woodland visions—appreciating and managing forests for ... · museum of art is a chinese garden...

G3762

Lowell Klessig

Woodland Visions—Appreciating and Managing Forests for Scenic Beauty

Preface ii

Introduction iii

Chapter 1 Biophilia: the need for contact with nature 1

How people fill the need for biophilia 2

Meeting our primary social needs 2

Chapter 2What motivates people to buy and own woodlands? 4

Wildlife habitat and natural beauty 5

Preventing development 6

Outdoor recreation 6

Wood products 6

Land investment 7

Part of farm 7

Summary 7

Chapter 3 Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? 8

Europeans and their forests 8

Individual freedom or aesthetics? 9

A different standard today 9

Chapter 4 Components of aesthetic quality 11

Species coloration, shape, and texture 11

Color by season 12

Texture of the forest edge 13

Internal lighting 14

Topography 14

Land use diversity 15

Age and size structure 15

Basal area as surrogate for aesthetic preferences 15

Chapter 5Managing for enhanced scenic beauty 16

The do-nothing option 17

Plantations: planting and thinning with a vision 17

Underplanting with a vision 18

Chainsaw art: harvesting with a vision 20

Roadside tree management 25

Using wood aesthetically 25

Relationship to recreation and wildlife management 25

Chapter 6Related values 26

Kinesthesia 26

Emotional security 27

Spiritual dimensions 28

Physical security: a double-edgedwooden sword 28

Forested wilderness: the call of the wild orescape from civilization 28

Chapter 7Enhancing the community’s quality of life 29

Biophilia for the public 29

Chapter 8 Fulfilling a woodland vision: 31Quick tips & summary

Quick tips:Aesthetics of pine plantations 32

Quick tips:Aesthetics of aspen forests 32

Quick tips:Aesthetics of mixed hardwoods/

pine forests 33

Quick tips:Aesthetics of northern

hardwood forests 34

Quick tips:Aesthetics of wetland forests 34

Summary:Seven Key Points to creating a

woodland vision 35

i

Contents

PrefaceThe concept of scenic beauty is seldomincluded in woodland management pub-lications, though the reality is that aes-thetics are extremely important to mostforest landowners. Good forest manage-ment can enhance scenic benefits notonly for woodland owners, but also forthe surrounding community.

Woodland Visions discusses multipleuses of forestland, but does not giveequal treatment to all of them; mostare covered at length in many otherpublications. Rather, it is designed tohelp woodland property owners enjoyand enhance the scenic beauty of theirland more fully.

Throughout this publication, the focusremains on appreciating and managingwoodlands for the beauty they provide.

Lowell KlessigSpring, 2002

Photo creditsGerard Fuehrer—pp. 5, 35Lowell Klessig—pp. iii, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9,

10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 22, 25, 27, 28,30, 34

Mike Kroenke—pp. 15, 26, 29, 30Don Last—p. 11A. Jeff Martin—pp. 7, 17Doug Moore—cover, 2, 3, 5, 6, 12, 13,

14, 20, 24, 31, 32, 33, 34Brian Pierce—p. 23

ii

Disclaimer: This publication is provided for general educational purposes only.It is not meant to provide management advice for a specific woodland. It is notintended to provide advice on legal issues or financial matters. For adviceregarding your specific woodland, contact a professional resource manager, anattorney or a financial advisor.

Webster defines aesthetics as “abranch of philosophy dealingwith the nature of the beautifuland with judgments concerningbeauty.” As an adjective, aes-

thetic is defined as “appreciative of,responsive to, orzealous aboutthe beautiful.”In this publica-tion, the term“scenic beauty,”a more commonexpression andone that appliesonly to outdoorsettings, is usedinterchangeablywith aesthetics.

Except for the small number of land-scape architects in natural resourcemanagement, professionals have histor-ically paid little attention to aestheticsin their management decisions or recommendations.

And while scenic beauty is frequentlythe paramount goal of forestlandowners, it has seldom been

included in woodland managementprograms. Because management pre-scriptions have usually not addressedaesthetics, woodland owners haveoften rejected all professional advice.

This publication is intended to fill thatvoid for woodland owners. It may alsointerest professionals who work withprivate or public forestland. Thepremise here is that conscious manage-ment decisions can enhance the visualattractiveness of individual propertiesand the rural landscape of the commu-nity. As professionals incorporate thatpremise into their verbal and writtencommunications with landowners,landowners will be more comfortableabout getting involved in woodlandmanagement and perhaps in formalprograms such as Wisconsin’s ManagedForest Law. As landowners understandtheir options for enhancing the scenicqualities of their woods, they will bemotivated to manage their land foraesthetics as well as their other goals.And they will be more likely to involvea professional—if that professionalunderstands their emotions.

iii

“We should do our utmost to encouragethe Beautiful, for the Useful

encourages itself.”—Goethe

Introduction

W o o d l a n d V i s i o n s

Biophilia: the need forcontact with nature

Aesthetics has often been treatedlike a frill—nice but not essential.That view is changing. E.O. Wilsonat Harvard University and StephenKellert at Yale University have

conducted research and reviewed otherresearch regarding people’s need forcontact with nature.1 They coined theword biophilia to characterize this needof the human mind to associate withother forms of life and life processes.That need is most often filled throughvisual contact with nature.

Owners of woodland have a great dealof visual contact with nature. And theycan enhance the visual quality of theirwoodlands through sensitive manage-ment. But woodland owners are notalone in their need for biophilia. Urbandwellers, as well, exhibit the need forcontact with nature. Bob Holmeswriting for U.S. World and News Reportobserved biophilia even in the centerof New York City:2

Within New York’s MetropolitanMuseum of Art is a Chinese gardenrich with plant life and the soothingmurmur of falling water. Visitors loveto linger under the trees for a fewmeditative moments and watch thepeaceful gliding of goldfish in theirpond. Even in the midst of one ofthe world’s great art collections,nature has a magnetic hold on thehuman psyche.

According to Holmes, when NorthAmericans and residents of Bali wereasked to rate landscapes from photo-graphs, they preferred savannas withscattered trees and some water—perhapsbecause the first humans lived in such asetting where they could find food butalso see the advance of predators.

Additional experiments found thatpatients with gallbladder surgery recov-ered faster and needed fewer strongpainkillers if theyhad a view of treesthrough theirhospital windowsthan if they lookedout at a brick wall.When prisonerscould see trees from their cells, theysuffered fewer stress related illnesses.

In his conclusion, Holmes notes:

So strong is the human affinity fornature that rural and city dwellersalike prefer almost any naturalscene—even an ordinary non-spec-tacular one—to almost any scene ofan urban environment lacking vege-tation or water.

Appreciating and managing forests for scenic beauty

Chapter I

1

“…nature has a magnetic hold on the human psyche.”

How people fill the need for biophiliaThe most common way people havecontact with nature is visually.Preferences for blue and green maywell be related to the dominance ofthese colors in nature. Green is associ-ated with plant growth and plentifulfood while yellow and brown are asso-ciated with drought, starvation orwinter.

People express their need for biophiliain many ways. Plants and pets help fillthe gap, as does gardening. Somepeople garden for practical reasons,while others simply like to feel the soilin their hands, or watch the plantsgrow under the summer sun. Gardeningteaches children about the magic ofseeds and the dynamics of growth.Many people cite the peacefulness andtranquility they experience in thegarden as the most satisfying aspect ofgardening. For woodland owners,managing the woods is much likemanaging their gardens—only on amore majestic scale and over a longerperiod of time.

Most people like to hear the wind inthe trees, see it ripple across a field ofgrain or watch it play a lake into shim-mering waves. And virtually everyoneenjoys seeing and hearing waterfalls,the ocean surf and fountains. Water isuniversally attractive to people.

Finally, wildlife helps meet the need forcontact with nature, whether it is bylistening to songbirds on a springmorning or watching a rookery of ternson a northern island, deer grazing inthe meadow, or an eagle soaring abovethe white pine. With few exceptions,watching wildlife is appreciated as anaesthetic experience. In earlier timeswildlife had significant economic andspiritual value, which did not diminishits aesthetic value.

The natural beauty of parks and wildlifeand big trees is important to people whonever use or see them directly. Theyappreciate natural beauty vicariously inmovies or videos and find satisfaction insimply knowing that it exists.

Meeting our primarysocial needsAesthetics are part of a broader set ofprimary social needs. Eleven primaryneeds are shown and described onpage 3. Klessig and Hagengruber3 atthe University of Wisconsin–StevensPoint developed the list after 30 yearsof research and visits to 28 countries.

One way of assessing the value ofwoodlands to landowners and commu-nities is to ask individuals, communi-ties and societies what they need andthen ask how woodlands contribute tothose needs.

On a daily basis and for most citizens,trees make a major contribution towardmeeting the need for aesthetic sur-roundings. However, the contributionof woodlands clearly goes beyond aes-thetics. The lore of Paul Bunyan, themythic lifestyle of lumberjacks, and therisks of running the logs down the riverare part of the Lake States culture.

Forest products are an important partof the economy of Wisconsin and manyother states. They provide a largeportion of the jobs in many northerncounties. In addition to paper and sawtimber, forest related recreationsupports many service industries. Theforests provide economic opportunityfor individual landowners, communitiesand society in general.

2 W o o d l a n d V i s i o n s

Forests offer lessons for landownersand anyone else who passes throughthem with an observant eye. Environ-mental education for children is oftenconducted in forests and the forest isthe best place to teach forest ecology.

Woodlands, especially those that havebeen in a family for decades or genera-tions, are part of the emotional bondbetween the family members or friendswho use them. People and communitiesalso bond to their physical place ofresidence and recreation. Aldo Leopold,the great philosopher who developedthe “land ethic,” once said that theonly two things that really interestedhim were: 1) the relationship of peopleto the land; and 2) the relationship ofpeople to each other.

Forests are central to global environ-mental security. They protect the soiland water. They filter the air. Ifmanaged appropriately, they providebiodiversity—habitat for a wide arrayof plants and animals. They takecarbon dioxide out of the air that oth-erwise contributes to global warming.

Since woodlands can be used for manyactivities and since there are so manymanagement options, woodlands con-tribute significantly to individualfreedom. This is particularly true forwoodland owners but also true forcitizens using public forests.

Recreational opportunity is one of themajor contributions of woodlands. Froma quiet cross-country ski in the twilightof a white winter day to the blazingorange of deer season opening day,forests teem with recreational activity.

For people in past millennia andmodern times, forests have provided aspiritual experience—a sense of aweand reverence. Large trees, especiallythose in old growth forests, facilitatethis experience. While forests are adirect source of creativity and inspira-tion for some, others use them as anenvironment conducive to retreats fororganizational planning or personaldevelopment.

In sum, forests contribute to most ofthe primary social needs of individuals,communities and societies.


Aesthetic opportunity

Natural beauty/landscapes

Attractive buildings/cities

Soothing interior spaces

Collective security

International peace

National defense

Protection from internal disorder

Cultural opportunity

Music

Art

Heritage

Economic opportunity

Good wages/job security

Return on investment

Efficient production

Educational opportunity

Formal schools

Continuing education

Wisdom of elders

Emotional security

Family bonds

Friendships

Sense of community

Environmental security

Clean water

Clean air

Biodiversity

Individual freedom and variety

Private property rights

Consumer choices

Unrestricted speech/media

Individual secrity

Health care

Police protection/prisons

Fire protection

Recreational opportunity

Outdoor sports

Indoor leisure acrivities

Relaxation time

Spiritual dimension

Humility before Supreme Being

Awe of nature

Set of moral principles

Primary social needs

3

Klessig and Hagengruber, 1999.

What motivatespeople to buy and own woodlands?

People buy land for many differentreasons. The reasons landownersdecide to keep wooded real estatemay differ from the reasons whythey purchased it. Those reasons

may change over time as a landownerages. Woodland owners typically rangein age from 40–70 years and are at atime of their lives when they are mostsecure financially.

In a speech to the Appalachian Societyof American Foresters, reprinted in theJournal of Forestry,4 Lislott Harbertstried to help professionals in theSoutheast understand small landowners,whom she characterized as owning50–500 acres.

…there are other drawbacks (ofintensive management) that manyforestry professionals do not takeinto account. These problems arenot financial but psychological andesthetic. You foresters have beentrained as technicians, as masters ofa rational science. You may not liketo deal with such imponderables ashuman emotions—but thelandowner has lots of them. Hismedian age in North Carolina is 54.He may not enjoy looking at an areathat, even with the best intensivemanagement, will remain anesthetic wasteland. Assuming a 35-

year rotation, can we really expecthim to hang in there until he’s 89 tosee his trees mature? (In northernclimates rotation time would rangefrom 45 for clear cut aspen to over100 years for red pine—author’saddition).

These demographic characteristicsexplain many landowner motivationsregarding woodland ownership. Forexample, a 20-year-old who appreciatedyoung, thick aspen stands for thegrouse that could be hunted there, at

age 65 may see a young aspen stand asimpenetrable and uninteresting. Laterin life, a mature pine and hardwoodstand that is easy to walk through maybe viewed as providing solitude andbeauty. For elderly landowners theremay even be a gerontological bondbetween their age and the age of thetrees they admire.

In University of Wisconsin–Madisonresearch on management motivations,John Bliss noted the significance ofthe landowner’s social psychological


Chapter 2

4

characteristics such as ethnic back-ground, family cohesiveness, intergen-erational continuity, personal identityand values in making the determinationto own woodland.5

Studies of landowner motivations haveshown a striking consistency amongstates. In other words, when groups oflandowners at different times and indifferent states are asked why theyown woodland, the rankings are verysimilar.

The motivations of lakeshore propertyowners are consistent with the motiva-tions of woodland owners. The resultsof the first major study of a largesample of lakeshore owners in 1972 areshown in the chart below.

Fishing was expected to be the highestpriority for buying lakefront property,but all “Outdoor Recreation” pursuitstogether only accounted for 22%. Theexpectation that “investment” wouldbe a significant motivator, because ofthe high rate of appreciation of lake-front property, was also wrong. Peoplebuy lakefront for scenery and solitude.

Subsequent studies and informalsurveys over 25 years have consistentlyyielded the same results: lakefrontproperty is purchased and owned pri-marily for natural beauty and an aes-thetically induced sense of solitude.Often the percentage of lakeshoreproperty owners who rank aesthetics astheir top value reaches the 80–90%range.

Wildlife habitat andnatural beautyThe top two motivations for owningwoodlands are for wildlife habitat andnatural beauty.6 These reasons, givenby more than 80% of landowners, areusually closely ranked and highly correlated.

While wildlife habitat is frequentlyrelated to hunting game species, themotivation isusually broader,also relating tosimply seeingwildlife andknowing that avariety ofwildlife ispresent on theproperty. Manylandownersmanage theirproperty toprotect thathabitat andimprove it forspecific speciesor for generalecologicalintegrity.

Landowners, who like to see wildlife(especially birds and large mammals),cite an aesthetic experience as part oftheir wildlife habitat goal. However,good habitat for some game speciesmay not be the preferred scenery ofnon-hunters. While wildlife manage-ment, especially for game species, isincluded in professional managementplans, natural beauty is usually consid-ered too nebulous of a concept to

address. If thegoals are notconsciously inte-grated, efforts toenhance wildlifemay damagenatural beauty;for example, deerfeeding mayresult in concen-trated damage totree seedlingsand wildflowers.More generally,high deer popu-lations havereduced localplant diversity.

5Appreciating and managing forests for scenic beauty

solitude & beauty62%

outdoorrecreation

22%

others16%

Reason for purchasing lakeshore property

Preventing developmentWhile the terminology variessomewhat, an important mid-rangemotivation for about one-half ofwoodland owners relates to preventingsprawl from reaching the landscape.

Some take special measures to protectthe property after they are gone. Theymay sell or gift the property with deedrestrictions (covenants). They may sellor give development rights (conserva-tion easements) to a governmental unitor non-profit organization.Increasingly, such landowners aregetting involved in land trusts.

Although many landowners want toprotect forests from development, frag-mentation is still occurring at a rapidrate. The opportunity for large capitalgains and the negative pressure ofproperty taxes are causing many indus-trial and non-industrial forestlandowners to subdivide land holdingsinto smaller and smaller parcels.Smaller landowners typically have lessinterest in management than largerlandowners, and at some point, theproperty is simply too small to managefor forestry objectives. Managing forvisual quality, however, is possibleeven on very small acreages.

Outdoor recreationMore than one-third of landowners owntheir property to pursue outdoor recre-ation. When pursuing outdoor recreat-tion is combined with providingwildlife habitat as a goal, this figure ismuch higher.

When landowners were asked toseparate motorized recreation fromnon-motorized recreation, less than10% said they owned their property touse four wheelers or snowmobiles. The“quiet” sports (hunting, hiking, cross-country skiing, bird watching, berrypicking, photography) were much morepopular.

Wood productsA 1997 USDA Forest Service inventoryfound that less than 1% of Wisconsinwoodland owners hold forestland fortimber production. About 30% of alllandowners report wood production asone of the reasons they own woodland,and almost half have had a harvestsometime during their ownership. Thatnumber may increase when timberprices increase or decline as land isdivided into parcels. Timber productionis more important to owners of largertracts than it is to owners of smallertracts. In any case, wood production isunlikely to ever be a primary motiva-tion for ownership by private non-industrial woodland owners.


Wood production will only become morepopular if it is fully integrated into amanagement plan that emphasizes aes-thetics, wildlife and recreation. Manymore landowners would consider timberharvesting if they were convinced thatit was compatible with their highervalues. It might be perceived as com-patible if the recommendationslandowners receive don’t start withharvesting. And if the emphasis of aprojected harvest in a managementplan is on “what will be left” ratherthan on “what can be cut,” aestheticsand harvesting cannot only be compat-ible but even mutually beneficial.

Land investmentDuring most of the past century, forest-land has not compared favorably withother investments. The stock market,the bond market and even least-riskycertificates of deposit have oftenyielded better returns.

In recent years timber production hasprovided a reasonable profit. Accessibleforest land has also become a good realestate investment. Unfortunatelyachieving those benefits often involvesconflict with other values andparcelization of the property, especiallywhen ownership passes to the nextgeneration. Not surprisingly, owners oflarge acreage are more concerned withthe investment aspects of ownershipthan owners of smaller parcels.

Part of farmTimberland owned by Wisconsin farmersdropped dramatically from 6.4 millionacres in 1956 to 1.5 million acres in1997.7 While total acreage declined asfarm woodlots are split off for homesites, second home sites and huntingland, woodland continues to be part ofmany farms. Thirteen percent of non-industrial private forest landowners arefarmers. Farmers may be more inter-ested in the production and investmentaspects of ownership than non-farmlandowners. But farmers are less likelyto have a management plan for theirwoods than for their crops and live-stock. Increasingly small farms are pop-ulated with horses or beef cattle; aes-thetics then are often the primaryvalue of both field and forest.

SummaryWoodland owners have multiple motiva-tions for buying and holding their land.Scenic beauty, wildlife habitat andrelated recreational opportunities clearlytop the list. Additional values can com-plement those core motivations.

Regardless of their reasons for owningland, most forest landowners do nothave a management plan. Thus they donot fully recognize their stewardshipopportunities with integrated manage-ment. Without an integrated manage-ment plan, actions they take based onone value may have negative, unin-tended consequenceson others. They mighteven damage theprimary value—mostoften an inseparablemix of scenic beauty,wildlife habitat andrecreation.


Is beauty in the eye of the beholder?

In America, the idea that beauty liesin the eye of the beholder is appliedto landscapes, private real estate,cityscapes and buildings. But thatapplication may sometimes be

flawed. Citizens, and particularlylandowners of other countries expectand accept aesthetic standards as anormal part of their daily lives.

Examples ofaestheticstandards areevident inthe ancientcultures ofChina, Egypt,Greece, Rome

and Native America. In modern cen-turies, European countries have devel-oped a clear consensus on what isbeautiful and what is not. Rural andcity buildings meet community stan-dards through customs or through legalrequirements. Landscapes are alsorequired to meet stiff standards, whichindividual landowners accept andpromote as a significant part of qualityof life for them personally and for theircommunities.

Europeans and their forestsForests are an integral part ofthe European vision of thecountryside—small villages sur-rounded by fields and forests.European farmers and forestlandowners cannot conceive ofthe idea of subdividing theirland. In many countries farmerslive in the villages and eventheir own homes cannot bebuilt on their agricultural orwooded acreage (hectares).

Germans have a love affair withtheir forests as explained in thefollowing extended quote fromForest World Magazine:8

Germans instinctively claim owner-ship in the forests as part of theircommon heritage.

The Federal Forest LawBundeswaldgesetz establishes theframework for state legislation, suchas the State Forest LawLandeswaldgesetz of Baden-Wuerttemberg, which encompassesthe Schwartzwald (Black Forest).According to that law, all owners,both public and private, mustmanage their forests in a sustained,professional, careful and orderlymanner in conformance with envi-ronmental concerns.

The State Forest Law furthermandates that every forester (1)pay special attention to the estab-lishment and care of the forest’sedges so as to conform to naturalfeatures; (2) retain sufficienthabitat for endemic plants andanimals; and (3) consider the diver-sity and natural individuality of thelandscape.

The edges of forests, especially alongrivers, lakes, ponds and meadows, arevisually sensitive and are popular withthe public, accounting for the statutorymandate of maintaining a natural-looking forest fringe. The State ForestAuthority might enforce this goal byimposing conditions on a permit toafforest land (reforestation).


Chapter 3

8

Examples of aesthetic standards are evidentin the ancient cultures of China, Egypt,

Greece, Rome and Native America

When agricultural land is converted toforest, the conversion follows theland’s contour. Trees are planted over anumber of years beginning on theoriginal forest edge. Shrubs are used asthe final planting. Since the olderplanted trees will be closest to theoriginal forest and later plantings movefarther from the forestry, featheringproduces a soft transition from agricul-tural land to shrubs to small trees tolarger trees. It appears that the treesof each planting dropped seeds, whichgrew into the next generation of treesfarther into the former field. Thisfeathering mimics natural regeneration.

Since law as well as custom enforcesthese practices, German courts mustuse criteria to determine if the lawsrelating to aesthetics have beenbroken. Germans, as well as other

Europeans, have consensus as to whatis a beautiful landscape. A legal systemto enforce visual standards is explainedin the following continuing quotationfrom Forest World Magazine:9

Courts are sometimes called upon todecide what is a disfigurement of thelandscape. As a standard, they employthe aesthetic preferences of the hypo-thetical “average educated person”(gebildeter Durchschuittsmensch)….

Minimal burdens would be con-forming roads and cuts to the land-scape, feathering the boundaries ofclearcuts, and leaving a few attrac-tive bushes or trees after harvesting,especially along a popular walkingtrail. These walking trails, by theway, often traverse private forests,which the law generally declares tobe open to public recreational use.

The German forests are beautiful bynature, but they stay beautiful bydesign, a design which incorporatessensitive forest practices and reason-able laws. Owners and the publicseem to accept these laws as expres-sions of their common goal of main-taining an attractive environment.

Individual freedom or aesthetics?If the “average educated person” inGermany knows what is beautiful, doesthe average American have the samesensitivity? In general, Americans havethe same reactions (consensus) tovisual experiences but it is less likelythat the consensus is translated intocustom or law.

In Colonial America, restrictions on theuse of private property contained manyEuropean concepts that had developedin the crowded Europe of the Enlight-enment and Industrial Revolution thatfollowed the Dark Ages.

And while Americans have retainedmuch of the culture of Europe, land useregulations were considered unneces-sary in a country with abundant land.If a family didn’t like the way aneighbor was using land, it could movefarther west or wait for the neighbor tomove away. Similarly, inner citiesbecame home to poor immigrants asestablished Americans sought “a higherquality” environment further from thecity’s center. Developing a neighbor-hood aesthetic standard was not apriority.

A strong sense of individual freedomunderpinned the lack of regulation.Regulating land use was (and oftenstill is) viewed as an infringement onproperty rights.

A different standard todayIn the context of land use regulation,the axiom “beauty is in the eye of thebeholder” was used to justify a prefer-ence for individual freedom rather thanresponsibility to the community.

But in the 21st century, with a popula-tion of several hundred million people,there is no escaping the reality thatthe behavior of each American impactsmany other people. Land use is a par-ticularly dramatic example of this prin-ciple. Motivated by concerns abouturban sprawl, “Smart Growth” legisla-tion in Wisconsin and similar legisla-tion in other states was designed toaddress the issue. The breaking of landinto parcels and property tax increasesbring the issue home for forestlandowners.

Land use planning and other publicpolicies that relate to aesthetic valuesmust be balanced with constitutionalprotection of private property rights andevolving community norms. “Beauty isin the eye of the beholder” is not alegitimate defense for avoiding discus-sion of such public policies. Not surpris-ingly, there is remarkable consensus onwhat is beautiful and what is ugly.


Beauty is not synonymous with wildor natural. Brush found that managedforests in Massachusetts were ratedmore beautiful than unmanagedforests. A forest with a small field toprovide a vista was rated highest ofall.10

Of course, there are visual preferencesbut consensus overrides the variationamong viewers. Research on theattractiveness of private lakeshoresettings in Wisconsin found that alarge set of visual images elicitedsimilar positive or negative responsesfrom different groups of people. Theage of the groups varied from collegestudents to retirees but age didn’tinfluence preferences. Property owner-ship didn’t seem to affect responseseither.11 Robert Ribe at the Universityof Oregon conducted a major review of88 scientific studies and published hissynthesis in an articled entitled “TheAesthetics of Forestry.”12 Ribe con-cluded that synthesis with these words:

A number of findings are reconfirmedin different studies and are evidentlyquite general. They serve to demon-strate the validity of scenic value incertain forest characteristics againstthe view that aesthetic forest productsare largely subjective and capri-cious….They include findings that bigtrees are attractive, moderatelystocked open stands are preferred,ground slash and other signs of har-vesting are disliked, ground vegetationenhances forest scenes, evidence offire detracts from beauty and speciesvariety enhances the same.

Within that general public consensus,Ribe did note some differences aslisted below:

1. Foresters prefer tall straight trees,and environmentalists prefer expan-sive trees.

2. Wildlife professionals prefer sceneswith more shrubbery for its habitatpotential.

3. The low beauty rating for youngforests is related to the standdensity, which reduces visual pene-tration (the distance one can seeinto the forests).

4. Certain species are perceived to bemore appropriate in differentsettings. British respondents pre-ferred conifers in mountain areasand deciduous trees in agriculturalareas.

5. Britons find plantations aestheti-cally acceptable if they are notplanted in rows and include mixedspecies, which are planted inclumps rather than in alternaterows.

6. Some forest users require lessscenic beauty than others. Whilelandscape architects had higheraesthetic standards than othernatural resource professionals, U.S.Forest Service landscape architectsshowed standards closer to localgroups sympathetic to forest har-vesting than to Californians andlocal environmentalists.

7. In France, young men, older people,rural people, farmers and industrialworkers were more likely to preferscenes of forest managed for timberthan were young women and moreeducated Parisians.

While the results of forest beautystudies are generally consistent,researchers have not used the sametechniques to measure attractiveness.The most broadly used technique isprobably the Scenic Beauty Estimation(SBE) method developed by the U.S.Forest Service, which has funded manyof the studies.

From Scenic Beauty Estimation or othermethods it is clear that natural beautyis perceived somewhat differently bydifferent cultures, by gender, by philos-ophy (utilitarian/conservation/preser-vation), by professional allegiances,and by geography or upbringing andexperiences. “Splitters” emphasizethese differences. However, “lumpers”maintain that the variance occurswithin a broad consensus regardingattractive forests, less attractiveforests, sometimes even ugly forests. Ina Massachusetts study, landowners andforestry students (groups that might beexpected to have divergent ratings)had consistent evaluations.13 Itappears that forest beauty is not “inthe eye of the beholder.”


Components of aesthetic qualitySpecies coloration, shape and texture

In summer the differences amongspecies are obscured by greenfoliage. The leaves and needles of allspecies are various shades of green.A landowner may prefer a certain

shade of green or a mix of shades. Butoverall, the forest coloration is theleast variable in summer when the edgeof the forest projects a visual greenwall. If the top of that green wallvaries with trees of different heights,the scene is more visually interestingthan a top that looks like a crew cut.

During the other seasons the color,shape and texture of tree trunks andbranches are highly variable. Whitebirch is the most dramatic and oftenthe preferred species aesthetically. Thelight gray to light green of quakingaspen also stands out in a hardwoodforest or in a mix with conifers.Bigtooth aspen offer tan trunks oftenas big as the gray, brown or black barkof northern hardwood species.

The smooth bark of birch and aspenprovides contrast to the deeplyfurrowed black bark of white pine andthe oaks. The bark of sugar maple, ashand basswood is more symmetrical withshallower furrows. Soft maples aresmooth and gray in adolescence andflake in old age. Red pine is flaky andred throughout life.

Branch patterns also provide diversityand differential interest. Examplesinclude gnarls, burls and den holes ofany species, the umbrella shape of elm,the ballerina form of pin oak, thestaghorn form of Kentucky coffee trees,and the nearly horizontal broadbranches of oak and maple that begantheir life in open or nearly open condi-tions. Spruce provide nearly perfectgreen pyramids. And what can comparewith a landscape tree—a white oak orbur oak growingwith extended armsunder open condi-tions or a whitepine spreading itswings above thecanopy. A tree hasthe potential towrite its signatureon the landscape forhundreds of years.

Together these characteristics are usedto identify species—a skill thatenhances enjoyment of woodland. Theyalso add diversity and visual interest tothe forest. Mixed species forests gener-ally provide higher aesthetic value thana forest with only a single species.Small pure stands, sprinkled inside amixed species forest, can be especiallyattractive.


Chapter 4

11

A tree has the potential to writeits signature on the landscapefor hundreds of years.

Color by seasonAutumn leaves are so dramatic thatsightseeing trips and community festi-vals are organized around the peak ofthe colors. The soothing greens ofsummer become the exciting reds,oranges and yellows of fall. Manyspecies contribute to the parade—eachin its turn with substantial overlap. Ifsumac are ignored (hard to do), themaples are first in line and the mostdramatic with bright red and heavyyellow. Birch and quaking aspen add agolden highlight. The oaks wait, asthey did in spring, and then quicklyturn red, maroon and bronze. Thetamarack gets dressed for Halloween infine gold silks. Finally the willow, ashade of yellow-green all summer, turnseven more yellow and hangs on untilThanksgiving or beyond.

A few species hold their fruits and nutsafter they drop their leaves. Catkinsand seedpods provide close-up visualinterest into winter. Hemlock and jackpine are continuously adorned. Thecolorful cones of red cedars (juniper)can also be enjoyed through much ofthe year. White pine display their coneson their top boughs all year and dropmost for ground viewing on the snowin late winter if the red squirrels havenot cut them down earlier.

Winter color can be monotonous andleafless in mature maple/basswood/beech stands. But mixed standsincluding birch, oak and pine can bevery attractive especially whencombined with fresh snow and brightsunshine. Oak, especially young trees,sheltered from the wind, will retain theirbronze leaves for much or all of thewinter. Since young oak often grow at

the edge of the woods and alongroadways, they are a very importantcomponent of winter aesthetics. Whenthe large horizontal branches of oak ormaple hold a curving mound of snow,the forest teases the imagination withsnow snakes and other spooky creatures.

The biggest visual feast of the winter,however, is provided by snow-coveredpine, especially the fine-needled whitepine. The crystal clear blue sky andsunlight reflecting from every freshwhite surface is the aesthetic dessertof winter—real competition for thepeak fall colors.

Spring is underrated as an aesthetictreat. Some species start early; thepurple haze of white birch twigs andthe promising yellow of the willowoften slip across the landscape beforethe snow is gone. About the same time,the maple offer their sap and at selectplaces on the landscape, the maple(with help from a small ban of addictedbiophiliacs) offer the picturesque sceneof tapping and boiling maple sap intosyrup. The maple leaves come outearly—red for an instant before greenchlorophyll takes charge. The aspen indelicate Nile green turn a hillsidesubtle as a pastel painting. And finallythe bold oak leaves, that have waiteduntil the chance of hard frost is past,are born, as they will die, in shades ofheavy red. Before farmers listened tothe weather radio, corn planting wasdetermined by the size of oak leaves.When the oak leaves were the size of asquirrel’s ears, it was safe to plantfrost-sensitive corn.


All trees produce flowers. Most flowersare only subtly different from thefoliage already on the tree. Other treesflower before they leaf out to providemore aesthetic interest. A few treeslike serviceberry, black cherry, “wildapple” and wild plum produce attrac-tive blooms visible at a distance. Todevelop a crown of flowers and beseen, these trees need open sunlight.In spring, budding trees complement awhole host of spring ephemerals thatquickly replace the thawing snow andcapture the sunshine before hardwoodsblock out the light. Trees, likebasswood, also treat the nose topleasant smells.

Summer can be perceived as less inter-esting than the other three seasons inthe humid regions of the country whereeverything is green. However, there aredifferences in shades of green. Mostimportantly, the pervasive green sendsa reassuring message that the land isfruitful with crops and food and treesfor all of us.

Texture of the forest edgeIf the landscape forms a quilt of dif-ferent land uses, then the forest edgeis the ruffle between the patches.Landowners and citizens alike see theforest edge much more frequently(usually from a public road) than theysee the forest interior.

The edge is the visual enhancementzone for aesthetic management. Edgetexture is created by a whole set ofdimensions:

• The height of the tallest(dominant) trees.

• The density of the dominant trees.

• Proximity of dominant trees to theedge.

• The presence and density of othervegetative stories under the canopyof tall trees.

• The species of trees, especially themix of conifers and deciduous trees.

• The presence and density ofyounger trees in front of older treesfeathering toward the mature forestthrough natural reproduction orcarefully staged planting.

• The irregularity of the forest edgeand topline.

In general, the greater the variation inthese dimensions, the greater the“ruffle effect” and the more visuallyinteresting the forest edge will be. Aforest with natural reproduction and amix of species and ages is the easiestto manage for texture and color. Byspacing juvenile trees through initialthinning and subsequent standimprovement, the vision for the forestedge will have timeframes of 5, 10, 20and 50 or even 100 years. And suchmanagement manipulation is possiblewithout being obvious to anyoneviewing the forest edge from adistance.


Internal lightingTexture is also important to peopleviewing the forest from inside theforest. Many of the same dimensionsthat are relevant for forest edge aes-thetics are relevant to the forestinterior. However, their relative impor-tance changes. Inside the forest thediameter of dominant trees may bemore noticeable than their height.Variability in diameter may be valuedmore than variability in height. Densityis curvilinear—too few trees or toomany trees both detract from visualinterest.

All these dimensions are dynamic—depending on the season and theamount of light inside the forest. And,of course, all these factors are related.The amount of light in the forestdepends on the canopy closure, whichdepends on the height, density andspecies of trees. Mature sugar mapleshave the ability to shade out mostother species in the understory. Whilethe sparse understory limits certaintypes of wildlife, such a forest facili-tates both visual and physical penetra-tion. And when those maple leavesturn yellow in fall, the inside of theforest glows like a Chinese lantern.

Hemlock also growin shade and asadults create sucha closed canopythat the forest isalmost dark at highnoon. Yellow birchand white ash cangrow in shade butdon’t darken theforests as theancient hemlocksdid. Oaks usuallyallow greater lightinto the forest andthus support anunderstory of youngtrees, shrubs andforbs if the soil isrich enough tosupport them. The lower vegetationcaptures and diffuses sunlight creatinga serene sense of growth.

Finally, pines create special dynamiclighting effects. A stand of tall treeswith full crowns allows little sunlightto any specific spot of ground.However, narrow beams of sunshineprovide a light show that moves as thetrees sway and the sun anglesoverhead.

TopographyA rolling landscape with topographycreated by glaciers or water erosion indriftless areas is more visually inter-esting than flat terrain. The vistas fromridge tops are especially attractive.

While most woodland owners cannotand would not want to change theexisting topography of their land verymuch, forest practices can enhance ordiminish the aesthetic value. Plantingtrees in front of a scenic overlook willeventually create a green wall withlittle visual interest. Conversely, precisethinning or harvesting can create avista by opening downslope view lanes.


Land use diversityWisconsin is blessed with a variety ofnatural and cultural landscapes.Numerous lakes, streams, wetlands andglacial features break the forest coverof the Northwoods. Each break widensthe angle of viewing and enhancesvisual interest. Public land ensuressome intact broad forest landscapes.

In central and southwestern Wisconsin,forest and farmland co-exist in roughlyequal acreages. They complement eachother visually especially when tradi-tional farm buildings or grazing cattleare added to the scene.

In southeastern Wisconsin, agricultureand urban sprawl dominate but woodlotsand even individual trees provide visualpunctuation to the landscape.

Age and size structureThe eye, like the hand, is more com-fortable with images that can begrasped at one time. A small cornfieldin a setting of other crops, pasturelandor forest is attractive. Full sections ofcontinuous corn are boring. Plantationsof red pine can be fit into an agricul-tural landscape in a pleasing manner.However, large plantations are just asboring as large cornfields. In Finland,birch plantations on tiny patches ofland incapable of growing agriculturalcrops appear artful.

The same principle holds for the sizeand age of trees within a given forest.Small homogenous stands add interestto the larger forest as long as it is easyto physically or visually move to otherstands. Mixed stands in betweenhomogenous stands make that transi-tion easier (like synchronized slide pro-jectors and images that fade into eachother). In a sense, a forest with mixed

species, ages and sizes is even morediverse if it contains pockets of redpine, quaking aspen, white birch orsome other species likely to develop insmall pure stands. Such forests areeasiest to manage for aestheticbenefits since almost any individualtree, group of trees, or small standscan be integrated into a mosaic.

Basal area as surrogatefor aesthetic preferencesBasal area is a measurement of thetotal surface of wood that would beexposed if all the trees in an acre ofland were cut off at breast height—4.5 feet above the ground. Basal areais thus a function of both the size andthe number of trees. Both are corre-lated with scenic preferences. However,the relationship may be positive ornegative. Because both visual penetra-tion and size diversity are low, manysmall stems are not attractive. Visualscores increase as basal area increasesprovided the stand contains large

diameter trees; the aesthetic optimumfor early thinning of uneven agednorthern hardwoods, when only treeswith diameters larger than five inchesare measured, is 75–80 square feet ofbasal area per acre. Incidentally, thatbasal area is close to the post-harvestbasal area recommended for future sawlog production by researchers at theUSDA Argonne Experimental Forest innorthern Wisconsin.

However, the aesthetic optimumincreases as the stand ages and treesbecome larger. That suggests that theabsolute number of large trees ratherthan total basal area determines theoptimum. For a given number of trees,Ribe concludes, “scenic beauty alwaysincreases with overall basal area sug-gesting that once smaller stems areharvested or thinned, the residuallarger stems produce more perceivedbeauty.”


Managing forenhanced scenicbeauty

One of the meanings of “manage” is“to achieve one’s purpose.” That isthe meaning most appropriate towoodland management.Management includes all the

planning, implementation and evalua-tion steps shown in the diagram below.

Clarification of goals is the mostimportant step. It answers the whyquestion. Without a clear answer here,none of the other steps make anysense. Only the landowner can answerthis question.

Step 2 answers the first what questionby obtaining data on the physicalresource (inventory) and learning aboutsilviculture and related sciences (under-standing relationships in the forest).Most landowners will need professionalhelp doing the inventory and under-standing the silvicultural relationships.However, landowners can and shoulddevelop an understanding of basic sil-viculture.

Step 3 answers the second whatquestion by providing a full set ofalternative management schemes tomeet the goals set out in Step 1.Professional assistance will generally beneeded to develop all the options andlikely scenarios.

Step 4 answers the third whatquestion—what management schemeshould be selected from the alterna-tives. The decision on what to do isthe clear prerogative of the landowner.Professional assistance is not appro-priate in Step 4. Even a recommenda-tion from a professional interferes withthe motivation of the landowner tolearn about the forest and to enjoy thefruits of his/her own decisions. Andthen the landowner cannot blamesomeone else if outcomes are disappointing.

Step 5 answers the final what questionby listing the expected results of man-agement in terms of a given quantityby a specific date. Here are twoexamples:

1. Create five one-acre wildlifeopenings in Stand 2 by January 1,2004.

2. Increase the visual diversity of thewest side of Stand 3 (visible fromRiver Road) by reducing the redmaple component from 60% ofstems to 30% of stems by April 2,2005.


Chapter 5

16

goal(s)clarification

Step 1

inventory,understandrelationships

Step 2

conceptualizationof alternatives

Step 3

decision onmanagement scheme

Step 4

setting quantifiableobjectives

Step 5

implementation

Step 6

evaluation

Step 7

repeat processevery 10-12 years

Step 8

Woodland management process

Step 6 is the core how component. Itincludes all the management activity ofthe landowner, consultants and con-tractors. It also includes all the recordkeeping and financial transactions. Ifimplementation includes harvesting, aprofessional should be involved in exe-cution of the sale.

Step 7 answers the question: How welldid we do? It is often perceived to bedifficult. It is not difficult if the objec-tives in Step 5 are clearly defined. It iseasy to evaluate the two examplesprovided earlier:

1. How well did we do in getting fiveone-acre wildlife openings createdin Stand 2 by December 31, 2004?

2. How well did we do in reducing thered maple stems on the west sideof Stand 3 from 60% to 30% byApril 1, 2005?

Step 8 merely recognizes that theprocess is continuous and should beconsciously repeated at appropriatetime intervals. Refinements are alsolikely between those intervals.

The do-nothing optionManagement does not always involvemanipulation. If the decision to donothing is made on the basis of thelandowner’s goals with full under-standing of the likely consequencesand rejection of other alternatives,“doing nothing” is a legitimate man-agement scheme.

The keys to this scheme are the knowl-edge of silviculture, the likely aestheticresults and the timeframe. However,“doing nothing” is not management ifthe landowner simply ignores thewoodland and does not go through theeight steps outlined earlier.Unfortunately, such absence of man-agement is very common.

Plantations: planting andthinning with a visionIn Wisconsin and Minnesota (and inmany other states east of theMississippi River) planting is usuallydone to convert marginal farmland tomore productive woodland. The landwas usually forested prior to beingcleared for crops. Occasionally a privatelandowner will attempt to convert anexisting forestry type to a differentforest type. One method of conversioncan be underplanting with intermediateshade tolerant species such as spruce,white pine or red pine in areas withsignificant openings in the canopy. Asecond method is the use of herbicideto control regrowth of recently har-vested deciduous species and thusencouraging (releasing) existing pineto flourish. A third method involvesplanting of conifers (usually red pine)and using a herbicide to kill all othervegetation.

Plantings can enhance visual interestby increasing land use diversity andproviding a visual focus. They can alsoreduce visual interest by decreasingland use diversity, destroying vistasand reducing visual penetration, espe-cially from public roadways.

Plantations also vary in visual interestby age and spacing. A field of smallpine or spruce can be beautiful andprovide significant wildlife habitat. Bythe time plantation trees are pole-sizedthey have constructed a green wall anda “crew-cut” level ceiling with littlevalue for wildlife or aesthetics. A well-

thinned, mature plantation againallows visual penetration and interest.

Landowners, who want aesthetic value aswell as saw timber value from their plan-tation, can do several things to balancethose values. A list of management tipsare provided in the summary chapter.

In general, planting fewer trees,thinning more trees and leaving moretrees behind after the final harvestimproves visual quality. Aesthetics canalso be improved by planting diversespecies, spacing carefully and control-ling the thinning/harvesting intensity.

There are two important caveats forthese recommendations. First, while therecommendations will generallyenhance visual interest, the resultingstand will take more effort to harvestand provide less timber value. Second,some landowners may prefer a “produc-tive” looking image, such as rows ofcorn or swaths of hay. Traditionalplanting and thinning schemes aredesigned to maximize productivity anddo provide such an image.

Finally, trees destined to be saw logsmust be close enough to each otherduring the mid years of the rotation toform straight boles. As they mature,the trees’ own crowns have the effectof pruning lower branches if other treesare close enough to reduce sidelight.


For landowners, who have less interestin timber values, planting techniquescan be modified dramatically. Clumpplantings of mixed species in a randompattern over many years will produce amore natural looking forest. If the earlyplantings are made on the contouralong an existing tree line, they willmimic natural reproduction quite nicely.Some jurisdictions in Europe requirethis type of feathering when convertingagricultural land to forest land.

Underplanting with a visionThe primary reasons for understoryplanting is to enhance visual attrac-tiveness and to produce higher valuetimber in the next generation. Forexample, if an aspen stand is clear-cut,it will probably regenerate to aspen. Ifthe landowner prefers to convert thesite to pine or if the site is too low inproductivity to support good stands ofaspen but is better suited for pine,white pine can be planted under aspen.In aspen stands with a mostly opencanopy, red pine is also an option. If aharvest is conducted before under-planting, a minimum amount of basalarea should be left to partially shadethe ground and reduce aspen sprouting.If a natural white pine seed source is

present, scarification to expose mineralsoil will enhance pine regeneration. Inmany situations this succession occursnaturally. Whether natural, induced byscarification, or planted, the conifersadd color and visual interest to thestand. The remaining aspen (or whitebirch) component visually complementsthe younger pine. Planting pine underoak or encouraging that natural processis also an option.

Converting other hardwoods to red pineor jack pine would require cutting vir-tually all trees to completely open thecanopy and suppress deciduous growthby use of herbicides. This practice isalso costly.

Where overpopulations of deer browsepine, white spruce can be underplantedto add the same color patterns.However, planted spruce may remainstunted (root checked) for several yearsafter planting.

Planting deciduous species like oakunder a pine canopy is also difficultduring times of excessive deernumbers. Planting acorns or watchingsquirrels and blue jays do the job is anoption for small areas. Oak will provideattractive visual contrast with pineespecially in autumn and winter.

White birch complements both oak andpine. White birch is hard to regenerateafter a harvest without drastic treat-ment such as a fire. However, birchtends to regenerate naturally wheremost valuable—along treelines androadways. The issue then is whetherpublic policy should be to cut all thetrees in the right of way or allow thefringe of the corridor to harbor treesand birds. Birch prefer moist conditionswith shade to protect their shallowroots when they are young and cannotprovide that shade themselves. Laterthey flourish if given full sunlight.White birch planting is usually done forornamental purposes on lawns wherethey are attractive but susceptible tobirch leaf miner and bronze birch borer.Woodland owners sometimes plantbirch in special places for “a splash ofwhite.”

Planting deciduous species under adeciduous canopy is rarely practicedand offers less visual diversity thanconifers under deciduous species ordeciduous species under pine.

Tolerance is a term used by forest ecol-ogists to describe a tree species’ abilityto develop and grow in the shade ofother trees that are competing with it.Shade tolerant species will generallygrow under older trees that are lessshade tolerant. Intermediate species,such as red/black oak and white pine,will alternate growing under eachother.


Envisioning how to thin a natural standIf the goal of forest management is toproduce the maximum amount of cellu-lose for pulp, thinning is not costeffective. The trees will compete tocapture the maximum amount ofsunshine and thin themselves. Manualthinning will create temporary holes inthe canopy and thus reduce the amountof sunlight captured by the trees.However, if quality timber and visualattractiveness are the goals of manage-ment, thinning can be an effectivetool. If the landowner has the time andskills to conduct this labor-intensivepractice, thinning is much morefeasible from an economic perspective.

Traditional timber stand improvementis oriented solely to producing highquality logs in the final harvest. Themost common species managed for sawlogs are red pine, white pine, red oak,white ash, yellow birch and sugarmaple. When several of these speciesare present in a mixed stand, they willprovide complementary color andtexture as well as saw logs. Even themore common situation of a few pine

or spruce scattered through a hardwoodforest offers visual amenity.

Thinning has great potential for aes-thetic enhancement if such values areintegrated into the plan and its execu-tion. In general, pockets of white birch(and sometimes aspen) can be favoredwhere they can withstand competitionfrom shade-tolerant species. Birch addsdramatic color in all seasons of theyear. The saw log species are oftenfavored for both beauty and enhancedeconomic return. While thinning islabor intensive, it can be veryrewarding work for a landowner whohas a vision of how the forest land-scape might look for many years basedon his/her work. Thinnings leave along legacy—a signature on the land.

Thinnings are a work of art more than ascience. Choices are made by the minutemuch like an artist deciding into whichpaint to dip the brush. But the paintingis never done. The landowner mustreturn regularly to continue to imple-ment the preferred species mix and theshape of the trees. If thinning is heavy,the remaining trees will spread out andproduce larger crowns, bigger lateral

branches and larger trunks. If thinningis light, trees will grow straight, tall andvery slender with few lower branches,producing clearer saw timber with fewerknots. The understory will be sparsewith minimal reproduction.

With each cut of the chainsaw thepainting changes. Without a vision forthe painting, the cuts may do morevisual (and timber) harm than good.

With a vision, each decision aboutwhether or not to cut a tree is arewarding stroke of creativity. Forestedges facing a road are especiallyimportant because the road is the artgallery. The artist should frequentlystep out onto the road to observe howthe edge will look if individual treesare cut.


Very intolerantAspenJack pineCottonwoodTamarack

IntolerantButternut hickoryBlack cherryRed pineBlack ashBlack walnutPaper (white) birchWhite ash

IntermediateAmerican elmBur oakRed oakShagbark hickoryWhite oakWhite spruceBlack oakWhite pineYellow birch

TolerantBasswoodBox elderNorthern white cedarSilver mapleBlack spruceIronwoodRed mapleSlippery elm

Very tolerantAmerican beechHemlockBalsam firSugar maple

Shade tolerance of Lake States trees

Adapted from Woodland Management (Summer 1997) by Jeff Martin and Tom Grower.

I have read many definitions of what is a conservationist and writtennot a few myself, but I suspect that the best one is written not with apen but with an axe. It is a matter of what a man (person) thinksabout while chopping or while deciding to chop. A conservationist isone who is humbly aware that with each stroke (of the axe) he iswriting his signature on the face of the land. Signatures of coursediffer whether written with an axe or pen, and this is as it should be.

—Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac (1949)

Chainsaw art: harvesting with a visionAs a stand matures, thinnings mergeinto harvests. A commercial thinningfocused on aesthetics removes treesthat interfere with the development ofthe landowner’s vision. If a hardwoodor pine/hardwood stand is managed forbeauty and for sustainable high qualitysaw log and veneer log production,thinnings will remove declining maturetrees for saw logs and poorer qualitytrees for pulp, firewood or specialtyuses. This method is referred to as“cutting from below” because it leavesthe best trees to grow into higherquality logs.

Save trees versus cut treesUnder crop tree silviculture, wildlife andaesthetic considerations can both beenhanced by stand improvement thin-nings and commercial thinnings. Deadand den trees are left for both visualand wildlife values. Dead trees provide ahome for insects which feed downy andpiliated woodpeckers that create holesused by gray squirrels and pine martin.If mast producing oak and hickory treesare not abundant, they might be lefteven after they begin to decline. Deer,turkeys, squirrels and blue jays would bemost appreciative. Wolf (extra widecrown) trees and snag trees withunusual shapes add visual interest.Species that are rare in the stand shouldrarely be cut. Species that are abundantshould be most frequently cut if thevision includes diversity as a goal.

Rotation timeAdding aesthetics to the set of man-agement values will generally increaserotation time because more visual valueis put on larger trees. Longer rotationsalso yield greater scenic flows overtime since the negative impacts of har-vesting occur less frequently. The trendtoward longer rotation times is alsooccurring as silvicultural researchshows that even after maturity the rateof growth declines very slowly. Thusmature trees, while not as productiveas middle-aged trees, produce more andhigher quality wood than young trees.

Harvest typeIn his comprehensive review ofresearch on aesthetic preferences, Ribeconcludes: “Not surprisingly, the mostessential and obvious finding regardingharvest perception is that the greaterthe proportion of trees removed, thelower the scenic value of the result.”

Many hardwood stands date from theinitial heavy harvest and are thusalmost even-aged. These can be slowlyconverted to uneven-aged forests by aseries of thinnings accompanied by thecreation of canopy openings. Theseopenings encourage regeneration of avariety of species and thus preservediversity.

Facilitate conversion of even-agedstands to uneven-aged stands bycutting all trees within circular plots ata few sites scattered throughout eachacre. Repeat the process periodically,usually during subsequent harvests.Save trees that are unusual in theforest by moving the plot.

If even-aged stands are desired, somehardwoods can be regenerated by shel-terwood cuts. Most trees are cut butindividual trees are left for partialshade and sometimes as a source ofseeds. Traditionally the large “nurse”trees are cut in a final harvest tocreate an even-aged stand. Recently,they have more frequently been left toprovide structural diversity.

Clear cutting has the most negativeconnotation even though it is mostefficient for some species and essentialfor others. Some hunters and wildlifemanagers prefer clearcuts because theytend to enhance future hunting oppor-tunities for certain game species.

These even-aged forests, which laguneven-aged forests in attractivenessthrough most of the rotation, becomemore attractive at maturity because oflarge numbers of large trees and highvisual penetration.

A landowner’s choice of harvest type isnot open-ended. It is constrained bythe existing plant and animal commu-nities, soil capabilities, microclimatesand economics. These constraintsshould be discussed with one or moreresource management professionals.


The author manages an uneven-agedmixed hardwood and pine forest with atleast 20 species of trees. He uses thefollowing management regimen on sandyloam soil in cental Wisconsin.

Aesthetics are of paramount concernsince the woodland faces a public roadused daily by the author and his family.The woods are viewed from both theroad and the family home across twofive-acre fields separated by a lightlywooded intermittent stream.

1. Because of their special aestheticinterest, remaining white birch arebeing released from nearby maple toprolong their lives. However, wherelarge numbers of red maple arealready as tall as the birch, it is verydifficult to save the birch. Most ofthe effort to favor birch is directed atthe young trees near the forest edgewhere competing red maple saplingsare cut to release the birch.

2. White and red oak are being releasedby cutting nearby red maple forfirewood, pulp and logs. Oaks arepreferred because of their wildlifevalue (acorns), visual attractiveness,potential for commercial logs andinability to regenerate under a maplecanopy. Usually maple are smallerthan the oak but are growing up fromunderneath to steal sunlight fromlower branches of the oak. Red oakare common enough to eventuallycut—some for high-priced veneerlogs. Because white oak survivedearlier pasturing, are more wiltresistant, have unusual shapes andare more rare, they will not be cut.Oak reproduction has stopped due tointense deer browsing.

3. If solid enough to produce a saw log,black and pin oak are harvested sincethey usually die before their 100thbirthdays. Oaks with heart rot are leftfor wildlife unless they shade an aes-thetic save tree or timber crop tree.In those cases the black and pin oaksare cut for firewood.

4. Yellow birch are partially released.They are shade tolerant and branchout if given too much room. Thegeneral rule of clearing seven feetaround the crown to encouragegrowth of hardwoods has beenreduced to about five feet. Becausethey are: 1) rare; 2) unable to repro-duce due to the lack of exposedmineral soil for their small seed andbecause deer love to eat them; 3)visually striking; and 4) very valuableas veneer logs, they get special carewhen other trees are cut.

5. Hemlock are also being partiallyreleased. The species is shadetolerant and has interesting shortneedles. Deer densities in the pastten years have precluded any regen-eration. Great care is taken to protect10- to 30-year-old hemlocks whennearby trees are cut. A single seedtree has produced several hundredsaplings and pole-sized offspring in acircumference of 200 feet.

Because hemlock stands are rare inthe region, they receive priorityduring thinning and will probablynever be cut while the woodlot isunder current ownership.

6. Bigtooth aspen tower above themaple with their distinctive tan barkand late fall foliage. Their smallnumbers, unusual height and largediameter dictate no cuttings.

7. Quaking aspen are harvested becausethey are a short-lived species and aredeclining. The openings created inthe canopy are primarily used by oakand white pine. Because the quakingaspen are scattered, canopy holes aresmall, and because remaining basalarea is above 70 square feet per acre,no reproduction of aspen is occurringfrom root sprouts.

8. The largest red maple are savedbecause they already have rottenheartwood, make good den trees,produce abundant maple sap, andadd a bulky, shaggy texture to thewoodlot.

9. Poor quality red maple are cut forfirewood and occasionally for pulp.Annual cutting for firewood producesonly small holes in the canopy.Treetops and low quality red mapleprovide more than enough firewoodfor domestic use. Red maple withsolid, moderate-sized trunks are cutfor saw logs to release other speciesand to thin homogenous red mapleareas to about 80 percent crowncover and about seven feet betweenremaining crowns.

10.Sugar maple trees are left for futuregrowth unless decline is evident orthe tree has poor form. Sugar maplethat are shading trees with highscenic value—pines, oaks, birches orhemlock—are also cut. Small sugarmaples constitute the dominantspecies of the future forest. Asvaluable saw timber and maple sapproducers, they are protected duringthe harvest of other trees and lightlythinned to favor the straightest stem.Self-thinning is more significant.

11.White ash are also reproducing. Theyare protected during harvesting ofother trees because they representhigh quality future saw logs.

12.Red pines are rare and not able toreproduce due to insufficientsunlight. Existing individuals areoffered as much sunlight as possibleby cutting surrounding maple.

13.White pine are tolerant enough ofexisting shade to reproduce, but deerbrowse heavily on seedlings in latewinter. Terminal buds are cappedwith paper hats each winter toprotect them. Young pines are pro-tected during harvesting becausethey can grow in partial sunlight andeventually grow above the canopy ofhardwoods. They also possess themost symbolic value in the LakeStates. White pine saplings andpoles are released from taller redmaples and ironwood and arethinned if necessary. Mature whitepines are rare and are not cut unlessthey are clearly dying from forceslike lightning or wind. White pinewith heart rot are left for wildlife.Tall white pines furnish the mostvisual magnetism throughout theyear and are easily observed fromthe road and the house.

This recipe guides the author’s chainsawartistry on a tree-by-tree basis. Ofcourse, a different owner with differentgoals on a different site with differentexposure, slope, soils and a differenthistory of harvesting and pasturingmight select a different managementregime.

New Hopestead home recipe

21

Size and shape of harvest plotsThe disturbance from a careful harvestthat maintains 80 percent crown coverin an uneven-aged stand will not evenbe noticeable from a distance.

With clear cutting harvesting systems,size and shape of plots are critical aes-thetic variables. Prescriptions varydepending upon how much harvestingefficiency the landowner and logger arewilling to sacrifice for a better-lookingresult. Typically, landowners withsmaller acreages or with high visibilitysites are willing to sacrifice morepotential stumpage value because ofthe high value they place on visualamenities.

The landowner and logger must find amutually acceptable balance betweenefficiency and beauty. A landowner whosets too many restrictions on har-vesting may not find a willing logger. Alogger who insists on efficiency at theexpense of beauty may not get manylogging contracts.

Recognizing that balance, the tech-niques in the sidebar are likely tominimize the aesthetic costs of har-vesting under all regeneration methods,especially clear cutting.

Save treesThe concept of“save trees” ispremised onthe attractive-ness of indi-vidual trees.The selecttrees may bethe trees withthe bestpotential forproducing avaluable log.They may betrees withspecial visualinterest. They may be trees essentialfor wildlife, or old trees that survived20th century logging and the fires thatfollowed—trees that many landownerswill leave to die where they stand.Because of their unique beauty orvisual interest, some trees are nevercut. The crop they produce is beauty.

Den trees have cavities that can beused by wildlife for nesting and shelter.Most forests have only a limitednumber of such trees. In addition toproviding habitat for birds and fur-bearing mammals, they are aestheti-cally interesting. In a forest managedfor multiple values, including wildlifeand natural beauty, den trees should besaved during harvests.

Snag trees havea variety ofunusual shapes.Their “disfigura-tion” may becaused bydamage from apreviousharvest, froma neighboringtree that fellfrom naturalcauses, from anice storm orfrom the workof porcupines.If twisted trees

are prevalent, as they often are withScotch pine, there may be a geneticdeterminant.

While snag trees have little timbervalue, they do provide visual interest.However, a whole stand of misshapenScotch pine has few redeeming quali-ties, especially since Scotch pine is nota native species and has few uses inthis country except for Christmas trees.Since Scotch pine is an aggressiveinvader of abandoned farmland, itactually represents a threat to nativespecies.


Techniques to minimize the aesthetic cost of harvesting1. Keep plots small.

2. The edges of the plots should be irregular and follow thecontours of the land.

3. If vegetative buffers between harvesting and publicroads are used, they should be substantial. (Thinscreening may actually insult the viewer and be worsethan no screening at all.)

4. Harvesting in riparian areas (near lakes and streams) andnear wetlands should conform to Best ManagementPractices with setbacks, winter harvesting and engi-neered stream crossings.

5. The appropriate harvest system and equipment is usedconsistent with all the landowner’s objectives.

Wolf trees are trees that developed inan open area, spreading out laterallybefore other trees grew up aroundthem. They are attractive in areas thatare still open or in savannas wheretrees (usually oak) are interspersedwith prairie. In a forest where repro-duction of other trees has occurredaround and sometimes through wolftrees, they provide visual interest bothin size of trunk and breadth of crown.However, if future timber values areimportant to a landowner, such treescan be carefully cut to open thecanopy for several understory trees ofpotential commercial value.

Signature trees are often white pine orwhite oak left over from an earlierharvest. Because they have long lifespans, these trees have the potentialto continue to stand alone or abovethe rest of the canopy for a long time.Thus they have very high aestheticvalue and rarely should be cut ifnatural beauty is a management goal.

Also spared the chainsaw are rare treesthat are uncommon on the property orin the area. For example, a pocket ofyellow birch or hemlock would beunusual in southern Wisconsin. Bothhave distinctive visual qualities. In the1990s, too many deer coming to dinnerresulted in poor reproduction, even innorthern Wisconsin.

Residual damageIf trees are felled carelessly or har-vesting equipment scrapes the trunksand roots of future crop trees, theeconomic value of the forest will bereduced. The amount of capital earninginterest in the forest bank will be lowerfor a very long time.

But damage to residual trees does morethan reduce future economic return; itdamages short- and long-term aestheticvalue. Such damage is a vivid exampleof the worst traditions of the loggingindustry. Landowners may react bydeciding never to allow loggers in thewoodlot again. Many landowners feel asense of loss and helplessness notunlike the feelings associated with theinjury or death of a pet—some muchworse. For the many landowners whohave an emotional attachment to theirtrees, logging scars on the residualtrees are painful reminders of a har-vesting decision that they now regret.

Involving a forester in a timber saleand visiting the site frequently duringthe logging can usually help avoid thispainful situation.

If the focus of harvesting is on “what isleft” rather than “what is taken out,”visual penetration will increase and theresidual trees will look bold and healthywith room to grow. The landowner andthe logger can both be proud of such aresult. The use of horse logging at thelow-tech end and mechanical processorswith articulating booms at the high-tech end can both produce this result.

Treatment of slashWhere firewood is in high demand,slash is a resource and its managementis part of the harvest. Slash is also anutrient resource for the life cycle ofmany organisms, including residual andfuture trees. Large limbs contributecoarse woody debris to the forest floorand sustain ecological processes andbiodiversity; for example, habitat forthe spotted salamander.

Aesthetically, slash is a double-edgedsword. Most landowners want slash cutdown to reduce its visibility and hastenthe rotting process. On purely aestheticgrounds, removing all slash may bepreferable but such a practice is nothealthy forthe biologicalsystem oreconomicalfor a logger.

Coarse woodydebris on theground is alsoleft by stormdamage or thedeath of indi-vidual trees.Downed treescan beembraced aspart ofnature’s recy-cling and areoften consid-ered beau-tiful—visualevidence that

natural processes are sometimes, insome places, allowed to run their owncourse.

The same scenario may be perceived aswasteful and untidy and thus have agenerally negative connotation.Cultural differences clearly influencethe perception of dead trees lying onthe ground in various stages of disinte-gration. Some European cultures valuea “clean” woods and the efficient useof all parts of a cut tree.

Forest roads and landingsWell-constructed and maintained forestroads can be a visual and recreationalasset. A gently winding road without

scarred banksand treesportrays asense ofbalancebetween envi-ronment andeconomics.The view linefirst drawsattention andthen inspirescuriosityabout what isaround thebend.


In contrast, logging roads are oftenleft with ruts, steep unvegetatedbanks, frequent contours crossings, andcontinuing erosion. Such roadsdiminish recreational potential,property value and environmentalsecurity as well as aesthetic value.Non-integrated practices thus violateother values in addition to aesthetics.But unfortunately, common sense pre-scriptions are often violated in thename of short-term efficiency.

Logging yards also carry the potentialfor serious detriment to aestheticvalues. A Guide to Logging Aesthetics14

published by the Northeast ForestResources Extension Council opens thesection on “Landings” with thesewords:

There is seldom adequate fore-thought given to the impact ofmerging men, mud, and machineryin these openings in the woods.

However, with forethought, landingscan be screened from roadways whileactive and left as assets rather thanliabilities. Landings provide wildlifeopenings that can develop with pioneerspecies that need the open sunlight.Thus, they can add species and visualdiversity to a mature forest. If they aremaintained with a dense cover ofnative grasses or by mechanical means,landings can serve as focal points forforest-based recreation. If properly pro-tected from erosion, they are availablefor reuse in subsequent harvesting.

RegenerationNo other consequence of harvestingwill have as much long-term impact onvisual values as the regeneration thatoccurs as a result of harvesting.

On fertile soils, light thinnings andpartial harvests will push a foresttoward regeneration of climax speciesthat can grow under shade: sugarmaple, balsam fir and hemlock. On lessfertile sites, white pine and several oakspecies seem to grow together or inshifts.

Shelterwoods are used to regeneratespecies like oak that like to start life inpartial shade, but then get full sunwhen the shelter is cut in the follow-up harvest.

White birch, difficult to systematicallyregenerate, often find hospitable con-ditions at the forest/field edge, orforest/road edge where seedlings growin partial shade and the saplings breakthrough or out of the shade by twistingand turning.

Clear cutting promotes the return ofpioneer species—especially aspen. Jackpine, red pine and oak species preferfire to expose mineral soil and to opencones (jack pine).

Red maple is opportunistic. It growsunder a wide variety of conditions andregenerates from seeds or coppicesprouting from stumps.

The time of harvest also impacts regen-eration, the eventual composition ofspecies, and the long-term visualquality. Harvesting on frozen groundand before leafout tends to increaseaspen root sprouting although good


1. Use published Best ManagementPractices to minimize soil erosionand protect water quality.

2. Utilize soil surveys to identifyproblem soils. Seek assistancefrom the County LandConservation Department or theUSDA Natural Resource Conserva-tion Service if necessary.

3. Follow wetland regulations anduse a geotextile mat where wetspots must be crossed.

4. Obtain a state permit beforecrossing streams.

5. Fit roads to the contours of thetopography.

6. Avoid long level sections that willnot drain.

7. Avoid long and steep grades.

8. Determine proper slopes for cutand fill operations.

9. Stay out of the woods if soils arewaterlogged (especially heavysoils).

10. Install culverts to preservedrainage patterns or use tempo-rary bridges.

11. Confine harvesting on wet soils orhigh erosion-prone areas to thelimited months when ground isfrozen.

12. Avoid transporting logs in thewoods or on the public roadsduring “breakup” (mud season).Abide by weight limits all year.

13. Locate winter roads on the northslope or in the shade of conifersto minimize thawing and rutting.

Rx for forest roads

suckering reproduction often followsspring or summer cutting as well.(Popple peeling of the bark is onlypossible when the bark is loose inspring.)

In central and southern Wisconsinspring and summer harvesting of aforest containing oak might result inkilling the residual oak through oakwilt. Harvesting when the ground isnot frozen and skidding the logs willexpose some mineral soil that willencourage regeneration of pine andbirch. However, short hauling logs thatare cut to length in the woods willreduce the damage to residual treesand reduce erosion.

Roadside tree managementLandowners often own and pay taxeson the land over which a local publicroad runs. The governmental unit ownsthe right of way or has a broadeasement to manipulate the roadbed,the shoulder, the ditch and far shoulderof the ditch. A four-rod (66-foot) rightof way is common for local roads.

Trees on the far shoulder are oftenimportant to landowners and otherusers of the road as an aestheticresource. Roadsides are particularlyimportant to break up monotonousfields, screen residential developmentand provide habitat for birds. Treesthat wrap over a road are especiallyhighly valued.

Often landowners, some of whom don’teven receive notice before their roadsidetrees are cut, feel helpless to defendtheir aesthetic interest. However,natural beauty can be integrated withthe legitimate safety, drainage and lia-bility concerns of local highway depart-ments. Local legislative bodies havebroad discretion and are not liable fordecisions regarding their roadside treepolicy or for other legislative decisionssuch as where to place stop signs. Theyincur liability if they fail to implement apolicy they have adopted; for example,failing to replace a stop sign knockeddown by a snow plow or failing to cutspecified trees in the right-of-way afteradopting such a policy.

Therefore, landowners, other citizenswho enjoy roadside trees, and localofficials have a great deal of flexibilityin managing roadside trees in which allparties have an interest. Reduced speedlimits and special designation of morerustic roads can be part of such agree-ments to integrate individual security(safety), economics of road mainte-nance, and aesthetic values.

Using wood aestheticallyThe natural beauty of the forests canbe transformed into beautiful woodproducts: from log homes to hardwoodfloors, to bowls, to many other artisanand industrial products. Firewood notonly looks warm but physically feelswarm three times: first, when har-vested; second, when split and moved;and third, when burned.

Relationship to recreation and wildlifemanagementPositive impacts on aesthetic qualityare usually associated with positiveimpacts on recreation and wildlifemanagement. Conversely, negativeimpacts are also correlated. Thus inte-grated planning and management forall three values is logical.

Of the three values, aesthetics is themost general. While outdoor recreationand wildlife usually have a strong aes-thetic component, natural beauty canalso be enjoyed passively from a parkbench or a car. All three can be enjoyedvicariously on videos or television. Evensome hunters, who go to the woods inpursuit of game, report that experi-encing the natural beauty, silence andsolitude of the woods is more importantthan how many animals they bag.

Of course, the correlation is notperfect. Some popular species ofwildlife find more food and cover inbrushy and young forests that aren’trated as aesthetically high as moremature forests. And outdoor recreation-ists with motors (snowmobiles andfour-wheelers) can damage the aes-thetics of the forest from both physicaland psychological standpoints.


Related values

Beyond recreation and wildlifehabitat there are other valuesrelated to aesthetics that areusually not included in surveys,much less in management plans.

These values are not included in socialresearch because researchers may notrecognize them. When they are recog-nized, researchers are wary of trying tomeasure such nebulous concepts.Landowners may not recognize themeither. And if they do recognize thesevalues, landowners may not want topublicly acknowledge them becausethey are so personal.

Though difficultto pin down,these valueshave a specialsignificance. Forsomelandowners,they may

actually be the primary reason forowning forestland. They are includedhere with aesthetics because of theirvery high correlation with scenicbeauty, because of their potential sig-nificance to many landowners, becausethey are rarely included as goals inmanagement plans, and because uni-versities seldom include them in thetraining of professionals or in thepreparation of educational materials forforest landowners.

KinesthesiaThis word refers to anexperience everybody haswhen walking in thewoods. Walking in thewoods is usually more aes-thetically pleasing thanwalking down the highwayor a sidewalk. For a physi-cally able person, walkingin the woods is alwaysmore kinestheticallypleasing than walking onsmooth pavement in astraight line.

Movement of the muscles,tendons and joints triggerskinesthesia. These bodymovements stimulate apositive reaction in thebrain. This sensory experi-ence, called kinesthesia, is usually notconsciously recognized because theconcept is not well known and thesense is subtle.

A walk, run or ski in the woodsrequires more frequent musclemovement than walking down a street.The woods experience includes turnswhich change the weight placed oneach foot; even slight changes of speedin each foot as the outside foot travelsslightly faster and farther to maketurns trigger kinesthesia.

A walk or ski in the woods usuallyincludes changes in elevation. As thetopography changes, speed changesand different muscles are stimulatedwhile ascending a hill than when

descending a slope. Stepping overdeadfalls and around standing treesand understory obstacles requires majornon-repetitive muscle movement. Thegreatest kinesthetic benefit is experi-enced when the whole body has tobend to avoid overhanging branches orto jump across a stream or crevice.

Some cities and private developers willleave trees in the path of a sidewalk ortrail to force people to walk aroundthem. Special aesthetic and kinestheticbenefits are experienced when cross-country skiing after a heavy snow. Thebody has to regularly bend, duck andswerve to avoid branches or boughsweighted down over the trail by snow.


Chapter 6

26

Many forest landowners will freely admitthat they love their woods and that they

act according to a land ethic.

A few developers and park managersbuild sidewalks or trails under trees withlarge overhanging limbs that requirepeople to bend down to get under them.While such conscious managementchoices usually enhance aesthetics, theyclearly enhance kinesthesia.

Forest landowners can also enhance theeffects of kinesthesia by walking throughthe woods on random routes rather thanon trails. If hiking trails are constructedto reduce impact on the vegetation andeliminate most obstacles, trees and lowhanging limbs can be left in the path torequire some differential use of muscles,tendons and joints. If hikers, joggersand skiers use existing logging roads,the curving nature of such roads stillprovides kinesthetic pleasure. If manage-ment of harvesting activities follows anintegrated management plan, thelogging roads can be laid out to enhanceboth future aesthetic and kinestheticvalues as well as future movement offorest products.

Emotional securityMany people have difficulty discussingand expressing emotions. Engineers andscientists use data, not emotions, todrive their decisions. But goals are thebasis for planning and decision making.Data only become relevant after thegoals are articulated and clarified.Goals answer the questions: “Why dowe want to do this?” Goals are heavilyvalue laden, making emotional securitya primary value of woodland planningand decision making for privatelandowners.

With the peculiarly American emphasison individual freedom and individualsecurity, independence is usually con-sidered the optimal state for ourcountry or for us as individuals. Butindependence, for either a country or aperson, is only the second step inachieving maturity.

A young person depends on parents orother adults to provide food andshelter and the full range of otherphysical, psychological and socialnecessities. The child’s emotionalsecurity is largely based on the love(and attendant behavior) of adults. Thedependent child’s focus is on “you”(the people who provide emotionalsecurity).

As a child matures, independencedevelops from tying shoes to opening achecking account to driving a car. Thefocus of an independent person is on“I—I am financially independent. Imake my own decisions.”

But the process of maturing is notcomplete until the person (or country)recognizes interdependence. This inter-dependence takes many forms. For acountry it may be international trade orenvironmental security. For an indi-vidual, interdependence is expressed inmany relationships at work, at homeand in the community. The focus ofmature individuals, who recognize theirinterdependence, is on “we.” Forexample, “We can achieve great thingsthrough teamwork as a family or as acommunity.”

Forestland (often with a cabin), likelakeshore property with a cottage, cannurture relationships between familyand friends, whether the experienceson the land are as active as crosscountry skiing or as passive as appreci-ating the aesthetics of changing leafcolors.

Families and friends are especially fondof such places where there are fewercareer and family tensions. Times spenttogether in the woods or at the cabinprovide peasant memories—a founda-tion for emotional security.

Forestland provides the context for asecond type of emotional bond—thebond between people and a specificpiece of the land. Over several years ordecades or generations, the attachmentgrows. As the land begins to show theresults of previous management activity,the attachment can include emotionssimilar to those of parenting. Plantingtrees and watching them candle eachyear and stretch toward the sky hasparallels to watching a child grow. Manyforest landowners, especially late inlife, will freely admit that they lovetheir woods and that they act accordingto a land ethic. The land is part of thelandowner’s sense of community—asense of interdependence.

The sense of community may evenextend back in time to previouslandowners who left a mark on thelandscape. Sometimes the landownermade conscious decisions for the futureof the woods by saving certain trees ormanaging certain stands in an unusual


way. Other times the result was notplanned. A tree left in a pasture toprovide shade for cows grew broadlateral limbs. Later that tree, sur-rounded by new regeneration of treesin the middle of the woods, can stillevoke images of the farmer collectingthe cattle for milking and the home-stead children climbing the tree,perhaps playing “hide and seek” in lieuof watching TV. The woods are part of alandowner’s emotional security.

Spiritual dimensionsTo say that woodlands are part of alandowner’s spirituality seems evenmore unusual than to say woodlandsprovide emotional security. But spiritu-ality related to nature is not inconsis-tent with or mutually exclusive of thespirituality related to religion andtheology. While humility, serenity andawe are part of both types of spiritu-ality, the belief systems operate in dif-ferent and compatible spheres.

A towering white pine, an oak withmassive lateral branches, an old sugarmaple with a trunk blackened fromescaping sugar, a mature grove ofmixed hardwoods, and almost any oldgrowth stand inspires humility. Therecognition that these trees have expe-rienced many human lifetimes andmight experience more is humbling.Even people who pursue active har-vesting of other trees on their propertyoften consider such trees sacred.

Awe is related to humility but adds atouch of wonder and reverence. Singletrees sometimes are inspirational butawe is more commonly the combinedeffect of numerous large trees. Thesight and sounds of water nearbyheighten this reaction.

Serenity is less related to the size oftrees than to a sense of isolation fromthe pressures and noise of modern civi-lization. If a lightly used stream orlake complements the forest, serenityis enhanced further.

The spiritual dimension is rarely theonly or most important reason to ownforestland. However, it is possible tointegrate the spiritual dimension withother goals in management plans. Andmanagement practices can diminish orenhance spiritual value. The first man-agement prerequisite is to reservespecial places from harvesting. In somecases a thinning or light harvest maybenefit the value but usually thesesites need preservation.

Trails for other uses, especially motor-ized vehicles, should be routed awayfrom such sites. Most types of signagewould also detract from the experience.The spiritual dimension, whether expe-rienced alone or in groups, is the mostfragile goal of all. Treading lightly inall activities is probably the best man-agement advice if spiritual dimensionis an important consideration.

Physical security: adouble-edged woodenswordFor Robin Hood and his merry band ofthieves the Sherwood Forest providedphysical security. In other contexts, inother centuries, the woods providedfood, shelter and protection. Thewoods had a positive connotation aspart of “individual security.”

But the woods have the opposite imageas well. In the American context, theforest was more often considered dan-gerous or at least a barrier to travel, tofarming and to the establishment ofcommunities.

For the landowner, this double-edgedsword is mostly of historic interest.However, landowners should be awarethat many urban dwellers, possiblyincluding their own relatives andfriends, might be uncomfortable in thewoods—especially by themselves. Theymight fear getting lost or meeting abear. Accompanying them or providinga map may help them enjoy the woods

more. Enjoying the woods from theoutside is not the same as enjoyingthem from the inside.

Forested wilderness: thecall of the wild or escapefrom civilizationForested wilderness usually refers tolarge tracts of public land. Fewlandowners can accumulate or affordthe 5,000-acre minimum used as thestandard by the federal government inthe Eastern United States.

However, many landowners feel a senseof wilderness when they are in the farreaches of their property and have leftthe sounds of the highways behind. Theyare escaping, at least for a little while,the most obvious aspects of civilization.

But the woods are a magnet as well asa refuge. The pull may be active recre-ation such as skiing under the quietspell of falling snow or activity asmellow as listening to avian love songson a spring dawn before the rest of theworld awakens.


Enhancing the community’s quality of life

Everyone on the planet is ultimatelyaffected, usually without beingaware of it, by the positive andnegative impacts of forest manage-ment. Private property rights are a

strong expression of individualfreedom—especially in the UnitedStates. Recreation is a major use ofpublic and private forestland. Theeconomic opportunities presented bywoodlands are vitally important toworkers in the forest products and hos-pitality industries and to the communi-ties where those industries employmany people. But of all the importantvalues that trees and woodlandsprovide to communities, aestheticquality affects the largest number ofpeople on a daily basis. That does notmake aesthetic values more important.Since all primary needs must be met,priority setting is irrelevant. Balance isrelevant and essential.

Integrated management of privatewoodland should enhance communitygoals. The word “should” is used fortwo reasons. First, the activities ofprivate and public forest landowners donot always contribute to the quality oflife in the community.

And second, private landowners have aresponsibility to do their part to con-tribute to that quality of life. They areinterdependent with the community asa whole and with its individualmembers—most of whom do not ownwoodlands.

Biophilia for the publicAll the values offered by woodlands areimportant to the community. Sincenatural beauty can be appreciated froma distance, aesthetic value can beshared without providing physicalaccess or dealing with unauthorizeduse of the property. People seldomtrespass to get a better view of thewoods.


Chapter 7

29

Everytime I drive by a stand of trees that I persuadedthe owners to spare, or hear the breeze at night inyoung trees I planted myself, I realize that I can dosomething about the climate, and if a thousand yearsfrom now people are a little happier, then it’s partlybecause of me.

—Uncle Vanya (1897), The Plays of Anton Chekov

Though they will usually not trespassto obtain an aesthetic experience,members of the public have the sameneed for natural beauty as landowners.Cities can be designed to respondbetter to that need but the countrysidewill continue to be viewed, literally, asthe best place to have contact withnature. Europeans have recognized thisfor centuries. Public and private foreststhere are laced with well-used trails.Most landowners in Europe welcome,and indeed cannot prohibit, hiking ontheir land. Some landowners evenprovide benches for their urban neigh-bors to enjoy a vista from their field orforest.

An attractive landscape is one of thehallmarks of a good place to live andwork and raise a family. In Wisconsinand other Eastern states, privatewoodland owners have a central role inproviding that attractive landscape.Indeed, it is a social obligation.

To meet that obligation, special atten-tion should be paid to the aestheticsof forest edges that face public roadsor waterways. These are the placeswhere the public enjoys or is enragedby the managerial practices of thelandowner. These are the places wherepublic perception of forestry practicesis most likely to be developed. Thatperception will facilitate or inhibit theability of the landowner to continue touse the forest for other values—espe-cially harvesting.

HumilityTo the extent that forests—especiallyforests with big trees—demonstrate thewonder and power of nature, forestsfacilitate the internal workings of com-munities.

Arrogant citizens are not good citizens.They are not willing to work for thecommon good—to set aside, at leastfor awhile, their own self-interest.Their arrogance may even prevent themfrom engaging in discussion of thecommon good of the community orfrom serving in elected or appointedpublic office.

Mighty forests and other examples ofthe power of nature, such as spectac-ular landscapes, violent storms andpounding ocean waves, serve noticethat people do not control everything.With these brakes on the humantendency toward arrogance, the commu-nity will function better and provide itscitizens with a higher quality of life.



Chapter 8

31

Fulfilling a woodland vision: Quicktips and summary

Avision of beauty can be translatedinto a forest of beauty. Working inconcert with the soil, slope, micro-climate and existing vegetation, agood stewardship plan can become

reality. Most landowners will needassistance from professionals inpreparing the plan and, especially, inexecuting a commercial harvest.However, a landowner should neverabdicate the responsibility to set thegoals and make all decisions.

A stewardship plan emphasizing aes-thetics should be bold and communi-cated up front. While such plansusually also promote biodiversity, thelandowner should develop a speciespreference list and indicate thestrength of the preference for thespecies on top of the list. If large treesare desired, that should be statedclearly.

The most critical time affecting thefuture beauty and general quality of aforest is when it is slated for commer-cial harvesting. A timid landowner islikely to be a sorry landowner. Aforester, working for the landowner whoappreciates aesthetic values, shouldassist with the sale, layout, contactprovisions, logger selection and super-vision of the sale. The landownershould also be on the scene to discussthe vision for the woods with thelogger and to inspect work in progress.

All plans need specific objectives aswell as general goals. The objectivesguide implementation and provide thebasis for evaluation. Objectives mightinclude targets for a number of dif-ferent species in a stand or number ofstems per acre of regeneration ornumber of trees per acreover 20 inches in diameteror specific basal areas.However, aesthetics cannotand should not be fullyquantified. Fulfilling anatural beauty vision isabout visual impressions—not bean counting.

Quick tips: Aestheticsof pine plantations1. Don’t plant rows perpendicular to

roads.

2. In larger fields, stage plantingsbeginning at the edge of theexisting forest.

3. Thin earlier and harvest moreheavily if regeneration of otherspecies is the goal.

4. Thin harder close to roads. Stemsper acre should be lowest close tothe road to allow visual penetrationand gradually build to standardstocking.

5. Leave an irregular pattern of treesafter commercial trimming.

6. Reduce size of harvest plots.

7. Extend rotation time.

8. Leave some large trees to break upthe visual monotony of the nextrotation.

Where aesthetics is the major concern9. Plant at a lower density.

10. Plant mixed species

11. Plant trees in clumps by species orin a mix of species.

12. Plant irregularly (no pattern).

Quick tips: Aestheticsof aspen forests1. Refrain from mowing or using her-

bicide at the edges of fields toencourage natural feathering bysprouts from roots exposed to opensunlight.

2. Accent another color or two inparts of a young stand with spacethinning, that releases minoritycomponents: birch, pine, oak orspruce.

3. Harvest in small, irregular blocks.

4. When cutting, leave den trees,conifers, oak and clumps of healthybigtooth aspen.

5. Retain no more than 20 square feetof basal area per acre of residualtrees if aspen regeneration isdesired.

6. Stage cutting to develop a series ofeven-aged stands.

7. Where white spruce or white pineare seeding in under aspen,consider converting the site toprincipally conifers by natural mor-tality of the aspen or by a series oflight harvests that maintain a basalarea too high for aspen sproutingor sprout survival.

8. To develop an aspen/conifer mix,harvest the better aspen areas andplant conifers under the poorerquality aspen.


Quick tips: Aestheticsof mixed hardwoods/pine forests1. In even-aged stands, facilitate age,

species and structure diversity byallowing succession into fields.

2. Understand the shade tolerance,soil needs and micro-climaticrequirement of different species; forexample, red pine requires moreopen canopy than white pine.

3. Space saplings by thinning outindividuals of over-abundantspecies.

4. In all thinnings, favor species (e.g.,birch, pine) or individual trees thatare especially valuable for aes-thetics and other managementgoals. This includes:• Snag trees• Wolf trees• Old trees• Den trees• Rare trees• Colorful trees

5. To reduce incidence of tip weevillaying its eggs on the sunny tip ofa white pine leader, reduce shadingaround white pine gradually as thetree grows.

6. Prior to the first commercialharvest (firewood/pulp/saw logs)identify crop trees that will bereserved for future integratedbenefits. These trees should beclearly identified to protect themfrom harvest or injury.

7. Provide for deep visual penetrationalong at least part of the forestedge and parts of the forest interiorby either retaining a tighter canopyin some areas to prevent growth onthe forest floor or by having yourforester identify areas to open thecanopy by intense cutting of viewlanes or “sun spots.”

8. Maintain a strong component oflarge and low-risk trees afterharvest.

9. Avoid mechanical damage toresidual trees during harvest; avoidrisk of oak wilt in central andsouthern Wisconsin by not har-vesting from April–September in aforest containing oak.

10. Avoid soil compaction that willdamage tree roots and ground vege-tation. Harvests should berestricted to frozen or dry groundespecially on heavy soils.

11. Avoid soil erosion that will stealnutrients and ground vegetation,scar the landscape and damage theunderstory.


Quick tips:Aesthetics of northernhardwood forests1. As an even-aged stand matures,

encourage diversity of age, speciesand structure by cutting all trees inseveral circular plots per acre

2. Understand the shade tolerance,soil needs and micro-climaterequirements of different species;for example, hemlock roots needfull shade to stay moist. Thus,hemlock must grow under othertrees until its own boughs canshade the roots.

3. Maintain diversity by assistingsurvival of less shade tolerantspecies.• Cut out maple that are chal-

lenging oak or big tooth aspen.

• Release white birch from thecompetition of nearby trees ifthe birch have a chance tocompete.

• Allow the forest to spread intoold fields to provide moreoptions for shade intolerantspecies.

4. Release trees that are unusual inthe forest:• Snag trees• Wolf trees• Den trees• Old trees• Rare trees• Colorful trees

5. Vary spacing between trees whenthinning.

6. Provide for deep visual penetrationalong at least part of the forestedge and in parts of the forestinterior by either retaining atighter canopy in some areas toprevent growth on the forest flooror by having your forester open thecanopy by intense cutting of viewlanes or sun spots.

7. Maintain a strong component oflarge trees after harvest.

8. Avoid mechanical damage toresidual trees during harvest; avoidrisk of oak wilt in central andsouthern Wisconsin by not har-vesting from April–September in aforest containing oak.

9. Avoid soil compaction that willdamage tree roots and forest floorvegetation, especially seedlings andspring ephemeral flowers. Harvestsshould be restricted to frozen ordry ground especially on clay soils.

10. Avoid soil erosion that will stealnutrients, scar the landscape anddamage the understory.

Quick tips: Aestheticsof wetland forests1. Recognize the poor soil stability,

frost danger and low pH of manywet soils.

2. Generally allow wetland species(ash, tamarack, cedar, balsam fir,white birch, river birch and redmaple) to find their own micro-con-ditions for reproduction.

3. Appreciate the random texture ofthe forest edge as viewed fromroads, waterways and sedgemeadows.

4. For specific purposes at selectplaces, increase visual penetrationby cutting discrete corridors and bythinning.

5. Harvest during winter, if at all.Retain large swamp oak to stabilizethe forest.


Summary: Seven KeyPoints to creating awoodland vision

The key points to remember aboutcreating a woodland vision whendeveloping a forest managementplan follow.

1. Humans have a need for contactwith nature. That contact is mostfrequently visual. For landowners,visual contact with their woods isoften their primary contact withnature.

2. Private landowners own woodlandfor many reasons. Scenic beauty,wildlife and recreation are the mostcommon reasons. Timber productionis not the primary motivation formost woodland owners.

3. There is general consensus on visualquality and thus general principlesof aesthetic management canproduce positive results for bothlandowners and the community.

4. Visual quality of woodlands relatesto the characteristics of the land(topography and water bodies), thecharacteristics of surrounding landuse and especially to the diversityof tree species, their age and theirsize.

5.The vision of the landowner willinfluence the scenic beauty of thewoodland and the larger landscapefor generations to come. Thatvision should be expressed in amanagement plan and implementedthrough integrated planting,thinning and harvesting practicesor the conscious decision to donothing.

6. The values of kinesthesia, emo-tional security and a spiritualdimension are closely related toaesthetics and can be enhancedthrough conscious management.

7. The attractiveness of the landscapeis an important part of the qualityof life in a community. Landownershave an opportunity, and an obliga-tion, to make a special contributionto that quality of life for the com-munity as well as themselves.


Notes1 Kellert, S. and E. O. Wilson. 1993.

The Biophilia Hypothesis. IslandPress, Washington D.C.

2 Holmes, B. 1992. “Nature soothesbody and soul.” U.S. News and WorldReport, November 30, p. 67.

3 Klessig, L.L. and J. Hagengruber.1999. “Eleven necessary conditionsfor sustainability.” Journal of SocialValues 5:33-52.

4 Harberts, L.D. 1982 “Stalking thewild landowner.” Journal of Forestry80 (#7):467.

5 Bliss, J. 1988. “Motivations of non-industrial private forest managers: aqualitative approach.” Dissertation,University of Wisconsin-Madison.

6 Roberts, J.C., W. G. Tlusty, and H.C.Jordahl, Jr. 1986. The WisconsinPrivate Non-Industrial WoodlandOwners: A Profile. Occasional PaperSeries Paper No. 19. Department ofUrban and Regional Planning andDepartment of LandscapeArchitecture, Cooperative ExtensionService, Madison, WI.

7 Leatherberry, E.C. 2001. “A profile ofWisconsin’s private forestlandowners.” Woodland ManagementXXII (#1), Spring:16-18.

8 Lundmark, T. 1987. “West Germany’sForest: Legislating for Beauty.”Forest World Magazine,Winter:12-14, 51.

9 Lundmark, T. 1987. “West Germany’sForest: Legislating for Beauty.”Forest World Magazine, Winter:12-14,51

10 Brush, R.O. 1981. “Forest aesthetics:as the owners see it.” AmericanForests, May.

11 Macbeth, E.J. (1989) “The relation-ship of Shoreland Zoning elementsto developed lakeshore aesthetics inWisconsin.” MS thesis. University ofWisconsin-Stevens Point, Wisconsin.

12 Ribe, R. 1989. “The aesthetics offorestry: what has empirical prefer-ence research taught us?”Environmental Management 13 (#1): 55-74.

13 Brush, R.O. 1979. “The attractive-ness of woodlands: perceptions offorest landowners in Massachusetts.”Forest Science 25 (3#): 495-506.

14 Jones, G. A Guide to LoggingAesthetics: Practical Tips for Loggers,Foresters, and Landowners. NortheastRegional Agricultural EngineeringService, Publication # NRAES60,Cooperative Extension, Ithaca, NY.


Author: Lowell Klessig is professor emeritus of human dimensions of natural resource management at the College ofNatural Resources, University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point. His last assignment was a dual appointment with the Universityof Wisconsin–Extension as a forestry education specialist. He owns and manages forestland in Ashland, Bayfield andPortage Counties.

The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the following reviewers: Gary Blum, Bob Brush, Clive David, MattDavis, John DuPlissis, Alan Haney, Mike Kroenke, Jeff Niese, Paul Pingrey and Mark Rickenbach.

Partial support for production and distribution provided by Renewable Resources Extension Act, United States Department ofAgriculture.

Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S.Department of Agriculture, University of Wisconsin–Extension, Cooperative Extension. University of Wisconsin–Extensionprovides equal opportunities in employment and programming, including Title IX and ADA requirements. If you need thisinformation in an alternative format, contact the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity Programs or call ExtensionPublishing at (608) 262-2655.

© 2002 by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. Send inquiries about copyright permission to:Director, Cooperative Extension Publishing, 201 Hiram Smith Hall, 1545 Observatory Dr., Madison, WI 53706.

Editor: Meg Gores; designer: Susan Anderson

You can obtain copies of this publication from your Wisconsin county Extension office or from Cooperative ExtensionPublications, 45 N. Charter Street, Madison, WI 53715, 608-262-3346. Outside Madison, call toll free: 1-877-WIS-PUBS(947-7827). Before publicizing, please check on this publication’s availability.

To see more Cooperative Extension publications, visit our web site: www.uwex.edu/ces/pubs/

Woodland Visions—Appreciating and Managing Forests for Scenic Beauty (G3762) I-4-02-1.5M-1280

woodland visions—appreciating and managing forests for ... · museum of art is a chinese garden...

Documents