Originally Posted by
BernieCarbo
Yes, it is debatable. There isn't even real definitions of what all those terms are. Let's dissect it and use forests in the north as an example.
After a forest is decimated (and it has happened many times since the ice age), a very predictable cycle of growth starts. First, you have grasslands. This gives way to low bushes like raspberries and elderberries. Them comes soft-lived trees like alder. Next is poplar, birch, and ash, in that order. Last comes the dominant long-lived trees that will hang around for hundreds of years, which in my area will be either rock maple or red oak. These start out as tall, thin, straight trees because they were protected by the previous generation of trees, so they have the beginnings of a perfect log for lumber in the future. But even these trees don't live forever, and after 300 years or so, they die and younger ones take their place. It isn't perfectly neat and organized as I describe, and there will be a few of another species included too, but maple and oak will definitely dominate for a very long time until something happens to start the process over. So, when the settlers came, these are the trees that they found.
"Second growth" can mean a lot of different things. If the forest was wiped out by fire and the entire process started over, then it technically is second growth because it wasn't first, but its still starting from nothing. This is where woodland management come in. If I clear-cut my woodlot and left it barren, it would definitely repopulate with oak and maple. It is also second growth, but the problem is that all of the trees will be the same age, they will not have protection, they will be in the form of suckers from the stump instead of from seed. When that happens, infections from the rotting stump work its way up through the trunk over the following decades. The ring pattern is very irregular because the tree got too much sunlight. The logs will be curved and twisted because of the lack of competition to keep them straight. The timber will be full of knots because the tree grew branches low to the ground. That is why the Versailles oak that they started growing in 1840 will be suitable for the ND reconstruction- they mimicked the conditions to grow a perfect tree.
My forest is a mix of good and bad. Some of it was logged in the 50's and the trees today are sprouts from the stumps, and other than a few random lucky trees, the most value I can get from them is for railroad ties or something like that. The good part is that they seeded new trees around them, and there are thousands of young oak that stand tall and straight around them, and even after 50 years they are only six inches in diameter, so they are very much like first growth wood. I also have some areas of wetland that were never cut off, and there are some oak in there that are almost four feet in diameter and are probably 200 years old, but I'll let them be and let them seed the area around them. From my perspective, I could make some pretty big bucks if I just cut everything right now. I know some of those large oaks are worth as much as ten grand each. I have a few hundred smaller trees that are very straight and would turn out some nice veneer logs that would return a few thousand dollars each. There is endless firewood (figure 10 cord per acre) and boltwood (used as pulp and pallets). But I don't need the money, and just pull out enough to encourage new growth and pay for the taxes and expenses.
But at the end of the day, it is definitely possible to create a "first growth" forest if it is maintained. It will not be possible to maximize profits for the people managing it today anymore than the people who planted the Versailles oak, but it is still possible to make a decent return. You really have to be a big picture guy. Sometimes I cut a big 16" oak that looks perfectly fine, but it was at the expense of several younger threes that will be majestic in 100 years, but I'll never see it.
I'm not an expert. I just grew up around trees and the logging industry. My great grandfather used to ride the river on those big log drives from Canada, and my grandfather spent every winter in woods camps before the drives in the spring. And, they unwittingly managed the forest in a good way. See, back in 1880-1930, there was little mechanization, and if all you had was a saw and ax to cut a tree, you didn't cut any tree unless it was necessary. Consequently, they cut mature trees and left younger trees behind, which produced a constant supply. But then with huge demand of newsprint and cardboard, it became profitable to clear-cut everything, and the forest dynamics changed drastically. This was already evident in populated areas where the forests were already clear-cut for fuel.
I'll be on my woodlot for a couple more days, and I'll post a couple of pics if I see some good representative examples.