View Single Post
Old 03-25-2022, 10:04 AM   #43
montcalm
Member
 
montcalm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by John H Swanson View Post
IMO, there should be a program to relocate saplings from trail corredors, but maybe I'm just too soft that way.

Perhaps this thread doesn't seem that way, but I try to think of things a bit more pragmatically.


Yeah, killing saplings is like killing "baby" trees, but it's also not really an apples to apples comparison. Many, actually most, saplings will die. Most seedlings die. Trees are meant to produce a large number of offspring with the hope that one will make it to maturity and take an open spot in the canopy. But the reality is, that only happens to a few.

We've chosen to cut and maintain trails - they have some impact, but in terms of acreage degraded vs. acreage preserved, it's by far a net benefit. Most trails can be built and maintained in such a way they really don't interfere with established trees, and there are ways to circumvent blowdown or beaver activity, although our regulations perhaps make that more challenging than it needs to be. Trails that get regular use will not grow vegetation, seedlings or otherwise, due to trampling.


Again the main difference I see here is area. If you want to clear a huge swath of hill of saplings and maintain it like a ski area, it's going to have large, contiguous, detrimental impact on the forest. A trail has an impact, and it's contiguous, but if it's an acre total of sapling clearing, it's spread over a much larger area say if it's spanning 1 mile of trail (hypothetical swags). If you clear an acre of saplings for skiing in a glade, it's going be concentrated in that one acre.

Maybe it's not much different in terms of impact as is a beaver pond? But it affects a different environment i.e. steep slopes, so there are probably more detrimental impacts in terms of erosion and water quality than is a lowland, where you act to trap those sediments and build up deeper soils with deforestation.


This goes back to my theory of "dilution" of impact. Trails cause a heavy impact but they are spread out and rehabilitate quickly after abandonment. Same with campsites. That's why periodically relocating or building them for higher use is I think a better practice. For instance, there are tons of old camp and cabin sites that are probably not much older than the APA i.e pre-1970s that are almost completely indistinguishable from the rest of the forest except for garbage left behind. If not for that, it might be hard to tell if that "hole" in the forest was caused by a blowdown or lightning, etc...

Last edited by montcalm; 03-25-2022 at 03:44 PM..
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote