Talk:Logging

Ecology Mid‑importance

	Ecology portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Agriculture High‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Forestry (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry articles

Logging in Russia

The photo showing logging in Russia seem to show some kind of river scene near a town or city. Not only is there a "Lack of a riparian zone" the stumps seem to be missing as well.KAM 16:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what is riparian zone --Strong sad5 18:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logging Railroads

This could be a fairly extensive bit of information (history, technology, maps, hopefully pictures of locos and steam donks; should it be a subsection here in "Logging" or should it be made its own page? Skookum1 00:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should go here. There is very little information in this article about logging KAM 23:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Adding "Logging Types"

The current text under the "Logging Methods" section would be better described as "Logging Types". I propose adding the new heading "Logging Types" and putting all current text under "Logging Methods" under "Logging Types". I will add Logging Methods, such as conventional skidder logging, cable logging, helicopter logging and more. QuickDraw 06:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think you are right. But clearcut vs select cut are more about timber harvest or forestry then logging. Forestry and logging are closely related but separate things. Perhaps calling it harvest types? KAM 14:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. I wonder if a brief description of harvest types should be left in Logging, with a link and full description located under "Forestry"? This would be a major change to the article. Would want some concurrence from others before making such a change. QuickDraw 16:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps leave it on this page for now with a heading forest management. If the logging article grows later it could be a seperate article. Also I think that instead of clearcutting it should be called block selection when used in a managed forest to harvest timber. The term clearcutting by itself also sometimes refers to removal of the forest prior to conversion to another use or when harvesting takes place with no plans for regeneration . KAM 18:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Logging and erosion

"This type of clearcut area takes a longer time to regenerate forest and suffers more erosion than does mixed-stand clearcutting that leaves younger trees intact." - Erosion from logging is caused by roads and the machine use, not the removal of the stems. How can a clearcut cause more erosion? KAM 19:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

local populations of salmon and even subspecies have become extinct as a result. Can this be supported? Has it been shown that a subspecies has become extinct solely as a result of erosion from logging. KAM 16:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i really dont think logging can have that signifigant of an affect on salmon population from what ive heard its over fishing that has the most drastic of an effect —Preceding unsigned comment added by I heart ska (talk • contribs) 07:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the canopy is removed the local water table rises leading to increased levels of soil saturation, due to the loss of interception of precipitation and severly reduced evapotranspiration through the absent trees. If the land is not rapidly colonised by plants increased runoff will occur and , particularly in steep terrain, erosion will occur.The Boy that time forgot 20:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Log Skidder

Modern Log Skidder on clearcut plot - This photo doesn't look like a logging operation, no stumps, no slash, the land is bare soil, it looks like it the land is being cleared. I suppose that the when land is cleared for agriculture the first step is "logging' but that would not be a typical logging operation. KAM 00:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The area has been replanted. The only "cleared" area was the loading area (the highest spot), where the skidder was parked. You can see limb debris in the background.

I did not write the part about the damage from the soil disturbance. Interestingly, someone else observed this because the picture illustrates it. The higher ground became subject to a lot of erosion and the lower ground was deeply rutted. I have another photo of a skidder on an nearby site where the skidder's oil was changed by simply draining the old oil onto the ground. It's an example of poor logging practice and I'll post it sometime. Pollinator 04:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see. I understand that in some operations particularly in the south the slash is chopped and ground up so it will lay close to the ground, As for showing extreme soil distrubance I've seen much worse, likely you have to. Thanks. KAM 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Format

This layout by method seem more logical to me. Conventional skidder logging, cable logging, helicopter logging can all be worked in here.KAM 13:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps Forest management, forest policy, silvicultural systems, clearcuts and select cut should all be one article. I would guess that many readers who come to "logging" are not interested in logging but forestry practices. Perhaps change the article "clearcut" to "Forest management" and move silvicultural systems from this artice there. The term clear-cut could redirect to the article "Forest management?? KAM 14:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved all the forestry info to wood management which perhaps should be renamed forest management. A lot of logging world-wide is done outside of managed forests, frontier logging, illegal logging, A few lines on that are needed somewhere. KAM 21:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No data

Surely some of the editors of this page can retieve some data about the size of the logging industry, sustainability forecasts (time of expected scarceness per region, or the like) and annual area logged. Dont you think? Any takers? Thanks!! Pablo2garcia 15:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, it does seem info about the logging industry should be here. As far as sustainability forecasts etc I agree that it is important but my view is that it is the subject of forest policy not logging. Forest policy is at the national or state level, forest management at forest level and finally loggging. KAM 12:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No log info

[[Image:prettyclearcut.jpg|thumb|Clearcuts in the [[Canadian Rockies]], from "Green Spirit: Trees are the Answer".]]

[[Image:Biodiversity_on_clearcut.jpg|thumb|right|Regeneration on a 15 year old coal mine]]

"We request that you notify the Office of Communications by E-Mail at getinfo@osmre.gov and identify which photographs are used, including a complete citation where they are published."[2]

Does not follow (non sequiter)

"The logging industry is often portrayed[3] in the media and popular culture as one of the most ecologically destructive corporate practices on earth. However, logging companies contend that despite some notable cases of severe environmental degradation, [...] requires more energy and non-renewable resources to produce than a house built with wood products"

Two wrongs do not make a right. Further, taken as a whole, the reference provided does not support the assertion. The paragraph needs improvement in order to conform well to WP:NPOV as well as WP:CITE. --GoDot 04:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point that the author is trying to make (one hears it frequently) is not that 'two wrongs make a right', but rather that logging are often 'the lesser of two evils'. -The Gomm 03:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logging roads on its own page?

I was thinking that there is much more we can say about logging roads, but it probably should be on its own page rather than a page about logging. -Finn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finn krogstad (talk • contribs) 20:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, I was wondering about a section on Best Management Practices which is mostly concerned with roads. That could easily be a separate article. KAM 22:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logging and the environment

Is this worthy of an article by itself? KAM 14:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should just put it in this section. That is probably why people are looking for logging anyway. I could add a bit about the California Forest Practices Act, but maybe that would be to provincial? SierraSkier 18:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)SierraSkier[reply]

Ughh, I will work on sustainable forestry certification stuff. SierraSkier 18:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)SierraSkier[reply]

Has there ever been a section about logging and the environment? Is there another article that discusses it? I do not see any links at the bottom of the page that would lead me there.Mylittlezach (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the term logging in Forestry

Selective logging causes widespread destruction, study finds — Preceding unsigned comment added by KAM (talk • contribs) 23:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natural renewal vs. assisting logging

The last sentence in this article reads: "However, the effect of logging can be necessary to promote the growth of younger trees which must take the place of the older and dying ones."

To me this seems like a non-neutral point of view advocating logging. Anyone who has studied biology knows that nature have means for renewing itself and logging is seldomly necessary to promote younger trees. Dead trees decompose and provide nutrients for new trees and plants. On the basis of this, I removed that sentence. I also removed the accompanying picture which does not add anything to the article, and provides a misleading and rosy picture (look like someones backyard, not like any of sites of logging that I have seen). Please feel free to discuss here if you disagree with these changes. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.152.206.159 (talk) 19:21, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

I certainly disagree. It depends on WHAT you want to grow back. Different tree species grow back optimaly under different conditions. Douglas fir, a common species in Western Oregon, Washington and southern British Columbia doesn't regenerate properly under the conditions you advocate. Natively it is a 'fire cycle' tree that regenerates well on scorched earth which is easily emulated by mechanically removing the forest organic cover and exposing mineral soil for planting (or seed sprouting) IF a layer of duff and other organics are left to cover the soil it will rarely get started. On the other hand tree speciies such as Western Red Cedar and hemlock start quite well in duff and on nurse logs. the hemlock is somewhat more prolfic in growing and less tasty to the deer and elk so for the most part, nature is not taking its course---you are making an active management decison----do you want Douglas fir or Hemlock to grow here???? when you decide either to clear to mineral soil or not.

Likewise Douglas fir won't start in the shade as it is extremely shade intolerant, so if you are going to start a Douglas fir--- you will a) get rid of the shade and b) get rid of the duff and other stuff on the forest floor down to mineral soil.

This is why Hemlock and cedar are known as late successional species. they will grow up through the douglas fir and ultimately kill the douglas fir out. However the cycle is closed because in the process so much dead woody material is created that the fire load gets up to a level that makes the forest highly flammable, and in due course (typically a 100 years in dry climates and a couple hundred years in wet climates) all the suff burns up. This disturbance clears the ground to mineral soil, and the cycle can restart.

the forest is dynamic. It cannot be frozen in time. A mature forest is one waiting to burn. Logging is a management alternative for restarting the cycle without having a giant cataclysmic fire event.Rvannatta 06:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of logging equipment?

There was a list of farm equipment and I was disappointed that there was not such a list for logging. That hay baler animation was cool also. Politics aside, logging is very quite possibly a dying art -- it would be nice to get a list of the equipment before everyone who is left on the planet (if anyone is) has to guess about it. thanks -- carol 16:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well there are pages for some machines, and even though logging is a long time and honorable occupation, people who can't figure out that wood is a renewal resource have made most of the logging pages political footballs for a politcal agenda. If you want to see a variety of equipment used, I've actually collected many photos on my private website at "www.vannattabros.com/iron.html"Rvannatta (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to get political :) (the talk page seems to be alittle this way though). Technology is as dynamic as everything else. It moves forward and steps back. A page about the current technology now might be a museum piece sooner than you know it as new ways are found and implemented. I just needed a quick wikilink for something that also moves seeds around. Thanks for the response, an encyclopedic monument to logging technology might be the perfect next project. Such a page, without a political bias could just be there for the people who want to save the forests and also for the people who would like to renew them. Or, if you rather, for the people who would like to stop logging and for the people who would like to stop stopping. I really meant that thanks! (that is a beautiful site btw) -- carol 09:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logging is a technology for making use of a renewable resource and you would think that this is hardly a political topic, but it has been politicized. While eco terrorists don't seem to blow up coal mines or gas wells, they have no hestitation in attacking loggers even though the loggers are managing a renewable resource. Then they even have the gall to put pages in wiki glorifiying the deeds such as the page on 'tree spiking' with a few disclaimers to get it past the editors. It gets my blood pressure up a bitRvannatta (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if anyone has anything bad to say about loggers, they sould think of how it would be with out all the things we get from wood, like lumber for houses, paper for school, busineses, and personal use. The people that complain about loggers need to realize how hard it would be if we didnt have the loggers! My family had a large logging operation for many years. We respect the loggers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.79.10.6 (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reword?

Consider rewording "Scientists have estimated that forests have once encompassed 40 to 50 percent of the globe".

I think what this is trying to say is, "Scientists have estimated that forest once covered 40 to 50 percents of the land on earth."

In using the terms "encompassed" and "globe", you're basically saying that the actual planet, including everything between the core and the surface, was made of 50% forest. Even when just talking about the surface of the earth, don't forget that most of it is covered by water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.208.60 (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

Introductory paragraph has numerous problems including a non-neutral POV, and several dubious claims, such as "logging must be restricted or the (sic) planets forests will not be restored". It can be reasonably argued that logging is but one part of the rather complicated processes of land conversion and development that include road-building, logging, land-clearing, immigration & settlement, draining wetlands, agricultural conversion, and other development activities. Also, there are numerous examples of sustainable forestry that preserve forest health and productivity while including prescribed logging (harvesting) activities. Pradtke (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraphs about horse logging under "Mitigation" present unverified claims about horse logging. Terms "biological woodsmen," and "restorative forestry" are buzzwords and should be deleted. Verification should be provided for claims of environmental benefits of logging with horses (e.g., reduced soil disturbance, erosion, or soil compaction). The bulleted items under this section describe methods that are disputable regarding their sustainability for maintaining productive growth rates of trees left after others are cut. Also, questionable for purposes of regenerating desirable tree species. The selection of trees for harvest described here is not recognized as a valid silvicultural term -- see the explanation under "Invalid term" on the page Selection_cutting. Pradtke (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be frank, the whole article is bad, bad bad. It reads like a term paper written by a committee of an overzealous 15 yos. Massive overuse of subjective, emotive weasel words and buzzwords. Almost no references, and those that there are are taken for just a couple of studies. Swathes of values judgements about what people must do. Whole article needs to be re-written from top to bottom. By the time we delete the unsourced articles and the buzzwords/weasel words there wouldn't be much left of the intro or the environment section.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But adding the endless links to who? what? which? etc certainly isn't helping anything, nor all the section tags. It makes the whole thing look like a dog's breakfast. One link at the end of a sentence/paragraph is enough, or perhaps consider fixing things up if you think there's a problem, rather than making it look so shabby. That mess calls into question the NPOV of the editors doing so. --jjron (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the lead is seriously disconnected from the body of the article, it's really worth asking what the focus of this article should really be. If someone wants to read about "logging" are they more interested in the techniques and technology of felling trees and extracting logs, or are they more interested in deforestation and the environmental impacts of production forestry? Guettarda (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A point I think that can be made clear is that deforestation and (production) forestry are not the same thing. Since there are already pages on forestry and deforestation (not entirely without their own problems), it makes more sense to me to mention the linkages between logging and either deforestation or forestry with a little context here, plus links to the other pages. Pradtke (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Material removed from article

I'm going to move the potentially unsuitable material to a subpage for consideration Talk:Logging/removed Guettarda (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now for the re-write... Guettarda (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a positive step. The section "Logging in the Environment" still has some of the same issues, but it can be improved with some work. Any of the decent-quality material that was moved to Talk:Logging/removed and is relevant to "logging" can be put back into "Logging and the environment" assuming the neutrality and reference concerns are addressed.Pradtke (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me a whole bunch more needs removed. I understand the function of the page to be a place to define the process----i.e. the technology of cutting trees and transporting them toward market. It does not seem that this scope includes political opinions as to whether this process and technology is 'good' or 'bad'. Most of the references do not seem germaine to the topic nor do the extended remarks about 'illegal logging' --- there is a separate page on that with a link to it so no need to repeat that page here.

Similarly the section on 'safety' adds nothing to the page. Were it to evaluate the risks associated with the alternative logging methods, or be designed to encourage readers not to try this at home, then I would have no problem with it, instead it appears to be a pointless diatribeRvannatta (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Healthy" logging?

Does anyone know if there are any "healthy" methods of logging that are actually good for forests? Are those the methods used? There needs to be some mention of this. (please post insight here, even if just hearsay, so we can have a basis for doing more research)--Dario D. (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Politics and timber harvest often get confused. Logging is nothing more than cutting down a tree and doing something with it. that 'something' can range from burning it on site to get rid of it to clear the ground for other uses, to transporting the resulting logs to market for usually wood or paper products. There is not even wide agreement over what is 'good or 'bad' for a forest. The healthy forest concept is based on the precept that violent forest fires are 'bad', and therefore management actions designed to reduce the intensity and frequency of forest fires is 'good'. If you like to see forests burn, then you will disagree with the application of the words 'good' and 'bad' in this context.

The underlying factual issue is that forests, if unmanaged in temporate areas such as North America accumulate underbrush and other flammable materials (fire load) fairly rapidly. How rapidly depends on rainfall and climate, but I think there is some consensus that in dryer areas of the west it's around 100 years, and probably 200 years on the high rain fall coastal areas of the Pacific Northwest. The 'Healthy forest' view is that once the forest accumulates enough to 'fire load' to be flammable it is simply a fire waiting to happen, and unless you like to watch forest fires this is 'bad', with the preferred approach being to actively manage the forest and remove sufficient of the flammable materials so as to reduce the fire hazards.

In the days before fire fighting, particularly in the dryer areas there were very frequent fires which tended to keep things burned down to the point that sufficient materials to cause a major conflagration often did not accumulate. However, in the last century we have tended to put forest fires out when possible, which over time has set the stage for ever more massive fires, unless we offset this by reducing the fire load in some other fashion, i.e. health logging.Rvannatta (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The trees grow back so it is all healthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.251.180 (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

false statement

I removed a sentence "Ecologically minded timber companies plant two trees for every one tree they harvest." This is false for several reasons. For one, the number of trees planted in a plantation has little to do with the number of mature trees cut at harvest time. It has more to do with the optimum spacing for growth and survival, intended use of the trees (sawtimber, pulpwood, or bioenergy) and management plan details such as whether thinning will be prescribed at mid-rotation. Second, some species of trees regenerate naturally and don't require any planting after cutting. Third, there's no simple way to determine what "ecologically minded" means, especially as it relates to how many trees someone plants. pradtke (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions

Revised the definitions of logging and clearcutting to match professional standard definitions. Prior to these edits, both definitions were based more on POV than objective standards. Both of my proposed revisions are based on definitions the Society of American Foresters' 1998 Dictionary of Forestry, as referenced in the text.Eli Sagor (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)esagorEli Sagor (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Peak timber" and source

Sustainability needs to be addressed in this article, and these look like a decent sources:

Shearman, P.; Bryan, J.; Laurance, W. F. (2012). "Are we approaching 'peak timber' in the tropics?". Biological Conservation. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.10.036.
Kinver, M. (24 January 2012). "'Peak timber' concerns in tropics". BBC News. Archived from the original on 15 February 2012. Retrieved 15 February 2012. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

– VisionHolder « talk » 05:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

High-wheel loaders

SEPARATE ITEM: there is a "link" in the article to high-wheel loaders, but it doesn't go anywhere -- there is no article on that. However, a little digging finds a Wikipedia article for Michigan logging wheels, which appears to this novice to be the same thing. Could someone check, and perhaps make the link work if that is true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.244.151.64 (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of logging companies

List of logging companies to help integrate other articles and provide flow to company articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by CREEApogee (talk • contribs) 01:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Logging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130605225016/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26842098/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26842098/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Logging/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article has many unverified claims and numerous non-neutral points of view expressed in it. Surprising such a weak article achieved b-class status. Editors of logging should make more efforts to distinguish between logging practices that are applied in a responsible and sustainable manner versus those that are practiced irresponsibly and unsustainably. This article has a tendency to imply (or even state outright) that all logging is bad, which is not consistent with scientific evidence nor societal values. Pradtke (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 21:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Logging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Logging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19153588
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160226181045/http://eia-global.org/forests_for_the_world/ to http://www.eia-global.org/forests_for_the_world/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Logging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Logging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Woodcutting" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Woodcutting. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#Woodcutting until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Paul_012 (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Link to 'Felling' page?

I noticed that this page does not have a link to the very much related page for Felling. I'd add it myself, but could not find an elegant place to link it. Can anyone think of a nice place, that's not the already crowded 'see also' section? If the term 'logging' does include felling (which I think it does, but I'm not an expert), I think mentioning and linking it somewhere in the first two paragraphs wouldn't be a bad idea, but I'd love to hear other opinions. Aspharon (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]