Longleaf Alliance ? ? ?

[Tuffy]

Educate me. They sure developed a brilliant organizational strategy. There aren't many federal or state professionals that aren't under the umbrella. There are a lot of smart (and good) people chanting the same chants with money in their hands.

[MC]

Not sure what you mean by your last sentence. They are advocating for the restoration of Longleaf habitats throughout the tree's historical range, which includes a good section of SC. They understand that in order to be successful, they need private land owners, which means they need to make the case for Longleaf being able to pay its way.

[Calibogue]

Tuffy, I have to say I DO NOT agree with yours and others hard-line stance that "longleaf management" is not an advocate of game, most notably Eastern wild turkey!
I have followed along with some (not all) of the FB comments and seen where you posted the above statement I believe....you can correct me if I'm wrong and I believe it was in some dialogue with the girl working at Brosnan.
I am not an educator therefore I do not have the patience or time to educate here or FB on such subjects.
I will say one last time though, managed SE pine forests are among the most biologically diverse in the world!
Also, my opinion is the USFS is going about their management all wrong and with blinders on, they only know one direction and unfortunately you must sometimes turn left, right, and go backwards to make forward momentum!
They are destroying timber resources in the name of LL establishment among other atrocities.
This sheds a very bad light upon the LL pine restoration efforts because it doesn't have to be this way.
As usual, look around at what private landowners are doing compared to the government agenda.....it is apples and oranges!
Do not be influenced by the USFS's mismanagement of our natural resources and the awesome tree the longleaf pine is!

[Gut_Pile]

He's right you know ^^^

[Tuffy]

Cali.... I'm much closer to you than you think and can easily see where the negative perception is being created. The USFS is certainly not helping my perception. I might be wrong, but I believe that what you mean by good management is pretty close to what I would mean and that's a far-cry from the fire-climax Longleaf Savanna intended by some such as USFS. I don't believe THAT is biologically diverse; do you? To the extent I'm correct about that, those type of proponents effectively have you better practitioners running interference for them. I wanted to hear your thoughts. There are a good many super forestry types in federal and state agencies that I see in similar positions. Defend the good practices from the public complainers like me, but I swear, we need for you to push on those on your side of the fence that are not helping and creating those questions. Asking that of the public sector employees makes better sense, but I don't think they will do it. Longleaf as the dominant member of a well-managed forest makes sense, but it might take a while for me to understand WHY if it were not for the public sector up-front financial assistance and the cut everything else first steps in implementing it. Those are incentives and I don't know why they exist if it's that good.

[Tuffy]

He's right you know ^^^

No, I don't know that, but I did expect to get a good answer.... I did. It may not sound like it because I don't hide my skepticism, but I am asking the question. Educate me.

[Gut_Pile]

I will say one last time though, managed SE pine forests are among the most biologically diverse in the world!

As usual, look around at what private landowners are doing compared to the government agenda.....it is apples and oranges!

Do not be influenced by the USFS's mismanagement of our natural resources and the awesome tree the longleaf pine is!

More specifically these three things.

[BlackTom]

Palmetto Bug has learnt me more on the longleaf pine habitat than any organization or book could ever. He is in the middle of a mecca. He's your man

[Calibogue]

Cali.... I'm much closer to you than you think and can easily see where the negative perception is being created. The USFS is certainly not helping my perception. I might be wrong, but I believe that what you mean by good management is pretty close to what I would mean and that's a far-cry from the fire-climax Longleaf Savanna intended by some such as USFS. I don't believe THAT is biologically diverse; do you? To the extent I'm correct about that, those type of proponents effectively have you better practitioners running interference for them. I wanted to hear your thoughts. There are a good many super forestry types in federal and state agencies that I see in similar positions. Defend the good practices from the public complainers like me, but I swear, we need for you to push on those on your side of the fence that are not helping and creating those questions. Asking that of the public sector employees makes better sense, but I don't think they will do it. Longleaf as the dominant member of a well-managed forest makes sense, but it might take a while for me to understand WHY if it were not for the public sector up-front financial assistance and the cut everything else first steps in implementing it. Those are incentives and I don't know why they exist if it's that good.

Yes, I do believe it is diverse and once again, some of the most bio diverse on the planet.
Fire, climax, longleaf Savannah is absolutely what I'm talking about!

Stop the aerial ignition and it ALL gets better......PERIOD!
Even continue with the growing season fires, just stop the massive,intense, destructive aerial ignitions.

Young fawns and fowl unable to mobilize rapidly are doomed with multi-directional fires of such large scale.....confused and exhausted=DEAD!
To the contrary, sensible, one or two directional fires allow plenty of time for mom to guide young critters to safety.

To the silvicultural side of things....its just plain stupid what is going on!

Put the Ntl. Forest timber management in the hands of the private sector, local businesses make good money as well as the Govt.
LL restoration, wildlife, govt. slush fund generated by private foresters, local economy.......all win!

[Tuffy]

Thanks. There's enough for me to find important in there that I can't quibble over the diversity, but will keep looking at the though; just wish you hadn't been that solid about it being climax and savanna, but you know first-hand. I just can't read it that way so far. Wish I'd caught up with you and seen it. It's just very hard for me to picture your habitat with that description matching up with the intent/images of that used by FS (for example).

Correct me when I'm wrong.... Kindly... I'm old.

[Calibogue]

Climax or 5 years old, all the same...the important thing is FIRE!
Fire brings herbaceous ground cover and bugs....lots of em.

[Tuffy]

I'll buy that and opine that FS practices minimize those exact two benefits. Very large, intense growing season burns are, arguably, intended to minimize the presence/appearance of a large variety of herbaceous ground cover..... except for grasses? I'm thinking that you value other types.

Isn't it true that bugs/insects actually have to repopulate a heavily burned area from outside of that area? Does that imply that large burns take significantly longer to be repopulated? With appropriate low-intensity, smaller-scale burning, I'm with you on both counts.

Maybe more aesthetically than any way I've been able to measure, I sure see later-succession mixed forests as more appealing, though. Given the financial and resource flexibility, isn't that the kind of diversity that I would really want for wildlife and personal enjoyment? Diversity of forest succession levels? Without that, aren't we ultimately eliminating the hardwood forests from immense parts of the landscape? Squirrels and turkeys quickly come to mind, but I think the same holds true for most mammalian and avian species. I think that some of the basic literature on Longleaf ecosystems describe the bird species diversity as "not particularly high" and even describe the mammal fauna as "depauperate". Biodiversity based on grasses and reptile/amphibian species is sure not unimportant, but not what I think most of us have in mind when we use the word.

Despite all that, it is certainly better done right than done wrong. I don't really mean to argue; just wanted you to understand how/why I seem to disagree with you. It's only in the theory sense and I recognize the real-world need for tradeoffs in land management. It's not just for looks or just for wildlife. Well, maybe the NF should be, but even they were originally intended to assure the availability of timber, I think.

[Calibogue]

No, the fires are intended to promote diverse herbaceous cover both grasses and forbes.
The intent is to minimize woody understory competition (like waxmyrtle, sweetgum, fetterbush, gallberry to name a few) that inhibit herbaceous development.

Once again, I do not support large aerial ignited fires as proper forest management!

Also, I believe there should be a balance of forest types but a lot less mixed woodlands.
Quail don't thrive in mixed woodlands!

BALANCE....

[Tuffy]

No strong disagreements there.... These days.

Thanks.

[Strick9]

I agree with you both Cali and Tuffy. Its truly night and day between proper and improper management and restoration efforts applied to private versus public lands LL restoration efforts.

Cali , from a timber money/harvest/time approach, which species matures ( on average) is the fastest and is more readily harvested for profit ?.. Isn't Lob the correct answer? Even if we are talking chip wood harvest right?

So if I am correct there lets move forward, (if not correct me) but might there be some weight to the statements of late, that private land owners and the USFS opt the way of LL restoration mainly to collect Federal grant monies to offset the delayed time of harvest money as compared with quicker returns on LB? ( not my statement but can say that I see such).

Habitat wise, that of a mature LL stand versus LB stand are really close in species and diversity upon the same region even down to the RCW, which has been documented. Now of course a mixed pine/hardwood forest is even more biologically diverse but hampers timber harvest gains. Mixed age class stands even the better for diversity as well.

I hear the fire acclimated landscape/habitat debate often as well.. My thoughts are that both species can and do readily sustain low intensity fire but the LB would certainly encourage one to be much more careful with fire. LL obviously being more tolerant to mid-high intensity fires (what we don't want to duplicate).

If we looked at mature/climax and even to OG stands of both we would also find the same grasses, forbes and animal species "for the most part". One species predominating over the other will certainly rule out "exact oriented species" but I believe such will always be the case. We agree on the timber mortality entirely, its unnerving. One thing of note with LL restoration as related to areas that are currently pine/hardwood mix is that we have now created a mono culture and removed what the new kids on the block like to call ecotones, I call them soft edge or transition zones.

No doubt the lumber of LL is superior in many aspects and some species are specific to LL , just curious as to your thoughts on this topic as it comes up often?

In all honesty, I am just really curious as to the true driver behind the LL restoration in your opinion? Is it simply to go back into nostalgic time or was the movement possibly a knee jerk reaction to climate change that came with money handouts all originating during Obamas tenure?

[MC]

Tuffy you are right that up until a few decades ago it was commonly held that turkeys needed large expanses of mature mixed forest. That thought process has been largely dismissed following the restocking of turkeys throughout their original range. Turkeys have been found to do best with a balance of forest types just like what Cali is saying.

When you look at what the seed bank can produce when sunlight is allowed to the ground and the duff layer is reduced it really isn't hard to see why it is so much better. It is just different from what the last 100 years or so has looked like.

Again, not talking about wildfire set at the hands of the USFS, but low intensity, high frequency fire the way it was long before any of us thought we knew better.

Go walk some of these areas that are being managed with low intensity, high frequency fire and see for yourself how much food there is, how much cover exists in different forms and density and how it is being utilized by wildlife. Watch how it changes over the course of the year and what happens as fire goes through it again.

[Strick9]

I agree with you both Cali and Tuffy. Its truly night and day between proper and improper management and restoration efforts applied to private versus public lands LL restoration efforts.

Cali , from a timber money/harvest/time approach, which species matures ( on average) is the fastest and is more readily harvested for profit ?.. Isn't Lob the correct answer? Even if we are talking chip wood harvest right?

So if I am correct there lets move forward, (if not correct me) but might there be some weight to the statements of late, that private land owners and the USFS opt the way of LL restoration mainly to collect Federal grant monies to offset the delayed time of harvest money as compared with quicker returns on LB? ( not my statement but can say that I see such).

Habitat wise, that of a mature LL stand versus LB stand are really close in species and diversity upon the same region even down to the RCW, which has been documented. Now of course a mixed pine/hardwood forest is even more biologically diverse but hampers timber harvest gains. Mixed age class stands even the better for diversity as well.

I hear the fire acclimated landscape/habitat debate often as well.. My thoughts are that both species can and do readily sustain low intensity fire but the LB would certainly encourage one to be much more careful with fire. LL obviously being more tolerant to mid-high intensity fires (what we don't want to duplicate).

If we looked at mature/climax and even to OG stands of both at equal basil density we would also find the same grasses, forbes and animal species "for the most part". One species predominating over the other will certainly rule out "exact oriented species" but I believe such will always be the case. We agree on the timber mortality entirely, its unnerving. One thing of note with LL restoration as related to areas that are currently pine/hardwood mix is that we have now created a mono culture and removed what the new kids on the block like to call ecotones, I call them soft edge or transition zones.

No doubt the lumber of LL is superior in many aspects and some species are specific to LL , just curious as to your thoughts on this topic as it comes up often?

In all honesty, I am just really curious as to the true driver behind the LL restoration in your opinion? Is it simply to go back into nostalgic time or was the movement possibly a knee jerk reaction to climate change that came with money handouts all originating during Obamas tenure and his creation of " The Resilient Program" as noted in the millions of dollars shown in the linked article below?

Don't take any of this the wrong way, if we can slowly over time and properly restore Long Leaf without detriment as has been seen on some private lands I can stand with the program on some expanse. However beyond nostalgic gains I can't really put my finger on the true pros, it seems at least to me, to lead to decreased timber production and possibly at the risk of further mono culture creation (as LB have there oriented species as well) and through its rapid deployment most certainly can be of detriment to wildlife as you have noted , the NF being a perfect example of such..

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengo...0Proposals.pdf

[Tuffy]

MC .... Well said. What you describe is what I envision, but not what comes to mind with "Longleaf Savanna". BTW: It's my impression that the original pre-19th century observations appear to describe two different ecosystems that we have run together in a vision. They talked about "savannas" with descriptions like "meadows" and "treeless", but they also spoke of "pine barrens". It's not obvious to me how those two pre-settlement ecosystems became "pine savannas", but I have no doubts that a lot of just that did exist. It's interesting.

Some of you guys have to let me see that well-managed habitat when it is convenient.

[MC]

Tuffy look up the book "Longleaf Far As The Eye Can See". Now I will warn you up front I found a gross error related to turkeys in the first 2 minutes of flipping through it that nearly warranted throwing it in the trash! But it is a decent read and best of all it has some excellent photography of some of the best stands of longleaf across the region. Even if you don't want to believe a word you read out of it, your wife will want to put it on the coffee table.

[jws]

No, the fires are intended to promote diverse herbaceous cover both grasses and forbes.
The intent is to minimize woody understory competition (like waxmyrtle, sweetgum, fetterbush, gallberry to name a few) that inhibit herbaceous development.

Once again, I do not support large aerial ignited fires as proper forest management!

Also, I believe there should be a balance of forest types but a lot less mixed woodlands.
Quail don't thrive in mixed woodlands!

BALANCE....

Gallberry is an absolute bitch to cut survey lines through...