Timber Harvesting in the PMRP/ Miller Fork?

[Ellis_Bill]

I was wondering if there was a reason why the RRGCC has not tried to harvest timber on the lands that are owned by the coalition. This would be a great way for RRGCC to make a lot of money in order to pay of loans, and keep up with general upkeep of the lands owned. I'm not talking about clear cutting but just selective harvesting.
There may be very simple answer to this, I was just wondering and hoping someone could fill me in.
Thank you

[dustonian]

Haha, when I first read that I thought it said "Point Harvesting"...

[whatahutch]

Trees shall only be felled to ensure a clean falling line on mid-level sport lines (and belay spots), not to pay for the land.

Gosh, who would ever think of using the natural resources in any other means.

[toad857]

They are relatively young trees, and probably not worth as much as you think they are. Besides, even selective harvesting does a shocking amount of damage. Why spend all this time and energy carefully making trails when a skidder is dragging a 2 ton oak through the creek?

[clif]

the R&D division of the rrgcc is developing nanobot technology to reconfigure the market dynamics of resource extraction economics.

[RRGCC]

The idea of selectively logging specific parts of the PMRP was discussed several years ago. Logging the PMRP was not pursued for several reasons. Most of the PMRP had been logged at some point prior to the purchase by the RRGCC. Thus, the amount of mature wood is limited. If we were to log the PMRP, selectively or not, the amount of money that would generate is surprisingly low relative to the impact it would have on the land.

There are some talented logging companies in the area that do a great job of minimizing their presence, etc. But at the end of the day, their impact on the land far surpasses what most of us would consider acceptable for our beloved PMRP.

Concerning the MFRP, the timber rights to the property were a point of negotiation for the purchase. There is more mature wood on the MFRP, and far less presence of oil infrastructure (as with most property in the region, the mineral rights had been severed from this piece of property many years ago so we do "share" the property with an oil company).

Because of the aesthetics of the property, the disruption of roads and trails, and complete closure of the MFRP during logging, we felt that is was in the best interest of the climbing community that the RRGCC maintain the timber rights to the property. For those reasons, we have no intention of logging selectively or otherwise in the MFRP.

If you would like to have a huge impact on these wonderful properties, please go to http://rrgcc.org/register/ and join us at Rocktoberfest!

[dustonian]

Because of the aesthetics of the property, the disruption of roads and trails, and complete closure of the MFRP during logging, we felt that is was in the best interest of the climbing community that the RRGCC maintain the timber rights to the property. For those reasons, we have no intention of logging selectively or otherwise in the MFRP.

Bravo!! Some spectacular old growth in that valley for sure... Thanks!

Also, I presume "resource extraction" would conflict with the tenets of being designated a land trust?

[toad857]

For more info on identifying old trees without coring them, here is a good article by Neil Pederson (former EKU faculty):

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/03/18 ... look-like/

[whatahutch]

I love big, old trees too. I was just joking about the logging of the land.

[Josephine]

For more info on identifying old trees without coring them, here is a good article by Neil Pederson (former EKU faculty):

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/03/18 ... look-like/

neat article! I am always fooled that size = age. I'll have to look harder next time!