Neighbor is clear-cutting around 300 acres

Property that is about 1/10 of a mile from here. Just went out and I could see the destruction across my other neighbor's farm. This was a nice wooded area, some of it had been tree farmed with pines but a lot of it is broad leafed forest- tulip poplar, oak, gum etc. I walked through there last fall. There was a nice stream with big rocks, ferns, little hollows. I even found what looked like a very old headstone to an old grave. I'm reminded of the Lorax as I see the machinery destroy this nice little sanctuary, home to Pileated woodpeckers, Red tailed hawk, deer, fox... It is really disgusting, some machine goes through and cuts a path ripping trees down pretty violently. Then they'll put down planking so the big trucks can get back there. Anybody who thinks clear-cutting only happens in the Pacific Northwest, hasn't been to the south, the illusion of the tranquil rural setting is just that, an illusion. It's pretty industrial out here. And for what? For pulp, for planks for somebody's outside deck. This is going to be an all too common occurrence as the economy tanks even further. People are gonna get desperate to maintain their country gentleman lifestyle and they are gonna start selling off the timber rights. The next generation will just sell the property outright to developers. Bye bye, rural America.

But every so often some developer from out of the area comes in, doesn't bother to check the local codes and clear cuts a tract. They get slapped with big fines, but it still happens.

It's baby-bird season....

bastard

Have you checked out the Owl Box?

www.ustream.tv/theowlbox

It's going to be a function of local codes mostly. Especially for small plots (which 300 acres is not) there often is virtually no restriction on clear cutting. You'll get better protections in cities than urban areas (which often technically require a permit to cut down large trees).

As an encouragement for you, "rural America" is growing in some ways. The demographic shifts are towards urban/suburban areas. However, the other reality is that the land is still "private" and someone can do things such as you describe. To some extent it is the point and purpose of outfits like the Nature Conservancy. Buy it up, protect it, then give it back to the goverment for protection in perpetuity. Flint Michigan is shrinking massively, and there is a move afoot to reduce the size of the populated areas. As I understand it they are plowing up whole subdivisions. Dunno if they can afford it, but turning them into "natural areas" could have very positive long term results for the remaining population.

Lots of questions about their "administration costs" and other issues with many of their land transactions.

The public face of their strategy is buying up property and holding it until govt. funds become available, they don't donate anything with out major strings and I don;t know of any land donations whatsoever. Been watching them for years.

They try to get "deals" with the government to take over the land. (Or to some extent, anyone that will buy it).

And they really don't deserve most of the criticisms that have been leveled at them.

People donate (or, more often, sell at a deep discount) land to The Nature Conservancy on an almost constant basis, but a lot of land gets donated to them that isn't worth preserving. An open field in the middle of an industrial area can't support wildlife. A laser leveled farm surrounded by miles of industrial farms is of very little benefit to wildlife. A 2 acre farm surrounded on all sides by subdivisions can't be restored.

These properties are often re-sold, developed, used for continued farming, and occasionally even logged or drilled. Why? Because they can use the funds from those projects to purchase OTHER land that IS more environmentally beneficial. To build greenbelts, wildlife corridors, or to protect important lands from development or logging. This is very important, as buying land is expensive, and donations only cover a small part of their operating expenses.

The Nature Conservancy has a No-Profit policy that prevents them from making money on these deals. Every dime they make from selling or developing a property is re-invested in purchasing even more environmentally critical land elsewhere. I know TNC has been criticized by the Sierra Club under the idea that "every square inch counts", but the reality is that TNC has protected far more land from development in this country than every other environmental organization combined. Some people may not like their methods, but they are very effective.

and as for them not profiting - well, lots of "non-profits" are pretty profitable for the folks running them and TNC is one of the "best".

They are EXTREMELY deserving of both the scrutiny and the criticism. Like I said - I have been watching and interacting with them for a long time. They are arrogant and disrespectful of local people and their history and knowledge of an area. I've heard of data manipulation and falsification, I've seen legal shenanigans, I've seen lying under oath in court, I've watched them come in and fuck up local activism with their "expertise" and I don't trust them at all.

Any time an organization has as large a budget, the kinds of resources, capital and assets as TNC does there is almost inevitable corruption.

TNC is to environmentalism as Monsanto is to agriculture.

That will be part of the view from my house for the rest of my life now.

Screw the environment, it's MY land dammit!

I love trees. I live in a very rural area surrounded by trees of all kinds.

Some years back I had gotten a book on trees...their lives, how they reproduce, how to identify them, etc.

Something I never knew...that before the predations of European settlers upon the land, the forests were virtually unbroken from the East coast all the way in to around Ohio or so. Supposedly a squirrel could travel a thousand miles or more without even having to touch the ground...the forests were so thick he could jump from tree to tree.

Now there are areas without a single tree in sight.

Odd...even when I was a little kid, every time I saw a tree being cut down, my heart got very sad.

To me, cities of concrete and steel are UGLY. Blights upon the landscape. :(

My understanding is there is actually more forested area in the US than before Europeans arrived. Mostly because the aboriginal people were managing the land with fire - in other words they were burning the forests to maintain open grasslands for game hunting.

From this site:

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienceques2002/20030404.htm


Tenth paragraph down...



Even though satellite views of most places east of the Mississippi River would still show a pervasion of green, it's not as green as it was before the first Europeans arrived 400 years ago. In the mid 1950s, it was estimated by the National Geographic Society that forests covered approximately 3/4 of the original acreage present when the first European settlers arrived. A good deal of additional tree loss has occurred in just the last half century. For example, according to American Forests (a conservation organization), the forest cover in the Baltimore-Washington area decreased from 51% in 1973 to 39% in 1997. Although building and construction is somewhat higher in this region than across most of the eastern US, in nearly every urban and suburban area, there are far fewer trees now than just a score ago. Not only have trees been cut down to make room for housing developments and highways, but timbering, diseases (such as Dutch Elm disease) and acid rain have all taken their toll. In the U.S. today, perhaps only 60% of the land originally in forest 400 years ago is still forested.

Diseases would have been introduced through Mexico and Spanish colonies in the south.

So by the time English settlers move away from the coast, the forests may have been more extensive than in the pre-Columbian period.

That showed the unbroken forest (recreation) as it was when white settlers arrived and the progression from that wilderness to the landscape of today. It starred Elizabeth Montgomery (of "Bewitched") - I will always remember her best for her role as Sayward in that series. She was shown as a teenager all the way to an elderly lady. At the very end as she recounted her first views of the area that became the town, she planted a tree.

I love trees, too. When we bought our farm, it was corn fields and pig pens with some scrub trees along the fence lines at the top of the ridge. Since we had to cut trees to clear the old barbed wire fences, we planted thousands of trees. Those trees are now thirty years old and we are having to thin them, which hurts, but the remaining trees will be healthier for it. And we've lost nearly all the loblolly pines that were here, mostly from lightning strikes. Though we knew they were mature trees and would not last, I miss those lovely trees. We left the dead stobs and watch generations of pileateds teach their young to hunt bugs on those spikes, so at least they served a purpose even in death.

Dead trees are the wildlife's most valuable commodity.

Clearing the trees will open the land up for other species, and if the owner replants, it will be green again soon.

He'll probably plant one species, so the mixed forest that is so important for wildlife won't be there..

As long as there is enough nearby land to absorb the displaced wildlife... at least for a time... they'll be OK.

I personally would hang a clearcutter from his own tin spar, but since we can't seem to stop them, we can try to help the wildlife through the period until the area grows again.

It is unlikely that the 30 acres is virgin forest or contains plants and animals of unique value.

Better that the timber be harvested from cut-over and reforested parts of the US than virgin tropical forests with greate biological diversity be destroyed.

which could be a rather shocking change to the view and possible the whole area depending on other factors. That is a pretty big chunk of country in most places - especially back east.

Otherwise I agree, much of the southeast timber is farmed, and will regrow relatively quickly.

The impact on wildlife and waterways from clear cuts is every bit as devastating here as in some distant rain forest. Apparently, you haven't been into any of our remaining old growth forests or you wouldn't think that we don't have unique plants and animals of value.

which can be problematic. However, it is not true that clearcuts, if properly done, negatively affect water quality. Agriculture and construction are hundreds of times worse. There is virtually no water quality impact from properly managed forestry operations, even clearcuts.

Clearcutting is actually beneficial for some species of trees and wildlife. Any management prescription will favor some species over other species. The challenge is how to create incentives for landowners to manage land in responsible ways.

:shrug:

wilderness to see how Mother Nature does it.

ecological reason for wildfires, get a biologist to explain it to you. There isn't the space and time here.

Almost every acre has been either lumbered or farmed. Even in areas like New England, which is extensively wooded now, the old rock walls running through the forest attest to the fact that the forest is secondary growth.

Thats what is happening.
Most pine forests are actually pine farms.Planyed and cultivated just like any other crop.The difference being pine crops have a much longer growth period.

Still sucks,though,what they do to the landscape during harvest.

I don't understand why an annual corn harvest is preferable.

Granted, a 300 acre clearcut is fairly large. In the northwest, there are many habitat reasons that they are generally kept to 100 acres or less.

you know what?

When push comes to shove, DU'ers really aren't that committed to helping small family farms keep going. Quite a few DU'ers don't even think property should be passed on generation to generation.

It was on 10 wooded rolling hills acres w a 1 1/2 acre pond. Surrounded by farming we thought it was ideal (especially close to Kenyon where you could by a NYT 365 days a year). The county even passed a 5 acre law on new development but alas what happened was farm land plit up in 5 acre increments with prefab (and not the types you find in Dwell Magazine) trailer homes and no trees on them. It was really sad. We eventually sold the property.

a pre-fab home, and it might look a little double-wide-ish, but it's built to the same code as a site-built house, and it's less wasteful and more efficient to build.

GREEN prefab homes! I have seem them in person and thet are wonderful. My family and I are looking into getting a couple of these and putting them on a bit of land in the lower Sierra Nevada range and creating a green family compound:

http://ecomanufacturedhomes.com/

HUD/manufactured homes are built to mobile-home standards, not stick-built standards. See if they sell UBC/IRC code homes (that is the kind I'm looking to buy)--those are built to the same quality and code as a site-built house, with all of the inspections that go along with it. Lots and lots of manufacturers out there, but business has been hard for them lately with the economic downturn and housing collapse. :-(

Libeskind Designs a Prefab Home


By KEVIN BRASS
Published: June 15, 2009
Daniel Libeskind, an architect who rarely shies away from the opportunity to make a bold statement, describes his latest project as “unprecedented around the world.”


It is Libeskind’s way of saying that as the designer of such headline projects as the Jewish Museum Berlin and the master plan for the reconstruction of the World Trade Center site in New York, he is the highest-profile architect to venture into the market for prefabricated homes.

He has created a 515-square-meter, or 5,500-square-foot, two-story villa that resembles a crystal with sharp angles and towering windows bursting from the ground. The villa, which can be shipped and assembled anywhere, includes a solar thermal system and a sauna in the basement.

“This is really the first time I’ve taken on the issue of doing something which is a limited artistic edition of a new space, of a new way of living,” said Mr. Libeskind, 63.

While many architects have dabbled in prefab concepts, most focused on mass production techniques and inexpensive designs. Mr. Libeskind’s villa will carry a price tag of €2 million to €3 million, or $2.8 million to $4.2 million, depending on the destination. (The price includes shipping within Europe and construction.)

-snip
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/greathomesanddestinations/12iht-relib.html

is indistinguishable from a site-built home.

Beautiful place. I would live in it if I could.

:)

would be interesting to see how it has all changed.

and other big boxes and built on the outskirts of Mt Vernon and when I moved away in '99, had pretty much decimated the downtown. That is when those prefabs on 5 acre treeless lots were sprouting as area farmers were selling their land & getting out of the farming business. Sad. We lived on Horn Rd which was a steep hill on the ole bike and I remember hearing the clip clop of the amish buggies as they traveled down the road. It was such a beautiful area.

(the square in Mt. Vernon that is)?

Since we were attempting to get away from the city, we hung out in nature. :hi:

Loved the bike trail that started in Mt Vernon:

http://www.kokosinggaptrail.org/

He took good care of his customers. When he died they ended up selling the place.

Have some good memories of the whole area, as well as some bad ones...And I do remember the old bike trail!

Ever travel down to Granville? And where are you here now in Ohio, we should hook up sometime. Would be nice to meet someone from DU here in Ohio.

Don't know if it applies in this case but I think some developers have done a cost/benefit analysis that
says (this is especially true in the Redwood area) if their potential profit from developing a piece of
real estate is high enough they will hire somebody to illegally clear the land, pay the penalties and then
, since there are now no restrictions on building due to trees, go ahead and do what they wanted to in the
first place. Personally I think the penalty for doing this kind of thing should not be directly monetary in
nature but should be forfeiture of the property. Wouldn't bring back the trees but it might make the developers
think twice.

"Fern Gully" comes to mind. *Yes, it was a cartoon, but it was a GOOD cartoon.

Some company clear cut a lot of acres near where my Grandmama lived. It is absolutely devastating, and it looks like a bomb went off. It makes me sick to my stomach because I spent a lot of time in those woods and know what life it harbors. It's all for a bunch of chip mills and such. MEH!

I'm so sorry.

probably read your post yesterday.

Sid

I hope at least he replants. I've seen forest land cleared up north to be replanted with hay and grasses for the seeds for city people's lawns.
:eyes:

You might try to contact the Sierra Club, who might have some suggestions about what you and your neighbors can do to lessen the impact on wild life.

My neighbor cut down a bunch of mature oaks and pecan trees and replanted with pines so he could get a tax break. Maybe they'll replant after the cutting.

Which gives about as good a tax break as agricultural exemption. But it depends mostly on the local tax appraiser as to the standards to allow either. Green belt allows you to leave natural or old regrowth stands of trees for the benefit of the wildlife - at least in this county.

We've got both green belt and ag expemptions - green belt for our bottom thirty acres since 15-20 acres is considered environmentally sensitive wetlands. The stream that begins in that swamp is part of a wildlife corridor that extends at least to the county line with people who are trying to make sure it will extend all the way to the St.Marks watershed and to the Gulf of Mexico. The non-wetlands part is in regrowth forest, though even the wetlands is in forest.

(We have one of the few natural stands of American Beech trees in Florida, two of which are listed in "Big Trees: The Florida Register". One of those was the Florida Champion American Beech - largest measured tree of that species - but was surpassed by some specimen trees in other locations. When they came to remeasure for the book, they had trouble finding the exact tree that had been champion since several were very close to the same size, so they listed at least one more in the book.)

We get agricultural exemption for the upper thirty acres where our horses live, except for the area where the house is. We have to meet more exacting standards for that exemption since the land is more appropriate for other uses than the bottom land.

For anyone wanting to get exemptions, it pays to consult with an attorney who specializes in that area of the law - and to be friendly with the property appraiser, asking his advice and following his recommendations.

ten acres of land to qualify for "Tree farm" status and tax breaks. You don't even have to cut the trees...just let them grow.

My land has been certified a Wildlife Habitat by the National Wildlife Federation. I only have a little over 8 acres, but if you hike in a ways it connects to another parcel of over 1000 acres that has been turned over to the state by the (late) previous owner's family for conservation purposes.

I'm glad we don't actually have to farm the trees here to qualify for tax breaks

:)

mono-culture tree farms with trees in a row like crops.

This is just you having to face the real cost of your lifestyle. It was fine when the trees were close to someone else's backyard.

that does NOT include clear cutting. I believe that is what folks are objecting to. Clearcutting is an utterly disguting practice that should be outlawed.

Also, we cut it in the fall and made sure only trees of certain sizes were cut. All the giant old oak trees were left alone.

I have part interest in the old family farm, and that's the way my dad always had it done. We made less on the timber, but the property looked almost unchanged as little as two years after the cutting. Using the mules really helped keep the damage down.

Obviously not.

It is cute that you had some mules take out a few logs for you. What are is everyone else supposed to do?

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Sustainable-Farming/1994-04-01/Sustainable-Logging.aspx

Logging with horses, mules, or oxen is an idea whose time has come again. Draft animals are once again becoming popular sources of power in today's woodlots, because they are environmentally friendly and make good economic sense. Draft animals are particularly well suited to the 57% of commercial timberlands consisting of privately owned small woodlots, since they allow selective timbering as opposed to clearcutting. Why? There are three main reasons.

<snip>

What percentage of the lumber demanded are they going to be able to get?

They are a cute way for people to clear a few trees.

A local research place published a study that said that leaving the old oaks creates a solid canopy that prevents sunlight from reaching the forest floor. This keeps growth of any variety of species and eliminates the undergrowth wildlife needs for forage and shelter. After I read it I took a look at our bottom thirty acres - in just the thirty years we've owned the farm, it has transitioned from a thick undergrowth with more species of trees to mostly live oaks. Since the live oaks are evergreen, the land under their canopy gets little sunshine at any time of the year.

Before next winter, I need to consult with a forester who is familiar with the study I read and mark trees to be taken out. If timber prices are not good, I may just do what we did when we thinned the trees at the top of the ridge - create brush piles for the wildlife. Since we did that, our fox population has skyrocketed, though the rabbit population has disappeared.

so they didn't effect much of anything. When my father had cows, they would use the old oak trees for shade in the summer.

That shade out everything underneath!

We also have a good number of oaks and other trees in the pastures for the horses to shelter under. We were very lucky that none of the horses were under any of the trees that were struck by lightning. One of our foals we had sold was killed along with three other horses at a farm down the road. Lightning struck a mature pine, traveled down the trunk and killed all four horses underneath. The people who owned the farm over reacted and cut every single pine on their property, leaving very little shade in most of the pastures. I can't really blame them though. I am not sure how I would have reacted to a loss like that - my horses are my babies.

Clearcutting has benefits. Particularly in the northwest, you don't want to disturb the soils any more than necessary. The key is keeping the clearcuts of a small enough size that it doesn't create barriers to wildlife.

Some of the most destructive logging operations I've seen were selective logging.

... but they looked pretty good from the highway.

The real cost of a lifestyle does include the lumber in your home, but not the garbage that clogs your mailbox.

http://www.41pounds.org/impact/

The cost of our lifestyle includes junk mail for sure.

That is the real problem. Wood is a resource that we all use and depend on. But, there are sustainable ways to harvest it, and there are destruction, snowballing ways. Clear-cutting is the worst option.

In my experience, clearcuts are usually easiest on the soils and put the least sediment into rivers (averaged over time). If kept small, they also provide more diverse habitat without creating barriers.

In the northwest, the best managed forests clearcut 50-70 acre parcels on a 50+ year rotation, and access them via ridgetop roads.

Granted, the 36" dia stumps look bad from the highway. The alternative, of course, would have been to cut the tree when it was 18" dia.

http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/forestry/clrcut.htm

get it? Stop assuming shit to fit your defense of this crap.

Regardless of where you get your wood you are benefiting from the increased availability due to higher yield logging techniques(clear cut).

He is just paying the external costs of a lifetime of wood usage.

Remember?

come and cut down the pine on our land. It's only 12 acres though, not 300.

They didn't clear cut. They went through and marked which trees they wanted and took only those. It did look bare for a while. But the saplings that have grown up in their place are about 20-25 ft now. Plus the undergrowth has developed a lot as well.

Before you shout, I really needed the money at the time.

period.

My dad owns a sizeable chunk of land in Oregon, and sells part of it for logging every few years. He won't let them log it all, or clearcut it, because it's "ugly". They only do selective cuts of the larger useful wood (no pulping the small stuff), and he replants within weeks.

Are you sure they're cutting it for profit? One of my dads neighbors clearcut 30 acres right across from his house about 5 years ago. Turned out they were clearing it to put in horse pastures.

The area has been eyed for an outlet mall interstate exit development before. One good thing about a lagging economy is that hopefully won't happen.