Menu
What's new

Cut down a tree for the sake of having stock

Hi All

This seems like the right tread to ask this question/get information. Had to cut down a large 36" diameter oak in my yard a couple years ago. Three of the pictures are of what is left. The stump, approximate 8' length which did not finish cutting and the end grain on the 8' length. It has been lying on the ground for about 2 years. All the rest was cut and split for firewood.

Now an even larger approximate 40" diameter (measurement taken about 4' off the ground) is almost dead. A friend of mine told me he has a chainsaw guide which uses a 2 X 8 as a guide to cut boards from a log. I have never used one of these. Would it be worth it to attempt to cut up the tree. I also have a planer which fits up to 15" wide and 6" thick stock and a 10" table saw. My friend said he has a large band saw but since he has it in his basement the largest pieces we could cut is determined by what we could carry down his stairs or slide in through the basement window (two people carrying).

Any suggestions or tips since I have never tried to mill my own lumber (if you could call it that).

Since it close to power lines I will call the power company and tell them I plan on cutting it down myself. When I did that with the last tree the power company came out and cut it down. They cut off the all large branches, top it and than cut down the trunk and I must cut it up and dispose of it myself.

So it is either firewood or I attempt cutting it into slabs which means it may still wind up as firewood anyway.

All comments welcome. Thank you

Andy

tree1.jpg

tree2.jpg

tree3.jpg

tree4.jpg

tree5.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chuck Thoits said:
I would be the author of that quote. And the answer is yes I have cut down a fine specimen of a tree just to get the burl. .
Click to expand...

When wanting Burl, why can't you just slice off the burl (like a wart on your nose) ? why cut the tree for one segment? I agree that it is a replaceable commodity but it take a good deal of years to replace it. I would not cut a tree just for a segment, I would have to use the majority of the wood for one thing or another, Firewood or Lumber and of course the limbs become mulch but not a single chunk of burl would I slay a tree for, but should the wind get it or a construction site,that is another question. Amputation of the Burl is no different than amputation of a limb, perhaps for the betterment of the tree. but to sever the trunk to harvest a burl seems to be an extravagant waste. IMHO...
 
Andy, I don't really know what kind of wood you would get out of the log sitting on the ground, it could be some what punky, but if you buddy is game, why not give it a go?

I slabbed up a lot of wood using a similar set up, and it was a lot of work, but it worked well.

Cheers!
 
Andrew, the standing tree has quite a few cat faces where limbs used to be. They are pretty large and the knots will probably warp when drying. The best way to saw oak is to quarter/rift saw it. The resulting boards will be more stable than very wide flat sawn boards.

It would only be worth the trouble and work if you really needed/wanted the wood. If you decide to quarter/rift saw the standing tree, drop me a line and I will let you know how I do it; I have sawn thousands of bd.ft. of quarter/rift lumber.

The log on the ground for two years may yield some good wood from the center. Because it has been down so long you will probably get right much cant movement as the slightly drier boards are removed from the wet center. This can be relieved a little by turning the cant 180 degrees as you saw the boards off.
 
Hilel Salomon said:
If you're talking about Southern Pines in SC, they're a dime a dozen. Poplar trees in VA are relatively short lived, grow fast, and constitute a cash crop situation.
Click to expand...

I don't know about this to be honest with you. The problem with forests is that they are so complex. Plant trees in an old abandoned field and you still don't have a forest, you have a tree plantation. Saying this tree or that is a "dime a dozen" is not really accurate. Value is based on market, and markets change.

You guys would be amazed that Black Cherry in Maine is WORTHLESS. There is no market for it. You get more money selling it for firewood then you do for a sawlog. In fact Hemlock Logs are worth more then Black Cherry logs. Now this is where the market changing thing comes in. Years ago Hemlock was worthless. They would strip the bark and use it for tanning processes and other uses, but the trunk, limbs and rest of it was left in the woods to rot.

Hilel Salomon said:
Rare trees from the rain forests, I think, should not be cut down for any reason. Their disappearance will harm us all. My two cents.
Click to expand...

Actually there is a very good compelling reason TO CUT RAIN FOREST TREES DOWN. That is, its not the logging that is doing the harm down there. Its the clear cutting that they are doing to provide fields for open agriculture. Now forestry and agriculture is near and dear to my heart, and I am all for those two things, but as I said earlier in this post, a forest is a very complex ecosystem. They are trying to take a system that worked in America and Europe and trying to force it to work on a totally different part of the world. Their soil base is not the same and it just cannot handle being farmed like it is here.

What should happen is they develop more and more markets for the 1000's of tree species that exist down there. Yes there are markets for Mahogany and Teak, but they can cut more tree species then that. If the harvesting of trees makes the rain forest valuable enough, then GROWING TREES will take precedence over open agriculture. The amount of clear-cutting will be reduced, the rain forest will regrow and they can buy the food needed for open agriculture through the sale of forest products. Still its going to take sustainable forestry for that to happen, and sustainable forestry means cutting down trees (just not in huge clearcuts).

Its kind of funny. If they maintain what they are doing to achieve agricultural land, they will eventually kill the soil and starve. Yet if they stop all logging and let the trees grow,they will starve too. Sustainable forestry is the only true option!
 
Chuck Thoits said:
It is funny how things work Travis. When the power company came around here to trim. The guy came up to the house all nervous like. I asked him what I could do for him? He says I with the tree company and we are trimming on this road. I need to have your permission to take some limbs off your trees. I said show me what you are doing. So he did. Made him walk the whole road front of my piece.Then I said to him looks to me like you need to just start here and trim them all at the stump. He had the biggest look of relief on his face. Got them to clear cut a 40 foot wide by 365 foot patch of brush for free:rofl:
Saved me the trouble and the chain saw gas. They even came in with a crane to take a 110 foot pine down. By the time they where done I had the spot for my shop cleared. and about an extra half acer of pasture.:thumb:
Click to expand...

I wish they would come here to trim. I have trees that are growing up over the tops of the uppermost power line. I don't mind cutting trees on the lower line (single phase) as they won't bite you, but once they start touching the upper one, you could get a tingling sensation quite quick. :eek:

The problem is every time the wind blows it sets off the limb chopper. Yeah we get our power back on when the high voltage charge blows the limb off the line 5 seconds later, but you still get the computer shutting down and have to reset all the digital clocks in the house. For some reason I don't think whoever invented the limb chopper circuit breaker meant for it to do tree trimming for Central Maine Power.
 
Bill Simpson said:
When wanting Burl, why can't you just slice off the burl (like a wart on your nose) ? why cut the tree for one segment? I agree that it is a replaceable commodity but it take a good deal of years to replace it. I would not cut a tree just for a segment, I would have to use the majority of the wood for one thing or another, Firewood or Lumber and of course the limbs become mulch but not a single chunk of burl would I slay a tree for, but should the wind get it or a construction site,that is another question. Amputation of the Burl is no different than amputation of a limb, perhaps for the betterment of the tree. but to sever the trunk to harvest a burl seems to be an extravagant waste. IMHO...
Click to expand...


Most of the burls that I see around me are at least 10' off the ground, sometimes much much higher.

It's safer to drop a tree than to slice off a burl when it's that high.

Now, if these trees where Ents, I would concur with the "amputation of a limb" theory.
Otherwise burls are far game and I'm sure Bilbo Baggins would agree.
 
Travis Johnson said:
I don't know about this to be honest with you. The problem with forests is that they are so complex. Plant trees in an old abandoned field and you still don't have a forest, you have a tree plantation. Saying this tree or that is a "dime a dozen" is not really accurate. Value is based on market, and markets change.

You guys would be amazed that Black Cherry in Maine is WORTHLESS. There is no market for it. You get more money selling it for firewood then you do for a sawlog. In fact Hemlock Logs are worth more then Black Cherry logs. Now this is where the market changing thing comes in. Years ago Hemlock was worthless. They would strip the bark and use it for tanning processes and other uses, but the trunk, limbs and rest of it was left in the woods to rot.



Actually there is a very good compelling reason TO CUT RAIN FOREST TREES DOWN. That is, its not the logging that is doing the harm down there. Its the clear cutting that they are doing to provide fields for open agriculture. Now forestry and agriculture is near and dear to my heart, and I am all for those two things, but as I said earlier in this post, a forest is a very complex ecosystem. They are trying to take a system that worked in America and Europe and trying to force it to work on a totally different part of the world. Their soil base is not the same and it just cannot handle being farmed like it is here.

What should happen is they develop more and more markets for the 1000's of tree species that exist down there. Yes there are markets for Mahogany and Teak, but they can cut more tree species then that. If the harvesting of trees makes the rain forest valuable enough, then GROWING TREES will take precedence over open agriculture. The amount of clear-cutting will be reduced, the rain forest will regrow and they can buy the food needed for open agriculture through the sale of forest products. Still its going to take sustainable forestry for that to happen, and sustainable forestry means cutting down trees (just not in huge clearcuts).

Its kind of funny. If they maintain what they are doing to achieve agricultural land, they will eventually kill the soil and starve. Yet if they stop all logging and let the trees grow,they will starve too. Sustainable forestry is the only true option!
Click to expand...

Travis, I sure wish Jim King was active on this forum. He is a professional exotic wood exporter from Peru and an expert on the subject.
In posts and private e-mails in the past, he has pointed out that the clearing happening in the Amazon region entails far less land than the tree hugging environmentalists claim. As I recall, he said that annually it is less than 1/4 what is clear-cut logged from the state of Oregon. And, again, despite what the tree huggers claim, the Amazon forest does regenerate itself. BTW, his harvesting does not involve clear cutting, he cuts selectively and from construction projects where the trees would otherwise be wasted.
 
Yes I know Jim quite well, he is a regular on Wood Onlines Woodworking Woods Subforum. I knew him long before he came here...or used to come here. What a great resource.

One of the things I touched on, but did not really fully explain is that the Rain Forest is vastly different from anything else. If you think I have the answers you are sorely wrong. It is its own ecosystem that needs local input to save/maintain or what have you. Forcing any kind of control from the US, Europe or even the United Nations would be wrong in my opinion...they need to figure out the answers for themselves.

One thing few people understand that is even in the US, more wood is harvested in the Southeast then in the Northwest. And its by 30%-40% more. Even being from Maine, the most forested state in the nation, we harvest very little wood as compared to the Southeast. But just as we could never adopt the Southeast's way of sustainable forestry, or the Northwest's methods, they could not adopt ours either. To think we could give decisive answers to a problem so vastly different on the equator is ridiculous.

My point was rather simple though. If the Rain Forests fail to make their wood worth anything, then its not economical to keep it. World population is up, we just cannot keep forest around for the sake of keeping forests around. We can glean trees from them, and provide for the inhabitants at the same time.
 
Gosh Guys,

I don't want this to be anything but a polite discussion, but...... Instead of apocryphal comments from one man in Peru, please look up the enormous literature and documentary evidence about the disappearance of the rain forests in tropical countries. Planting a tree that will take 30-40 years to grow will do little for a poor man in a poor country who wants to practice agriculture as a quick fix. In Brazil, the cattle growers push the poorer farmers into the jungle, and they burn/cut the forests. The land quickly erodes and become worthless. Variations of this are taking place in Indonesia, Malaysia, Borneo and elsewhere. It's not just that the trees won't come back, the valuable herbs won't regrow, and huge numbers of animal species will disappear. The loss of these rain forests has disastrous effects on our environment and contributes enormously to global warming. I'm not a "tree hugger," and as with all socially conscious movements, I see excess and exaggeration -and sometimes even false alarms from those people. As a lover of wood and the art we can perform with it, I do see the need to use caution and social awareness.
I think that properly regulated, the forestry industry and lumber companies in the US do a great job. I count as my friends numerous professional loggers and mill owners. They are responsible for more growth than loss IN THE US.
No such regulatory restraints exist in the countries w/tropical rain forests. I'm distressed that anyone who loves wood would slough off this problem.
Got to get off this soap box and turn bowls.
Regards, Hilel.
 
Travis Johnson said:
My point was rather simple though. If the Rain Forests fail to make their wood worth anything, then its not economical to keep it. World population is up, we just cannot keep forest around for the sake of keeping forests around. We can glean trees from them, and provide for the inhabitants at the same time.
Click to expand...





To think that the only value in a rain forest is economics is a sorely arrogant perspective. The point that Hillel was trying to make is that the forest that we're losing in the tropics is NOT like any forest anywhere else. You can't just manage it like a US forest; weather there is not like anything we can imagine. I'd like to see pics of this "regeneration" and a scientific study, not some joeschmoe's third hand account of species diversity. To think that from an area 10,000 miles away you can understand the complex intricacies of a unique ecosystem is silly. Sometimes you have to use your head to realize that you have to see THIS forest for the FOREST, and NOT for the trees.



EDIT: Travis, I don't mean to single your post out as wrong or that you're ignorant at all. I just mean that like so many things in politics or anything; sometimes things don't work in practice like they do on paper. Trees in the rainforest don't always grow where you want them to, or for any other reason than that particular place that that particular seed fell was the perfect place for it to grow. Just like in a southern hardwood forest, a strong tree might grow for 20,30, even 40-50 years in the understory, growing upwards with a small canopy and narrow bole, only to come into its own when one of the massive ones around it falls and opens up the sunlight to the ones below. I don't know the forest in ME very well, but around here, the trees are completely different in a field and in a forest. The growth forms are not even comparable. The point I'm trying to make is that we don't know that this is even a possible option. As has already been mentioned, what's happening here is destroying the potential for any forest in the future. Once all the forest-generated organic topsoil washes away, the non-weathered clay underneath won't support agriculture, forest, or otherwise.

This isn't a 30-40 year rotation cycle. unless you are cutting enough canopy growth down to allow new growth, you're going to be watching little toothpicks growing, and if you do cut most of the overhead canopy, you might destroy the habitat for growing the trees in the first place. Its a little more complicated than "simple management".
 
Last edited:
Nathan Hawkes said:
Just like in a southern hardwood forest, a strong tree might grow for 20,30, even 40-50 years in the understory, growing upwards with a small canopy and narrow bole, only to come into its own when one of the massive ones around it falls and opens up the sunlight to the ones below.
Click to expand...

I only have time to reply to this for the moment, but trees just do not do this here in Maine. Yes shade tolerant trees like Firs, Spruce and Hemlock lay dormant for years and years in the shade of much bigger trees, but when the other trees are removed and the overstory opens up, its usually too late. These trees have been shaded for so long that old age takes over and they die in a very short amount of time.

For years I used to cut the bigger trees figuring that I was reducing the overstory and allowing the smaller trees to grow. After talking with a forester I realized I was not really doing my property justice. I was taking all the healthy trees,only to watch the smaller trees emerge and die a short time later.

Whoops.

Now I have started taking a different approach and that is to just cut junk wood. Its an age old piece of advice that I never really considered. Cut the junk wood and you always have good wood. Of course with the regeneration of junk wood being more then good wood...you never run out of wood to cut, or good wood that is on your property.

You can see an example of how clearing the overstory to allow wood to grow does not work, at least here in Maine. I saw this, this winter when I harvested my Christmas tree. You will have to take the link and then read the descriptions beside the pictures to follow me on this.

http://www.railroadmachinist.com/Wood-Christmas-Tree-Hunt.html
 
Travis Johnson said:
I only have time to reply to this for the moment, but trees just do not do this here in Maine. Yes shade tolerant trees like Firs, Spruce and Hemlock lay dormant for years and years in the shade of much bigger trees, but when the other trees are removed and the overstory opens up, its usually too late. These trees have been shaded for so long that old age takes over and they die in a very short amount of time.

For years I used to cut the bigger trees figuring that I was reducing the overstory and allowing the smaller trees to grow. After talking with a forester I realized I was not really doing my property justice. I was taking all the healthy trees,only to watch the smaller trees emerge and die a short time later.

Whoops.

Now I have started taking a different approach and that is to just cut junk wood. Its an age old piece of advice that I never really considered. Cut the junk wood and you always have good wood. Of course with the regeneration of junk wood being more then good wood...you never run out of wood to cut, or good wood that is on your property.

You can see an example of how clearing the overstory to allow wood to grow does not work, at least here in Maine. I saw this, this winter when I harvested my Christmas tree. You will have to take the link and then read the descriptions beside the pictures to follow me on this.

http://www.railroadmachinist.com/Wood-Christmas-Tree-Hunt.html
Click to expand...



Well, I'm not a forester, so I can't post an educated response to this. Perhaps the fact that your conditions are so harsh and the growing season so short that you don't have faster growth once trees have room to grow. I cut a bunch of blanks from an old white oak tree, 125+ years old. The rings started VERY tight, and when the area was apparently logged for farming 100 years ago,( maybe a little less--not sure-not my place) anyway, the rings got 3x the size, and stayed that way for 50+ years, then remained tighter & tighter for the last 50 or so years. I don't think its fair to base the opinion on stunted trees on the obviously diseased fir in your page. I completely agree with you on cutting junk wood...on your own property of course. My family has its share of problems with people cutting firewood on our land. I should talk with my uncle about this, who has a PhD in forestry/wood science. On another, completely different note, do you guys have the adelgids there, or is it too cold? Vast regions of the skyline drive, part of the blue ridge parkway, are affected.
 
Last edited:
Nathan Hawkes said:
I'd like to see pics of this "regeneration" and a scientific study, not some joeschmoe's third hand account of species diversity.
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume you are referring to Jim King when you say joeschome. I'm also going to assume you do not know who Jim King is. Not only is Jim King a professional exotic wood exporter, but he also credited with discovering at least 5 new species of trees. Jim invited a group of researchers from the University Of California to Peru and on their visit, not only verified his discovery but also found a couple more new species as well.

Nathan, you are not going to sway people to your way of thinking. Nor is it likely that others will sway yours. It's best to just let this topic drop.
 
If my aim were to sway people's way of thinking, I wouldn't be doing it here. I certainly wasn't trying to offend Mr. King, but I definitely disagree with you on the subject that he by being a professional wood exporter, whose business is on the availability of logged rainforest trees to sell to us, is somehow automatically an expert on rainforest ecology or regeneration in slash and burn situations. I wasn't referring to him specifically as a "schmoe", but rather that the idea of taking someone's third hand account on the internet isn't one that I'm likely to accept. If I had seen it, I'd be preaching about it too! I'd love to see forest regeneration happening.

The idea of protecting the rest of the rainforest by creating a vaulable export product that needs to be protected in order for the local people to make a living is noble and exciting, but it sounds like its a situation that's going to be more like the Spessart Oak forest in Germany, where generations of foresters tend a grove that when harvested, trees may be a few hundred years old when they're ready to harvest. Through forest management, they encourage strong species in the understory that can grow when the canopy is removed; as trees are harvested.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=fcc6059b45d91d4037b2664290ed524b
 
Ron Sardo said:
I'm going to assume you are referring to Jim King when you say joeschome. I'm also going to assume you do not know who Jim King is. Not only is Jim King a professional exotic wood exporter, but he also credited with discovering at least 5 new species of trees. Jim invited a group of researchers from the University Of California to Peru and on their visit, not only verified his discovery but also found a couple more new species as well.

Nathan, you are not going to sway people to your way of thinking. Nor is it likely that others will sway yours. It's best to just let this topic drop.
Click to expand...


Nathan Hawkes said:
If my aim were to sway people's way of thinking, I wouldn't be doing it here. I certainly wasn't trying to offend Mr. King, but I definitely disagree with you on the subject that he by being a professional wood exporter, whose business is on the availability of logged rainforest trees to sell to us, is somehow automatically an expert on rainforest ecology or regeneration in slash and burn situations. I wasn't referring to him specifically as a "schmoe", but rather that the idea of taking someone's third hand account on the internet isn't one that I'm likely to accept. If I had seen it, I'd be preaching about it too! I'd love to see forest regeneration happening.

The idea of protecting the rest of the rainforest by creating a vaulable export product that needs to be protected in order for the local people to make a living is noble and exciting, but it sounds like its a situation that's going to be more like the Spessart Oak forest in Germany, where generations of foresters tend a grove that when harvested, trees may be a few hundred years old when they're ready to harvest. Through forest management, they encourage strong species in the understory that can grow when the canopy is removed; as trees are harvested.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=fcc6059b45d91d4037b2664290ed524b
Click to expand...

I gather that you just enjoy arguing since you have no room for other ways of thinking. Just because a person earns a living selling wood doesn't make him evil.

There was a show was on PBS a month or two ago, maybe you had the chance to watch it. It was the most balance presentation of the tropical rainforest I've seen to date. Pick up a copy. http://www.shoppbs.org/product/index.jsp?productId=3056868

In this program you will find that slash and burn is really a tiny tiny problem compared the the 60 mile wide swath that is being cut from coast to coast though the rain forest.
 
Last edited:
Nathan Hawkes said:
If my aim were to sway people's way of thinking, I wouldn't be doing it here. I certainly wasn't trying to offend Mr. King, but I definitely disagree with you on the subject that he by being a professional wood exporter, whose business is on the availability of logged rainforest trees to sell to us, is somehow automatically an expert on rainforest ecology or regeneration in slash and burn situations. I wasn't referring to him specifically as a "schmoe", but rather that the idea of taking someone's third hand account on the internet isn't one that I'm likely to accept. If I had seen it, I'd be preaching about it too! I'd love to see forest regeneration happening.

The idea of protecting the rest of the rainforest by creating a vaulable export product that needs to be protected in order for the local people to make a living is noble and exciting, but it sounds like its a situation that's going to be more like the Spessart Oak forest in Germany, where generations of foresters tend a grove that when harvested, trees may be a few hundred years old when they're ready to harvest. Through forest management, they encourage strong species in the understory that can grow when the canopy is removed; as trees are harvested.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=fcc6059b45d91d4037b2664290ed524b
Click to expand...

Nathan, Jim cuts selectively on land he owns. He also harvests from projects such as road building to salvage what would otherwise be lost. He is almost obsessive about documenting the Amazon with photographs. I don't know what it "sounds like" to you and cannot help there. After, literally, scores of e-mail communications with Jim, I can give my assurance that he is a noble person devoted to protecting the eco-system that provides his livelihood. His wife spends a great deal of time and resources rescuing forest animals that have fallen on hard times. I am confident that he would be happy to communicate with you if you contact him. Jim is a member here but seldom visits. Contact him via his business web site:
http://www.exoticwoodworld.com/
BTW, if I sound defensive of him it is because I am. I'm convinced he is one of the good guys. He has personally helped me with a treasure trove of fascinating information about the jungles, lives and lore of the people there for a novel I am writing that is set in the jungles of Peru and Bolivia.
(I now expect the mods to slap my fingers for digressing)
 
I swore I wasn't going to wade in on this topic again, but..... I simply can't. I was born and raised in Bolivia, keep in touch with numerous people from Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador and Brazil, not a few of whom are botanists and zooligists. I know from them and from numerous scientific studies which are available to anyone, that the tropical rain forests are not being regenerated. Exotic wood exporters may not be the most reliable source for determining the truth of this. If you go to furniture outlets which feature Indonesian or Malaysian mahogany, you will hear them explain that none of their furniture came from the rain forests. It ain't so.
Don't take my word!!! Look it up!!! If you've got small children or grandchildren, buy or rent the dvd "Planet Earth"and watch the dvd devoted to rain forests. It's a great way of baby sitting, and it explains clearly why the cutting of these trees is disastrous. The destruction of these rain forests isn't just a shame because these trees will disappear forever. This act is destroying our earth's ecosystem and we will all suffer the consequences. I'm not normally a preacher, but I simply can't ignore a cavalier attitude which will hurt my children and grandchildren irreparably.
Hilel.
If you don't like Al Gore, GreenPeace, and the like, but are serious about references, please pm me, and I'll be happy to provide them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top