A general Selective Cutting question, kind sirs...

[BrandonTN]

I've been reading an article about selective cutting in managing an uneven-aged forest, and it is saying cutting emphasis is on species that will grow in certain soil areas, badly formed trees, and trees that will not respond well to release...

My question is:  Forests can be BIG!!  Do foresters have to basically examine each tree  in the forest, and spend time on each tree seeing what criteria is met?  Doesn't this take forever?  The forest in the article is Pioneer Forest in Missouri, and it is 150,000 acres....how many foresters would it take to manage this forest???
Managing a forest that big just seems like it'd be so COMPLICATED and time consuming... Even a forest a fraction of that size seems like it'd be immensely time consuming.  Are there techniques foresters use to speed up the process?

[Ron Wenrich]

A forest can be any size you want to make it.  But, when you do an initial cruise you'll find that a large forest is made up of a bunch of smaller forests.  That's the diversity that everyone talks about.  Some trees will be big, some small, some areas will be wet, some dry, etc.

In an even-aged regime, you are looking to get all they same sized tree.  Your thinnings would end up taking the poorer quality timber and some others to keep your stocking levels balanced.  At some time, you would be looking to make a final cut and take all the trees and start all over. 

But, in an uneven-aged regime, you're looking to get a good size representation in the stand.  The smaller the stand, the harder this is to do.  Yes, we do look at every tree when we mark timber on a selective basis.  Diameter limits are not selective since you put criteria which is more market based instead of stand based.  Same can be said for high grading.

At the time of marking its very easy to remove those trees that you mentioned.  You can also create small openings that will allow some of the more intolerant species to grow and to allow for some regeneration. 

An averaging marking day would be about 200-250 trees per forester.  That would be about 10-20 acres. 

[Riles]

The other thing to consider is that they're not marking all 150,000 acres every year. If they're on a 20 year cutting cycle, that knocks it down to 7500 acres a year. Takes some effort to get there if you're just starting off, but it's steady work

You'd still need to monitor the other acreage for forest health, boundaries, etc, but that goes quicker.

[Tillaway]

Examine each tree?...No.  If you mark trees then yes you have to look at each one.  We get better results training the fallers to do this.  Our contracts have clear wording what the thinning specifications are and states that we can replace (fire) the cutters if they do not meet the contract requirements.  We check the the cutters for compliance.  This saves us a lot of time and money and usually gets better results than if we did it ourselves.

[WDH]

A lot of select cutting is done by cutting to a stump diameter limit.  That really speeds up the process, but I don't like it.  That can lead to hi-grading and leaving the shade tolerant species like beech and hickory to take over the stand.  Hardwoods are much more complicated than softwoods, and the forester needs an understanding of the different species and what they need to flourish.  There is no "easy" button for that.

[Ron Wenrich]

Diameter limit cutting IS high grading, especially when everything is removed above a certain diameter. You're cutting your best growing trees in favor of trees that are either co-dominants or suppressed.  Diameter limit cuttings are the lazy man's way to forest management, and it isn't good management.

[WDH]

Yes, that is "selecting-the-best" cutting and "leaving-the-worst" cutting.

[SwampDonkey]

Another phrase you'll here a lot is 'take the mature wood out', and that is just a diameter limit cut. As Ron says, a high grade. What you get left over for the majority of trees is multi-stemmed, often suppressed, flat-topped junk. Might as well clear cut it, because I don't care to grow 'apple trees' for saw logs.

Tillaway must be in a situation were access to timber is limited and more controlled. Probably not a lot of private land accessible to logging. Also, the timber size is much larger than hear in the NE. In my area where private woodlots are a large portion of the harvest lands, you can get quite a few fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pants loggers so if they get tossed off crown they'll just go a long the same path on private land. A lot of these types last 6 months, 3 years, maybe 5 then they loose everything. I've seen quite a few. These are folks you can't even control to well with a spray can and supervision/guidance. As soon as you leave the lot, the rules get modified, especially since we are working in smaller wood.  The wood volume doesn't add up as fast. Another problem is there is rarely a forester on the privately owned lot being harvested here and loggers know how to cut wood and understand clear cutting and high grading. A lot even know what a group or single tree selection is, but find it hard to practice in small wood. Usually it's the small operator with another source of household income that will practice proper management.

[Phorester]

Yep, Brandon, Foresters look at every tree.  But, we might not examine every single tree individually, we might look at several at once.  Depends on what we're doing. Like Ron says, big forests are really a bunch of little forests growing together, called "stands".    I just finished a management plan Friday for a 167 acre tract.  Before going into these woods I pulled my aerial photo for this part of the county and marked the property lines on it. I then divided it into 4 different stands that I could discern from the photo, based on timber type.  I walked over each of these stands and scanned about every tree.  Granted, I could do that from a distance  especially this time of year with no leaves. I don't have to walk around each tree for these plans, but I do walk into each stand.  From this initial examination, I came up with another 4 stands that weren't readily seen on my photo. 

So for the final management plan, I described 8 seperate stands and gave managment recommendations for each one.   Field time took about 4 hours.  Took about 10 hours office time to get the written plan to its final form.  This was a comprehensive Forest Stewardship Plan, so it took longer than a regular management plan.

But when marking timber for harvesting, I look at every tree.  Usually walk around every one to see it's complete quality, check for defects, root problems, etc.  I will usually be looking at several trees at once as I walk in a circle. This needs to be done to properly decide which trees are best to leave, then to decide how to "call" the trees marked for cutting. then I walk up to each tree to be cut and squirt it with paint.  Two marks for each tree to be cut; one at chest height, one below stump height to serve as a check during the cutting operation.  For each tree marked you have to determine species, diameter, number of 16 foot logs to the nearest 1/2 log.

So in the final analysis, every tree needs to be looked at, but you might be able to look at dozens of trees at the same time for a management plan.  But, individually if you're marking the stand for cutting. You're right, it takes time to do it right.

[Tillaway]

SD
We have pretty good control contractually... and a big bond requirement.   Plus a whole sections regarding damage, thinning specs and felling specs and the ability to charge triple stumpage for cutting "reserve timber".  Reserve Timber = trees that need to be retained to make the residual basal area requirements and they have to be of good form, no damage and good vigor among other things.  They are described in the Thinning Specifications portion of the contract.  The cutters get a little carried away we can fire them and / or charge them for the trees cut.  They pay up or we notify the bonding company and they do.  Loose your bond and you are out of business.

Needless to say the cutters here all carry angle gauges or prisms and know how to use them. I tell them the "count" they do the rest.  Combine this with a diameter limit, usually species specific, and it can get confusing but they usually pull it off.  A typical prescription I get is "Cut all Doug fir less than 14 inches and thin whats left to 120 to 140 BA".  We get a few holes in pockets of smaller timber, we want a few holes, but overall it works well most of the time.  We are converting from even aged stands to an uneven aged management regime.

We get the fly-by-nights as well.  They also know the contract and will not mess with this part.  They push it in other areas though.  Unfortunately for the private landowners this is where they usually work.  The large companies will not hire them so the little guy with a few acres usually winds up being abused by them.  Fortunately, there are only a few in the county that you do not want logging on your place.

[Pilot]

Some trees get a close inspection, some are obviously not ready for cutting this entry, so even though "every" tree gets looked at, some only get a quick look, and others are examined more intensly.

Uneven aged management (selective management) takes a lot more skill and care than even aged management: i.e. it takes more time, more money.  It has some problems which argue against it if there is any doubt about which way to go.

As Ron and others mentioned, it can be confused with high grading.  In order to make a sale pay, there is a tendency to take the more valuable trees.  The logger makes his money by the volume he takes to the mill, so it requires discipline (and honesty) on his part to stick with the cutting guides if the trees are not premarked. (And even if they are premarked, you need to keep the logger's hands off a paint gun!)  More ground has to be covered by workers and machines to get the same volume you'd get with a clearcut.  If using a ground based system, then more soil will get into the streams because more ground will be disturbed.  More trees will get damaged by falling and skidding, leading to decay and resulting in future losses.  You need equipment that can get the trees out without compacting the soil, a bigger concern in some areas, depending on soil type.

In spite of the foregoing concerns, the decision on which system to use is based on the question of what kind of stand you want to create.  If you want a stand of fast growing Douglas-fir, you want even aged management and will clearcut an existing mature stand.  If you have a dry site and want ponderosa pine, you might use uneven aged management. 

Here in the west, an attempt by the Forest Service at mandating uneven aged management on the west side of the Cascades and in the Coast Range without regard to the forest type or stand conditions was disasterous.  During  the depression, the crawler tractor was introduced to the woods.  It was hailed as the savior of the distressed forest industry, because it allowed loggers to go in and take only the best, most valuable, most profitable trees.  Previously, logging had been dominated by large cable systems which were usable only for clearcutting.  In less than 15 years, over 75% of the trees remaining in logged areas  were damaged and decay rates had gone through the roof.  Forest Service policy continued to mandate selective logging for about 10 years more, finally reversing policy in the early 1950's.

If you are going to do uneven aged management, you have to know what you are doing and the job has to be done right.

Lastly, the phrases "selective logging" and "uneven aged management" are often used interchangeably.  This is incorrect.  Selective logging refers to the type of logging and can include thinning an even aged stand.  It just means that each tree to be cut will be individually selected.  Uneven aged management refers to the silvicultural system being applied to a stand over a long period of time and entails repeated entries to maintain a mix of age classes and often a mix of species.

Richard Scott
Retired Silviculturist

[SwampDonkey]

Welcome to our humble site Pilot.  Ok, it may not be so humble any longer.  

[Gary_C]

I have been reading this with great interest as I am from the "other side," ie. I am a logger that cuts mostly hardwood thinnings in uneven aged stands. I will add some specific comments as time permits, but I would like to first make you aware of a workshop that is being held this year by the Minnesota Logger Education Program that has long been recommended by this states loggers, myself included. The title of the class is:

Timber Sale Design Cross Training

The primary objective is to create an atmosphere where loggers and natural resource managers who are involved with timber sale design and administration activities can learn about each other's perspectives on timber sale design. The purpose of the workshop is to help facilitate better working relationships in the area of timber sales between loggers and natural resource managers. Additionally, loggers will gain a better understanding of silvicultural prescriptions and their associated rationale. Natural resource managers will also learn more about factors that limit a logger's ability to be sucessful when implementing silvicultural prescriptions.  (Limited to 28 participants, 12 logging business owners, 12 field foresters, and 4 wildlife managers.)

Some of the issues that are sure to be brought up are:
1. Marking trees that are surrounded and not accessable without damaging or cutting leave trees.
2. Marking on random sides of the trees so not all markings can be seen from one direction.
3. Not marking enough trees to allow adequate access.

[WDH]

That is good stuff, Gary_C.  Seeing things from another perspective is always beneficial.  "Silviculture" can be a perfect world to some foresters, but the practicality of having to harvest the timber is just as important an aspect.

[Ron Wenrich]

I haven't marked in a while, but when I did, you always wanted to make sure that a tree had someplace to fall.  That's why we took out some of the smaller junk to allow a hole for the bigger ones to fall. 

Marking was always done parallel to boundary lines or terrain.  We used dots, sometimes 3 to a tree, but always one on either side.  A lot of guys are using slashes.  We always used blue paint.  Blue is the only thing that isn't commonly seen in a hardwood forest at anytime of the year. 

We had one forester who marked in red paint.  He had his timber sale and a logger asked which trees were marked.  He said they were marked in red paint and were everywhere.  The logger was colored blind and couldn't see any of the paint.     That was one less bidder. 

We also marked enough to make it worthwhile.  If we wanted a tree out but didn't have enough in the area, we would girdle it and move on.  Foresters can also do some cultural work while they are marking.  We always cut grape vines.  It doesn't all have to hang on the timber sale.

[SwampDonkey]

I agree with Gary's 3 points. That's why sometimes the 'green' forester needs to be trained to and not let loose without some common sense prep talk and experience. There are even a few seasoned foresters that could have their chain yanked once in awhile. I've noticed that when spacing trails. A supervisor type comes along and complains the trails didn't go strait in the block off a narrow road and that the spacing was a little wide here and there along the road. Was blind to the fact that there where piles of mud, rock and stumps turned up when the old road was built that have to be steered around and the fact that the machine wasn't built to turn 90 degrees on a dime with a load of wood on it's bunk longer than the width of the road. 

[Phorester]

There's the problem too, of marking trees that are too small to be merchantable.  I see that a lot with our inexperienced Foresters and Technicians.

Yes, the trees they mark need to be removed for sivilcultural reasons, but if ithere is a bunch of trees marked that are below the minimum size the mill will take....., what's the logger suppossed to do with them?  It can make the sale unsalable. 

Sometimes you got to compromse to get the job done.

[tonich]

Hello,

Yes, that is "selecting-the-best" cutting and "leaving-the-worst" cutting.

This method is described as “iregular selection cutting” or “primitive selection cutting”, as well. In Europe this had been practiced in 19th century, but not nowadays.

But when marking timber for harvesting, I look at every tree.  Usually walk around every one to see it's complete quality, check for defects, root problems, etc.  I will usually be looking at several trees at once as I walk in a circle. This needs to be done to properly decide which trees are best to leave, then to decide how to "call" the trees marked for cutting. then I walk up to each tree to be cut and squirt it with paint.  Two marks for each tree to be cut; one at chest height, one below stump height to serve as a check during the cutting operation.  For each tree marked you have to determine species, diameter, number of 16 foot logs to the nearest 1/2 log.

Looks pretty familiar to me. I use to do it rather the same way.


Also,
I wouldn’t consider any small size tree a “junk”, since it is the future stand of the selected wood. For example the Silver Fir (Abies Alba) is able to stay/be kept suppressed (selective cutting is a combination of suppressing and releasing) for up to 70 years of age, without loosing its growing potential at all.

Also,
A 20 years cutting interval is a very, very long long time, especially for single selective cutting. The recommendation is up to 10 (usually 10) years cutting interval.

[Greg]

Yep, Brandon, Foresters look at every tree.  But, we might not examine every single tree individually, we might look at several at once.  Depends on what we're doing. Like Ron says, big forests are really a bunch of little forests growing together, called "stands".    I just finished a management plan Friday for a 167 acre tract.  Before going into these woods I pulled my aerial photo for this part of the county and marked the property lines on it. I then divided it into 4 different stands that I could discern from the photo, based on timber type.  I walked over each of these stands and scanned about every tree.  Granted, I could do that from a distance  especially this time of year with no leaves. I don't have to walk around each tree for these plans, but I do walk into each stand.  From this initial examination, I came up with another 4 stands that weren't readily seen on my photo. 

So for the final management plan, I described 8 seperate stands and gave managment recommendations for each one.   Field time took about 4 hours.  Took about 10 hours office time to get the written plan to its final form.  This was a comprehensive Forest Stewardship Plan, so it took longer than a regular management plan.

But when marking timber for harvesting, I look at every tree.  Usually walk around every one to see it's complete quality, check for defects, root problems, etc.  I will usually be looking at several trees at once as I walk in a circle. This needs to be done to properly decide which trees are best to leave, then to decide how to "call" the trees marked for cutting. then I walk up to each tree to be cut and squirt it with paint.  Two marks for each tree to be cut; one at chest height, one below stump height to serve as a check during the cutting operation.  For each tree marked you have to determine species, diameter, number of 16 foot logs to the nearest 1/2 log.

So in the final analysis, every tree needs to be looked at, but you might be able to look at dozens of trees at the same time for a management plan.  But, individually if you're marking the stand for cutting. You're right, it takes time to do it right.

Phorester, some followup questions on your 167 acre management plan if you have a minute.

1) How can you decide on # of stands/timber type from an aerial photo? I can see softwoods areas vs. hardwoods/decidious, is that what you meant, or down to a more specific type, i.e. oak/hickory, etc. How do your arial photos compare in resolution to what various satellite photo databases have (google, microsoft, etc.)

2) I assume there is a method to your "walking around" a stand, not just randomly going wherever your feet take you. Do you setup a grid within each stand, or a center of a circle and walk the radius?

3) What is your definition of a "normal" management plan vs. a comprehensive one. Is this a fairly industry standard thing, or does each area/forester do their own thing, in terms of details provided. Also, do you know of any samples of written plan available somewhere to download.

4) So you took ~ 14 total hours to cruise and write a plan for 167 acres. Thats about 12 acres per hour invested of your. Is that a typical amount of time spent for doing these plans?

5) Lastly, I guess this depends if you are a state forester or a private consultant. What is a typical rate/cost for doing a management plan, if not done for "free" by the state? By the hour? The reason I ask is I have several family members with small acreages, 10 or less, and I'd like to educate them what a reasonable cost for getting a basic management plan done. Getting anyone to bother come look at such a small woodlands like that has not been easy.

Thanks,
Greg

[SwampDonkey]

Just a quick comment for Greg. If your aerials are not too small a scale (ie Above 10,000) than you can distinguish types by crown color and maybe by crown shape and also texturing. You can tell aspen stands from hardwood stands for instance. And if the photos are flown in early autumn you can go by foliage color as well.  Sometimes, large toothed aspen will fool you though and it may look like sugar maple. Photo filtering can help to, especially when the photos are developed using a red filter. I can tell a mixed stand with red maple and softwood, from a maple-beech- yellow birch stand. Being experienced with photo interp of different forest/stand covers helps. Also a stereoscope used with a stereo triplet helps in identification by crown shape as you get a 3D perspective. There are airphoto interp keys as well for hardwood and softwood. There are also tables to estimate volumes from photo measurements (tree or stand height using parallax bar, tree crown diameter, density, and area).

A good reference would be 'Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation' (1987)
ISBN 0-471-84517-5 Thomas Lillesand and Ralph Kiefer , 721 pages.