Post two questions/comments in response to the reading
Posted by Capper Nichols on March 29, 2006 03:13 PM|Permalink
Comments
It was extremely interesting to read that the forests of Michigan and Wisconsin were not tapped until after the northern forests of Minnesota. It does make sense though, Minnesota had rivers to transport the lumber. As mentioned earlier, the rivers opened up various markets for Minnesota.
It was also interesting to read that much of the wheat was transported east while the timber was sent to the west. This was especially true when the railroad was developed. The railroad opened up southern Minnesota and the Dakotas. Wheat traveled east to Minneapolis's flour mills and timber traveled west, in order to build homes and buildings. Lumber also increased in demand as a result of the mining industry.
I wonder sometimes if people will ever slow down to enjoy and study the land. It seems to me that it is the goal of society to have results, without researching consequences. (In the reading lumberjacks and businessmen seemed unconcerned with there hastened efforts to make a profit.)
I also found it interesting how a lot of the readings include a mention of the U of M.
I don't believe the pictures included in the reading do justice for all the (saw) milling and timber cut down.
One thing that struck me as I was reading this was just how many towns and cities in Minnesota have names with either french or indian roots. I wonder if this tendancy towards native american and french names is nearly as prominant in other states, especially in the east?
I had never before really considered just how much of an impact the prairie to the west had on the lumber industry in Minnesota. With no trees of their own, unthinkable amounts of lumber must have been sent out to the settlers on the prairie from Minnesota.
I had never heard the nickname "Sawdust Town" for Minneapolis. It seems interesting that it would earn both "Mill City" and "Sawdust Town" as nicknames. It must have been quite the industrial city in the mid to late 1800s. It makes me wonder how aesthetically pleasing the city would have been at that point. Though the river would naturally be pleasing, I think the damming for the use of flour mills and the mass of logs flowing down it would detract. I almost gain a picture of sawdust and flour clouding the air. The reading mentioned muddy streets and a massive increase in housing to accommodate the growing population. It would be interesting to know what it looked like then and how the city functioned.
I was surprised to find that the early lumberman cut their trees down in the winter. I would think the labor of cutting a tree down would be easier without deep snow and cold to deal with.
I also wanted to mention that in the readings they touched upon fires taking out huge amounts of valuable timber forests. They mentioned the Hinckley Fire of 1894. I have personally been to the museum in Hinckley dedicated to this fire and found it really interesting. Somewhat similar but not quite as well done as the Flour Tower at the Mill City Museum, this museum had about a half hour video on the fire and had really great exhibits, one of which was a book with all the people who died listed. It's a really cool museum.
It's wierd to think of Minneapolis as the sawmilling center of the nation and even the world. I guess that's just because there really aren't any trees here at all anymore.
So many people is seemed thought that the forests were inexhaustable, did they have thier eyes closed? Because within just a few years many forests were thinned way down or nonexistant.
I think that a big reason that the forests in Minnesota wre opened up before those of Wisconsin and Michigan was because of the abundance of white pine in northern Minnesota. White pine was a desirable wood at the time and it still is today. Also Minnesota had a lot of old growth forests that made for excellent trees for lumber.
In responce to Carla's comment about logging in the winter, this was done because much of the timber at the time was made in accessable in the summer by bogs and marshes. in the winter time these were all frozen and able to have logs moved over them. Also all of the log roads were purposely frozen by adding water to ruts in them in order to run heavy log sleds over them with ease. Logging in the summer would have been a muddy, hot, mosqito infested mess.
In response to other comments about logging in the winter:
The lumbermen of the 1800s were unknowningly doing at least one favor for the environment. Logging with horses in the winter has minimal impacts on the soil underneath the snow. Winter logging lessens soil compaction, damage to vegetation, and erosion.
Unfortunately, every other thing the lumbermen did was extremely destructive. Think of how many fish runs were killed by sending logs down rivers, or how many acres of forest burned because of the slash left behind. They didn't even bother re-planting with white pine for future harvests. If you want a definition of unsustainable forestry, its right here.
Was all of the land completely cleared of timber in Minnesota? When I went to visit Itasca state park and saw the large Red and White Pines. Are these second growth then?
The lumber men's justification for fast lumbering and not replanting was fascinating. Even though now we can clearly see their folly, we still can't seem to recognize our own damaging effects on the environment and how we to are justifying them...
I curious to know where they got their information to claim that the pine lumber would last for seventy years? Was it just a made up number to get immigrants to come mill or was it based on some type of calculation?
By todays standards,the fact that they layed boardwalks made out of the worlds finest lumber seems extremely wasteful. Is the reason that the roads were muddy because of the traffic caused by lumber milling? If so, it seems semi ironic.
The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.
Comments
It was extremely interesting to read that the forests of Michigan and Wisconsin were not tapped until after the northern forests of Minnesota. It does make sense though, Minnesota had rivers to transport the lumber. As mentioned earlier, the rivers opened up various markets for Minnesota.
It was also interesting to read that much of the wheat was transported east while the timber was sent to the west. This was especially true when the railroad was developed. The railroad opened up southern Minnesota and the Dakotas. Wheat traveled east to Minneapolis's flour mills and timber traveled west, in order to build homes and buildings. Lumber also increased in demand as a result of the mining industry.
Posted by: Jamie Seitzer | April 4, 2006 04:45 PM
I wonder sometimes if people will ever slow down to enjoy and study the land. It seems to me that it is the goal of society to have results, without researching consequences. (In the reading lumberjacks and businessmen seemed unconcerned with there hastened efforts to make a profit.)
I also found it interesting how a lot of the readings include a mention of the U of M.
I don't believe the pictures included in the reading do justice for all the (saw) milling and timber cut down.
Posted by: Nick Miller | April 4, 2006 09:36 PM
One thing that struck me as I was reading this was just how many towns and cities in Minnesota have names with either french or indian roots. I wonder if this tendancy towards native american and french names is nearly as prominant in other states, especially in the east?
I had never before really considered just how much of an impact the prairie to the west had on the lumber industry in Minnesota. With no trees of their own, unthinkable amounts of lumber must have been sent out to the settlers on the prairie from Minnesota.
Posted by: Katrina Hopkins | April 4, 2006 09:36 PM
I found it interesting that Minnesota moved from fourteenth to fourth in the rank as lumber state that is a big jump in that little of a time.
I also found the estimate of more forests were ruined through fire than from being cut down interesting.
Posted by: Alicia Lund | April 4, 2006 09:53 PM
I had never heard the nickname "Sawdust Town" for Minneapolis. It seems interesting that it would earn both "Mill City" and "Sawdust Town" as nicknames. It must have been quite the industrial city in the mid to late 1800s. It makes me wonder how aesthetically pleasing the city would have been at that point. Though the river would naturally be pleasing, I think the damming for the use of flour mills and the mass of logs flowing down it would detract. I almost gain a picture of sawdust and flour clouding the air. The reading mentioned muddy streets and a massive increase in housing to accommodate the growing population. It would be interesting to know what it looked like then and how the city functioned.
I was surprised to find that the early lumberman cut their trees down in the winter. I would think the labor of cutting a tree down would be easier without deep snow and cold to deal with.
I also wanted to mention that in the readings they touched upon fires taking out huge amounts of valuable timber forests. They mentioned the Hinckley Fire of 1894. I have personally been to the museum in Hinckley dedicated to this fire and found it really interesting. Somewhat similar but not quite as well done as the Flour Tower at the Mill City Museum, this museum had about a half hour video on the fire and had really great exhibits, one of which was a book with all the people who died listed. It's a really cool museum.
Posted by: Carla Inderrieden | April 4, 2006 10:23 PM
In response to Nick's post, I agree with that point. It seems that too many times people are so quick to alter the natural countryside.
I am not familiar with the lumber industry in any way. This article was an eye opener to the practices of early loggers!
Posted by: Vanessa Magnus | April 4, 2006 10:23 PM
It's wierd to think of Minneapolis as the sawmilling center of the nation and even the world. I guess that's just because there really aren't any trees here at all anymore.
So many people is seemed thought that the forests were inexhaustable, did they have thier eyes closed? Because within just a few years many forests were thinned way down or nonexistant.
Posted by: Angie Walbridge | April 4, 2006 10:58 PM
I think that a big reason that the forests in Minnesota wre opened up before those of Wisconsin and Michigan was because of the abundance of white pine in northern Minnesota. White pine was a desirable wood at the time and it still is today. Also Minnesota had a lot of old growth forests that made for excellent trees for lumber.
Posted by: Charlie Peterson | April 5, 2006 01:59 AM
In responce to Carla's comment about logging in the winter, this was done because much of the timber at the time was made in accessable in the summer by bogs and marshes. in the winter time these were all frozen and able to have logs moved over them. Also all of the log roads were purposely frozen by adding water to ruts in them in order to run heavy log sleds over them with ease. Logging in the summer would have been a muddy, hot, mosqito infested mess.
Posted by: Charlie Peterson | April 5, 2006 02:07 AM
In response to other comments about logging in the winter:
The lumbermen of the 1800s were unknowningly doing at least one favor for the environment. Logging with horses in the winter has minimal impacts on the soil underneath the snow. Winter logging lessens soil compaction, damage to vegetation, and erosion.
Unfortunately, every other thing the lumbermen did was extremely destructive. Think of how many fish runs were killed by sending logs down rivers, or how many acres of forest burned because of the slash left behind. They didn't even bother re-planting with white pine for future harvests. If you want a definition of unsustainable forestry, its right here.
Posted by: Tristan Beaster | April 5, 2006 08:41 AM
Was all of the land completely cleared of timber in Minnesota? When I went to visit Itasca state park and saw the large Red and White Pines. Are these second growth then?
The lumber men's justification for fast lumbering and not replanting was fascinating. Even though now we can clearly see their folly, we still can't seem to recognize our own damaging effects on the environment and how we to are justifying them...
Posted by: Katie Hausladen | April 5, 2006 08:57 AM
I curious to know where they got their information to claim that the pine lumber would last for seventy years? Was it just a made up number to get immigrants to come mill or was it based on some type of calculation?
By todays standards,the fact that they layed boardwalks made out of the worlds finest lumber seems extremely wasteful. Is the reason that the roads were muddy because of the traffic caused by lumber milling? If so, it seems semi ironic.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 5, 2006 09:06 AM
BEST info!
[url=][/url]
Posted by: louise | July 12, 2007 05:52 AM
BEST info!
[url=][/url]
Posted by: louise | July 12, 2007 05:53 AM
BEST info!
[url=][/url]
Posted by: louise | July 12, 2007 05:53 AM
For your business --
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra >biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]biagra[/url]
Posted by: biagra | July 29, 2007 09:24 AM