Hi Vaughn, thanks for the great questions! I think long term harvesting and replanting of trees could be done on many different time scales. I am personally opposed to clear cutting for a few reasons. First of it looks terrible. Second, there are always pretty serious impacts on the soil and
local watersheds. Third when all trees are removed there are higher maintenance costs to control weeds.
As far as intervals of harvesting trees go, I envision finding a sweet spot where it makes economic sense for a log truck to show up and be able to leave with a full load-around 10-20 trees depending on age and size. I think planting a variety of trees (minimum 3-5 species mix) at every site is important to allow opportunities to harvest at different rates. I think it will be important to start with many fast growing, pioneer trees such as Red Alder or
Black Locust where they can yield a decent amount of lumber in 30-40 years. As some of these trees are thinned out over a period of 10-20 years, climax tree species can be planted for the next generation. I think it will be crucial to keep the ecosystem and forest intact. I think there
should be at least a 100 year management plan if not 200 years. Also, some trees should not be removed for 100 years and maybe 10-20% should grow as long as they are healthy which could mean 1,000 years. Most lumber operations I know seem to focus on tree farming where patches of forest are clear cut or so much selective thinning is done that no trees ever live past 50 years. A 100 year old tree is far more valuable. A 1,000 year old tree extremely valuable.
I am in the process of creating a test site with a local county government outside Portland. Rates of harvest has been a frequent topic. I don't have a magic answer at this point. In the next two years I hope to have this more flushed out.
Again, this is a super important question!
Dave
2
