearfelling

Let's face it. The term 'clearcut' or 'clearcutting' whether 1 or 2 words is far more common usage than 'clearfelling', so it should probably be the main page. -The Gomm 02:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Motivations?

The clearcutting page doesn't explain the motivations of the timber industry. Why is clearcutting desirable? Yes, it mentions that the practice encourages regeneration, but I doubt that is the motivation. Is it more efficient to clearcut versus other harvesting methods? More economical? Perhaps that is so obvious it is a given, but that is one of the questions that prompted me to look for this page. 68.116.110.47 17:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The motivation for clearcutting is based an ecological and economical reasoning. You are right in that it is by far more efficient from an economic stand point to use clearcutting. Ecologically, this is dependent on forest type however. The use of the clearcutting silvicultural system most closely emulates natural disturbance. Historically in the Boreal forest, (since the last Ice age, 10,000 years approx.)every year 1% of the land burnt, or a.k.a. a rotation age of 100 years. The size of the burnt area as per historical data is descrbed as 95% of fires burn 5% of the land and 5% of fires burn 95% of the land. This means lots of little fires (1 -100ha)and few large fires (+100ha) That being said the natural evolution of tree species in the Boreal such as Jack Pine Pinus banksiana Black spruce Picea mariana and Trembling Aspen Populous tremuloides has promoted these species to be specifically adapted to large disturbance areas. For example, Jack pine, has evolved to have serotinous cones, Black spruce has semi-serotinous cones and Trembling Aspen coppice regeneration. These traits all have in common the requirment of heat to naturally regenerate. The heat comes from a)the fire that has burnt the stand and b)most commonly, the soil temperature after being exposed to direct sunlight. While harvesting cannot completely mimic natural disturbance, it is at this point in time the closest representation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grebber (talk • contribs) 11:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I should add however to my previous explaination that the clear cut system is not the most ecologically viable system for all forest types. In my previous explaination, I talked soley about circum-Boreal silvics. I should add that the clear cut system is not applicable to all forest types. For example, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forest is a gap phase regeneration forest. In this type of forest, the most ecologically sound practice is selection logging. (the act of selecting individuals from a stand for harvest.) This is the only silviculture that can be practiced in this forest both legally and ecologically. In returning to Boreal silvics, this system doesn't meet ecological needs. In so much as the selection system in Boreal species; reduces genetic variability, negates natural regeneration in most cases, introduces pathogens, etc. The important thing to note is that harvesting systems mimic dominant disturbance patterns that have been the catalyst for evolution in that specific area.Grebber 13:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

yea...what the other dude is sayin is rite~!

Tone

I think the public criticism section is blatantly biased, especially the uncited "Spin from unspecified logging company part". It should be rewritten by someone more knowledgeable.~~

Support

The claim "Clearcutting is a practice that has been shown to have many positive benefits including the renewal of the topsoil layer in areas exposed to the practice" is not supported at all by article 2: [[1]]. This needs to be chanced, because it is both not supported and a very bias claim. Also, the whole article needs a re-write. The last sentence: Clear-cut logging is one of the reasons GLOBAL WARMING started. in bold is not needed at all. It is true, but this is no way to argue a point. It needs support. Molochmaster (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This article sucks

Wow is this thing biased in favor of clearcutting. The tiny criticism section is woefully lacking and simplistic.

For one, does this narrow strip of trees left to fool drivers look healthy?

More pictures: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Let's tell the truth, clearcutting devastates a forest and all the wildlife that previously called it home. It removes the very things we should be jealously guarding, oxygen suppliers and carbon removers. And removing all the dead trees (except those infested with parasites) makes for soil depletion and sterility. It's just a stupid, greedy and shortsighted practise. Anything else is is just spin [i.e. lies]. 4.246.206.147 (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I saw what was done in southwestern Oregon in the late 1950s to early 1960s. Clearcutting was all the rage then and was promoted as the best, safest way to "harvest" the trees. Access roads for the loggers were built at public expense and the government sold the National Forest timber to private lumber companies at rates that didn't even pay for road construction. The loggers would cut ugly clearings into the virgin forest, and you can go back there and still see where they did it over a half century ago. The original forests have not regenerated: All that grows in the former clearcuts are brush and trash trees that have no economic value. The lumber industry in northern California and Oregon collapsed in the 1970s as a result of these practices. The only lumber companies that survived into the 1990s and beyond are the ones that owned their own timber stands and practiced selective cutting, or, like Weyerhaeuser, operate tree farms. That said, I think this article would benefit with some photos of fresh and old clearcutting activity as it was practiced in the Pacific Northwest. It would illustrate the concept much better than verbal posturing. —Quicksilver^{T @} 14:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Practices like that are the reason that best management practices for logging have evolved quickly over the past 50 years. Nowadays, it is very rare anywhere in the industrialized world for clearcutting (or any form of harvesting for that matter) to be done without a clear method of regeneration stated and acted upon, failing to do so in considered a crime in many places. California in particular has some of the most strict laws on harvesting as anywhere in the world. Having a photo that would equate logging practices in the 1950s to those that are practiced today is misleading at best. I think that information on historical clearcutting in the article would be merited, especially considering that it's the source of a lot of controversy surrounding the practice. But writing the article as if clearcutting is by default deforestation is simply incorrect.

Also a point on semantics, selective cutting refers to high grading, selection cutting refers to the silviculturally-sound harvesting method. Minnecologies (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Negative impacts/Clearcutting in British Columbia

These sections are unreferenced and obviously polemical. If there are no objections I intend to make them more encyclopedic and cut out passages that we are unlikely to be able to reference. If anyone wants to reference particular passages, I will of course be most grateful. --Kleinzach 08:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Burnouts

Does this section really belong in this article? Should we remove it? What do other people think? --Kleinzach 02:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the material would be better suited in Wildfire_suppression#Indirect_attack. Besides, this statement, Burnouts are not helpful, though they represent the only known option to immediately protect property in the line of active fire, is oxymoronic (or I'm taking it out of context). Besides, a burnout is not a clearcut per se, as larger trees can be left in fuel reduction tactics if they're not a factor in the spread of a wildfire. Let's remove it, it's indirectly related but definitely doesn't belong on a page about clearcutting. Minnecologies (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the section. --Kleinzach 00:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)