Low impact removal of big trees?

[Stephen1]

Okay I give up! This is being taken the wrong way - my point has nothing to do with humans and their philosphical, religous, ethical or whatever place in the landscape (When I'm not managing woodland, or researching certain aspects of woodland conservation I'm a sheep farmer so don't imagine I have some unrealistic over-romantic view of humans, nature and non-intervention. We have 60+million people on this island and we need food, fuel and natural resources from the land - which makes it all the more important that the very best "value" is made of any land that anyone has chosen to manage for conservation - to my mind that means making sure all potential approaches are explored). I really had no intention at all to offend, stress or hector anyone - I just thought this is a woodland forum so here's the place to discuss this sort of thing?

So anyway back to Oldclaypaws original question. You're asking about options for low impact thinning of your oak.

First we need a little more information about your woodland as it currently is;

What sort of soil do you have - is it mainly clay or is it mainy free draining sand/stone/shale?
What is the network of tracks and rides that you currently have?
Is the ground level or sloping?
What sort of access do you have on to the nearest road?
What level of disturbance, and timescale for a superficial visual recovery from the disturbance would you consider acceptable?

What is the form of the oak trees you wish to remove? Ninety years of non-intervention might mean you're looking at firewood rather than veneer quality stems - but hopefully something inbetween!

Unfortunately the most important question in terms of low impact extraction is what sort of budget do you have for the operation? I appreciate that might be a bit intrusive, but it really is the most important question. There are lots of options available to you, and it really comes down to what you perceive as low impact, or at least what woud be tolerable to you and your wallet! I appreciate you might not wish to discuss that online, but perhaps a clue of roughly where on a line from shoestring to cost-no-object would help stop us wasting time talking through options that aren't feasible.

Regards
Stephen

[Stephen1]

Thanks for your comment carlight

[Stephen1]

Sheep farmer, eh? Although beautiful, sheep grazing has certainly changed the natural landscape. It didn't do much for North Africa. Round here they call sheep farmers Baa-studs, but I don't understand what it means.

Thank you for explaining that to me.

I think you may be overestimating the value of your trees and understimating the cost of low impact extraction. I would make suggestions, but I can take a hint.

[Rich]

If the previous post is too long for this forum then no offence taken if one of the mods wants to remove it!

No problems with long posts as far as board ettiquette is concerned, however I just found in the settings a 'charactor limit' of 60000, this is probabaly the default setting to stop someone hijaking the board and pasting the complete works of shakespere or something. I'll leave it at that for now. But Stephen, you're posts are very valuable to the group, so if you have a subject you are particularly interested in whilst responding to a post, I would be more than happy to post this as an article on the main site. I guess there's people who aren't so keen on participating on the board, but like to check the website for new articles.

[ncrawshaw]

I feel slightly intimidated by some of the previous erudite posts! However I do have one or two practical suggestions.
Firstly, I found it very useful to seek the advice of the local F.C. officer. He gave me good advice on thinning my woodland and also knew of local contractors and timber purchasers. You will need to get in touch with the F.C. anyway as you will no doubt need a felling licence.
Are you intending to do the work yourself or employ someone else? I see that you are relatively new to woodland ownership so probably felling them yourself would not be advisable! To forward the resulting timber in a low impact manner means one of two options: a horse or an ATV with a logging arch. Horses are higher maintenance than ATVs so I've opted for the latter! I use the ATV in the woods for all sorts of things and I built my own logging arch from a couple of old trailer wheels and axles and some scrap steel.
I hope that's of some use.

[MartinD]

The main problem is that the starting point for the woodland in question, if all the large trees are of a uniform size and species, is that it started off as a managed woodland, and is therefore now an unmanaged woodland, rather than a natural landscape which should therefore be left untouched. I own a similar 5 acre plot, where I have a lot of large 100+ year trees, which, although it is 'ancient woodland', were planted when the woodland was a resource, and have since been abandoned. I am working to a woodland management plan, with the assistance of the forestry commission, and the intention is to return it to its 'natural' state. In order to achieve this, I am heavily thinning invasive species, such as sycamore, by felling; removing natural species which are outside their normal range, such as beech, by not replanting; removing rhododendron (which have destroyed the understorey); clearing glades; re-planting with native species within the community type for the woodland. The intention is to create a range of species, and a range of ages, so that a majority of the stems do not suddently disappear as they reach an age. The 'plan' is what the woodland will look like in 100 years rather than next year. I appreciate what RichardKing and stephen1 are saying, but there is very little woodland in the UK which is 'natural' - most of it is there as a result of a managed planting scheme in the past, and the goal of current woodland management plans is to return it to an unmanaged state, daft as it sounds

[Stephen1]

. I appreciate what RichardKing and stephen1 are saying, but there is very little woodland in the UK which is 'natural' - most of it is there as a result of a managed planting scheme in the past, and the goal of current woodland management plans is to return it to an unmanaged state, daft as it sounds

I think you must be misreading my posts?????

Of course the woodland isn't natural. I was pointing out that this woodand in it's current state could with management (that was the bit where I was suggesting using people with chainsaws to 'manage' some of the existing old oaks to create so called "cavity trees") offer an opportunity to establish old growth style conditions and habitats in considerably less time than would be the case if nothing was done.
That is to "manage" the woodland to try and create the sort of habitat that the woodland might potentially reach if left unmanaged for several centuries longer - but to achieve these conditions much more quickly.

P.S. Trying to define what is "natural" is actually very tricky - let alone trying to define what is "future natural" - that can only ever be a judgement call based on experience and current research - and if you ask 10 woodland ecologists you'll get at least 11 answers with more than just subtle differences!

[Toby Allen]

I wouldnt worry too much what other peoples opinions are. It's your wood, manage it how you see fit. Just remember a wood which pays is one that stays

Back to the original question, heavy machinery extracting timber doesnt necessarily mean total destruction of ecosystems, and so on. Whats more important is using the appropriate kit for the job, at the right time. A decent size machine will be in and out of the woods in very little passes, leaving the wildlife to get back to their business. A smaller (low impact) machine could be struggling to move the bigger timber, cut up the ground and take a lot more passes. Likewise using a big machine to get a few poles out of a bog is inappropriate. The same goes for horses, brilliant for bringing timber to a place where a it can be forwarded out, but not so good for dragging logs 500m to a loading bay.

In my experience getting in and out fast is the best way to extract and let the woods recover quickly. A mixture of methods, mequine (horse and machine) and so on seems to work best.

Mobile sawmilling is an option but you still need to get the timber out to sell it, plus have decent access for the mill.

[Sparrowhatchforestry]

if access is very poor then chainsaw milling may be an option, it is very hard work and generally not very profitable unless you will be using the timber yourself but you can carry all your kit in and out by hand, possibly the lowest impact of all. also remember low impact systems and smaller kit may not be up to the job of moving large sections of tree. There are many other options beside felling that could reduce the canopy cover, I can PM you further details if required. When I did my training we were taught that for "Conservation" coppice management then you should aim for 40% canopy cover and for production coppice a canopy cover of around 10%. Where in the country is your wood, around my way there are allways people wanting good oak, and a high demand means a better price.