TW200 Forum banner
  • Hey Everyone! Enter your bike HERE to be a part of this months Bike of the Month Challenge!
1 - 1 of 1 Posts

420 Posts
Weather and bugs rapidly deteriorate dead trees. They quickly become worthless for lumber, and nobody will bid to harvest them. An after burn lawsuit need only delay harvest a couple years to “win”.

Right or wrong, my understanding of the harvest argument comes from time spent in Montana. Harvest provides an economic boom that sure seems like proper management of a valuable public resource to me. On the other hand, leaving the trees is suppose to fertilize the next generation, and reduce sediment runoff into creeks. Over the years I have come to realize valid points exist on both sides making it a tough call.

Burns can be great elk habitat. Standing tracts of older burnt trees can be scary to enter. With more than a slight breeze, one hears the constant thunder of falling trees.

Too bad we can’t at least agree to cut danger trees back away from paved roads, dirt roads, and two tracks.
This is very interesting. I will start looking for this phenomena. Still, what Native Americans had done for centuries with controlled burns, then plantings seem to indicate that the private landowners have it right on this point. P
1 - 1 of 1 Posts