Cavechat.org

I really hope most, if not all of you on this forum will agree with this statement: Clear cutting trees is detrimental to the welfare of the earth.
Clear cutting creates landslides on steep land, and also reduces photosynthesis. It also creates hot spots on earth where they did not exist before
due to radiation from the sun. Shade is a good thing and trees clean the air as well as reducing temperatures locally. A lack of trees is what can
create desert conditions.

Mostly true, except there is a way to avoid many of those problems if the clear cut is done properly. I do agree that just going in and completely cutting down a forest all at once is irresponsible. I'm not a forester but I learned a bit about a stand of Norway Spruce my college grows and logs about a half hour south of Syracuse. What you do is before cutting all the trees you do a thinning and cut a small portion of trees. This allows enough light to reach the forest floor and let the next generation of trees to sprout and begin growing. You then let the forest grow for several years, if done properly most of the gorund will be covered in saplings. You can then do a clear cut of all the larger trees and harvest the timber. The young saplings will be holding the soil together and shading it and the next generation of the forest will grow. It takes time and proper management but the end result is that the forest will keep regenerating and yield more timber than would be obtained by just clear cutting an entire tract.

tncaver wrote:I really hope most, if not all of you on this forum will agree with this statement: Clear cutting trees is detrimental to the welfare of the earth.
Clear cutting creates landslides on steep land, and also reduces photosynthesis. It also creates hot spots on earth where they did not exist before
due to radiation from the sun. Shade is a good thing and trees clean the air as well as reducing temperatures locally. A lack of trees is what can
create desert conditions.

You will probably only see clear cutting in South America and other third world countries that do not care about conservation.

BrianC wrote:

tncaver wrote:I really hope most, if not all of you on this forum will agree with this statement: Clear cutting trees is detrimental to the welfare of the earth.
Clear cutting creates landslides on steep land, and also reduces photosynthesis. It also creates hot spots on earth where they did not exist before
due to radiation from the sun. Shade is a good thing and trees clean the air as well as reducing temperatures locally. A lack of trees is what can
create desert conditions.

You will probably only see clear cutting in South America and other third world countries that do not care about conservation.

You need to fly over the Cumberland Plateau in a small plane Brian. There is tons of clear cutting done right here in TAG. In most cases
the loggers leave a small band of trees around the clear cuts to keep anyone from seeing the bald land they left behind. There are also
landslides in the Obey River that were caused by clear cutting on slopes that were too steep. I think that particular logging company
was fined for it.

muddyface1.21 wrote:Mostly true, except there is a way to avoid many of those problems if the clear cut is done properly. I do agree that just going in and completely cutting down a forest all at once is irresponsible. I'm not a forester but I learned a bit about a stand of Norway Spruce my college grows and logs about a half hour south of Syracuse. What you do is before cutting all the trees you do a thinning and cut a small portion of trees. This allows enough light to reach the forest floor and let the next generation of trees to sprout and begin growing. You then let the forest grow for several years, if done properly most of the gorund will be covered in saplings. You can then do a clear cut of all the larger trees and harvest the timber. The young saplings will be holding the soil together and shading it and the next generation of the forest will grow. It takes time and proper management but the end result is that the forest will keep regenerating and yield more timber than would be obtained by just clear cutting an entire tract.

Agreed. If things are done right it can be sustainable. However, I don't see that happening in the plateau. I think our government actually was going to
require that paper companies replant like you mentioned. So they sold off the land to private interests and state governments with contracts to cut.
Now they don't have to replant. That obligation now lies with the new owners. There always seems to be a way around doing the right thing.

If that is happening in Tennessee in this day and age somebody is dropping the ball. The Pacific Northwest has been practicing conservation minded clear-cutting for decades. Surely there is an agency that can be contacted and the regulations reviewed?

Phil Winkler wrote:If that is happening in Tennessee in this day and age somebody is dropping the ball. The Pacific Northwest has been practicing conservation minded clear-cutting for decades. Surely there is an agency that can be contacted and the regulations reviewed?

Until recent years, the paper companies clear cut and then replanted pine trees. It left an ugly barren area for a few years until the seedlings grew,
but trees did come back. Not a deciduous forest but still trees.

Then due to more requirements by our government and increased taxes the paper companies decided they would be better off selling off most
of their land. So they have. They are now getting around new rules and taxes by making timber contracts with private landowners who bought
their land. So now the paper companies get their wood and leave the taxes and replanting up to the new landowners. Clear cutting is
not pretty, can cause landslides, increases heat gain and loss (which creates deserts), reduces oxygen creation, etc.

Paper companies sold thousands of acres here in TN. Conservation groups, the state, hunting clubs and developers have bought up much of it.
The bottom line is that access for caving has just about dried up on those previously accessible thousands of acres. Everyone that bought up
that land has for the most part reduced access far below what it once was.

For preservationists, this it great. For the rest of the world maybe not so great.