Castanet

Natural regen usually comes in far too thickly to grow well. Stems etiolate and grow tall and skinny. Naturally, that's what pine forests do, as "clumps" of trees sprout from a single cone's seeds. Commercially (and maybe visually for that park-like look), it's more desireable to have well-spaced stands and larger stems.

ya ppl always make the best choices thats why its so awesome everywhere !

grammafreddy wrote:Left to do what they do naturally, forests replenish themselves quite nicely. Natural regen where I used to live in the bush was far superior to the pine trees humans replaced the clearcuts with. Even in the planted cuts, natural regen beat out the man-made stuff, growing healthier and faster than the other.

Saying that, then old growth is worth protecting?

Sorry granny but you're a bit off on one thing. We've done quite a few stocking and FG surveys this year. Natural regen doesn't even come close to beating out planted species. Yes lodgepole pine (Pl) is planted all over but it is a preferred species in most site plans. That's because it grows well on many sites.

As far as other people complaining about old growth being cut down. Typical rhetoric being spewed.

nickroth wrote:As far as other people complaining about old growth being cut down. Typical rhetoric being spewed.

Do tell, what is the 'typical rhetoric' you speak of.

Graphite wrote:

nickroth wrote:As far as other people complaining about old growth being cut down. Typical rhetoric being spewed.

Do tell, what is the 'typical rhetoric' you speak of.

He speaks of the ill-informed whimpering about cutting "old growth" pine, which are really just 80 year old trees that are going to die and burn soon if they aren't harvested. People who base their decisions on emotion instead of science spew truckloads of rhetoric on these issues.

agreed

"old growth" pine, which are really just 80 year old trees"

Rwede

NOT TRUE.
http://www.westernexplorers.us/LodgepolePine.pdf

200 years old is maturity and some can live to 5-600 years old.
Obviously, this depends on soil conditions/elevation/temperature/sunlight/thinning.
Some think that with global warming they will move further north and live even longer.

Some rhetoric-spewing, preservationist, retired school teachers might believe that a pine tree lives forever, but in BC, tree pests and fire mean 120 years is the end of the road for >90% of Pinus contorta. Thus, spewing rhetoric from the US is meaningless when discussing the totally different bio-geoclimatic zone survival of Pl in BC.

Still not true.

300 year olds found in these plots in B.C.
http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/org_nws/NWSci ... Feller.pdf
Note table 3.

Cutting in old growth is is direct contradiction to the intent of the LRMP.

LRMP is a guideline, not law. Your name is on the list of attendees, so you should know that.

From the LRMP:

• Does the LRMP have input into the annual allowable cut? It provides advice but the cut is determined by the Ministry of Forests. Decision makers listen to public comment, particularly when considering amendments to AAC.

You might want to take a look at why OGMAs were established.

Certainly not to just to irritate the logger types. There were a lot of of trade offs.
The key was protection of waterways and biodiversity corridors..

http://archive.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp ... th/faq.htm

Having taken forestry in college I can speak to this. Good luck finding a pine stand (contorta, monticola or ponderosa) that is 500-600 years old. Pine, espcially contorta, has a short rotation. Even with fire suppression It is an absolute stretch for any stand to make it much passed 120 years.

Rwede wrote:Some rhetoric-spewing, preservationist, retired school teachers might believe that a pine tree lives forever, but in BC, tree pests and fire mean 120 years is the end of the road for >90% of Pinus contorta. Thus, spewing rhetoric from the US is meaningless when discussing the totally different bio-geoclimatic zone survival of Pl in BC.

About as accurate a response as could have been given.

So...the scientific study of B.C. plots
Cited above is wrong??

Guess they just made up the trees! YEAH RIGHT!