Talk:Logging

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Ecology Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.
B	rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Mid	rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale

	Agropedia Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Agriculture, which collaborates on articles related to agriculture. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Logging in Russia 2 Propose Adding "Logging Types" 3 Logging and erosion 4 Modern Log Skidder 5 Format 6 No data 7 Logging roads on its own page? 8 Logging and the environment 9 Use of the term logging in Forestry 10 Natural renewal vs. assisting logging 11 List of logging equipment?

[edit] Logging in Russia

The photo showing logging in Russia seem to show some kind of river scene near a town or city. Not only is there a "Lack of a riparian zone" the stumps seem to be missing as well.KAM 16:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

)

==Logging Railroads This could be a fairly extensive bit of information (history, technology, maps, hopefully pictures of locos and steam donks; should it be a subsection here in "Logging" or should it be made its own page? Skookum1 00:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it should go here. There is very little information in this article about logging KAM 23:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

See also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains, as well as, for example, Category:Washington railroads and Category:Railway companies of the United States --GoDot 04:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propose Adding "Logging Types"

The current text under the "Logging Methods" section would be better described as "Logging Types". I propose adding the new heading "Logging Types" and putting all current text under "Logging Methods" under "Logging Types". I will add Logging Methods, such as conventional skidder logging, cable logging, helicopter logging and more. QuickDraw 06:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I think you are right. But clearcut vs select cut are more about timber harvest or forestry then logging. Forestry and logging are closely related but separate things. Perhaps calling it harvest types? KAM 14:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

That is a good point. I wonder if a brief description of harvest types should be left in Logging, with a link and full description located under "Forestry"? This would be a major change to the article. Would want some concurrence from others before making such a change. QuickDraw 16:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps leave it on this page for now with a heading forest management. If the logging article grows later it could be a seperate article. Also I think that instead of clearcutting it should be called block selection when used in a managed forest to harvest timber. The term clearcutting by itself also sometimes refers to removal of the forest prior to conversion to another use or when harvesting takes place with no plans for regeneration . KAM 18:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Logging and erosion

"This type of clearcut area takes a longer time to regenerate forest and suffers more erosion than does mixed-stand clearcutting that leaves younger trees intact." - Erosion from logging is caused by roads and the machine use, not the removal of the stems. How can a clearcut cause more erosion? KAM 19:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

When the canopy is removed the local water table rises leading to increased levels of soil saturation, due to the loss of interception of precipitation and severly reduced evapotranspiration through the absent trees. If the land is not rapidly colonised by plants increased runoff will occur and , particularly in steep terrain, erosion will occur.The Boy that time forgot 20:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

local populations of salmon and even subspecies have become extinct as a result. Can this be supported? Has it been shown that a subspecies has become extinct solely as a result of erosion from logging. KAM 16:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Log Skidder

Modern Log Skidder on clearcut plot - This photo doesn't look like a logging operation, no stumps, no slash, the land is bare soil, it looks like it the land is being cleared. I suppose that the when land is cleared for agriculture the first step is "logging' but that would not be a typical logging operation. KAM 00:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The area has been replanted. The only "cleared" area was the loading area (the highest spot), where the skidder was parked. You can see limb debris in the background.

I did not write the part about the damage from the soil disturbance. Interestingly, someone else observed this because the picture illustrates it. The higher ground became subject to a lot of erosion and the lower ground was deeply rutted. I have another photo of a skidder on an nearby site where the skidder's oil was changed by simply draining the old oil onto the ground. It's an example of poor logging practice and I'll post it sometime. Pollinator 04:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I see. I understand that in some operations particularly in the south the slash is chopped and ground up so it will lay close to the ground, As for showing extreme soil distrubance I've seen much worse, likely you have to. Thanks. KAM 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Format

This layout by method seem more logical to me. Conventional skidder logging, cable logging, helicopter logging can all be worked in here.KAM 13:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps Forest management, forest policy, silvicultural systems, clearcuts and select cut should all be one article. I would guess that many readers who come to "logging" are not interested in logging but forestry practices. Perhaps change the article "clearcut" to "Forest management" and move silvicultural systems from this artice there. The term clear-cut could redirect to the article "Forest management?? KAM 14:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved all the forestry info to wood management which perhaps should be renamed forest management. A lot of logging world-wide is done outside of managed forests, frontier logging, illegal logging, A few lines on that are needed somewhere. KAM 21:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No data

Surely some of the editors of this page can retieve some data about the size of the logging industry, sustainability forecasts (time of expected scarceness per region, or the like) and annual area logged. Dont you think? Any takers? Thanks!! Pablo2garcia 15:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point, it does seem info about the logging industry should be here. As far as sustainability forecasts etc I agree that it is important but my view is that it is the subject of forest policy not logging. Forest policy is at the national or state level, forest management at forest level and finally loggging. KAM 12:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No log info

[[Image:prettyclearcut.jpg|thumb|Clearcuts in the [[Canadian Rockies]], from "Green Spirit: Trees are the Answer".]]

Patrick Moore. Copyright © 2002 Greenspirit Ltd. All Rights Reserved.[1]

[[Image:Biodiversity_on_clearcut.jpg|thumb|right|Regeneration on a 15 year old coal mine]]

"We request that you notify the Office of Communications by E-Mail at getinfo@osmre.gov and identify which photographs are used, including a complete citation where they are published."[2]

Does not follow (non sequiter)

"The logging industry is often portrayed[3] in the media and popular culture as one of the most ecologically destructive corporate practices on earth. However, logging companies contend that despite some notable cases of severe environmental degradation, [...] requires more energy and non-renewable resources to produce than a house built with wood products"

Two wrongs do not make a right. Further, taken as a whole, the reference provided does not support the assertion. The paragraph needs improvement in order to conform well to WP:NPOV as well as WP:CITE. --GoDot 04:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The point that the author is trying to make (one hears it frequently) is not that 'two wrongs make a right', but rather that logging are often 'the lesser of two evils'. -The Gomm 03:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logging roads on its own page?

I was thinking that there is much more we can say about logging roads, but it probably should be on its own page rather than a page about logging. -Finn

Maybe, I was wondering about a section on Best Management Practices which is mostly concerned with roads. That could easily be a separate article. KAM 22:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logging and the environment

Is this worthy of an article by itself? KAM 14:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should just put it in this section. That is probably why people are looking for logging anyway. I could add a bit about the California Forest Practices Act, but maybe that would be to provincial? SierraSkier 18:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)SierraSkier

Ughh, I will work on sustainable forestry certification stuff.SierraSkier 18:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)SierraSkier

[edit] Use of the term logging in Forestry

Selective logging causes widespread destruction, study finds

[edit] Natural renewal vs. assisting logging

The last sentence in this article reads: "However, the effect of logging can be necessary to promote the growth of younger trees which must take the place of the older and dying ones."

To me this seems like a non-neutral point of view advocating logging. Anyone who has studied biology knows that nature have means for renewing itself and logging is seldomly necessary to promote younger trees. Dead trees decompose and provide nutrients for new trees and plants. On the basis of this, I removed that sentence. I also removed the accompanying picture which does not add anything to the article, and provides a misleading and rosy picture (look like someones backyard, not like any of sites of logging that I have seen). Please feel free to discuss here if you disagree with these changes. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.152.206.159 (talk) 19:21, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

I certainly disagree. It depends on WHAT you want to grow back. Different tree species grow back optimaly under different conditions. Douglas fir, a common species in Western Oregon, Washington and southern British Columbia doesn't regenerate properly under the conditions you advocate. Natively it is a 'fire cycle' tree that regenerates well on scorched earth which is easily emulated by mechanically removing the forest organic cover and exposing mineral soil for planting (or seed sprouting) IF a layer of duff and other organics are left to cover the soil it will rarely get started. On the other hand tree speciies such as Western Red Cedar and hemlock start quite well in duff and on nurse logs. the hemlock is somewhat more prolfic in growing and less tasty to the deer and elk so for the most part, nature is not taking its course---you are making an active management decison----do you want Douglas fir or Hemlock to grow here???? when you decide either to clear to mineral soil or not.

Likewise Douglas fir won't start in the shade as it is extremely shade intolerant, so if you are going to start a Douglas fir--- you will a) get rid of the shade and b) get rid of the duff and other stuff on the forest floor down to mineral soil.

This is why Hemlock and cedar are known as late successional species. they will grow up through the douglas fir and ultimately kill the douglas fir out. However the cycle is closed because in the process so much dead woody material is created that the fire load gets up to a level that makes the forest highly flammable, and in due course (typically a 100 years in dry climates and a couple hundred years in wet climates) all the suff burns up. This disturbance clears the ground to mineral soil, and the cycle can restart.

the forest is dynamic. It cannot be frozen in time. A mature forest is one waiting to burn. Logging is a management alternative for restarting the cycle without having a giant cataclysmic fire event.Rvannatta 06:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of logging equipment?

There was a list of farm equipment and I was disappointed that there was not such a list for logging. That hay baler animation was cool also. Politics aside, logging is very quite possibly a dying art -- it would be nice to get a list of the equipment before everyone who is left on the planet (if anyone is) has to guess about it. thanks -- carol 16:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

well there are pages for some machines, and even though logging is a long time and honorable occupation, people who can't figure out that wood is a renewal resource have made most of the logging pages political footballs for a politcal agenda. If you want to see a variety of equipment used, I've actually collected many photos on my private website at "www.vannattabros.com/iron.html"Rvannatta (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to get political :) (the talk page seems to be alittle this way though). Technology is as dynamic as everything else. It moves forward and steps back. A page about the current technology now might be a museum piece sooner than you know it as new ways are found and implemented. I just needed a quick wikilink for something that also moves seeds around. Thanks for the response, an encyclopedic monument to logging technology might be the perfect next project. Such a page, without a political bias could just be there for the people who want to save the forests and also for the people who would like to renew them. Or, if you rather, for the people who would like to stop logging and for the people who would like to stop stopping. I really meant that thanks! (that is a beautiful site btw) -- carol 09:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Logging is a technology for making use of a renewable resource and you would think that this is hardly a political topic, but it has been politicized. While eco terrorists don't seem to blow up coal mines or gas wells, they have no hestitation in attacking loggers even though the loggers are managing a renewable resource. Then they even have the gall to put pages in wiki glorifiying the deeds such as the page on 'tree spiking' with a few disclaimers to get it past the editors. It gets my blood pressure up a bitRvannatta (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that if anyone has anything bad to say about loggers, they sould think of how it would be with out all the things we get from wood, like lumber for houses, paper for school, busineses, and personal use. The people that complain about loggers need to realize how hard it would be if we didnt have the loggers! My family had a large logging operation for many years. We respect the loggers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.79.10.6 (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)