Before you comment on this video. Keep things in context people. I didn’t say it’s always a bad idea to plant trees. I said it’s a bad idea to plant trees in places where there are already too many trees. If you have a place where there aren’t enough trees, then it can be very appropriate to plant trees. I am all for planting trees where trees need to be planted.
The title and thumbnail may create an assumption about the video's message, but it's effective at drawing our interest given the mostly one-dimensional assumption we all have that planting trees is always good. That's why we're all here talking about it in the first place. It's not even clickbait, because it actually delivers more than was promised, not less. I appreciate the video and insight. If you can't watch a six minute video, yet think you understand its entirety from a thumbnail and title alone, you probably could spend your time better off of TH-cam.
@@jasonbaxter5502 I don't know this channel from any other, it just popped up on my front page. But, it is getting so old getting notifications about these comments. He addresses the 'absolute' statement about planting and the "clickbait" title within the first 30 seconds of the video. Literally, watch the first 30 seconds. It will take me longer to write this than it will take to understand what is being said here. If you, or anyone else, are tempted to write about how this guy has lied or misled, then your bar for research and comprehension is depressingly low. Titles are meant to be enticing, to illustrate a truth to be expanded upon. "Why I Don’t Replant to Replace Trees I Cut Down" is a fine title, he states he most often doesn't do exactly what he says, and explains why. The title challenges the common person's understanding enough that we're all here talking about it - which makes it a great title! I could go on, but I doubt you care and I'm probably screaming into the void. Again, I don't know this guy and haven't watched any of his other videos. These comments are just so depressing, and everyone just wants to rag on something and feel right when a man seemingly just took his time to educate us on an important topic. What are we even doing here? Surely there are far more dangerous videos on TH-cam a person can go brigade against.
Forestry is similar to sustainable hunter harvest in many ways. Some people have trouble comprehending that often times, removing a few is beneficial for the many.
a HUGE issue with modern forests is they are massively replanted. you see rows and rows, even without rows making it a bit more random every tree grows at the exact same time, which causes issues you dont think about with undergrowth and new trees later on. there are dozens and dozens of issues with planting trees. planting trees is still better than not planting trees but we really need to get these old growth forests grown properly. so we have planted forests that just arnt the same, old forests we over protect (see his comments on forest fires), new forests being chopped and replanted over and over. planted trees almost always specific species that may change every so often but diversity just isnt the same. lastly as another just think to think about with forest health is where are the old dead trees. if you chop and replant over and over the undergrowth sucks but also theirs no fallen trees. thousands of years trees fell and rotted away and regrew and stuff. that doesnt happen in these 20 year tree chop replant cycles least not the same way. So much of our ecosystem relies on things and expects them (again see how forest existed before with fires). Planting trees is massively important but almost doubly important is protecting the forest we already have and getting back those old growth hundreds of years systems that are just so different than the forests we have today
@@Zaliedthey have corn fields of trees, but the thing is they are growing them to cut them back again... They have no interest in building an ecosystem
@mcmerry2846 yes that's true but even my own property the forest is in rows of trees from when they were cut years and years ago even places not planted for cutting down again that's just how forests become though many places have seen an increase in forest sizes it's always good to note that replanting isn't just some perfect solutions
@@hime273 I don't deny that dying trees are a better candidate for removal, but douglas firs, incense/western red cedars, and sequioias have the capacity to grow to well over 6 feet in diameter. Amost any tree in this region have the capacity to live well over 300 years. They create networks of support through mycorrhizal fungi and act as nexuses of biodiversity. We need large trees.
@@trenomas1 Fungi grows by feeding off of dead organic material, and just because underground fungus might connect itself to root systems, does not mean that fungus is alive because the tree is alive. Sounds like you've been listening to people who lie for their truth.
And what is Bad about dead trees? So many vertebrates, plants, fungi and a ton of invertebrate species rely solely on dead or sick, big trees. „Taking them out of the forest“ is a catastrophy for biodiversity and the general forest. I am mainly talking about Central Europe forests here but I’m very sure that it is bad for a forest to remove deadwood and big trees.
As a professional forester from California and a forest biometrician that has studied forest growth for many years I completely agree with you. Excellent video.
@@firstname4337 rewatch the video, he just stated you DONT need to (always) replant after every cut. OVER DENSITY is the problem. quality of the tree means more than the quantity of the trees. just as having 20 kids for 2 parents on a low income sucks, or planting too many seeds for a small plot of land. the same is true for trees, they are thirsty as ever and drain the water table, die when they run out of water, and become kindle wood for the next forest fire... this is my conjecture but i dont think im that far off the mark. key thing is, we americans need to find the golden ratio of trees, the natives did it with controlled fires. its kinda sad that even with all our technology of military grade satellites we couldnt just borrow an Air Force Drone or GPS high definition to scout and determine where to thin the trees, so many SoCal folks are nearly getting their homes burned or at the edge of the fires. some of that is due to urban sprawl but thats another can of worms i dont agree with but cant quickly summarize without coming off as rantish.
Amen! I have been cutting on my woodlot for 35 years. I stay warm and build many sheds. I have more volume than ever of better species and piece size. I did plant black and Carpathian walnuts and some bull pine along the 600 foot long driveway and some blue spruce but I did it deliberately not of necessity. Any area within a tree length of a conifer stand will seed naturally. Many deciduous tree species, like birch, will res-route from the root. In British Columbia the Province subsidizes clear cut practices by deducting all silviculture spending including company foresters salaries through a Section 88 offset against Stumpage. The tenure system does not reward frugal management with natural regeneration and partial cut prescriptions but subsidizes clearcutters and milling monopolies in each region. No competition for logs so I just hire a small mill when I want some lumber. Anything that won’t square to a six inch top is firewood. It is about 10 F tonight and my big house is very warm. Not all wealth is money 😂
@@firstname4337 You don’t replant if there were too many to start with, trees need to be thinned to an amount that’d be healthy for the forest. If there’s too many trees, there’s not enough water to go around. If there’s not enough trees, then you replant. It’s not a one size fits all, each section of forest needs to be evaluated. Weren’t you watching the video.
I am so glad he talked about humans fighting forest fires. I’ve said this for years - we spent decades fighting small fires that burn up the dead fall, take out a lot of seedlings and clean up the forest floor so we now have massive fires that can’t be controlled or stopped because there is so much fuel. The other problem that we ran into in Canada is that IF the logging companies that clear cut, did replant trees they planted all the same species, so we ended up with diseases like Dutch Elm disease that spread very quickly. To me, there is nothing wrong with cutting smaller sections and letting nature take over - there is nothing bad about having openings in the tree cover if they aren’t too big.
Same shit happens in Sweden. Old forests are clear cut, and replaced with planted monocultures AKA no forest. The forest is totally gone after that point, there is zero recreational value and definitely less valuable for animals too.
Here in Poland there was a similar problem with spruce forests that were planted for wood in the XIX and XX century. Lots of problems with bark beetles destroying these forests because it could spread so easily in an area that was 80% spruce.
@@pirig-gal Interesting, that’s happening here right now. Bark beetles have invaded many forests and I’m thankful for it. Hopefully they can restore some kind of balance, because politicians wont.
My first time hearing about that was in Firewatch, where as a player your first reaction is to report the FIRST sign of smoke you see, and ask why we're not putting it out immediately. The other person tells us "well no we don't go around putting out every single little fire we see, that's not healthy"
I worked making pizzas for a while. The restaurant manager told me words to live by : "more is not better". He wasn't talking about wasting profits on over fortifying a pizza, it was about the taste and balance of the end product. It seems that would apply to forest management as well.
Good pizza isn’t loaded with more bad toppings, it has fewer good quality ingredients that are now evenly cooked and flavored. Overloaded pizzas are a mix of burnt, raw, and unevenly distributed toppings and dough. Totally agree with your manager
While enrolled in the Oregon State University Extension program, "Master Woodland Manager", we had several segments on re-forestation--when appropriate and when not. It always generated a great deal of 'discussion.' The best answer to give, regarding re-forestation, is the one I've heard (and used) most often: "It depends." It depends on a multitude of factors: is it necessary, facing, quality of ground, species, density, etc. etc. The bottom line is: It depends. On my 80-acres, I choose to re-plant trees in some areas (and others, not so much) and for similar reasons outlined in this video. However, I do (nearly always) re-plant something, (a native something), in an area which has been thinned or had a catastrophic event like multiple blowdowns I view it as an opportunity to subtly nudge a change of direction for that area, (such as away from Doug-fir monoculture) and if done slowly and incrementally, can have a profound impact on the flora and fauna, (not the Amore` twins) on the land. Just my dos centavos, for what they're worth. Another good 'un and a likeroo. Cheers from (a still) foggy Linn County
If leaving the trees on their own, while pouring out fires, leads to dense overgrowth. And we know there is good low density in fire-effected or well-managed forests where small trees are cut... why introduce non-native species that will only add to the management load?
Hi, not quite clear on your question. I do not introduce "non-native" anything on my property, (I do eradicate non-native everything as I find them.) I do re-plant native shrubs and trees in areas affected by blowdowns, (aka "wind-throws.") Nature abhors a vacuum, so if I don't replace a blowdown Doug-fir with a Ponderosa pine, a Grand fir or a Big leaf Maple, Mother Nature will send me Himalayan blackberry, English Hawthorn, Scotch broom, or sometimes all of those simultaneously to deal with. Hope that helps.@@Saohesc
@lpeterman I got 25 acres just south of ya that was logged 15 years ago. Where they left some hemlocks/maples/etc the natives have persisted well and tree seedling recruitment is good. The areas that were mostly clear cut are acres of blackberry. It even overtops pioneer trees like cascara/hazel/alder. It always amazes me what appears after I clear out a field of that stuff though. Big patches of thimbleberry/wild rose/snowberry/wildflowers/sedges/ferns all just waiting for some light. Nature's resilience never ceases to amaze me. And props on encouraging biodiversity and not just planting fir! I have 20+ native tree species growing wild at my place.
I got a quarter acre next to (well one other property between me and) the forest. Every year when I start weeding in spring I got lots of new trees to rip out. And when I don't see them among my berry bushes or so... They grow to my height within two years. And I am not a dwarf. This is both maple and cherries and oak and some kind of needle tree (might be pine or fir or whatever). So no, trees grow quickly and easily if they are native to the region and soil.
@@donaldduck830 In your area trees grow quickly. We have fir 5 feet tall and below, they grow about ten inches per year. We can tell the difference because the new growth is a lot brighter shade of green.
@@donaldduck830 not in my climate. Past 5 years have been so heavy on drought that it rains once every 3 months and nothing germinates. Used to rain 2 a month now it’s just barren.
It really depends on where you live, the types of trees, and the current state of the land whether reforesting is the right thing to do. Also, commercial logging isn't the main issue when it comes to deforestation either, it's the clearing of the rainforests to graze cattle.
@@AboBrett-dw8xn Commercial logging in North America has a system that designates trees to be cut in ~1/4 square mile parcels. I think there's a minimum of 10 years required between cutting adjacent parcels so there's no issue with monocultures
Depends on which corporation. Some commercial entities do take the time to study things in order to avoid a negative impact. Some businesses simply don't care. It also needs to be said that this statement is not just for North America, as forests and companies exist all over the world.
Or coffee bean farms for the bourgeois socialists to get their expensive lattes from, while complaining about what a literal expert is doing because they think they know better than the experts.
I will also add that while thinning and prescribed fire is great for so much of the interior west and especially in forests that have been logged, the old growth sitka spruce forests of the northwest coast should be left alone. The huge amounts of annual rainfall create a forest that is naturally dense and is historically adapted to a low-frequency stand replacing fire regime, unlike the douglas-fir ponderosa pine forests of the interior that are adapted to high frequency low intensity fire.
Yeah hoo! You tell 'em!!! 30 years ago a friend had a botanist from another state go for a ride through the mountains in So. California and the guy was horrified at how many trees there were. I think he said it was something like 50 to 100 TIMES more than it should be. There was a huge problem with bark beetle bugs and the guy said: The trees don't have enough water otherwise you wouldn't have the bug infestation. Anyway, GOOD FOR YOU for telling it how it is.
@@williamdavidson9009 Not quite. The trees are attacked basically equally- the attacks are just more devastating to an already stressed tree, potentially enough to kill them. Healthy trees can often repel insect attacks, but sick trees just don't have the resources to do the same.
I read this book a while back that talked about the Native Americans curating the forests with periodic controlled fires. They held the same priorities you have, preventing cluttered forests of dead trees. It is a part of why the initial European settlers saw the New World as an 'Eden'; the woodlands were all so spacious and pristine, ungnarled. The decline of the Native American populations saw these practices generally disappear unfortunately.
No, they kept up with these practices, and in many areas these practices continue, particularly in non-farmland areas on the Great plains. California is the poster boy of how we *USED* to keep these traditions and methods alive. But in the 1990s, California decided it was too expensive to continue doing forest cleanup and controlled burns, and so they pulled some BS reason about "respecting the wild" and stopped doing them, hence why since 2000 onward, California has had some of the worst forest fires in it's history, so.ething many people are far to happy and quick to attribute exclusively to Climate change.
@@Mikalent Similar in Australia. Apparently no logging "because wildlife", and now the fires are so massive, kills all the wildlife for thousands of kilometers. And so-called "climate change", nothing at all to do with forest management...
I have a small ranch in southern British Columbia and spend countless hours each year cutting deadfall and thinning small crappy trees. You are bang on regarding reforestation. My ranch and surrounding areas are probably 100 years past due for a fire and now the fuel density is so bad the fires burn way too hot and deep thus sterilizing the ground. When I hear city friends brag that they planted a tree on the weekend to help keep the earth green I get a kick out of the look on their faces when I tell them I cut down 50 or 60 saplings, every weekend!
Ya, in the city there’s a lot more need for trees new. Help keep humidity and climate manageable, among a lot of other things, and there’s a higher turnover rate.
I am not a forester. I just like to hike and know way to much about growing stuff due to my childhood. This guy knows what's up. Good on him for managing his land properly.
Finally someone that understands forestry. here in Canada we have had some very bad fires in the last few years mostly because of poor forest management . fuel load builds up and hey presto mother nature clears it out in crazy fires.. back in the day massive herds of bison etc would have kept forest floors clear and distributed nutrients at the same time. glad to see this video, more people should watch it for sure.
@@WheresTheSauce Bison and caribou migrated in vast herds throughout north america, the forests that the early settlers encountered looked much different than the current ones ,they were more open and vast ,they create the landscape we removed them and now have thick dense fire hazard forests, so yes they did inhabit the forests because there was a huge amount of forest floor growth back then. so LMAO do some research, you may even learn something in the process, the bison have been reintroduced into the Banff national park with fantastic success , they are restoring the mountains and passes back to their original state.
that the ancient forests were always burning is an old canard. They were so thick and held so much moisture and had diversity that they rarely burned. Mankind introduced the burning of forests, likely to rid itself of the threat of the mega fauna. Same with Australia @@davebloggs
@@dungeonmaster6292 Most forests around here other than the very steep or inaccessible areas were not thick forests at all . They were widely spaced and short vegetation at ground level because they were chewed over twice a year by millions of migrating animals. Forest fires were very common but they were not the extreme events we see now as it was much harder to have fast moving canopy fires., many trees here evolved to only set seed after the high heat of a forest fire, and that had nothing to do with mankind.
I came into this skeptical. I'm leaving intrigued and educated. The logic here is sound, and I do agree with it. There's quite a few problems we have, forestry wise, that even I, as a minimally educated-on-the-subject half-city-half-country boy know of. We clear too much from where we do cut, typically, and don't clear enough from where we don't. It is a delicate balance, keeping a healthy ecology, and it's good to see things like this going around, trying to at least give a more neuanced approach than "Replant good, cut down bad."
@@Axodus It is well known- in places where it has been practiced, IE places that historically have a lot of logging industry. Those aren't the places where policy is made, sadly, so we're saddled with policies devised by people who have never set foot in a forest in their lives.
In Germany we do forest management like that. We have many mixed forests and cut only the old and precious beeches and oaks to sell them for good money. Around them are always younger trees whch we leave to replace the old ones. From time to time also young trees are cut to prevent too dense growing. We also have huge areas of monoculure of firs which are dying due to climate change and some bugs. Huge areas are baren land now. Dependend on the management, those areas are replanted with mixed species or just left open. They immediatelly are filled with young trees, mainly berches which are no good wood but prepare the forest for other species. Tree planting is essential in areas where only grassland is or too many sheeps and deers are eating the seedlings. Scotland for example, or Iceland, or areas with little rainfall.
its a tree farm right? cutting the old ones for money and just planting new ones thinking it would do any good, i wouldnt say its a good forest management
I’ve had a lumber company come in and take some trees and I was going to replant, but after watching this video and listening to the reasoning why you shouldn’t, I don’t think I will.
A friendly note: Depending on your State/County regulations, and depending on how much (acreage/volume) was harvested, you may be legally obligated to replant the acreage with something. Please, for your sake, Please, check with your State Forester, or State University Extension Forester, (different critters.) In Oregon, every County has one and the service is free. If you don't want an Extension Forester, ask for an "MWM" (Master Woodlands Manager) who is a trained civilian/private landowner who can assess and give non-binding advice on forested lands. Your land, your choice, but please don't run afoul of the State/County regs, they can be pesky to deal with after the fact. A note from your friendly MWM.
Very great explanation, some people just don't understand how forests and trees work and the land and climates that surround them. Dense forests are nice but in drier climates its just a breeding ground for dry ground, And near dry trees that are dying. Good on ya man for keeping your property safe and trying to prevent massive forest fires.
Thank you. I get so tired of hearing people complanning when you're maintaining your property. They don't understand how the forest works. Your video is simple, easy to follow, and I really appreciate that.
I had a permaculture farm. We had orchards and that graded into agroforestry that graded into a food forest that graded into a forested wetland that graded into a Chinampa pond. We also had nut trees, windbreaks and coppiced and pollarded trees, so we had lots of trees. I have since sold the farm to move closer to ailing family and so that I have more time to spend on my other passions. I think that what you are saying makes good sense but what we did was somewhat different. Our goal was to gradually improve all of our forests by seeking out heirloom seeds and grafts for our fruit trees, nuts with good genetics, tree seedlings and propagules from desirable forest plants and trees. These we planted. We thinned out undesirable vegetation and either built things out of it, burned it as firewood, made biochar with it, or mulched it. With regards to large desirable trees, we thinned around them to encourage their growth. Over time, the quality of the forest significantly improved both for us and for wildlife. So, I would say that the proper role of humans is to act as the keystone species, steward and guardian of the forest. To cocreate the forest by working with Nature and taking advantage of and directing Natural processes, but, having said that, I would also say that we have to recognize that individual species in Nature can be just as species centric and selfish as any human can be. Nature is usually right, but not always right. Humans have a right and I would say an obligation to intervene in some instances🪵.
Since green energy, fast growing biomass became an asset. In that case, you can't have enough trees, and harvest them while young. If you don't care about biomass, since harvest is difficult as it seems to be in mountainous environments, then difficulties are about to solve.
As a kid, I grew up in a basement with the only soirce of heat being a wood stove. Every fall and winter, we had to cut trees from the surrounding forest just to survive. We always cut either already fallen trees or standing dead wood while never replanting anything and never had an issue with cutting too much. If left alone, forests will absolutely grow out of control and cause massive issues like overgrowth and fires.
@peppermeat8059 in the case of say California it's more because so many of their trees are eucalyptus trees, which are not native to California, where introduced around 1850, and are highly flammable. Forest fires are extremely rare in a forest that is well maintained and far more common when the forest is improperly maintained, artificial(like cali), or left to its own devices resulting in overgrowth and excessive deadwood that is never clear and highly flammable.
Great video! The nuance of environmental protection is one of the things that makes this field so beautiful, and is one of the reasons why I’ve dedicated my career to this field. Sustainability isn’t cut and dry, you have to go in to each specific scenario and figure out what solutions that case needs, not just apply a common thought process to every possible situation.
Same problem persists in many European forests as well. Excessive tree density creates unhealthy forests, ticking bombs for the next great wildfire of the summer. And yet, most people persist in the idea that we should plant more trees EVERYWHERE. Proposterous. Great video! It delivers your message very clearly!
Not only that, but when these great fires DO happen, people will immediately blame it on climate change; the fires in the American west are one of the biggest cudgels used in climate change's argument, and yet are incredibly more likely to be caused by forest mismanagement (and deliberate arson but that's another argument altogether).
Interesting video. In Scotland our problem is the opposite - we have hardly any native forest left. Currently there are efforts to restore native woodland across the country. Unfortunately there are people who are against reforesting efforts because they’d rather maintain the status quo of bare, desolate landscapes for shooting grouse and sheep crofting. They quite often cite wildfire as a reason not to reforest our land and the term “fuel load”’is frequently brought up by them. Ironically it is the same people who are burning our land to make profit from shooting grouse at the expense of biodiversity. We are also missing key components of the ecosystem such as lynx, wolves, boar and moose. Terrible state of affairs really.
And the scottish wildcat, which depends on forested lands is near extinct and repopulation attempts from captive populations will fail unless forested lands are expanded and restored. Forested lands also keep domestic cats away which preffer grasslands.
You're not missing wolves. You haven't had any for over 400 years; a proper wildlife management from hunting can fully cover the wildlife culling that wolves do without any of the issues that they bring to humans, particularly on a relatively small and enclosed area such as the British isles. Reintroducing wolves there is a mistake.
@@HappyLittleBoozer I’m afraid you are wrong. Culling deer effectively in absence of wolves is incredibly expensive and time consuming. In many ways it is basically impossible or simply impractical to replicate the impact of wolves. It is true that they present issues to humans however these are not issues that cannot be overcome, as proven on mainland Europe and across the rest of the world. They say the last wolf in Scotland was shot in 1680, with some records suggesting they persisted into the mid 1700s, so if we want to be pernickety then it’s been under 400 years since we last had wolves. There is absolutely no good reason why Scotland could not and should not have wolves.
@@THE_ECONNORGIST True. I mean Wolves help to naturally cull wild populations. The fact that idiots don't want to bring back forests so they can shoot grouse and fuck sheep is stupid.
I am in Nova Scotia and have exactly the same problem with Balsam Fir. It grows in super dense thickets, which makes the trees tall, but very weak and prone to being snapped or uprooted in extreme weather conditions. Then, the high concentration of saplings makes it very difficult to get at the fallen trees to remove them for firewood. In an average year, I probably cut thousands of saplings and small trees...and I still have the problem of too many trees. Maybe I need to invest in an excavator with a tree-muncher attachment.
Western Hemlock in Scotland, good source of biomass! Ive also seen some magnificent Scots pine that grew incredibly tall and straight thanks to a WH understory.
I’m from Nova Scotia too… I’m in tantallon right where the big fire was. I’d like to thin my property to remove fuel load and give the rest of the area healthy room to grow.
In my area, (northwestern washington) i see a lot of the bigger trees surviving, and the little ones dying from lack of sun. Which is usually, naturally the case. Clearcutting was commonplace in the 1800s around here, wildfires arent a super big problem usually in the lowlands, but higher up it’s definitely prominent. I wish theyd do more controlled burns, i am seeing an increased amount of them though.
What is quite common where I live is to plant trees so only the type of tree that is desired would grow in that area. The forest will become so dense that only some moss will grow on the ground. Goal is to get trees with few branches at the bottom and maximize the profit for that area. Another technique I have seen used it to leave a few large trees to give seedlings to the area but this kind of forest tends to end up with a mix of different types of trees.
Love this video! I live in wisconsin and am lucky enough to live on about 3 acres donated to my mom and dad from an old farmer they knew. The rest of the farmer's land he gave to a conservancy so we are surrounded by woods. Recently I have gone back there to start clearing out underbrush and competing trees away from the large oaks because the entire forest was once a oak savannah but now is covered in buck thorn and scrub trees. I would love to also remove the barbed wire fences that are mostly knocked down but are still partially up in places but that is a much bigger job. It's also interesting to see how different trees look just across the country, Those manzanita trees are very cool looking. That's another fortunate thing about where I live, forest fires dont really happen naturally though the conservancy does do controlled burns (very rarely I do wish they did it much more often because it cleans the forest so nicely
Thank you for a sharing a different perspectives and giving me a deeper understanding of a topic I am concerned with, but have little to no knowledge of.
We face a similar issue in Australia. Prior to the bushfires before COVID-19 in 2019, Wollemi National Park exhibited a tree density unprecedented in millions of years. This phenomenon resulted in the accumulation of bark shedding from our eucalyptus trees. In certain areas, walking was hindered by a substantial buildup of 4-5 feet of bark, obstructing bush paths. Subsequently, when intense heat and arid winds arrived that year, the extensive forests along the eastern coast's dividing range ignited swiftly, resembling a tinderbox soaked in kerosene.
FYI: Approximately 30 million years ago, Australia showcased thriving rainforests with a rich diversity of plant species. Nevertheless, as the continent migrated northward and encountered climate changes, Eucalypt forests emerged, evolving from the most resilient specimens and ultimately establishing themselves as a prominent and distinctive aspect of Australia's flora. Notably, the Eucalypts were initially rainforest trees. The original ancestors of these trees can still be found along the east coast in the Gondwana rainforests of New South Wales and Queensland.
I heard that you guys have begun to use goat herds to eat the brambles and other debris that grows under the tree canopy to help prevent that from happening as much.
Controlled small fires, also known as prescribed burns, are often considered a more ecologically balanced approach to forest management compared to simply cutting down trees without replanting. Here's why: Prescribed Burns: Prescribed burns are conducted under controlled conditions to reduce the risk of large, uncontrolled wildfires. These burns help maintain the health of the ecosystem by: Reducing excess fuel (like dead wood and leaf litter), which can contribute to severe wildfires. Encouraging the growth of native vegetation by opening up the forest canopy and allowing sunlight to reach the forest floor. Maintaining the balance of certain ecosystems that have evolved with and are adapted to periodic fires Cutting Trees Without Replanting: imply cutting down trees without a plan for replanting can lead to deforestation, which has a range of negative environmental impacts, such as loss of biodiversity, disruption of water cycles, and contribution to climate change. Trees play a crucial role in carbon sequestration (absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere), and losing trees without replacing them can exacerbate greenhouse gas concentrations. Combination of Techniques: In many cases, a combination of techniques is used. For instance, strategic tree cutting (thinning) is often employed alongside prescribed burns to reduce fuel loads and create healthier, more resilient forests. This approach can help prevent the spread of disease, increase water availability, and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires
it's genuinely intriguing looking at these issues from the perspective of a real professional who knows what he's talking about, most of the individuals who try to "remedy" these issues approach them from an emotional perspective or with the intent of gaining clout/brownie points, thank you so much for shedding light on this topic.
After moving to idaho and talking to loggers I realized they actually knew what they were talking about and the policies of the environmental groups were actually worse for the forest. Good video.
But the environnemental groups are right to advocate replanting after clear cuts and in a few other situations, as the man makes clear in this very video
@@christophehorguelin7044 I think you missed the point. The environmental groups are the reason the forests are overcrowded in the first place, they have been filing lawsuits for decades to stop prescribed burns and mechanical thinning. They also push to put out fires, and are clueless about the consequences of those two actions when combined.
@@mountainguyed67you sure you aren't painting with the same broad brush you accuse environmental groups are using? Like the video and many comments here said, it's a nuanced issue that isn't as simple as replant or don't. Why generalize loggers and environmental groups to a binary right or wrong when it also isn't that simple?
@@TheWorthingSagapersonally I'm more willing to listen to the person who is incentivized to keep the forest healthier than the people who lose absolutely nothing if they happen to destroy the forest... The loggers are quite literally incentivized to grow raise and maintain the forest... Otherwise they have no job no income their business goes out of business... The environmentalist groups will receive taxpayer dollars whether the forest are standing or they die... If it dies they'll blame the loggers and ask for more money despite the fact that loggers are again incentivized to keep the forests clean to prevent giant uncontrollable forest fires that kill whole forests
Wicked time lapse fog at the end of the video. Thank you! And I agree with you on everything said. Forests were quite a bit different before man came along.
You know I clicked this video specifically because it sounded counter intuitive, but I came in knowing Id learn something important! Thanks for sharing with everyone!
Merry Christmas Michael! As a side note to your video...Much more damage can be caused by planting the wrong tree. So many tree species were planted in yards etc only to be found out later that they are invasive after they crowd out native species.
Hi there Mr Wilson. Same thing in Australia. The seasonal fires have been stopped and the amount of dry tinder and dried acacias (native) that lay around is astonishing. Efforts have, in recent years increased the amount of planned burns but its no where close to enough.
Our problem is the same as everywhere, we've bulldozed 95% of our forests to create farmland, so now we struggle to keep the remaining 5% stable. And then climate change is causing fires in rainforests that never used to burn.
Thats way nearly every forester in Austria (hey not australia) is thinning out there forests - partly for named reasons but also to get better growth and better wood quality. This is a routine which needs to be done.
I wish our media and governments would talk about this more. We had several major fires here in Ontario these past couple of years. This year smoke from fires in Ontario and Quebec ended up causing all kinds of problems in Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and even New York City. These fires got as bad as they did, not from the warm temperatures, but because there was so much fuel on the forest floors because for decades we fought to put these naturally occurring fires out and now we have massive forests full of dead fall, rotting leaves and densely packed vegetation to fuel the fires.
Im studying to work in ecology and im so excited about this sort of thing! I love the nuance of conservation! Edit: Its very clear you appreciate the lives of the trees from how you talk about their growth and how they take up space around them. Tree planting campaigns are often to reduce the effects of massive logging companies which dont do this sort of minute analysis on the forests they tear through. I think people need to really consider the nuances of the ecosystems around them before passing judgement.
I live in South Jersey next to some woods. There are a lot of dead pines in there due to a beetle that's killing them. The woods are not mine, so I'm limited as to what I can do. But I do try and get rid of anything dead in the area closest to my house. My thought has been if there's a fire, I don't want it to catch my house on fire.
Very informative video, as someone who wants to grow up and work in forestry and woodland firefighting good job educating others and getting straight to the point!
The way we managed our forest growing up (and my father still maintains it) is take the dead/dying/problem trees and let the forest/saplings do their thing. Previous owners of my current property would harvest their trees for wood to burn but also clear cut all their saplings and undergrowth to keep it looking like a park. Sure you have tons of huge trees, but that's not healthy for the forest. In the 8 years we've been here I've let the young trees take over and it's been amazing how quickly they are filling back in all on their own.
@@Nemrai we never took all the dead trees, and mainly focused on the widowmakers. On my property now I have a few dead standing that aren't major hazards that I've left for animals/insects and I intentionally drop dangerous trees that may be rotting and no good for firewood, and leave those on the ground.
@@RedSiBaronThat's a great idea. Clearing only the dangerous trees that might kill someone if they fall is a good way to keep the forest preserved while getting what you need.
Mr Wilson, thank you for this very very insightful video. I have known about letting a healthy forest grow and fall on its own and how the human intervention has ruined the balance that mother nature has fine-tuned over millions of years. As a child I used to cry for my childhood forest getting cut down, used for lumber and then never replanted. I was devastated that they could do that to our beautiful ancient forest, untouched from culling in over 100 years. All the wildlife that lost their homes and hunting grounds. In our Swedish forests, we never had forest fires, so the trees are strong pines and the ground is covered in a thick layer of moss and small beds of water and murk. I reckon 20 years later, I am still angry about it haha, but this video did give me a new understanding for the culling of the forest. Sorry for the little ramble, but I just wanted to say that you inspired me to learn even more about our beautiful forest and to look into more of the logging industry.
Nicely explained. Now, only if we can get the conversation started with thoes that livs in concrete jungles to under this it would make things better. Merry Christmas to you and your family 🎄 😁 👍
It all depends on the local ecology, my part of the world is wet and swampy. That said we still use mechanical thinning to manage the stems per acre and it works well even in the upland areas that are red white pine mix
A lot of people do not realize that nature will take care of her own including reforestation. People look at an old growth forest and think... pristine. In actuality old growth forest is devoid of life under the tree tops. Selective logging is good for wildlife, trees, and forest fire prevention. Good video
Safely back in the day they looked at these old growth and trees in general as just a giant payday, sort like the buffalo. There is a happy medium and I think now people understand that much more.
When the Europeans got to North America, they could take horses and wagons through the old growth forests. The trees were spaced out allowing them to be healthy and allow sunlight to the ground. Many species thrived in those forests/savanna.
@@mtadams2009 you are correct, "select cutting" is the key words. I have never been a fan of clear cut. But I have to say, places I saw clear cut 20 year's ago are thriving forest's today.
@@Twobrothersoutdoors This is true. I own a fairly large amount of land in New England and I have used it to build my home and also heat it but I never had in me to cut what I call my prize trees. I leave alone. I would have made a lousy lumber jack lol take care
@@mtadams2009 you would have made an exceptional lumberjack. Some trees are worth more standing. Just ask the many oaks we do not cut off our property, or the 150 yo giant sugar maples. These trees will remain as long as we are the Stewart's of our property. Good talking with you.
Good info. I know everything you say is true. I knew it before you said it. I just never put those facts together in the eloquent way you did. Now I understand the facts. Thanks.
In my woods the garbage trees and bushes need to be cut yearly to allow good hardwoods to prosper. The invasive honeysuckle, pears and box elder are the only live tree I cut
I have always wondered if clear felling a forest would induce an unnatural regrowth. It has always seemed to me that a forest grown from open space would produce trees the same age and of course, as a general rule this is not a natural occurrence and would have negative consequences. Clear felling is probably the worst sort of lumber production.
Well said. I have similar patches of dense undergrowth on our western sierra nevada property and it's definately due to the lack of fire. You earned my subscription today.
There was a similar issue years ago in the UK after a big storm (1987, see 'Sevenoaks'). In lots of places they quickly cleared the ground an replanted with supporting equipment etc. However there was too much windfall and some area were just left. Now they are tending to find that the natural regrowth has been a lot stronger than the man-intervention growth. Sometimes nature knows best (the fire-prevention- major fire cycle has it's own problems, as noted)
Narural regeneration is my preferred method, unfortunately I'm currently having to restock an area of Ash woodland that has suffered from dieback. Natural regeneration would mostly be Ash which would quickly sicken and die. I'm now very wary of any planting packs that lack variety.
I really love your style of presentation with the wide shots and clip-on mic. Simple, effective, endearing :] Couldn’t agree more as a Californian. I often worry about Jack’s Peak down in Monterey. The original owner who gave the land to the public instructed that nothing be cleared away. It’s beautiful, but the piles and piles of dead material is prime kindling.
I guess a better term rather than "too many trees" would be "too dense tree cover". More trees would be the best way to help the planet recover CO2 from the atmosphere... it just means we need more AREA of tree cover.
Videos like this should be mandatory viewing at schools. The amount of "eco" people who know jack about ecology but want to be policymakers in that aspect is staggering and a real societal curse.
Yeah forest management is the thing to do! I never plant trees either but I do scatter my ashes back on the land. Here in Ontario it makes it better for deciduous trees to grow rather than coniferous trees. To me a forest fire is a preventable apocalyptic event. My vote is for everything I own to be well heated during winter rather than cooked in a forest fire I've been making charcoal from the brush and the garden has been really responding to it
I think this approach is so wise. Take a lighter hand with the natural world when you can; things work themselves out more often than we'd think. Or that's what I figure.
When I cut out a patch of trees , thousands of seedlings emerge , it’s like a carpet . They thin themselves , and after fourty years you can harvest marketable trees . Coastal conditions are very different , seldom is there a lack of moisture . 👍🇨🇦
Very interesting video, in Venezuela we have an area where eucaliptus was planted to stabilize the slopes and years passed with whole areas burning from time to time to the ground because there was seldom clearance of seedlings, at the beginning I thought it was normal but it's evident now it's a severe sign of mismanagement.
Excellent education on forest management strategy! It is so easy to advocate for keeping wild places as wilderness, but that trades away reasonable management for catastrophic wildfire.
It's important to remember that the context of "too many trees" all depends on which region and environment you're in. In the Southeast, the forests are WAY denser than this naturally, but that's not a problem due to the heavy rainfall. But reforestation has run into other problems there. Back about 120 years ago, most of Florida's forests were wiped out by the logging industry. This, obviously, caused desperate environmental concerns among foresters in Florida and the massive subsequent reforestation projects that happened as a result of that has absolutely covered Florida in forests like a thick blanket. The problem is, in the effort to save Florida's iconic pine forests, way too MANY pines were planted and the current ecology consists of far more pine forests than is even natural in Florida, resulting in a dramatic shrinkage of Florida's hardwood forests, which are vital to Florida's ecology and take much longer to regrow. Also, these reforestation projects covered Florida in even more forests than was ever natural, resulting in the near disappearance of Florida's savannahs, one of its most historically typical and iconic features. And while forests are beautiful and tend to cool the landscape, they also block wind. So the interior of Florida is now often completely choked out from breeze during the blisteringly hot summer months, which is just about the last thing it needs and makes Central Florida a virtual oven when it heats up, with no breeze to blow it away. I don't know enough about the ecology to know how this affects the wildlife in particular, but it sure makes the humans living there miserable during that time of year.
A missed point is leaving wood too. We have pine in our native forest that grows 10× as fast. Chop it into a few segments and make a lazy pile, it will become a new ecosystem
This is a good informational video, I always had a gut feeling blindly planting new trees would somehow have consequences. Of course that doesn't mean I don't like the idea, I think it's quite noble, I just think it's better knowing what you're doing before doing it
It's the same here in Canada The people that live in the big city's don't want any trees cut because they like looking at them on the way to there cottage in the summer 😂😂😂 I manage our property the same as you do love the videos keep them coming Merry Christmas
Here in the UK, the situation is basically the opposite - so much land is agricultural or urban, so little forest is left, that if we don't proactively create and develop more woodland we'll simply run out before long. Tiny island problems.
The idea is to replant for every tree you cut down SOMEWHERE ... Obviously not where you wanted land cleared. Just somewhere on the earth! :) I often say I've planted 3 trees for every one I've harvested (it's easily true!) .. but the ones I planted were in Alberta (I live in Ontario) and many years ago. :) .. it's the idea that you pay back the land.
![🔴 ฟุตบอลแชมป์กีฬา 7HD แชมเปียน คัพ 2024 [รอบรองชนะเลิศ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zPm8ClLVhoE/mqdefault.jpg)
Before you comment on this video. Keep things in context people. I didn’t say it’s always a bad idea to plant trees. I said it’s a bad idea to plant trees in places where there are already too many trees. If you have a place where there aren’t enough trees, then it can be very appropriate to plant trees. I am all for planting trees where trees need to be planted.
The title and thumbnail may create an assumption about the video's message, but it's effective at drawing our interest given the mostly one-dimensional assumption we all have that planting trees is always good. That's why we're all here talking about it in the first place. It's not even clickbait, because it actually delivers more than was promised, not less.
I appreciate the video and insight. If you can't watch a six minute video, yet think you understand its entirety from a thumbnail and title alone, you probably could spend your time better off of TH-cam.
@@Reibonne thank you, very well said.
Lol you should have changed the thumbnail. Seems more like clickbait.
@@jasonbaxter5502 I don't know this channel from any other, it just popped up on my front page. But, it is getting so old getting notifications about these comments. He addresses the 'absolute' statement about planting and the "clickbait" title within the first 30 seconds of the video. Literally, watch the first 30 seconds. It will take me longer to write this than it will take to understand what is being said here.
If you, or anyone else, are tempted to write about how this guy has lied or misled, then your bar for research and comprehension is depressingly low. Titles are meant to be enticing, to illustrate a truth to be expanded upon. "Why I Don’t Replant to Replace Trees I Cut Down" is a fine title, he states he most often doesn't do exactly what he says, and explains why. The title challenges the common person's understanding enough that we're all here talking about it - which makes it a great title!
I could go on, but I doubt you care and I'm probably screaming into the void. Again, I don't know this guy and haven't watched any of his other videos. These comments are just so depressing, and everyone just wants to rag on something and feel right when a man seemingly just took his time to educate us on an important topic. What are we even doing here? Surely there are far more dangerous videos on TH-cam a person can go brigade against.
Forestry is similar to sustainable hunter harvest in many ways. Some people have trouble comprehending that often times, removing a few is beneficial for the many.
my main takeaway from this video is that forest restoration isn't just making forests bigger, it's also to make existing forests healthier.
That's right!
that just doesn't exist. this is full bullshit.
a HUGE issue with modern forests is they are massively replanted. you see rows and rows, even without rows making it a bit more random every tree grows at the exact same time, which causes issues you dont think about with undergrowth and new trees later on.
there are dozens and dozens of issues with planting trees. planting trees is still better than not planting trees but we really need to get these old growth forests grown properly.
so we have planted forests that just arnt the same, old forests we over protect (see his comments on forest fires), new forests being chopped and replanted over and over. planted trees almost always specific species that may change every so often but diversity just isnt the same.
lastly as another just think to think about with forest health is where are the old dead trees. if you chop and replant over and over the undergrowth sucks but also theirs no fallen trees. thousands of years trees fell and rotted away and regrew and stuff. that doesnt happen in these 20 year tree chop replant cycles least not the same way. So much of our ecosystem relies on things and expects them (again see how forest existed before with fires). Planting trees is massively important but almost doubly important is protecting the forest we already have and getting back those old growth hundreds of years systems that are just so different than the forests we have today
@@Zaliedthey have corn fields of trees, but the thing is they are growing them to cut them back again... They have no interest in building an ecosystem
@mcmerry2846 yes that's true but even my own property the forest is in rows of trees from when they were cut years and years ago even places not planted for cutting down again that's just how forests become though many places have seen an increase in forest sizes it's always good to note that replanting isn't just some perfect solutions
The biggest issue with our forests isn't the overseeding. It's removal of the big ones. We need cornerstone trees to keep the ecology going.
The big ones are the most likely to be dead, or close to dying.
@@hime273 I don't deny that dying trees are a better candidate for removal, but douglas firs, incense/western red cedars, and sequioias have the capacity to grow to well over 6 feet in diameter.
Amost any tree in this region have the capacity to live well over 300 years.
They create networks of support through mycorrhizal fungi and act as nexuses of biodiversity.
We need large trees.
@@trenomas1 Fungi grows by feeding off of dead organic material, and just because underground fungus might connect itself to root systems, does not mean that fungus is alive because the tree is alive.
Sounds like you've been listening to people who lie for their truth.
And what is Bad about dead trees?
So many vertebrates, plants, fungi and a ton of invertebrate species rely solely on dead or sick, big trees.
„Taking them out of the forest“ is a catastrophy for biodiversity and the general forest.
I am mainly talking about Central Europe forests here but I’m very sure that it is bad for a forest to remove deadwood and big trees.
@hime273
As a professional forester from California and a forest biometrician that has studied forest growth for many years I completely agree with you. Excellent video.
There should have a reframe from good being= having a lot of trees, to good being= have a lot of area with trees (low density if possible)
if you cut them down then you should replant
@@firstname4337
rewatch the video,
he just stated you DONT need to (always) replant after every cut.
OVER DENSITY is the problem. quality of the tree means more than the quantity of the trees.
just as having 20 kids for 2 parents on a low income sucks, or planting too many seeds for a small plot of land. the same is true for trees, they are thirsty as ever and drain the water table, die when they run out of water, and become kindle wood for the next forest fire... this is my conjecture but i dont think im that far off the mark.
key thing is, we americans need to find the golden ratio of trees, the natives did it with controlled fires. its kinda sad that even with all our technology of military grade satellites we couldnt just borrow an Air Force Drone or GPS high definition to scout and determine where to thin the trees, so many SoCal folks are nearly getting their homes burned or at the edge of the fires.
some of that is due to urban sprawl but thats another can of worms i dont agree with but cant quickly summarize without coming off as rantish.
Amen!
I have been cutting on my woodlot for 35 years.
I stay warm and build many sheds.
I have more volume than ever of better species and piece size.
I did plant black and Carpathian walnuts and some bull pine along the 600 foot long driveway
and some blue spruce but I did it deliberately not of necessity.
Any area within a tree length of a conifer stand will seed naturally.
Many deciduous tree species, like birch, will res-route from the root.
In British Columbia the Province subsidizes clear cut practices by deducting
all silviculture spending including company foresters salaries through a Section 88 offset
against Stumpage. The tenure system does not reward frugal management with natural regeneration and partial cut prescriptions but subsidizes clearcutters and milling monopolies in each region.
No competition for logs so I just hire a small mill when I want some lumber.
Anything that won’t square to a six inch top is firewood.
It is about 10 F tonight and my big house is very warm.
Not all wealth is money 😂
@@firstname4337 You don’t replant if there were too many to start with, trees need to be thinned to an amount that’d be healthy for the forest. If there’s too many trees, there’s not enough water to go around. If there’s not enough trees, then you replant. It’s not a one size fits all, each section of forest needs to be evaluated. Weren’t you watching the video.
I am so glad he talked about humans fighting forest fires. I’ve said this for years - we spent decades fighting small fires that burn up the dead fall, take out a lot of seedlings and clean up the forest floor so we now have massive fires that can’t be controlled or stopped because there is so much fuel. The other problem that we ran into in Canada is that IF the logging companies that clear cut, did replant trees they planted all the same species, so we ended up with diseases like Dutch Elm disease that spread very quickly. To me, there is nothing wrong with cutting smaller sections and letting nature take over - there is nothing bad about having openings in the tree cover if they aren’t too big.
Same shit happens in Sweden. Old forests are clear cut, and replaced with planted monocultures AKA no forest. The forest is totally gone after that point, there is zero recreational value and definitely less valuable for animals too.
Here in Poland there was a similar problem with spruce forests that were planted for wood in the XIX and XX century. Lots of problems with bark beetles destroying these forests because it could spread so easily in an area that was 80% spruce.
@@pirig-gal Interesting, that’s happening here right now. Bark beetles have invaded many forests and I’m thankful for it. Hopefully they can restore some kind of balance, because politicians wont.
Another Canadian that 100% agrees with you 👍
My first time hearing about that was in Firewatch, where as a player your first reaction is to report the FIRST sign of smoke you see, and ask why we're not putting it out immediately. The other person tells us "well no we don't go around putting out every single little fire we see, that's not healthy"
I worked making pizzas for a while. The restaurant manager told me words to live by : "more is not better". He wasn't talking about wasting profits on over fortifying a pizza, it was about the taste and balance of the end product. It seems that would apply to forest management as well.
More sauce is always better
I disagree with him I just want more
Freedom of Choice.@@Thomas-xd4cx
Good pizza isn’t loaded with more bad toppings, it has fewer good quality ingredients that are now evenly cooked and flavored. Overloaded pizzas are a mix of burnt, raw, and unevenly distributed toppings and dough. Totally agree with your manager
I think he just wanted to save on ingredients. Pizzas are often quite bald.
Glad someone actually put this to words. The problem is far more dynamic than “remove trees, plant trees”
While enrolled in the Oregon State University Extension program, "Master Woodland Manager", we had several segments on re-forestation--when appropriate and when not. It always generated a great deal of 'discussion.' The best answer to give, regarding re-forestation, is the one I've heard (and used) most often: "It depends." It depends on a multitude of factors: is it necessary, facing, quality of ground, species, density, etc. etc. The bottom line is: It depends.
On my 80-acres, I choose to re-plant trees in some areas (and others, not so much) and for similar reasons outlined in this video. However, I do (nearly always) re-plant something, (a native something), in an area which has been thinned or had a catastrophic event like multiple
blowdowns
I view it as an opportunity to subtly nudge a change of direction for that area, (such as away from Doug-fir monoculture) and if done slowly and incrementally, can have a profound impact on the flora and fauna, (not the Amore` twins) on the land.
Just my dos centavos, for what they're worth. Another good 'un and a likeroo.
Cheers from (a still) foggy Linn County
If leaving the trees on their own, while pouring out fires, leads to dense overgrowth. And we know there is good low density in fire-effected or well-managed forests where small trees are cut... why introduce non-native species that will only add to the management load?
Hi, not quite clear on your question.
I do not introduce "non-native" anything on my property, (I do eradicate non-native everything as I find them.)
I do re-plant native shrubs and trees in areas affected by blowdowns, (aka "wind-throws.")
Nature abhors a vacuum, so if I don't replace a blowdown Doug-fir with a Ponderosa pine, a Grand fir or a Big leaf Maple, Mother Nature will send me Himalayan blackberry, English Hawthorn, Scotch broom, or sometimes all of those simultaneously to deal with.
Hope that helps.@@Saohesc
@@lpeterman Ace! Well done, and thank you for your service.
@lpeterman I got 25 acres just south of ya that was logged 15 years ago. Where they left some hemlocks/maples/etc the natives have persisted well and tree seedling recruitment is good. The areas that were mostly clear cut are acres of blackberry. It even overtops pioneer trees like cascara/hazel/alder. It always amazes me what appears after I clear out a field of that stuff though. Big patches of thimbleberry/wild rose/snowberry/wildflowers/sedges/ferns all just waiting for some light. Nature's resilience never ceases to amaze me. And props on encouraging biodiversity and not just planting fir! I have 20+ native tree species growing wild at my place.
It is amazing what pops up after some catastrophic event. We make Thimbleberry compote and use it to top desserts.
Cheers! @@fullcircle.organics
Definitely depends. If you have like a quarter acre you run out of trees pretty quick. It takes ages for seedlings to come up.
Coppice and pollarding
I got a quarter acre next to (well one other property between me and) the forest.
Every year when I start weeding in spring I got lots of new trees to rip out. And when I don't see them among my berry bushes or so... They grow to my height within two years. And I am not a dwarf. This is both maple and cherries and oak and some kind of needle tree (might be pine or fir or whatever).
So no, trees grow quickly and easily if they are native to the region and soil.
@@donaldduck830 maybe they are saying they take ages to come up to a harvestable size?
@@donaldduck830 In your area trees grow quickly. We have fir 5 feet tall and below, they grow about ten inches per year. We can tell the difference because the new growth is a lot brighter shade of green.
@@donaldduck830 not in my climate. Past 5 years have been so heavy on drought that it rains once every 3 months and nothing germinates. Used to rain 2 a month now it’s just barren.
It really depends on where you live, the types of trees, and the current state of the land whether reforesting is the right thing to do. Also, commercial logging isn't the main issue when it comes to deforestation either, it's the clearing of the rainforests to graze cattle.
Commercial logging is very much an issue when old, biodiverse Forests are replaced with monocultures that will be cut down again in ~100 years
@@AboBrett-dw8xn Commercial logging in North America has a system that designates trees to be cut in ~1/4 square mile parcels. I think there's a minimum of 10 years required between cutting adjacent parcels so there's no issue with monocultures
Depends on which corporation. Some commercial entities do take the time to study things in order to avoid a negative impact.
Some businesses simply don't care.
It also needs to be said that this statement is not just for North America, as forests and companies exist all over the world.
Or coffee bean farms for the bourgeois socialists to get their expensive lattes from, while complaining about what a literal expert is doing because they think they know better than the experts.
@@matthewlarson738Whats that had anything to do with biodiverse forest replaced by monoculture forest problem?
I will also add that while thinning and prescribed fire is great for so much of the interior west and especially in forests that have been logged, the old growth sitka spruce forests of the northwest coast should be left alone. The huge amounts of annual rainfall create a forest that is naturally dense and is historically adapted to a low-frequency stand replacing fire regime, unlike the douglas-fir ponderosa pine forests of the interior that are adapted to high frequency low intensity fire.
No good. We need sitka for guitars.
You really don't. Go with a different wood for a while. @@stevejohnson174
Sitka grows practically on the coast so yeah I hope theres no fire there!
@@stevejohnson174 Fortunately one good Sitka can provide enough tops for around 10,000 tops. Larrivee Guitar has a great video "The Search for Spruce"
@@stevejohnson174 "Fuck that forest, how else am I gonna play wonderwall at the dorm party"
Yeah hoo! You tell 'em!!! 30 years ago a friend had a botanist from another state go for a ride through the mountains in So. California and the guy was horrified at how many trees there were. I think he said it was something like 50 to 100 TIMES more than it should be. There was a huge problem with bark beetle bugs and the guy said: The trees don't have enough water otherwise you wouldn't have the bug infestation. Anyway, GOOD FOR YOU for telling it how it is.
You are correct. Insect and disease problems are often the result of stress on the trees. The insects attack the stressed trees at a higher rate.
@@williamdavidson9009 Not quite. The trees are attacked basically equally- the attacks are just more devastating to an already stressed tree, potentially enough to kill them. Healthy trees can often repel insect attacks, but sick trees just don't have the resources to do the same.
I agree that healthy trees can often ward off insect or disease attacks however many insects are attracted to weakened plants@@travispluid3603
I read this book a while back that talked about the Native Americans curating the forests with periodic controlled fires. They held the same priorities you have, preventing cluttered forests of dead trees. It is a part of why the initial European settlers saw the New World as an 'Eden'; the woodlands were all so spacious and pristine, ungnarled. The decline of the Native American populations saw these practices generally disappear unfortunately.
if by "curate" you mean watch forest fires started by lightning that they were powerless to do anything about, sure.
A similar practice done by the Aboriginal peoples in Australia before white 'settlement'. They called them "cold burns".
No, they kept up with these practices, and in many areas these practices continue, particularly in non-farmland areas on the Great plains. California is the poster boy of how we *USED* to keep these traditions and methods alive. But in the 1990s, California decided it was too expensive to continue doing forest cleanup and controlled burns, and so they pulled some BS reason about "respecting the wild" and stopped doing them, hence why since 2000 onward, California has had some of the worst forest fires in it's history, so.ething many people are far to happy and quick to attribute exclusively to Climate change.
Of course all the aboriginal supremacists show up with their malinformed two cents.
@@Mikalent Similar in Australia. Apparently no logging "because wildlife", and now the fires are so massive, kills all the wildlife for thousands of kilometers. And so-called "climate change", nothing at all to do with forest management...
I have a small ranch in southern British Columbia and spend countless hours each year cutting deadfall and thinning small crappy trees. You are bang on regarding reforestation. My ranch and surrounding areas are probably 100 years past due for a fire and now the fuel density is so bad the fires burn way too hot and deep thus sterilizing the ground. When I hear city friends brag that they planted a tree on the weekend to help keep the earth green I get a kick out of the look on their faces when I tell them I cut down 50 or 60 saplings, every weekend!
From my 80-acre Willamette Valley perspective, y'all are both correct... In context.
Ya, in the city there’s a lot more need for trees new. Help keep humidity and climate manageable, among a lot of other things, and there’s a higher turnover rate.
I am not a forester. I just like to hike and know way to much about growing stuff due to my childhood. This guy knows what's up. Good on him for managing his land properly.
Finally someone that understands forestry. here in Canada we have had some very bad fires in the last few years mostly because of poor forest management . fuel load builds up and hey presto mother nature clears it out in crazy fires.. back in the day massive herds of bison etc would have kept forest floors clear and distributed nutrients at the same time. glad to see this video, more people should watch it for sure.
Bison never lived in the forrests lmao
They eat grass. How much grass is in the spruce bluffs in the canadian shield?
@@WheresTheSauce Bison and caribou migrated in vast herds throughout north america, the forests that the early settlers encountered looked much different than the current ones ,they were more open and vast ,they create the landscape we removed them and now have thick dense fire hazard forests, so yes they did inhabit the forests because there was a huge amount of forest floor growth back then. so LMAO do some research, you may even learn something in the process, the bison have been reintroduced into the Banff national park with fantastic success , they are restoring the mountains and passes back to their original state.
th-cam.com/video/SKOYscL09s4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=IUrJbNTuPv8ehzI7
that the ancient forests were always burning is an old canard. They were so thick and held so much moisture and had diversity that they rarely burned. Mankind introduced the burning of forests, likely to rid itself of the threat of the mega fauna. Same with Australia @@davebloggs
@@dungeonmaster6292 Most forests around here other than the very steep or inaccessible areas were not thick forests at all . They were widely spaced and short vegetation at ground level because they were chewed over twice a year by millions of migrating animals. Forest fires were very common but they were not the extreme events we see now as it was much harder to have fast moving canopy fires., many trees here evolved to only set seed after the high heat of a forest fire, and that had nothing to do with mankind.
I came into this skeptical. I'm leaving intrigued and educated. The logic here is sound, and I do agree with it. There's quite a few problems we have, forestry wise, that even I, as a minimally educated-on-the-subject half-city-half-country boy know of. We clear too much from where we do cut, typically, and don't clear enough from where we don't. It is a delicate balance, keeping a healthy ecology, and it's good to see things like this going around, trying to at least give a more neuanced approach than "Replant good, cut down bad."
huh, I thought the "old forest" knowledge was well known, you learn something new everyday.
@@Axodus It is well known- in places where it has been practiced, IE places that historically have a lot of logging industry. Those aren't the places where policy is made, sadly, so we're saddled with policies devised by people who have never set foot in a forest in their lives.
In Germany we do forest management like that. We have many mixed forests and cut only the old and precious beeches and oaks to sell them for good money. Around them are always younger trees whch we leave to replace the old ones. From time to time also young trees are cut to prevent too dense growing.
We also have huge areas of monoculure of firs which are dying due to climate change and some bugs. Huge areas are baren land now. Dependend on the management, those areas are replanted with mixed species or just left open. They immediatelly are filled with young trees, mainly berches which are no good wood but prepare the forest for other species.
Tree planting is essential in areas where only grassland is or too many sheeps and deers are eating the seedlings. Scotland for example, or Iceland, or areas with little rainfall.
Bruh, it's the old trees you want to keep around, not the young ones. Young trees contribute almost nothing to the forest ecosystem.
Sell them for bad money*
its a tree farm right? cutting the old ones for money and just planting new ones thinking it would do any good, i wouldnt say its a good forest management
I’ve had a lumber company come in and take some trees and I was going to replant, but after watching this video and listening to the reasoning why you shouldn’t, I don’t think I will.
A friendly note: Depending on your State/County regulations, and depending on how much (acreage/volume) was harvested, you may be legally obligated to replant the acreage with something. Please, for your sake, Please, check with your State Forester, or State University Extension Forester, (different critters.)
In Oregon, every County has one and the service is free. If you don't want an Extension Forester, ask for an "MWM" (Master Woodlands Manager) who is a trained civilian/private landowner who can assess and give non-binding advice on forested lands.
Your land, your choice, but please don't run afoul of the State/County regs, they can be pesky to deal with after the fact.
A note from your friendly MWM.
Often it's better to replant the trees somewhere else.
Very great explanation, some people just don't understand how forests and trees work and the land and climates that surround them. Dense forests are nice but in drier climates its just a breeding ground for dry ground, And near dry trees that are dying. Good on ya man for keeping your property safe and trying to prevent massive forest fires.
Thank you. I get so tired of hearing people complanning when you're maintaining your property. They don't understand how the forest works. Your video is simple, easy to follow, and I really appreciate that.
I had a permaculture farm. We had orchards and that graded into agroforestry that graded into a food forest that graded into a forested wetland that graded into a Chinampa pond. We also had nut trees, windbreaks and coppiced and pollarded trees, so we had lots of trees. I have since sold the farm to move closer to ailing family and so that I have more time to spend on my other passions. I think that what you are saying makes good sense but what we did was somewhat different. Our goal was to gradually improve all of our forests by seeking out heirloom seeds and grafts for our fruit trees, nuts with good genetics, tree seedlings and propagules from desirable forest plants and trees. These we planted. We thinned out undesirable vegetation and either built things out of it, burned it as firewood, made biochar with it, or mulched it. With regards to large desirable trees, we thinned around them to encourage their growth. Over time, the quality of the forest significantly improved both for us and for wildlife. So, I would say that the proper role of humans is to act as the keystone species, steward and guardian of the forest. To cocreate the forest by working with Nature and taking advantage of and directing Natural processes, but, having said that, I would also say that we have to recognize that individual species in Nature can be just as species centric and selfish as any human can be. Nature is usually right, but not always right. Humans have a right and I would say an obligation to intervene in some instances🪵.
Wow.
I never knew about too many trees being a problem.😮
Thank you for the Education.❤
Mostly an issue in dryer places. A wetland cant really have too many trees, just the overcrowding in the sun/shade regard becomes a thing then.
Since green energy, fast growing biomass
became an asset.
In that case, you can't have enough trees,
and harvest them while young.
If you don't care about biomass,
since harvest is difficult as it seems
to be in mountainous environments,
then difficulties are about to solve.
Again, in context! It always depends on the sitch.
too many of anything is a problem, the question is how much is too many
Depends on location.There are places in earth there is no forest fires for those places many trees can be a good thing.
Nature has its own way of recovering.
I really like you explanation of if, and will likely share this when ever a replanting argument pops up.
As a kid, I grew up in a basement with the only soirce of heat being a wood stove. Every fall and winter, we had to cut trees from the surrounding forest just to survive.
We always cut either already fallen trees or standing dead wood while never replanting anything and never had an issue with cutting too much. If left alone, forests will absolutely grow out of control and cause massive issues like overgrowth and fires.
Forests won't grow out of control generally because of fires, fire is nature's way of pruning the forest back every so often
@sage5296 Natural fires literally happen because a forest has grown out of control due to being poorly managed.
i thought because of us, the air has become so dry that forest fires started to happen
@peppermeat8059 in the case of say California it's more because so many of their trees are eucalyptus trees, which are not native to California, where introduced around 1850, and are highly flammable.
Forest fires are extremely rare in a forest that is well maintained and far more common when the forest is improperly maintained, artificial(like cali), or left to its own devices resulting in overgrowth and excessive deadwood that is never clear and highly flammable.
Large animals going through and thining out the underbrush as well as fertilizing the soil would be useful. Our forests are missing the mammoths.
I'M missing the mammoths.
@@catpoke9557 my grandpa talked about how he hunted his own mammoth meat back in the day.
Don't forget the bison, They use to span the whole united states pretty much.
@@GameFuMaster Bro's fucking old, huh
@@catpoke9557 Skill issue.
I think the difference is clear cutting and cutting a some from an area while leaving some.
Great video! The nuance of environmental protection is one of the things that makes this field so beautiful, and is one of the reasons why I’ve dedicated my career to this field. Sustainability isn’t cut and dry, you have to go in to each specific scenario and figure out what solutions that case needs, not just apply a common thought process to every possible situation.
This was the best 5 minute explanation / mini lecture on forestry I ever saw. with some light entertainment on top too.
I love the way this video is recorded!
Amazing camera work!!!!
Finally some sensibility to ecology, Thank you. A lot of people need to see this video
Same problem persists in many European forests as well. Excessive tree density creates unhealthy forests, ticking bombs for the next great wildfire of the summer. And yet, most people persist in the idea that we should plant more trees EVERYWHERE. Proposterous.
Great video! It delivers your message very clearly!
Not only that, but when these great fires DO happen, people will immediately blame it on climate change; the fires in the American west are one of the biggest cudgels used in climate change's argument, and yet are incredibly more likely to be caused by forest mismanagement (and deliberate arson but that's another argument altogether).
Interesting video. In Scotland our problem is the opposite - we have hardly any native forest left. Currently there are efforts to restore native woodland across the country. Unfortunately there are people who are against reforesting efforts because they’d rather maintain the status quo of bare, desolate landscapes for shooting grouse and sheep crofting. They quite often cite wildfire as a reason not to reforest our land and the term “fuel load”’is frequently brought up by them. Ironically it is the same people who are burning our land to make profit from shooting grouse at the expense of biodiversity. We are also missing key components of the ecosystem such as lynx, wolves, boar and moose. Terrible state of affairs really.
And the scottish wildcat, which depends on forested lands is near extinct and repopulation attempts from captive populations will fail unless forested lands are expanded and restored. Forested lands also keep domestic cats away which preffer grasslands.
In other parts of america we also have your issue. Diverse continent
You're not missing wolves. You haven't had any for over 400 years; a proper wildlife management from hunting can fully cover the wildlife culling that wolves do without any of the issues that they bring to humans, particularly on a relatively small and enclosed area such as the British isles. Reintroducing wolves there is a mistake.
@@HappyLittleBoozer I’m afraid you are wrong. Culling deer effectively in absence of wolves is incredibly expensive and time consuming. In many ways it is basically impossible or simply impractical to replicate the impact of wolves. It is true that they present issues to humans however these are not issues that cannot be overcome, as proven on mainland Europe and across the rest of the world. They say the last wolf in Scotland was shot in 1680, with some records suggesting they persisted into the mid 1700s, so if we want to be pernickety then it’s been under 400 years since we last had wolves. There is absolutely no good reason why Scotland could not and should not have wolves.
@@THE_ECONNORGIST True. I mean Wolves help to naturally cull wild populations. The fact that idiots don't want to bring back forests so they can shoot grouse and fuck sheep is stupid.
I didn’t know anything about forestry, so thank you for teaching me a few things today.
I am in Nova Scotia and have exactly the same problem with Balsam Fir. It grows in super dense thickets, which makes the trees tall, but very weak and prone to being snapped or uprooted in extreme weather conditions. Then, the high concentration of saplings makes it very difficult to get at the fallen trees to remove them for firewood.
In an average year, I probably cut thousands of saplings and small trees...and I still have the problem of too many trees. Maybe I need to invest in an excavator with a tree-muncher attachment.
A tracked forestry mulcher is the way to go if you have a larger area, very impressive!
Western Hemlock in Scotland, good source of biomass! Ive also seen some magnificent Scots pine that grew incredibly tall and straight thanks to a WH understory.
I’m from Nova Scotia too… I’m in tantallon right where the big fire was. I’d like to thin my property to remove fuel load and give the rest of the area healthy room to grow.
It doesn't help that Balsam fir is naturally a somewhat soft plant, I imagine.
@@williamchristy9463 It is rather soft, especially when it grows fast.
In my area, (northwestern washington) i see a lot of the bigger trees surviving, and the little ones dying from lack of sun. Which is usually, naturally the case. Clearcutting was commonplace in the 1800s around here, wildfires arent a super big problem usually in the lowlands, but higher up it’s definitely prominent. I wish theyd do more controlled burns, i am seeing an increased amount of them though.
What is quite common where I live is to plant trees so only the type of tree that is desired would grow in that area. The forest will become so dense that only some moss will grow on the ground.
Goal is to get trees with few branches at the bottom and maximize the profit for that area. Another technique I have seen used it to leave a few large trees to give seedlings to the area but this kind of forest tends to end up with a mix of different types of trees.
That landscape is enviably beautiful.
Love this video! I live in wisconsin and am lucky enough to live on about 3 acres donated to my mom and dad from an old farmer they knew. The rest of the farmer's land he gave to a conservancy so we are surrounded by woods. Recently I have gone back there to start clearing out underbrush and competing trees away from the large oaks because the entire forest was once a oak savannah but now is covered in buck thorn and scrub trees. I would love to also remove the barbed wire fences that are mostly knocked down but are still partially up in places but that is a much bigger job. It's also interesting to see how different trees look just across the country, Those manzanita trees are very cool looking. That's another fortunate thing about where I live, forest fires dont really happen naturally though the conservancy does do controlled burns (very rarely I do wish they did it much more often because it cleans the forest so nicely
Thank you for a sharing a different perspectives and giving me a deeper understanding of a topic I am concerned with, but have little to no knowledge of.
We face a similar issue in Australia. Prior to the bushfires before COVID-19 in 2019, Wollemi National Park exhibited a tree density unprecedented in millions of years. This phenomenon resulted in the accumulation of bark shedding from our eucalyptus trees. In certain areas, walking was hindered by a substantial buildup of 4-5 feet of bark, obstructing bush paths. Subsequently, when intense heat and arid winds arrived that year, the extensive forests along the eastern coast's dividing range ignited swiftly, resembling a tinderbox soaked in kerosene.
Isn't eucalyptus bark filled with oil?
FYI: Approximately 30 million years ago, Australia showcased thriving rainforests with a rich diversity of plant species. Nevertheless, as the continent migrated northward and encountered climate changes, Eucalypt forests emerged, evolving from the most resilient specimens and ultimately establishing themselves as a prominent and distinctive aspect of Australia's flora. Notably, the Eucalypts were initially rainforest trees. The original ancestors of these trees can still be found along the east coast in the Gondwana rainforests of New South Wales and Queensland.
I heard that you guys have begun to use goat herds to eat the brambles and other debris that grows under the tree canopy to help prevent that from happening as much.
@@jackwest3282 The problem with that is goats don't exclusively consume brambles.
Controlled small fires, also known as prescribed burns, are often considered a more ecologically balanced approach to forest management compared to simply cutting down trees without replanting. Here's why:
Prescribed Burns: Prescribed burns are conducted under controlled conditions to reduce the risk of large, uncontrolled wildfires. These burns help maintain the health of the ecosystem by: Reducing excess fuel (like dead wood and leaf litter), which can contribute to severe wildfires.
Encouraging the growth of native vegetation by opening up the forest canopy and allowing sunlight to reach the forest floor.
Maintaining the balance of certain ecosystems that have evolved with and are adapted to periodic fires
Cutting Trees Without Replanting:
imply cutting down trees without a plan for replanting can lead to deforestation, which has a range of negative environmental impacts, such as loss of biodiversity, disruption of water cycles, and contribution to climate change.
Trees play a crucial role in carbon sequestration (absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere), and losing trees without replacing them can exacerbate greenhouse gas concentrations.
Combination of Techniques:
In many cases, a combination of techniques is used. For instance, strategic tree cutting (thinning) is often employed alongside prescribed burns to reduce fuel loads and create healthier, more resilient forests. This approach can help prevent the spread of disease, increase water availability, and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires
Very few people understand forestry and vegetation. Thanks for posting this video.
it's genuinely intriguing looking at these issues from the perspective of a real professional who knows what he's talking about, most of the individuals who try to "remedy" these issues approach them from an emotional perspective or with the intent of gaining clout/brownie points, thank you so much for shedding light on this topic.
After moving to idaho and talking to loggers I realized they actually knew what they were talking about and the policies of the environmental groups were actually worse for the forest. Good video.
But the environnemental groups are right to advocate replanting after clear cuts and in a few other situations, as the man makes clear in this very video
@@christophehorguelin7044 I think you missed the point. The environmental groups are the reason the forests are overcrowded in the first place, they have been filing lawsuits for decades to stop prescribed burns and mechanical thinning. They also push to put out fires, and are clueless about the consequences of those two actions when combined.
@@mountainguyed67you sure you aren't painting with the same broad brush you accuse environmental groups are using? Like the video and many comments here said, it's a nuanced issue that isn't as simple as replant or don't. Why generalize loggers and environmental groups to a binary right or wrong when it also isn't that simple?
@@TheWorthingSaga It is what it is, we can’t meet in the middle when that’s not where the line is.
@@TheWorthingSagapersonally I'm more willing to listen to the person who is incentivized to keep the forest healthier than the people who lose absolutely nothing if they happen to destroy the forest...
The loggers are quite literally incentivized to grow raise and maintain the forest... Otherwise they have no job no income their business goes out of business... The environmentalist groups will receive taxpayer dollars whether the forest are standing or they die... If it dies they'll blame the loggers and ask for more money despite the fact that loggers are again incentivized to keep the forests clean to prevent giant uncontrollable forest fires that kill whole forests
Thank uou for explaining why Forest Management is a serious business.
Wicked time lapse fog at the end of the video. Thank you!
And I agree with you on everything said. Forests were quite a bit different before man came along.
You know I clicked this video specifically because it sounded counter intuitive, but I came in knowing Id learn something important! Thanks for sharing with everyone!
Merry Christmas Michael! As a side note to your video...Much more damage can be caused by planting the wrong tree. So many tree species were planted in yards etc only to be found out later that they are invasive after they crowd out native species.
Bradford pear is a bad one in the southeast.
Wow, I was so skeptical when clicking on this video but I figured it was worth hearing out, now my mind is blown!
Hi there Mr Wilson. Same thing in Australia. The seasonal fires have been stopped and the amount of dry tinder and dried acacias (native) that lay around is astonishing. Efforts have, in recent years increased the amount of planned burns but its no where close to enough.
Our problem is the same as everywhere, we've bulldozed 95% of our forests to create farmland, so now we struggle to keep the remaining 5% stable. And then climate change is causing fires in rainforests that never used to burn.
Thats way nearly every forester in Austria (hey not australia) is thinning out there forests - partly for named reasons but also to get better growth and better wood quality. This is a routine which needs to be done.
Hardwood floor guy here from Oregon. Thank you for all your great videos.
You've added a whole new perspective on wild fire risks to US forests and other forests worldwide.
I wish our media and governments would talk about this more. We had several major fires here in Ontario these past couple of years. This year smoke from fires in Ontario and Quebec ended up causing all kinds of problems in Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and even New York City. These fires got as bad as they did, not from the warm temperatures, but because there was so much fuel on the forest floors because for decades we fought to put these naturally occurring fires out and now we have massive forests full of dead fall, rotting leaves and densely packed vegetation to fuel the fires.
Very informative and humorous at the same time, nice work.
I absolutely love your humor, and your delivery is impeccable. Happy Holidays!
Im studying to work in ecology and im so excited about this sort of thing! I love the nuance of conservation!
Edit: Its very clear you appreciate the lives of the trees from how you talk about their growth and how they take up space around them. Tree planting campaigns are often to reduce the effects of massive logging companies which dont do this sort of minute analysis on the forests they tear through. I think people need to really consider the nuances of the ecosystems around them before passing judgement.
Good video that makes a lot of sense. Practice the finger snap/time warp thing; you'll get the hang of it.
i don't know much about trees but it's hard to argue against somebody with such clear and logical arguments.
I live in South Jersey next to some woods. There are a lot of dead pines in there due to a beetle that's killing them.
The woods are not mine, so I'm limited as to what I can do. But I do try and get rid of anything dead in the area closest to my house. My thought has been if there's a fire, I don't want it to catch my house on fire.
Very informative video, as someone who wants to grow up and work in forestry and woodland firefighting good job educating others and getting straight to the point!
The way we managed our forest growing up (and my father still maintains it) is take the dead/dying/problem trees and let the forest/saplings do their thing.
Previous owners of my current property would harvest their trees for wood to burn but also clear cut all their saplings and undergrowth to keep it looking like a park. Sure you have tons of huge trees, but that's not healthy for the forest. In the 8 years we've been here I've let the young trees take over and it's been amazing how quickly they are filling back in all on their own.
Dead and dying trees are vital for a lot of species in the forest though. Taking them away is not a good thing.
@@Nemrai we never took all the dead trees, and mainly focused on the widowmakers.
On my property now I have a few dead standing that aren't major hazards that I've left for animals/insects and I intentionally drop dangerous trees that may be rotting and no good for firewood, and leave those on the ground.
@@RedSiBaronThat's a great idea. Clearing only the dangerous trees that might kill someone if they fall is a good way to keep the forest preserved while getting what you need.
you musnt remove the dead trees
@@peppermeat8059 when they are a danger to people and buildings, ya they get dropped.
Wow someone who understands we have to many trees in a lot of place, we don’t need more trees, we need better management. That’s what your doing 👏🙌
Well said - significant problem right across the Western world where people have confused lazy land management with nature conservation.
Mr Wilson, thank you for this very very insightful video. I have known about letting a healthy forest grow and fall on its own and how the human intervention has ruined the balance that mother nature has fine-tuned over millions of years. As a child I used to cry for my childhood forest getting cut down, used for lumber and then never replanted. I was devastated that they could do that to our beautiful ancient forest, untouched from culling in over 100 years. All the wildlife that lost their homes and hunting grounds. In our Swedish forests, we never had forest fires, so the trees are strong pines and the ground is covered in a thick layer of moss and small beds of water and murk. I reckon 20 years later, I am still angry about it haha, but this video did give me a new understanding for the culling of the forest. Sorry for the little ramble, but I just wanted to say that you inspired me to learn even more about our beautiful forest and to look into more of the logging industry.
Nicely explained. Now, only if we can get the conversation started with thoes that livs in concrete jungles to under this it would make things better.
Merry Christmas to you and your family 🎄 😁 👍
finaly a profesionals opinion. most people just listen to mass media and never get to consider the views of a profesional.
It all depends on the local ecology, my part of the world is wet and swampy. That said we still use mechanical thinning to manage the stems per acre and it works well even in the upland areas that are red white pine mix
Thank you! I expect to own some acreage with forest in the future and these videos really help me understand how to manage that forest.
One can not out plan nature. Merry Christmas!
Good points. I hope we can figure this out soon! And what an incredibly beautiful property you have.
A lot of people do not realize that nature will take care of her own including reforestation. People look at an old growth forest and think... pristine. In actuality old growth forest is devoid of life under the tree tops. Selective logging is good for wildlife, trees, and forest fire prevention. Good video
Safely back in the day they looked at these old growth and trees in general as just a giant payday, sort like the buffalo. There is a happy medium and I think now people understand that much more.
When the Europeans got to North America, they could take horses and wagons through the old growth forests. The trees were spaced out allowing them to be healthy and allow sunlight to the ground. Many species thrived in those forests/savanna.
@@mtadams2009 you are correct, "select cutting" is the key words. I have never been a fan of clear cut. But I have to say, places I saw clear cut 20 year's ago are thriving forest's today.
@@Twobrothersoutdoors This is true. I own a fairly large amount of land in New England and I have used it to build my home and also heat it but I never had in me to cut what I call my prize trees. I leave alone. I would have made a lousy lumber jack lol take care
@@mtadams2009 you would have made an exceptional lumberjack. Some trees are worth more standing. Just ask the many oaks we do not cut off our property, or the 150 yo giant sugar maples. These trees will remain as long as we are the Stewart's of our property. Good talking with you.
Good info. I know everything you say is true.
I knew it before you said it.
I just never put those facts together in the eloquent way you did.
Now I understand the facts.
Thanks.
In my woods the garbage trees and bushes need to be cut yearly to allow good hardwoods to prosper. The invasive honeysuckle, pears and box elder are the only live tree I cut
are all of the trees invasive>?
Don`t know why this popped up in my TH-cam box but it was really interesting . I`ve learnt something today 👍
I have always wondered if clear felling a forest would induce an unnatural regrowth. It has always seemed to me that a forest grown from open space would produce trees the same age and of course, as a general rule this is not a natural occurrence and would have negative consequences. Clear felling is probably the worst sort of lumber production.
Well said. I have similar patches of dense undergrowth on our western sierra nevada property and it's definately due to the lack of fire. You earned my subscription today.
There was a similar issue years ago in the UK after a big storm (1987, see 'Sevenoaks'). In lots of places they quickly cleared the ground an replanted with supporting equipment etc. However there was too much windfall and some area were just left. Now they are tending to find that the natural regrowth has been a lot stronger than the man-intervention growth. Sometimes nature knows best (the fire-prevention- major fire cycle has it's own problems, as noted)
Narural regeneration is my preferred method, unfortunately I'm currently having to restock an area of Ash woodland that has suffered from dieback. Natural regeneration would mostly be Ash which would quickly sicken and die. I'm now very wary of any planting packs that lack variety.
I really love your style of presentation with the wide shots and clip-on mic. Simple, effective, endearing :]
Couldn’t agree more as a Californian. I often worry about Jack’s Peak down in Monterey. The original owner who gave the land to the public instructed that nothing be cleared away. It’s beautiful, but the piles and piles of dead material is prime kindling.
I guess a better term rather than "too many trees" would be "too dense tree cover". More trees would be the best way to help the planet recover CO2 from the atmosphere... it just means we need more AREA of tree cover.
Videos like this should be mandatory viewing at schools. The amount of "eco" people who know jack about ecology but want to be policymakers in that aspect is staggering and a real societal curse.
Yeah forest management is the thing to do! I never plant trees either but I do scatter my ashes back on the land. Here in Ontario it makes it better for deciduous trees to grow rather than coniferous trees. To me a forest fire is a preventable apocalyptic event. My vote is for everything I own to be well heated during winter rather than cooked in a forest fire
I've been making charcoal from the brush and the garden has been really responding to it
Char: a good use for the limbs, skinny trunks and detritus. Well done.
I think this approach is so wise. Take a lighter hand with the natural world when you can; things work themselves out more often than we'd think. Or that's what I figure.
Great perspective on forest management. Makes alot of sense to me.
Great video! So many people are lost without the knowledge. 👍🏻🇺🇸
When I cut out a patch of trees , thousands of seedlings emerge , it’s like a carpet . They thin themselves , and after fourty years you can harvest marketable trees . Coastal conditions are very different , seldom is there a lack of moisture . 👍🇨🇦
Thank you so much for this imformative video about a healthy forests .
trees dying and falling over IS a healthy forest, cause it creates an environment for other animals and vegetation
Very interesting video, in Venezuela we have an area where eucaliptus was planted to stabilize the slopes and years passed with whole areas burning from time to time to the ground because there was seldom clearance of seedlings, at the beginning I thought it was normal but it's evident now it's a severe sign of mismanagement.
Excellent education on forest management strategy! It is so easy to advocate for keeping wild places as wilderness, but that trades away reasonable management for catastrophic wildfire.
It's important to remember that the context of "too many trees" all depends on which region and environment you're in. In the Southeast, the forests are WAY denser than this naturally, but that's not a problem due to the heavy rainfall. But reforestation has run into other problems there. Back about 120 years ago, most of Florida's forests were wiped out by the logging industry. This, obviously, caused desperate environmental concerns among foresters in Florida and the massive subsequent reforestation projects that happened as a result of that has absolutely covered Florida in forests like a thick blanket.
The problem is, in the effort to save Florida's iconic pine forests, way too MANY pines were planted and the current ecology consists of far more pine forests than is even natural in Florida, resulting in a dramatic shrinkage of Florida's hardwood forests, which are vital to Florida's ecology and take much longer to regrow. Also, these reforestation projects covered Florida in even more forests than was ever natural, resulting in the near disappearance of Florida's savannahs, one of its most historically typical and iconic features. And while forests are beautiful and tend to cool the landscape, they also block wind. So the interior of Florida is now often completely choked out from breeze during the blisteringly hot summer months, which is just about the last thing it needs and makes Central Florida a virtual oven when it heats up, with no breeze to blow it away. I don't know enough about the ecology to know how this affects the wildlife in particular, but it sure makes the humans living there miserable during that time of year.
A missed point is leaving wood too.
We have pine in our native forest that grows 10× as fast. Chop it into a few segments and make a lazy pile, it will become a new ecosystem
Hurrah! I preach this system to all and sundry. We call them "bio-dens." Best use of limbs and brushy scrap...
(Other than charcoal.)
Mee eens. Dood hout is belangrijk.
Well said. I do leave standing dead wood as 'snags' as well. (I had to run your reply through Bing Translate) @@biekken849
Lots of people don't realize how the density of the forest affects things. Good explanation.
It's good to hear from someone who actually knows what he's talking about, rather than abrasive, hypertheoretical ideologues.
Excellent report
Interesting
I am now changing my mind
Education...you can't beat it
Ignorant days are hell
🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
This is a good informational video, I always had a gut feeling blindly planting new trees would somehow have consequences. Of course that doesn't mean I don't like the idea, I think it's quite noble, I just think it's better knowing what you're doing before doing it
Huh... Id did not really expect such answer and troubles!
Thanks for the video!
It's the same here in Canada The people that live in the big city's don't want any trees cut because they like looking at them on the way to there cottage in the summer 😂😂😂
I manage our property the same as you do love the videos keep them coming Merry Christmas
Here in the UK, the situation is basically the opposite - so much land is agricultural or urban, so little forest is left, that if we don't proactively create and develop more woodland we'll simply run out before long. Tiny island problems.
The idea is to replant for every tree you cut down SOMEWHERE ... Obviously not where you wanted land cleared. Just somewhere on the earth! :)
I often say I've planted 3 trees for every one I've harvested (it's easily true!) .. but the ones I planted were in Alberta (I live in Ontario) and many years ago. :) .. it's the idea that you pay back the land.