Ideas for Executing a Permaculture plan that is safe for us and wildlife

So, in my typical long winded style, I would like to apologize to any who read for the wall of text, but I am an over sharer, and also feel the context of the situation is important.

So, my posts over the years have narrated our changing situation and various plans we've attempted that never came to fruition due to family situations, emergency, the pandemic, new jobs, ect. Ect., so this time around I decided not to post anything until we actually got underway.

First off, for anyone who goes back in my posts, we did not end up moving to Ohio, thank goodness, it ended up being a temporary relocation (but we still got the raise and all the benefits, even after the relocation ends in June).

Secondly, we now have three pieces of property all kind of clustered around Smith Mountain Lake in the Roanoke valley area, for anyone familiar with the area.

We have:
7 acres of variable sloped land, all southern facing, with a year-round spring that our competes the neighbors' wells in times of drought. Once upon a time (from before the civil war up to the 40's) it was a working farm of over 150 acres with crops, various livestock, woodlots, ect. Since the 40's, up until about 15 years ago, it was cattle feedlot, and from about 15 years ago to now it has lain fallow with the odd steer run on it. Basically slowly being reclaimed, lots of weeds indicative of poor soil, grasses, some shrubs ect.
2 acres across the street from the 7 acres, much flatter with nothing on it but wheat (really it's grass, but it isn't messed with) and a few crab apple trees. Same history as the 7 acres plot, but somehow it hasn't started to reclaim, no weeds or shrubs, just hip high grass and two crabapples
4 acres about 10 minutes down the road, half is dense cedar and pine (visually looks like it used to be a timber operation) and the other half is old-growth, smells good when it rains, no underbrush, oak and other hardwood forest. This plot we do both have confirmed history for, but it has a year-round creek just within the back property line, and it's on a ridge so it gets INTENSE wind year-round. We purchased this property last september

We have plans for each of these properties, which I would be happy to share if anyone wanted to know, but to try and get to the point I will mostly be addressing the 4 acre property in my question

My big over-aeching question is this: permaculture works, once a plan and a goal have been developed, usually starts with the clearing of trees and earth works and water harvesting to make way for the good systems we want to install on a property, to hopefully elevate the land above where it was before we intervened. At what point, though, are we doing more harm than good, even after our permaculture goals are realized?

Here is my context: for legal/familial/situational/financial reasons, we will be building our home on the 4 acre plot. The pine and cedar half of the land is a gentle uphill slope, perhaps 5% incline and flat other wise. At the unnaturally straight line where it switches to hardwood old growth, it gets much steeper, and switches to downhill. The bottom 0.5 acre, by the creek, is totally flat. Then top of the creek is ten feet down in a little ravine it's carved for itself. Fearing flood in a potential downpour that has become more common, we have decided to build the house near the ridge, where it switches in the center of the property. This will allow us to maximize both solar and wind energy, be far enough from the road for privacy but close enough for electric to not be cost prohibitive. We don't want to even touch the old-growth hardwood forest, but we have decided the pines need to be levelled. Here's our reasoning:
-many of the pines are dead standing. They grow so dense there isn't room to fall
-protect the house from any trees that do manage to fall
-the trees are lashed together from years of vine growth, so one tree falling could set off a chain reaction
-there is a good half acre in the very center of the pines that is nothing but half-fallen and spring loaded pines that are all connected by vines and locked up branches
-in order to clear this half acre danger zone, the edge trees that are still healthy will have to be felled to make room for the danger trees to be cleared.
-we found a deer skeleton in this half acre "death box" that looks like it's antlers got caught up and it wasn't able to get back out (most of skeleton on ground, skull and a couple vertebrae hanging from a branch)

Our plan is to completely clear the pine/cedar, build the house, then replant those two front acres in food forest/silvopasture combos to try and bring varied biological life rather than just pine and cedar and thorns, and hopefully breathe health back into the barren, pine-friendly, gravel-y soil, whole managing the old growth hardwoods to basically live out their best lives, possibly occasionally harvesting for firewood (but most likely not)

Here is my problem: we cleared a few pine and cedar trees on the softwood-hardwood line to make space for a small cabin to stay in while we do what we need to do to build our house. The morning after we felled those trees, the day we started building the cabin, when we got to the land with thermoses of coffee in hand, as the sun broke over the ridge, we found a large owl sitting on the stump of one of the fallen trees. It hooted at us and stayed for a while, until we got too close then it finally flew off. I do not know if we will see it again. I do not know if the trees we knocked down were it's home, or if it was just passing through. But it made me sad.

AnnaLea Kodiak wrote:My big over-aeching question is this: permaculture works, once a plan and a goal have been developed, usually starts with the clearing of trees and earth works and water harvesting to make way for the good systems we want to install on a property, to hopefully elevate the land above where it was before we intervened. At what point, though, are we doing more harm than good, even after our permaculture goals are realized?

This is a question about metrics.

When you ask about harm, you need to think about how you are measuring harm. There are different ways, in different contexts, with different degrees of importance based on individual priorities.

Some may argue that any human intervention beyond true wilderness is damage. I would argue that this attitude is not permaculture. Permaculture is about deliberately designing landscapes based on "permaculture principles". Permaculture principles tend to be lower harm than other land uses, especially conventional building or agriculture.

I guess my question, boiled down even more, is does there exist, or COULD there exist, a system where no harm is done.
Maybe I should define what no harm means to me:
Perhaps things die, soil microbes, squirrels, ect. But on the grand scheme, "no harm" to me means in 500 years, 1000, 5000 years, the area of your work is no worse off in terms of nutrient availability, biodiversity, system complexity, etc, than it was before you started; WITHOUT removing nutrient availability/biodiversity/complexity from somewhere else

As it stands now, permaculture is the best we've got, but no system is truly self-feeding, at least not in the human scope. How far back in human existence do we have to go to find when humans were part of the natural system, rather than a system of their own in direct conflict with the natural system? The pioneers? No. The native Americans? No. Nomadic tribes of hunter gatherers? Maybe

I love permaculture, and obviously since it's the best we've got at the moment it's what I do. But, I wonder if in the long run it's truly doing any good, or just delaying when the bill comes due?

I dunno, even if we totally ignore the social/governmental idiots aspect and just focus on what we can do in the system (kinda the whole point of the "Instead of being mad" part) it seems....like it needs work?

AnnaLea Kodiak wrote:... but no system is truly self-feeding, at least not in the human scope. How far back in human existence do we have to go to find when humans were part of the natural system, rather than a system of their own in direct conflict with the natural system? The pioneers? No. The native Americans? No. Nomadic tribes of hunter gatherers? Maybe

I disagree with your main premise, that being the "no system is truly self-feeding".  The planet is truly self-feeding.  The time humans have been here is miniscule in the scheme of things, and after our extinction, which in my mind is sure, the entire time humans were here will still be a drop in the bucket.  We are truly the most destructive species, and when we are gone, the earth will heal and balance will be restored until which time the planet burns up, or another version of "humans" comes along.  

My point of view about all this is to do the best you can in the situation you are in, try to be a good steward to the land and animals, and don't beat yourself up simply because your existence is going to have some negative implications to the planet.  I try to do more good than harm, and that's all I can do.  Nothing is gained by feeling bad about things you can't change.

For more specific advice, maybe clear only the pines and cedar that you have to right now for what you are doing right now.  If you clear only a portion at a time, you are going to displace creatures that live there.  It's inevitable.  At least by clearing slowly and in stages, you give the animals the opportunity to move on to a new home.  You don't have to clear the entire 2 acres at once to build your home.   The land that you think of as barren and needing help has it's own life supporting systems in place.  You can change it if you like, but I can tell you first hand that it's very, very easy to bite off more than you can chew with these projects.  I personally think it's far better to do one small (or very small) area at a time and build outward.  I would clear the area for the house, clear the trees that can actually hit the house if they blow down, and then concentrate on making that area into your idea of "perfect" before clearing more areas and expanding.  Just the advice of someone that has beaten off more than he could chew more than a couple times :)

I hear your dilemma AnnaLea. I *really* appreciate that you're at least thinking about it and seem prepared to look hard at your options, so I'll make a few points that might guide your decisions:
1. Short term pain for long term gain is a thing.
2. Humans have been altering the landscape in North America for 36 to 38,000 years ago according to some evidence. Much of that time, they worked with nature, and Permaculture is trying to get people to return to that frame of mind, but even working with nature has its victims.
3. Nature can be pretty nasty given the opportunity. That owl is a predator, and if you were a mouse, you wouldn't be happy with its presence. As a human, I'm *very* happy with the presence of owls in my landscape!
4. Yes - plenty of permaculture books start with a clean slate and earthworks, which you can't do without getting all those pine trees out of the way. However, I live on land with a lot of existing trees, (although not a crowded fire hazard) so I totally get your concern about how to proceed while being minimally invasive.

Now it's question period:
A) Can you do clearing in stages as Trace Oswald suggested?  You've suggested it's too tangled to do so, but have you have enough experience to judge where a spot would be that would be safe to start?
B) Can you talk to local wild-life people - was that owl visiting, migrating, or is it nesting and if so, would it nest in the pines or in the older forest? If it was nesting, when would the young fledge? Are there any other "families" that might change your schedule by possibly as little as a month, to give them time to move out of the way? Can you support wildlife through the transition with things like feeding stations? (A friend of mine hunts squirrel which in our area are invasive and leaves them for a local Owl in the spring who last year was feeding 3 young, as an example.)
C) Will the planned food forest provide more and better habitat for birds etc, even if a few are harmed in the short term?
D) Are there things you can do in the old growth area to improve its ecosystem. A book I read suggested that many North American re-grown old forests lack many of the understory plants that would have been there 1000 years ago. A helping hand in that direction can balance temporary damage in the Pine tree area!
E) What do you plan on doing with all that tangle pine when it comes down? What are your options? Can any of it be upcycled/value added/hugelled etc?

This isn't part of your question, but this statement has me concerned:

but somehow it hasn't started to reclaim

I'm concerned that someone has used persistent yucky chemicals on that land. I'm wondering if you can afford to have it tested? If you can identify the yucky stuff, hopefully, people here on permies can make suggestions of microbes or other treatment that might help that land heal. It could still take years. I got one batch of bad horse manure that was contaminated. I've still got that area quarantined and there are finally some broad leaf plants moving in but it's on my list to do a germination test in that area - it's a bit hard because it's frequented by deer who think baby broad leaf plants are desert, not to mention, no shortage of Banana slugs!

My signature has the link to Dr Redhawk's soil health threads here on permies. It wouldn't surprise me if the information you might need would be within those threads!

I like Trace and Jay's responses.

Each of us has to do what we feel is best for ourselves and the land.

Building a house using modern building techniques to me, does a lot to the land.

To counteract this my suggestion would be to build the soil damage back.

Jay said, My signature has the link to Dr Redhawk's soil health threads here on permies. It wouldn't surprise me if the information you might need would be within those threads!

This is what I would recommend.  

These threads would be the ones I would start with:

https://permies.com/t/126240/heck-Humus

https://permies.com/t/123928/Growing-Plants-builds-soil-health

Well, we spent all day on the property (where we had no phone service) and almost have our little cabin finished.
Trace, I think I misspoke. I absolutely agree, earth itself is a self-feeding system, I meant specifically human systems are inherently not self feeding, but I understand and completely agree with your point :)
As far as addressing the pines and cedar a little bit at a time, that is what we are planning to do, but not out of an intentional decision: we only have one weekend a month to dedicate to the property, at least until June when our temporary relocation to Ohio is over, then we will be taking a solid month off work to make a big push on the house. At this time, we manage to clear about 1/2-3/4 of an acre per weekend, and then are gone for a month. Do you think this is enough rest time for the current inhabitants to adjust?

I don't think we would be clear-cutting the front two acres if the "death box" didn't exist, but because of it we believe it's necessary, for safety. However, if you can think of a way to take care of the danger without wiping out all the pines I am open to suggestions! :)
The food forest was our answer to replacing most of the trees we had to clear away. We figured since we would be replanting trees, we may as well plant bearing ones. Would it be better for us to replace the pines and cedar, and then just manage it as a woodlot, rather than groves of food?

Jay, thank you for the kind words, your perspective also helps. I have always heard to do the best you can with what you have, but I can't shake the niggling feeling that it still isn't good enough. But I do truly appreciate it and it did help me feel better
B- this is a fantastic suggestion that I didn't even consider. I'll do some googling to see if I can't find the species name and see what I can find out that way though, since I have social anxiety....if that turns out fruitless I'll suck it up and talk to a county wildlife person :) there's a wildlife museum about 20 minutes away if I remember correctly
C- I certainly hope so!
D- I was under the (completely unfounded outside of assumption) impression that old growth was like, the ultimate goal for a natural forest? But you're right there is zero undergrowth, just a nice thick leaf mat. Do you have suggestions for what we can do here? There is no sun that breaks through the canopy once the leaves come in
E- yes we do! It's what we're going to use to build the house! We've done some experimentation with cordwood masonry, and have settled on that method of building for our walls. In order to fit code, we will be building a timber frame (we hope to trade the larger pines/cedars for seasoned wood, but if not we will have to purchase) and then filling in the bents with cordwood masonry in a double wall system with dense pack cellulose in between to attempt to marry thermal and insulation. The rest of the wood will go fire wood, chips (although I know they are acidic...not sure about this bit) and hugel culture :) at least that's the theory
As far as the two acres go, I am honestly not sure about yucky stuff lol
I know the general history but not the specifics, sounds like you're right, a soil test is in order I think. Would the local extension office have info on how to get that done?
Anne, from what I understand, pine trees and cedar thrive in well draining, sandy soil, but the whole of the property is solid Virginia red clay starting at 6 inches below the surface. Do you have recommendations for dealing with solid clay topped with sand? If that is, in fact, what we're dealing with (will do a test hole tomorrow, but previous holes yielded nothing but clay past 6 inches)
I will definitely check those links tonight before we go to bed
Again, thanks everybody, looking forward to more discussion! :D
I'm adding in some pics, most are different angles of the death box, one is of the hardwood side of the ridge, and our 100lb mastiff cross :) most of the cedars/pines are 6-12 inches in diameter, the hardwoods are all above 30 inches in diameter, with a good percentage over 5 feet across!

AnnaLea Kodiak wrote:
B- this is a fantastic suggestion that I didn't even consider. I'll do some googling to see if I can't find the species name and see what I can find out that way though, since I have social anxiety....if that turns out fruitless I'll suck it up and talk to a county wildlife person :) there's a wildlife museum about 20 minutes away if I remember correctly

You just made my day! One of the most fun things I got to see was two springs ago when a pair of Great Horned Owls fledged a couple of owlets on our land. So often, the window within when nesting sites need to be protected is amazingly narrow. Thank you for looking into the issue in your ecosystem. If you're only there 1 weekend a month, baring actually cutting down a nest tree, I suspect the birds will cope with the disruption, but I know very little about your location.

D- I was under the (completely unfounded outside of assumption) impression that old growth was like, the ultimate goal for a natural forest? But you're right there is zero undergrowth, just a nice thick leaf mat. Do you have suggestions for what we can do here? There is no sun that breaks through the canopy once the leaves come in

It's complicated... and I certainly don't know enough about the subject myself, not to mention, every ecosystem is different. However, if you can borrow or buy a copy of Braiding Sweetgrass - reviews here: https://permies.com/wiki/166482/Braiding-Sweetgrass-Robin-Wall-Kimmerer - she talks about some of the native understory plants. Researching native plants for your region may help, but in general, my understanding is that a big part of it are the spring bulbs, including wild garlic. These come up, flower, seed and die back pretty much before deciduous trees leaf out. Some of them are human edible. I'm just in too different an ecosystem to suggest further!

As far as the two acres go, I am honestly not sure about yucky stuff lol
I know the general history but not the specifics, sounds like you're right, a soil test is in order I think. Would the local extension office have info on how to get that done?

I think that would be a yes, but being Canadian, we don't have that sort of system in place.

I have never lived where I had to deal with clay soil.  Our soil is called caliche which is a mix of ground limestone and clay.  Dear hubby found a 8 x8 patch of clay when we were making our soil for the garden beds.

This thread will help with improving clay soils.

https://permies.com/t/108953/improve-clay-soils-growing-year#891601

I would give serious consideration to burning the dead wood and open up the space for working. Burning at lower temperatures reduces damage to the live trees. Forest fires are a part of natural ecology and there’s no reason to not have that tool in the permaculturist’s arsenal.

The owl made me sad. S/he likely did lose her/his home. Making changes like this always carries risks and wildlife bears the greatest burden.

I’ve owned 4-1/2 acres in Georgia for a year. I’m resisting at all costs government demands for earthworks and conventional water systems.

I bought a beautiful, productive forest. No one has the power to compel me to raze it and tear things up. Why do we let people proclaim they’re in charge of our property, have no understanding of our goals and values, and make intrusive, radical, and overreaching demands?

The OP is surely doing their best with good intentions, but I am troubled by a possible misinterpretation of the statement “permaculture usually start with clearing trees…”. Maybe some trees, but not healthy forests. Bill Mollison, Permaculture’s co-founder, was explicit that he did not endorse buying healthy forest land to clear it for a house and garden, even if the land was then replanted to a food forest. Standing Old growth is more valuable to the land, watershed, ecology and inhabitability of Earth than anything we can replace it with, or any of the byproducts of old growth logging. I am thankful to see you are protecting your old growth.

A single large old tree does more good for other living things than most people will ever do in their lives. I would not take a chainsaw to any of those less beneficial people either though! Taking down an old growth forest in the western US (the focus of my research) brings with it the requirement for at least 300yrs of restoration and management to get back to something similarly self sustaining. I would not cut old growth for any reason at this point in history. Maybe old growth logging could have been done very slowly and sustainably if well planned starting in the 1800’s, but not now. Instead, old growth was liquidated at tragically low values because the market was flooded, but what they were selling was effectively a precious commodity like gold because wood of that quality will not regrow for a thousand years. On my land, I try to follow the ethic that a Clallam man told me they had historically, which is to respect elders never kill a tree older than me.

On the other hand, 98% of that old growth is now gone and replaced with young forests that do need thinning to prevent catastrophic wildfire and help the healthiest trees get bigger faster That looks to be where your pine forest is successionally. Selective thinning can also increase biodiversity with more understory light and space. I cut dozens if not hundreds of young unhealthy trees every year, for their neighbors’ benefit and to use as watershed restoration material, polewood, firewood, hugels, and mulch. I would keep your biggest and healthiest trees standing, and at least 10% of each age class for a diverse aged stand. If you need a few for building the house, I’d consider some of bigger trees for that.

I didn’t get the clearest picture from the OP of their land, but it also seemed like they said a creek runs through their land, and any forest around this is doing a lot of good for them and their structures near it. I recommend looking up Bill Zeedyk’s work for strategies to work with forest and stream restoratively. Any forest you keep will also help with a lot wind and dust/pollution it carries. However it does really look like that stand in the pictures could be beneficially thinned.

I explain my perspective on this much more in the posts “Soil or Smoke” and “For the Love of Conifers”. Best of luck, and be safe.

There are quite a few things in your original post that I find rather puzzling. But before commenting on several of them, I wonder if you would first tell us what you seem to be saying about the 4 acres having "a confirmed history"? What is its "history", and how did you come by it. ~~There is a great deal to be learned from the actual history of a piece of land. Rather than what you guess is the history.

Here is one way to look at this dilemma.
Humans are not the only ones who alter their environment, who change even the landscape.
Just think of beavers.
Or how the rivers changed their flow because wolves were reintroduced in Yellowstone.
Ants build colonies.
There are hundreds of thousands of symbiotic and even parasitic life forms that change their environments.

And, we humans do too.

Where we have the responsibility, because of the intellect we have developed, is to make choices where our change of the environment is not making it uninhabitable for others.
To me this is the ultimate measure of what we should or should not do.

If you cut off the tree in which the owl lived it is bad for the individual owl in that moment only from our point of view. Animals are not hung up on such concepts as bad or good. ("...only our thinking makes it so" W.S.)
However if it is to create a habitat for yourself in a way that simultaneously you create an area where hundreds of other animals including microbes, worms, reptiles, birds, and so on up the food chain can find a home, you create a system of net gain and the owl will find another tree and and plenty of food.

This is the basic premise of permaculture.

Now would the owl find all that without you? Sure. But you have just as much right to live on this Earth as they do. As long as you don't make it uninhabitable for others.
It's not humans and animals. It's all of us.

I think it is a fairly simple metric.

Hi everybody!
Sorry, its been busy at work for a bit and I didn't have a chance to get back on here, but I still value every single response I get!
Jay Angler, based on our description, one of the local wildlife people said it was most likely a barred owl. She said they tend to roost in deciduous (sp?) forests, though they can roost in pines, so I am HOPING his nest is on the old-growth hardwood side, in which case her roost was not (and will never be) disturbed. They stick around year-round, but they tend to nest/lay in march....I am hoping against hope it lives on the deciduous side so the eggs can hatch in peace. I haven't had a chance to reach out about the soil on the 2 acres, since it's further back in our priority list than the 4 acres we'll be building on

Anne Miller, Thank you for the link, I've read through it and it was very informative. And I did do another soil dig test, unfortunately I was correct, there isn't really any topsoil to speak of, just a layer of leaves/needles that gets more composted near the bottom (almost topsoil?) and under than is just straight clay. I could make a pot out of it lol

Vanessa, I do think, in general, a controlled burn can be very beneficial, but the property is in an area where that isn't feasible, so we're gonna have to do it the back-breaking way!

Ben Zumeta, I'm sorry if I wrote the original post in a way that came across as me assuming step 1 is always clear cutting. I know step 1 is observation, and then decision making based on the data collected. I have a deep respect for old-growth forests and the benefits they provide to the local environment, and the global one. I simply meant that most permaculture tends to be a disruptive in the beginning, with the hope that the long-term result is more sustainable and beneficial than the existing scenario was before you arrived, especially in areas where people are coming into property that was farmed hard, or clear-cut, or abused in some other way. I absolutely agree that sometimes the best thing you can do is nothing at all :) We are in love with the absolutely massive trees that live on the old-growth side of the forest, and don't intend to touch them at all, though I may attempt to introduce some form of undergrowth as there is absolutely nothing growing amongst the trees at the moment.
Additionally, let me try to describe the land a little better, and then later tonight I will try to post an aerial picture to illustrate it better. The property is essentially a rectangle, one acre wide by four acres long. Almost (but not quite) the center of the property (I'd say 1.75 acres on the front, 2.25 acres on the back) there is a perfectly straight line. On the front is the cedar/pine forest (~1.75 acres) on the back is the old growth hardwood (~2.25 acres). The line between them is also where the ridge is, slight uphill in the pine/cedar forest, steeper down in the old growth hardwood. On the verrryyyy back, at the end of the 4 acres, is the creek. About 100 feet before the creek, the land levels out to perfectly flat. Our property line is actually about 5 feet past the far side of the creek, so it is technically 100% on our property for the duration. The creek has dug itself ten feet down into a ravine. The ravine is about ten feet across, the creek itself about five feet across. Since the creek defines the back edge of the old growth hardwood, nothing around it will be touched, at least on our property. Hopefully this makes sense, like I said I will try to post a pic later today when I'm home

Jim Fry, the confirmed history is from county records, as well as chatting with neighbors that have been there much longer than I. There isn't any info on the old growth/hardwood side, but everywhere the pines/cedars are, and where the pines/cedars are (or were) on neighboring properties, was originally part of a much larger property that was clear cut, farmed hard, and then when it was broken up into smaller portions and sold, pines came in thick and fast. Most of the original owners of these smaller lots did one of two things: Clear cut it and bring in grass, or totally leave it alone and never do anything on the property. Our four acres is one of the latter, the owner before us and the owner before him just kind of let the pine trees do their thing, never developing the land. All in all, it's been about 40 years since anything on the land has been touched by humans, although the identical properties on either side of us have been clear cut again and had grass planted for sprawling horse pasture. (everyone within four or five properties of us, on our side of the road, has left the old-growth untouched. The only clearing has been done to the cedar/pines

Again, thank you to everybody, and I will do my best to keep on top of replies, they've really been helping us orient ourselves on this piece of land.

AnnaLea said, " just a layer of leaves/needles that gets more composted near the bottom (almost topsoil?) and under than is just straight clay. I could make a pot out of it lol

This composted layer of leaves/needles is how Mother Nature makes compost and I call this leaf mold aka hummus.

You have a wonderful property and in time this property could become a great forest garden.

So, is the general consensus that we should scrap the idea of clearing the pines/cedars and replacing them with a food forest/guild orchard (aside from the "death box" and the spot for the house), and instead leave things the way they are currently (and thin the pines/cedar to encourage growth)?
Or are people leaning towards "leave the old growth alone, but flatten the pines/cedars"?
If we can leave the pines/cedars (again besides the danger trees) then I will absolutely persue that option, but then I would need help with ideas for a kitchen garden

The more time I spend on the property, the more I realize it's kind of a "wildlife oasis" because it (and a few of the connecting properties) is like an island of trees in a sea of grass/pasture
I don't want to remove one of last forested spots in the area, but at the same time....I want apples and pears and tomatoes, y'know? How do we meet in the middle here?

I recently read Coppice Agroforestry by Mark Krawczyk. He identified that when coppiced lands were brought back under management and managed sustainably, they provided a huge boost to bird, insect, and amphibian populations compared to old growth forests. This does *not* mean that we don't need both - just that both options are of benefit to nature as well as to humans.

Based on that, I would suggest you continue removing the death trap and planning the layout of your food forest and post your food forest plans here for extra input if you feel comfortable with that. I suspect that pretty much any food forest plan based on permaculture principles which includes support plants, lots of diversity, multiple layers etc will actually be more supportive of wildlife than what is currently there. I don't have what I would describe as a food forest, but there were fruit trees on the land when we bought it, I've added a few more along with vines, shrubs and support plants, but the key thing which has helped the birds more than anything from what I've seen, is simply letting things go to seed and leaving the seed heads for winter forage, tolerating weeds far more than was modelled when I was young, and leaving pockets of "wild" for birds to use for nesting. In return, I see the  birds on my fruit trees harvesting bugs for me! I see lots of honey bees as well as solitary bees visiting the great variety of plants that flower. What "lawn" I've got is a polyculture - not just grass. If you plant enough to share, rather than just enough for yourself, I think the area you're describing can provide a boost for both your family and the feathered, buggy, crawly families around you.

In fact my husband was complaining just the other day about the shape of a volunteer plum tree whose plums are small but *really* yummy. He complained that because the tree wasn't pruned when it was younger, we couldn't reach the top for the fruit. I just looked at him and said, I can get more than enough fruit to eat, pickle and jam from the branches I can reach - the birds can harvest from the top. I'm good with that! So much comes down to our attitude! There are some plants I've written off because the birds and squirrels get it all (that would be cherries and hazelnuts) If I want a share for me, I'll have to plant suitable varieties in a way that I can protect. I see that as a decision I can make, but it doesn't mean that I have to only plant for myself all the things that wildlife is more willing to share. We always have more early apples than I can process and the deer pick up all the windfalls for me. I'm willing to let them, so long as my ducks get some too! To accomplish this on your land, you will likely have to protect some things while they're young. I have a number of portable mesh boxes I can pop over young things which need a bit of my protection while they get established. This is not an "all or nothing" game - it's a learn how to share the land game!

Hi Jay!

I love the idea of sharing the harvest with the local wildlife...my only bugaboo is blueberries. Every $&@#ing time I try blueberries, the birds them all while still green. I net them and still I get no blueberries! Besides that...love the idea of "sacrifice" crops, and a holistic approach to planting wherein all the plants can support one another and mimic succession on a small scale, tree guilds are actually what brought me to permaculture in the first place, though I *still* haven't had a chance to take a crack at one. Looking forward to being able to try on this property!
Thank you for your words of wisdom, seriously

In other news, here are pictures of the property to hopefully better describe it. I realized I have no idea where the creek comes from...and neither does Google. My first thought is "spring" but there's so much water! It's at least four or five feet deep on average. Seems like I may need to take a little hike to find out....

Ok, so you have the history of the pines. They self planted, and were not planted as a Christmas tree nursery or such. That sounds about like what unmanaged land should do. I've been farming for a long time. Been here for part of nine decades so far. Never moved and seen a lot. I don't know about how things are in other areas and lands in North America, but here in Ohio there's a fairly regular order to things. Most everywhere was plowed at one time. Then it wasn't (for a variety of reasons). Grass went to weeds, went to bigger weeds, often went to bushes, then quick growing trees and then eventually went to longer lasting deciduous trees. It looks like what you have (in part) is the quick growing stage, which is starting to die out and being replaced by hard wood trees. In one picture it looks like you have some young oaks coming on.

~~So here is what I'd do. The pines are fine. They are doing their job. But I'd thin them some, so more hard woods could/would come in. Some of the oaks you have look bent or out of shape, and too close together. I'd thin some of those also, so they have proper distance apart. I'd thin according to which will make the best mature tree. I might also bring in some more hard woods like maybe sugar maple, walnut, hickory, beech and such. Makes a pretty woods, most or all of which will provide you and (natural) animals with food. ~But while doing that, leave some dead or dying trees (pines). They are part of the natural progression. And the animals and insects and others need them for shelter and food.

Then, there's a couple other things to think about. 1). You called one area a "dead zone". Really? What's dead about it? Words and thoughts have power. By calling it "dead", you name it thru your human lens. Not thru the eyes and needs of the natural world. I would be more clear about what that area is (to you). It's not dead to who live there, or hide there, or grow there, or eat there. It may only be "dead" to just your eyes and needs. 2). In one post, you wrote (sic) "observe, then act on data". That's fine. But another way to think about it is to: observe, be still, listen, hear, then act accordingly. I have noticed that very few permaculture people talk or write about Nature Spirits, Fairies, Faeries, and the Spiritual Side of Nature. -Believe, don't believe. As you will. But for me, and folks of a heart and mind like me, we regular talk with and listen to what the Natural World has to say to us. It all isn't just about what you human has to say or want. Nature has its "wants" also. Please listen a bit, before you go hacking things down, just to then plant what you want. 3). You were visited by Owl. Owl spoke to you. Did you listen? Or did you assume you knew why it was there. It may have had nothing to do with you cutting down it's nest, or being some sort of "sad". Maybe it had a message for you (see #2 above). Animals talk to us all the time, you just have to listen, and maybe learn how to talk with them in their language and ways. 4). You wrote you want to build a house and grow tomatoes. Ok. When you are having your conversation with the Nature Spirits of the area, explain your needs. And try to propose a compromise living situation with them. You will leave their land alone, and you will harm as little as you can for your needs. And that they will always be welcome in your home and gardens. Hopefully, they will understand and agree. ~~Please do try to understand, when you stir a pot thoughtlessly, there can sometimes be consequences. It's much nicer for all to work together.

Hey Jim!
I am going to send you a purple mooseage, hopefully you're cool with that, but I'd love to have a more in-depth discussion before posting on here again, in lieu of shoving my head further up my own butt
I sincerely hope you don't mind (if you do mind, just don't reply and I'll take the hint haha)