loggers are coming to clear the land behind us

[coobie]

found out today that surveyers were here to mark trees on the forest land adjacent to me. the last cut was 30-35 years ago so i guess the trees are mature enough now to take them to market. i am really upset because the trees are beautiful fir and cedar and they protect us from the strong north and east winds year round as well as runoff and prvide alot of privacy. not to mention we use the trails in the woods all the time for hiking and horseback riding. it's irritating because they own roughly 20,000 acres of land and there are many other areas they could harvest before taking these. don't get me wrong i am not against logging but this time it's too close for comfort! so i am looking for ways (legally) to deter them from moving forward. luckily they are not planning on doing the work until next summer (2013) so i have some time to formulate a plan! does anyone have ideas on how to handle this, is there any upside to this? looking for any advice you can provide or personal experiences with this type of event.

The folks who own that land has every right to log it.Maybe you need to move to the city.coobie

 

[20 20]

I did not take the posts that way, just information on forestry management. Your end goals are going to dictate human intervention or a hands off policy.

We intervened when we took about fifty acres out of row crop production where cash crop rent is $150 per acre and up and put trees in. By selecting a variety of hardwoods and conifers along with thinning in the future. We tried the hands off approach and the trees are just too close and vines are taking over in some places.

On about 150 acres of fairly mature trees, we don't do anything.

The end goal is how many $$$$ can be made, we manage forest to make a buck and we try to do it the quickest way possible. Trees of today are MUCH smaller then they were years ago when logging 1st started. I do believe mother nature knows plenty on how to survive, that was my point. I have nothing against good logging practices, just find it funny when it's done and some one claims if it weren't for them the forest would fall apart. This comment is NOT aimed at any one person, I've just seen/heard it said more then once and have to laugh :laughing:. I also understand population will and allready has dictated how "we" will try to control mother nature and squeeze everything possible out of her.

 

[TripleR]

The end goal is how many $$$$ can be made, we manage forest to make a buck and we try to do it the quickest way possible. Trees of today are MUCH smaller then they were years ago when logging 1st started. I do believe mother nature knows plenty on how to survive, that was my point. I have nothing against good logging practices, just find it funny when it's done and some one claims if it weren't for them the forest would fall apart. This comment is NOT aimed at any one person, I've just seen/heard it said more then once and have to laugh :laughing:. I also understand population will and allready has dictated how "we" will try to control mother nature and squeeze everything possible out of her.

I can only speak for how I manage land under my control and that of my family and the motivation is not financial. Our goals are wildlife management, water quality, erosion control/land stabilization and personal enjoyment.

Several other land owners around me are doing the same thing with combinations of reforestation native grasses, food plots etcetera.

I have nothing against the commercial use of trees, tree farms either and also agree that nature will take care of itself through forest fires and the natural evolution of plant life.

My personal preference is a balanced approach, but it is getting increasingly difficult for the average person to be able to afford to pay taxes on large tracts of land with no income coming in.

Also not directed at any one person and you could fill volumes with what I don't know about proper forestry management.

 

[dodge man]

This reminds me of a situation I ran into several years ago. I had owned a piece of property for a few years when the adjoining "house and a couple of acres" came up for sale. Right after the new owner moved in he called wanting to buy 10 acres (my property) that adjoined his. He wanted to have a couple of horses. I told him I didn't want to sell my land. He kept insisting that I sell him the property. I told him to call the neighbor on the other side of him or across the road to see if they would sell him some more ground for his horses. He said that he already had called them and they didn't want to sell any land. He again insisted that I sell him 10 acres. I told him to go buy 40 acres of highly productive farm land within a couple of miles and I would trade him 10 acres for 40. He told me I was crazy. I simply said that is my price.
While I had him on the phone I told him that the large pines (on my land) that provided a nice secluded back yard for his house was on my list of ground to clear sometime down the road. I told him if he wanted to keep his seclude setting he needed to plant some pines on his property. It was a little over 10 yrs when I finally got around to clearing the pines. My neighbor and his wife were gone (I didn't know they were gone, it wouldn't have made a difference) the weekend I took the backhoe over and removed all the trees and converted the ground to a hay field. They never said anything to me, but I heard they were pretty upset.

The above mentioned neighbor has since sold the house and moved on. You won't believe the next guy. He called me before he moved in and informed me that he was a big deer hunter and he liked to "manage" the deer population around him. He asked me about leasing the hunting rights to my ground. I said sure, I would be glad to lease him my hunting rights. I told him that it was already leased but he could lease it for the following year. I shot him a price and he said I was crazy. I think he expected me to let him hunt for free.

I have little sympathy for the people that move to the country and buy only a couple of acres with a house but they want to control all the land around them. MOVE BACK TO TOWN!!

This post really hit close to home, I hate to admit. I live on 3 acres in the country and would love to control all the ground around me. It wrong of me to think that way but its true. I already know they don't want to sell any ground, and I don't blame them, they aren't making anymore land. I'm lucky, they are good neighbors and we really don't have any problems.

To the OP. I got to thinking, there are so many things the adjoiners could be doing that would be so much worse. In the long run, I would probably hope they continue to own the ground. It could be a hog farm moving in. They have gotten big in my area. I'm probably close enough to town they wouldn't build one near me, but you never know.

 

[sixdogs]

I skimmed a lot of this but commonality noticed was "what a mess" of logged land. Well, no. Rather, I'd go with it is "visually unappealing to modern politically correct beliefs of city dwellers, recent rural settlers and those not familair with wildlife habitat and renewable resource management".
We were larger landowners in Maine and, while we never logged it, noticed the lack of visible wildlife in older growth and the absolute abundance of life in logged areas. It was teeming with deer and birds, etc. Animals are "edge" dwellers in that they need new growth to survive. Old growth is pretty but not a lot in the way of creatures that wouldn't do equally wll with some logged area tossed in.

I understand how you feel about the unknown of logging next to you but the best bet is to buy the land, including the harvestable timber and then maintain it for yourself and others that share the view of collectivist ownership and protection of an asset. On the other hand, I could object to the fact your animals and tractors are compacting the soil and causing nitrate runoff to a degree that is is impacting the pastoral view I had of your property before you moved there. I demand that you rid those animals,drive no more machinery over it, provide for remedial action to loosen soil structure, compensate those down the watershed and pay me for my loss of visual pleasure since the manure has caused some grasses to dominate the native vegetation. See, there is no end to this stuff and it will eventually trickle down until it ensnares us all. I know you aren't like this, so it's just an illustration.
Just my two cents here.

 

[brin]

Do those need sun? Or shade? Or either?

I'd like a few strategically placed privacy trees that are very dense from ground level up to 10' (& higher!), but they'd be planted in shade amongst other very tall trees that have nothing but trunk from ground level to 30 - 50 feet above ground (not much in the way of privacy).

Leyland Cypress need full Sun for at least 50% of the day...they have been great for me.

 

[clemsonfor]

found out today that surveyers were here to mark trees on the forest land adjacent to me. the last cut was 30-35 years ago so i guess the trees are mature enough now to take them to market. i am really upset because the trees are beautiful fir and cedar and they protect us from the strong north and east winds year round as well as runoff and prvide alot of privacy. not to mention we use the trails in the woods all the time for hiking and horseback riding. it's irritating because they own roughly 20,000 acres of land and there are many other areas they could harvest before taking these. don't get me wrong i am not against logging but this time it's too close for comfort! so i am looking for ways (legally) to deter them from moving forward. luckily they are not planning on doing the work until next summer (2013) so i have some time to formulate a plan! does anyone have ideas on how to handle this, is there any upside to this? looking for any advice you can provide or personal experiences with this type of event.

I just found this and am a forester so this is my thing. The american and legal answer is its their land they can do whatever they want to harvest thats legally allowable, including cutting the last inch of thier property next to yours. Also if they want to pursue it they can go after you for tresspassing if they want (assuming you dont have permission from the landowner to use thier land).

I have not read any other answers yet but usually a commercial landowner if asked and is sensitive to this will leave a few trees on the edge of your home as a buffer but you still will see the clearcut, others dont care and will take every last tree, which would be my recomendation as the land manager.

Not knowing anything really about western species thier life cycle and rotation ages, it is possible that they are only thinning these trees and not going to take over half the stems off the site? Why dont you just call the company office and see what the plans are as an inquiring landowner?

 

[clemsonfor]

Bigballer, they are really beating up on you, I just wonder what they would be saying if someone was doing something next to them that they didn't like. It is real easy to "talk" but when it comes to them it is different. people on TBN do not see anything wrong about the shale gas drilling or the pipe line through Nebraska. But that is because it is not in their back yard.

Its happened to me on 2 sides of my 130 acre tract! I would have rather the trees stayed but as a forester and landowner i said not one word. Deer hunting suffered for a few years then rebounded better than ever, with the thick undergrowth.

Now i dont live on this tract nor can i see it from the little house on the property but still had my adjacent owners on 2 tracts clearcut. I also benefited with the permission to hunt these clearcuts.

 

[dmccarty]

Doesn't, typically now, a law exist that requires trees which border any water source such as a stream, creek, river, etc. to be left standing under all circumstances ?

Yes.

And No.



How is that for an answer? :laughing:

In the last century when we started looking for land, the first place we saw was 64 acres that was 95% clear cut. With the trees gone that place was VERY pretty. They were burning the slash, there were stumps all over the place so the land needed some work. On the other hand you could actually see the land and how pretty it was. The land would have been prettier with more trees that is for sure but with it opened up you could really see the lay of the land. It was nice.

There was the foundation of an old log cabin with a brick fireplace. The bricks where hand made and I think made from the mud from the near by creek. We tried hard to get that land but it did not work out.

A pretty creek ran through the place, the loggers moved equipment through it and did not leave a buffer either. For the most part, there was only a few places that were a mess but it would be easy to fix.

I was curious about the creek buffer issue. The land in question was north of a state road. The road followed a ridge. North of the ridge was one river basin and south was a second river basin. I think north was the Tar and south was the Neuse. In the Tar basin buffers were NOT required but they were on the Neuse side.

The land quickly recovers. The land to our west was clear cut 15ish years ago and is looking fine now. When we timbered one area heavy with pines was in effect clear cut. That was 12 years ago and the pines, without any replanting are getting tall. Ironically, pines I planted else where are not doing as well. Go figure. The oak tops left behind have rotten to next to nothing but were really good habitat for years. I used to see quail but I have not seen them on our place in a good five years. I keep piles of tops here and there that I know the rabbits use and hoped the quail would as well but they seem to have disappeared. The last time I saw them the quail were on the land to our west that was clear cut. I don't really understand that but I wonder if they like the young growth in a clear cut.

Later,
Dan

 

[kiotiken]

...so i am looking for ways (legally) to deter them from moving forward.

Bigballer sure had them cut down to size on this one, IMHO a little too aggressively in some cases. My interpretation of the above quote was (not that I agree with it) not about using the legal system, but actions that are legal as opposed to illegal, such as spiking the trees or something.

I was in the same position a few years ago. The 100 acre parcel behind me was up for sale. I thought about buying it but just couldn't find enough of a reason to buy it and pay taxes on it. I too hiked it daily and enjoyed the wildlife and waterfalls. Since I decided not to dust off my wallet and the new owner has planted thousands and thousands of trees and no longer want people using it, we stay away from it now. I'm sure one day I may face the same situation where the trees that have been planted are cut down. The trees I've planted every year for the past 3 years along the back lot line will provide all the protection I need by then.

See if they'll sever off a chunk behind you, if not maybe they'd leave a small tree line for you. Otherwise, start planting your own now.