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
Bookmarks