[Mamzelle]

The beetle problem in my neck of the woods had to do with the combination of too many trees planted too close together (so they'd grow nice and straight), of the same species (crop)--and the terrible five years of drought. Up until the drought, it worked and was profitable. No water, no sap--bugs, damage and dead logs on the forest floor.

I don't like much the enviros, but this was also a problem of crop management. Now, I'd like to see these timber managers burn their trash before it gets burned for them by accident. I clear and thin my own woods, and have the contact dermititis to show for it.

I veer from soft thinking to hard thinking about all this. I want to weep over clearcutting, but then I get impatient with many who sentimentalize timber to its own detriment. The average tree does not have a long life--only lucky and very strong trees live a long life. Then that long-lived tree becomes a "wolf tree"--putting out toxins to create that lovely empty, deathly silent cathedral...

People tend to assume that a forest will become old growth if you leave it alone--not so. From generations in hills I know that a stand of timber, untouched and untaken, will most likely become diseased and worthless. Either you take your timber and bank your money, or watch it rot. We love trees, and we use them.

Every owner of timber, watching the first inklings of disease, anguishes over this decision. It's not an easy one to come by.

[Carry_Okie]

Yes, managing a forest is all about dealing with competing risks and uncertain outcomes. That's why having a range of forest types and management philosophies is probably preferable to whatever any one person thinks is "best."

Still, it helps if they are accountable for damage they might do to somebody else, talk to each other, and compare notes. The system doesn't do that very well. I'm working on fixing that.