land conservation issues

[goodoleboy]

OK lets get this Clear. I am not approving or disapproving of how one uses their property.Its a personal thing, in my opinion you paid for it use it like want too.

Ok the story.
My MIL was upset her hubby took down some trees at the farm.FIL also wanted to get bulldozer but MIL woud not let him she was afraid he would mess up the natural beauty formed over thousands of years.

How many of you think of nature conservation when moving dirt and knocking down trees, moving rocks and such?

 

[Birdhunter1]

I do.
For firewood I usually only cut trees that are already on the ground. Doesn't always work that way but I try at least.
When clearing brush I always try and think where the displaced critters are going to go. I am a quail hunter, quail habitat is important to me therefore I always leave enough space for them to live somehwere. Rabbitts are the same way.
When working dirt I try to control ersoin at the same time.
As far as the natural beauty, new growth is beautiful as well.

 

[jmc]

I try to cut brush and small trees off rather than uproot them when clearing hillsides. Its more work since you have to get off the tractor to do it. Also piling the brush for cover and natural decomposition rather than burn it. I moved what was left of one huge pile that was there for about 7 years. Now it has the best grass on the property.

 

[johnday]

goodoleboy; I only remove the absolute inevitable ones on my own property. Because of my encroachment on the land sometimes I remove a tree or two when it would be dangerous to life and limb to keep it. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif On others, well, you gotta do what the home owner is paying for, sometimes it's for believe or not, those nasty trees have leaves that mess up the park like setting in the middle of the woods. To each their own I suppose. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[bczoom]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( FIL also wanted to get bulldozer but MIL woud not let him she was afraid he would mess up the natural beauty formed over thousands of years.

How many of you think of nature conservation when moving dirt and knocking down trees, moving rocks and such? )</font>

My "opinion" is that natural beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and the owners eyes have the final vote.

In the yard area, esthetics come into play but safety is even bigger. If anything that's out there creates any kind of safety issue, it's getting "adjusted".

In the woods, I do start with the trees that mother nature has felled for me. If I ever catch up with all those, I'll go for the standing dead trees. After that would be a thinning.
Now to get to those trees, a lot of trails were cut.

Don't get me wrong, I do what I can for conservation but do what I believe is appropriate.

Don't even want to touch on the regulatory part of this subject...

 

[sneaky_pete]

I bought my place because I like it as it is. I love my trees, and with rare exception only cut dead ones. Water already drains well and away from the house (I checked this out before I bought) so I don't have a lot of dirt moving to do. I don't consciously think of nature conservation, but I like to leave my land as natural as possible with it's native plants and drainage.

Pete

 

[Dargo]

Yup, I personally have crawled on my hands and knees and planted literally thousands of trees. So, I obviously like trees and preserving "natural beauty". However, I read an interesting article by the DNR in my area a few years ago. I live in coal country and tens of thousands of acres around my part of the country have been strip mined. Before the Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act or 1977, coal mines generally just "rounded" some of the hills, spread topsoil back over the area, spread some fertilizer, spread some lime to reduce the acidity they created, and then flew over and dropped seeds for grasses and trees. On occasion, they had volunteers or people working off "public service", plant pine trees.
After the SMCRA, mines were required to leave no more than a 3:1 slope, plant pastures and put in ponds. Basically put the land "back" to the prairie it was. (even if it wasn't a prairie)
The interesting fact is that the DNR and other ecological services have concluded that there almost 4 times as much wild life and different species of animals living in the pre-SMCRA areas. One theory by the Purdue and Indiana University agriculture extension service was that the post SMCRA areas simply did not have as much time to develop as the pre areas. That theory was dismissed due to the fact that you generally do not get many deer, raccoon, turkey, and other animals living in a rolling grass prairie as you would in a wooded rolling terrain.
So, sometimes a "change" in an area isn't necessarily bad. It all depends on the change and your perspective.

 

[Henro]

<font color="blue">My MIL was upset her hubby took down some trees at the farm.FIL also wanted to get bulldozer but MIL woud not let him she was afraid he would mess up the natural beauty formed over thousands of years. </font>

Goodolboy,

I think after some reflection I figured out what a MIL and FIL are...

Doubt those trees were thousands of years old...

The lay of the land is probably older than the trees growing on it....

There are as many opinions on things as there are people attached to them.

In this case, the MIL and FIL proably jointly owned the property. And they came to agreement on its use. She spoke and he listened, or whatever.

Your question digs deeper than it might have to.

For example, should I worry about my neighbor if I am legally able to put a cell phone tower up, complete with flashing red lights, maybe even strobes? When his house is going to be very close to the tower?

Answer: I don't know. Legally maybe not an issue...

In the case of your question it seems that the issue is within the ownership circle, and not concerning others outside that circle.

In my case, I recently partially cleared a couple acres and used the brush/stumps/tree trunks to make a sort of fence along the property lines. Fact of the matter is that the hillside i was dealing with was previously farmland, and so whatever is there now is recent growth (less than 50 years old). So as far as I am conerned...whatever I do there is of no concequence...I don't know if the nieghbors there care or not. I have never met them, in the 25 years we have lived here.

Frankly, I am more cercened in keeping barriers up between myself and the neighbors than I am worried about what nature may have looked like centuries ago...

I guess to specifically answer your question, I would say we don't think too much of times past, but think more of how we can make things better for the future.

 

[MossRoad]

<font color="blue">How many of you think of nature conservation when moving dirt and knocking down trees, moving rocks and such? </font>

One of the main things I watch out for is erosion. Our property is highly erodable soil, so I have to be careful with cuts in the soil and loss of vegation on slopes. The land was previously farmed, so it has been altered quite a bit from its original state... that state being it was bulldozed by glaciers and left empty. We've planted several thousand trees and let weeds take over the areas that we haven't planted what we want on yet, just to stabilize the soil. So, there really wasn't any "nature" there when we started, but there is plenty now. Deer, turkey, rabbit, squirrel, birds of all types, etc... plus plenty of habitat in an area that was once poorly producing farm land. The soil is stabilized, the creeks run cleaner and I feel great about it. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[goodoleboy]

Again in case a few missed it the first time. Like I said before Im not judging how one uses their land.

Henro,
I think MIL meant the rocks and where they and such. My question is directed to owners of land as it cant be directed to any one else. I was brought into the subject so im not being "Nosey" The story was told to me 2 years ago. But I like to share thoughts with people in the same boat Im in (land owners).
Im asking becuase I want owners opinions for my personal enrichment. Not some Guy telling people 200 miles what they can and cant do to their property.

I know this is a touchy subject but for the forum. But Not an inapropriate topic to discuss.

 

[Birdhunter1]

Dargo, you also have to realize that the land that is not reclaimed and left in unrolling hills (usually very steep and short) isn't used and is usually let to grow. Around here that kind of property is growing in trees/honeysuckle/briars and other assorted brush that is awesome cover for wildlife. Around here the areas that are relaimed are often farmed for either hay or row crop farming, sometimes houses built in these areas. I hunt on some ground that hasn't been reclaimed and thoug it is full of quail it is TOUGH hunting. We'll fluch lots of birds but the growth is so thick they are hard to hit and even harder to tell where the ones you didn't shoot landed at or which direction they went. I call it the bird dog challenge as it is hard to find them after the initial flush. Also those short steep hills that are very close together is not easy to trek through. I like the area because it is a good sanctuary area for small game and deer of course like the stuff too. There are enough field edges around this that to quail hunt you have to find them feeding and hunt during these times. Makes for interesting hunts.

 

[Dargo]

birdhunter1, you pretty well exactly described it. Flushing wildlife out of the rough terrain is not for those who are out of shape! And, as you said, the pasture land is okay for farming now. My only point for the original poster is that by "changing" the terrain where he is, he likely will not permanently disturb the natural beauty of his area. It will be different, but perhaps not "worse".

BTW, on Saturday I nearly ran down a wild turkey with my RTV when driving through some brushland. I understand that they are sometimes hard to find and hard to kill. I figured a 1 ton UV would do the job. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif Ah well, it turned out the darn thing remembered how to fly. It sort of looked like a pig with wings, but it did fly away to the top of a nearby tree. Man, they are not a graceful looking bird in flight!! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Birdhunter1]

Dargo, where are you in Southern IN? I live in Southern IL, probably not too far away. I think a drive to Evansville probably takes about an hour and a half if you go through Harrisburg, IL.

 

[Dargo]

Birdhunter1, I live just outside of Evansville. You mention Harrisburgh, IL. In college we were supposed to do a geneology report back to when our ancestors came to America. In the late 1700's, mine were already well rooted in Harrisburgh, IL! I have several family members buried there who fought in the Civil War. Several came to Harrisburgh after fighting in the Revolutionary War!

I know that area has a history of coal mining. Several of my ancestors worked in the mines there in the mid 1800's. My great grandparents owned 2 sections of land there. Unfortunately they died back in the late 60's, before I was old enough to have been able to have bought that land. My grand parents sold off all that land for not much more than $100 an acre because they didn't think it would ever be worth much and needed the money. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

[Varmintmist]

Always. Trees I cut are trees that I cant sell.

My ground was at one time a oil boom town, I still find junk, bottles some metal work, cables and pipe in the ground. After the town went bust, it burned. What wasnt ash was abandoned.

It was then at different times and parts, farmland, a christmas tree farm, grazed for cattle, and clearcut logged. If you look, you can see where each part was somthing different at different times.

Erosion is a biggie, one of the reasons that I am divereting water from the front of the house to the right side is to get it to the more original drainage. The trees are now a income so I do my best to cull, girdle and cut to keep the forest healthy.