I wonder how old a big tree like that was. Will we ever see a replacement grow that big?

Sent by Lauren Uroff | 8:18 AM ET | 10-19-2007

I, too, feel sad when I see one of my neighbors or the city take down a mature tree, especially to put up a parking lot. I don't understand why they don't know how long it takes to become such a blessing to our enviornment.

Sent by Sondra frm Montana | 11:05 AM ET | 10-19-2007

In a few weeks, you will see another huge tree going down the road in Illinois. I had a red oak tree get uprooted from tornadoes and downdrafts over a year ago. It was 102 feet tall, and 4 feet in diameter. It took me almost a year to find someone who could move it, as it is uncommon to find trees this big anymore. The good news is that it will be cut into lumber grade sizes. It will take about 3 years of curing before I can use the lumber to make furniture out of it. We are currently stationed in Germany for 3 years where my wife is stationed as an anesthesiologist taking care of our wounded soldiers. 995 days left until I can get to work making use of the lumber from the big tree on our property.

Sent by Bart Simpson | 5:57 AM ET | 10-20-2007

Great story, Bart. Sounds like quite a homecoming. Any chance someone back home (which is where?) will be taking pix?

Sent by Ketzel | 12:35 PM ET | 10-20-2007

I find it odd how sad become over the harvesting of trees. The problem is that we do not treat them as a renewable resource. We have the know how to have wonderful forest and benefit from the use of the lumber.

Sent by Jeff Arthurs | 9:41 PM ET | 10-21-2007

Thank you for this! As a misplaced Oregonian who gets to return once a year, it breaks my heart to see new clear cuts in the forests I love. On the other hand, I positively dance when I see sustainable forestry projects - that is my Oregon!

Sent by Kate Johnston | 10:00 AM ET | 10-23-2007

Let us not forget that in the Western US, forest fires, not old age(as opposed to the east), are often the dominant force of mortality in the forest. Many fires are stand replacing, killing nearly all trees in the fire. A "clear cut" type harvest is a closer mimick of natural disturbance, and actually are rarely found anymore-modern sustainable forestry usually uses shelterwood cuts with seed trees left for regeneration (a "heavy thin"). They are more intensive harvests that can be more productive per unit fossil fuel, road mile, and equipment hour than a light thin or selective harvest. Clearcutting in it's true form is still used, mostly by unsustainable development operations that don't plan on holding the lands, rather cutting it and selling it to upper class 3rd and 4th homeowners that want a piece of the "wild west" all their own 2 or 3 weeks a year. Also, who is to say that sustainable forestry does not include the taking of some large diameter timber? Big trees grow back too, they just take longer, maybe longer than we personally will be alive. Younger trees fix more CO2 per unit acre and thereby reduce more greenhouse gasses than old, mature forests as well. I am sure many of those in this comments section alone live in wood houses, and if one was too look around the local lumberyard, may be shocked into supporting local forestry rather that using fossil fuels to transport wood from Canada and Russia, where foresty practices may me much more lax than here.

Sent by Rob Spence | 10:34 AM ET | 11-01-2007

These are all good comments however, I got the impression that all of the commenters believed clearcutting is not part of the sustainable forestry initiative. It is. Clearcutting is a vital regeneration tool for shade intolerant species, such as most pines, without with our nations forests would be absent of several species of trees. Probably what is needed is a definition of a clearcut. A clearcut is a silvicultural regeneration method. Notice that regeneration is an integral part of the definition. If a harvest was done and at the conclusion there are no trees on the site the harvest was not a clearcut but rather a change of land use.
Clearcuts are just as widely used now as they ever have been. The difference is that now foresters generally utilize an "AMZ" or aesthetic management zone to shield public eyes from viewing the harvest.
The real threat to our forest lands is the changing ownership structure of private timberland. Due to changing tax laws timberland is being sold to real estate investment trusts that may or may not have sustainable forestry in mind. Only time will tell. One thing is certain however, if you want to control the trees you need to own the soil that they grow in.

Sent by Matt Turner | 9:42 PM ET | 11-01-2007

I agree with Matt and others that the comments here are all good. They say to me several things; firstly, that one size does not fit all. I work as a logger in the mid-coast area of Maine. I sold the skidder and use horses now. Each cut is different. Landowner objectives, aesthetics, and good enviromental practices (mostly water quality) rule each harvest. We have cut wood for so many generations that many wood-lots are pretty junky and really need some work in order for any species to grow old.
I particularly like the fact that here folks can speak to their issues and perceptions. We can all learn from each other.

Sent by Jim Ostergard | 8:46 AM ET | 11-03-2007

I would like to submit a few comments in response to the experts that have previously posted on the issues of forestry. Expert is a contraction of the word experience. Having worked in the forest for over 30 years and also being a forester myself I offer these thoughts.

Firstly, the notion that a clear cut is mimicking nature doesn't make sense. In nature - even if the entire forest is blown to the ground or burnt beyond survival as a living organisms, the trees are never removed from the site, but stay there as part of the ecosystem, supporting ecosystem recovery to a more natural state. So there is seldom anything in nature that removes the trees entirely, unless man is considered a part of nature. I can hear the anthropocentric comments coming in response to that last sentence.

Shelterwood cuts are just delayed clearcuts, with the big "shelter trees" cut a little later than the majority of the dominant specimens that were harvested initially.

"They are more intensive harvests that can be more productive per unit fossil fuel, road mile, and equipment hour than a light thin or selective harvest."

In response to this statement I submit that a "Carbon Positive" harvest following the principles of "restorative
forestry" is the best way to address human needs for forest products while reducing the carbon footprint of human activities. By this I mean a method that uses animal powered extraction and "worst first" single tree selection silviculture. Google "restorative forestry" and read more about it. "Carbon Positive" is a new spin we are putting on our work with biologically powered systems of extraction. Use less fossil fuel for extraction, use more human labor in careful hand felling, and use silviculture that grows the best trees on an individual basis, based upon good science and site specific, site index considerations will create truly "carbon positive" forest products. This approach is far beyond any well know "green certification" system, particularly considering the social impacts of the largest industry in the Eastern United States.

The notion that younger trees sequester more carbon than older trees as a primary functional concern, omits the value of carbon storage which is greater in bigger trees that can be enhanced to grow even larger with proper sensitive management (i.e. crop tree management). So if a method grows the largest trees to be even larger, while creating some low impact disturbance and allows some/more light in the forest to support some new growth/regeneration, it creates a multiple aged forested condition that is one of the best of all attempts for man to age the forest - particularly given the modern concerns of climate change and the aesthetic values that most private forestland owners have for their woodland. Non-Industrial Private Forestlandowners - that is the largest sector of landowner demographic in the eastern U.S. and it is growing in proportion of forestland daily.

A missing consideration in this thread is the inability of modern science to yet quantify the value of the ecological services the forest provides for the public good. These services are tremendous and will become more important as we address climate change through natural resource management choices. The study of urban forestry is putting a dollar value on a single tree in an urban setting. A restorative forester will submit that a tree is a tree where ever it is.

You may read more about this work at our non-profit organizations site:
http://healingharvestforestfoundation.org

Foresters are generally academically taught that clear cutting or even aged management is the only way to regenerate shade intolerant species. Many believe this is an industrially supported myth designed to keep wood cheap by over harvesting. The fact is that shade intolerant species may be regenerated without cutting all the trees down at once, for example witness the Pioneer Forest in Missouri and the Menominee Forest in Wisconsin and all the forest we manage in the Appalachian region.

The "AMZ" is what we call a "beauty ring" of unharvested trees left as a visual barrier to limit the public view of clear cuts everywhere. That harvesters and foresters want to hide their work speaks for itself. Instead of beauty rings we put signs up telling the public when and who managed the sites on the roadside in sight of the public.

This is a very complex issue and these comments are submitted to promote discussion. They are merely an opinion based upon the experience of managing thousands of acres of private forestland for decades, while practicing successive low grading. I will continue to monitor this discussion to respond if appropriate. Thanks NPR, come visit our sites anytime you wish.

Jason Rutledge, President, BOD
Biological Woodsman
Healing Harvest Forest Foundation

Sent by Jason Rutledge | 10:28 AM ET | 11-03-2007

My wife and I opperate a small sawmill in Moab, Ut. We mill city trees, invasive species, as well as beetle kill trees from public land. It seems that the most important thing that folks can do is find small saw mill operators and help them by identifying trees that are being cut and by supporting their business. Small mills can handle odd trees, and diverse species where large mills need homogeny. If you like you can see what we do at www.triassicstone.com

Sent by scott anderson | 11:12 AM ET | 11-03-2007

There is a missing point here regarding carbon sequestration and forests as a renewable resource. When an old tree is harvested and utilized, the carbon is stored in a building or piece of furniture for a very long time with the deterioration or decomposition rate is reduced to near nothing, meanwhile you can grow a new tree to fix more carbon. You cannot do that with other forms of building materials, which mostly come from a hole in the ground.

Sent by John Schmechel | 12:12 PM ET | 11-07-2007