Bangor, Maine: The Logging Capital of the US

[turbo]

LOL, I am sorry I just had to laugh at that statement. But then I am from the PNW, we are now just logging sticks here, but our current sticks still are bigger then anything ever logged out of Maine. All Maine sticks are good for is 2 2x4s or pulp.

When was Maine the timber capitol of the US, 1820?

Maine used to be home to great forests of white pine, and in fact, in Colonial times, the King's foresters would blaze the straightest and best of them for use as masts, etc for the British Navy, and heaven help anybody who cut one down, even on their own property. In the Bangor town planning office, there is a huge photographic mural shot from the Brewer side of the Penobscot river toward the Bangor side. The whole scene is full of sawmills, docks full of lumber, and ships, ships, ships. You could cross from one town to the other just by walking or jumping from ship to ship. Since this was in the days of large-plate photography, I'm assuming it was in the late 1800's.

In the 19th century, Bangor prospered as a lumber port, and began to call itself "the lumber capital of the world". Most of the local sawmills (as many as 300-400) were actually upriver in neighboring towns like Orono, Old Town, Bradley, and Milford, Bangor controlling the capital, port facilities, supplies and entertainment. Bangor capitalists also owned most of the forests. The main markets for Bangor lumber were the East Coast cities - Boston and New York were largely built from Maine lumber - but much was also shipped directly to the Caribbean. The city was particularly active in shipping building lumber to California in the Gold Rush period, via Cape Horn, before sawmills could be established in northern California, Oregon, and Washington. Bangorians subsequently helped transplant the Maine culture of lumbering to the Pacific Northwest, and participated directly in the Gold Rush themselves. Bangor, Washington; Bangor, California; and Little Bangor, Nevada are legacies of this contact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangor,_Maine

 

[JaredJames]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangor,_Maine

Not a dig at you turbo, but is there any particular reason people keep using wikipedia?

 

[turbo]

I read the Wiki entry, and it seemed to be quite accurate. But if you want you can look here instead.

http://www.bangormetro.com/images/Lumber.pdf

 

[JaredJames]

It is constantly being drilled into me that wikipedia links are worthless. Just they way I've been taught. I agree they can be quite accurate and in some cases have good content, but as they are created by, well, anyone and not always verifed/referenced you can only take the articles at face value and as such they are not substantial enough to justify an argument.

JasonRoxt, I attempt to use peer reviewed journals / works from verifiable/trustworthy sources. Not Wikipedia. Wikipedia allows anyone to create/update articles.

 

[JasonRox]

It is constantly being drilled into me that wikipedia links are worthless. Just they way I've been taught. I agree they can be quite accurate and in some cases have good content, but as they are created by, well, anyone and not always verifed/referenced you can only take the articles at face value and as such they are not substantial enough to justify an argument.

JasonRoxt, I attempt to use peer reviewed journals / works from verifiable/trustworthy sources. Not Wikipedia. Wikipedia allows anyone to create/update articles.

Ok, say I wanted to know something simple like the demographics of a city, and maybe some history that might explain why it's mainly white or why there is a small percentage of natives (or anything else for that matter). As well, I want to know the population density too because I'm in that curious mood. Also, I'd like to know about some of the recent projects the city is going through. Sometimes a city website works, but every city website is different. Most city websites are not helpful and most don't include that much information (I'm talking from small town to big city). Wikipedia has a set format for every city.

Without going to wikipedia... how do you go about searching for this information? List the steps.

I'll tell you... 2 minutes to look at wikipedia will be much faster and probably even more accurate. And if you're concerned, you can easily find other sources using wikipedia by giving names of people, buildings and dates which makes it easy to search and look for other references.

 

[Borek]

It is constantly being drilled into me that wikipedia links are worthless. Just they way I've been taught. I agree they can be quite accurate and in some cases have good content, but as they are created by, well, anyone and not always verifed/referenced you can only take the articles at face value and as such they are not substantial enough to justify an argument.

Every source have to be taken with a grain of salt.

There is information and information. I would not use wiki as a source of information about correct drug doses, but I have no problem with checking there what the US population is, or what is the area of Australia.

I have a Polish Encyclopedia in 30 volumes here, published in the last few years by a well established publishing house, with a long list of professors that were consulting in their areas of expertise. Wiki has usually more information and covers more subjects. Sometimes to be sure I am comparing both sources - so far I have never found serious inaccuracies in wiki. And when I see something is wrong I am correcting it. Editablity is not an obstacle, it is an advantage.

JasonRoxt, I attempt to use peer reviewed journals / works from verifiable/trustworthy sources.

Every time and in every case? It is a waste of time.

Not Wikipedia. Wikipedia allows anyone to create/update articles.

As signalled above - that's not a problem. Quite the opposite. How long before any printed sources will list David Carradine as dead?

Edit: I see JasonRox posted something similar while I was composing

 

[JaredJames]

For the demographics of a city, say London, I would initially go to the census data provided free by the government. The census data would also give you poplulation density, you simply have to go to a site which provides the graphs based on the census data. You can also get the ethnic data from there too.
In terms of history there are a number of places to look for it. But for history "explaining why it's mainly white", a quick google provides a mass of links from respectable sources.
Again, recent projects in the city, a quick google would give you some good (and diverse) information on various projects.

Firstly, by only looking at wikipedia you are relying solely on what someone else has written and that information may not be complete or correct.
Secondly, as I said before. When wikipedia is referenced and the information can be verified it can be useful, but unless it is referenced you have no guarantee what is written is fact. It becomes third party information, it isn't primary as the source material and comes from another person (possibly with their views) and as such is not secondary.

I have nothing against a quick glance at wikipedia as in your example above, it would serve its purpose when it comes to a bit of reading. However, if I required information to use and cite, it would be nowhere near substantial enough, I would have to go out and research the material properly. In this forum, people making claims should substantiate them with good, solid links to primary or at least secondary data sources (properly referenced to source materials).

I make a claim, I give a link to wikipedia to back it up, that wikipedia link could have been altered by myself so that it 'agrees' with my claim.

 

[JasonRox]

For the demographics of a city, say London, I would initially go to the census data provided free by the government. The census data would also give you poplulation density, you simply have to go to a site which provides the graphs based on the census data. You can also get the ethnic data from there too.
In terms of history there are a number of places to look for it. But for history "explaining why it's mainly white", a quick google provides a mass of links from respectable sources.
Again, recent projects in the city, a quick google would give you some good (and diverse) information on various projects.

Firstly, by only looking at wikipedia you are relying solely on what someone else has written and that information may not be complete or correct.
Secondly, as I said before. When wikipedia is referenced and the information can be verified it can be useful, but unless it is referenced you have no guarantee what is written is fact. It becomes third party information, it isn't primary as the source material and comes from another person (possibly with their views) and as such is not secondary.

I have nothing against a quick glance at wikipedia as in your example above, it would serve its purpose when it comes to a bit of reading. However, if I required information to use and cite, it would be nowhere near substantial enough, I would have to go out and research the material properly. In this forum, people making claims should substantiate them with good, solid links to primary or at least secondary data sources (properly referenced to source materials).

I make a claim, I give a link to wikipedia to back it up, that wikipedia link could have been altered by myself so that it 'agrees' with my claim.

This brings me to my next point.

For just looking up casual information because you want to casually learn things, wikipedia is perfect. Gives you a lot for just one webpage as opposed to going through all the things you said. Yes, it's nothing but it's a lot if all you care about it to casually learn things and read articles and things. If you get more interested, you search for it in the fashion you described.

When I plan my trips, I use wikipedia first and I branch off from there.

It all comes down to realizing you're not an expert by reading an wikipedia file. When I plan a trip, I'm just interested in population size, historical things I might want to see, weather, and such. wikipedia gives me that in one click and the format is always the same. If I want to know more, I do exactly as you did... simply seach more. Easy as that.

I bet you experts use wikipedia, but obviously don't source it. Yes, even my math profs I bet use wikipedia. Why not?

 

[JaredJames]

I bet you experts use wikipedia, but obviously don't source it. Yes, even my math profs I bet use wikipedia. Why not?

Because after reading it there, if it isn't referenced then they have to find the source for what they have just read, if it even exists.

I have no problem with checking stuff up on there when I need to find something out. But when you are trying to substantiate a claim you should give a propper source, like you would if you were handing a paper to your maths professor.

 

[Evo]

We do not approve of the use of Wikipedia as a validation of information for exactly the reasons that jared cited. Wiki links used as a reference in GD are acceptable as long as they are not used as "proof" of one's point.

 

[JasonRox]

We do not approve of the use of Wikipedia as a validation of information for exactly the reasons that jared cited. Wiki links used as a reference in GD are acceptable as long as they are not used as "proof" of one's point.

Exactly why it's acceptable in GD. As I said, perfect for casual information.

 

[JaredJames]

And turbo used the wiki link to prove his point that Maine was important in logging, when Integral said it wasn't.

 

[turbo]

And turbo used the wiki link to prove his point that Maine was important in logging, when Integral said it wasn't.

Are you kidding? Maine was THE US locus for logging and ship-building in the 1800s for a very long time. The Wiki article was not used to "prove a point", but to elaborate on knowledge that is well-known and accepted here. If you don't like the article, then repudiate it, but as I said ('way back there! you can find the post) I reviewed the article, found it to be factually accurate, and linked it. If you want to disparage everybody who posts Wiki links for substantiation of casual facts, I suggest that you prepare for boarding. You can't moderate that forum, nor can anyone with even a very deep general education.

 

[JaredJames]

Are you kidding? Maine was THE US locus for logging and ship-building in the 1800s for a very long time. The Wiki article was not used to "prove a point", but to elaborate on knowledge that is well-known and accepted here.

Integral didn't know / agree with that. You gave the wiki article as evidence for it. Only calling that one as I see it. I'm not disputing whether it was or not.

 

[edward]

Integral didn't know / agree with that. You gave the wiki article as evidence for it. Only calling that one as I see it. I'm not disputing whether it was or not.

Enough is enough, If you have a problem with wiki start your own thread on it.. Otherwise it appears you are merely involved in some oblique form of self aggrandizement.

 

[Integral]

I have separated this entire mess from the DTV thread, this is all a distraction I started. Sorry.

Now for some more discussion on logging. Reading my first post, as quoted by Turbo, clearly I have some knowledge of Maine logging. Seems that I was dead on. Yes, Maine was the logging capitol of the country, in 1820. Was that minor detail even hinted at in Turbo's first post? No, he was speaking in first person current language. Come on Turbo, you must realize that is misleading. They are still logging in Maine, but like here in Oregon it is mostly 2nd growth. If you have seen any of the Axemen shows, those are trees being cut out of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tillamook_Burn" (in the late 1930's massive forest fires burned 100's of thousands of acres of massive old growth timber), the 2nd growth is now up to 10" to 12" in diameter, mere sticks compared to what burned.

Since Oregon and PNW in general was not settled by Europeans / Americans until the 1840's it seems obvious that there was no logging industry here in the 1800s. The next problem was the massive size of the trees. It was not until the 1920's that we began to develop the technology to cut and move a old growth Douglas Fir. They were commonly 6' to 8' in diameter and 200' tall. They stayed that full diameter for 50' to 100'. The bucksaw/ springboard technology was inadequate for cutting these monsters. Then once you had one down you had to move it, again oxen just could not cut it. They had to build railroads into the woods to move the logs out. It was not until the 1950's when chainsaw technology was developed that we began to cut in earnest. Even then the saw mills were portable and moved to the logs. Note that chainsaws were developed here in Oregon just so the trees could be cut and bucked.

To close, I am not ignorant of the logging industry in Maine, in the Navy a very good friend of mine was a Mainiac, we had many discussion about logging. So I am and have been aware of the logging industry in Maine. I really think, Turbo, when you make a reference to ancient history you should note it.

Where I was born , http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/county/cpdouglashome.html"

Note that I used a Wiki link, much like Turbo did, for informational purposes.

 

[turbo]

Yes, Maine was the logging capitol of the country, in 1820. Was that minor detail even hinted at in Turbo's first post? No, he was speaking in first person current language. Come on Turbo, you must realize that is misleading.

I really think, Turbo, when you make a reference to ancient history you should note it.

My initial reference was worded to indicate that Maine's ascendency in lumber was in the past. (Even today though, Maine is a pretty big producer of pulp and paper, and is the most forested state in the country as a percentage of area.)

Mainers live here primarily because we were born here and made livings for ourselves here. It was not a conscious decision "I have to move to Maine" for most of us. Maine was the lumber capitol of the US for many, many years, and we still supply lots of maple syrup, potatoes, blueberries, salmon, groundfish, lobsters, etc that people in urban areas come to rely on when they go to their stores.

After you took exception to that, I referenced the Maine timber industry from colonial times (Maine was the wild part of Massachusetts back then) until at least the late 1800s, when that photographic mural was shot. If you will search on Bangor and lumber, you will see that the volume of lumber shipped out of that city peaked in 1872. I was certainly not trying to mislead anybody, and I took pains not to appear to be speaking in "first person current language."

 

[Integral]

That agrees with what I know. Logging did not become a big economic factor in the PNW until the early/mid 20th century, due to technology and population issues. I believe that the industry moved west to Wisconsin and Minnesota after they had finished the rape of Maine and the NE. That is were the Paul Bunyan legends come from.

I grew up in http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/county/cpdouglashome.html" which in the 50s proclaimed itself Timber Capital of the world so was surprised to see your claim.

Currently, I think the pine forests of the SE would lay claim to the timber capital. They get a phenomenal growth rate and the land is flat therefore amenable to mechanization. Flat is not a description of either Maine or Oregon.

 

[turbo]

That agrees with what I know. Logging did not become a big economic factor in the PNW until the early/mid 20th century, due to technology and population issues. I believe that the industry moved west to Wisconsin and Minnesota after they had finished the rape of Maine and the NE. That is were the Paul Bunyan legends come from.

I grew up in http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/county/cpdouglashome.html" which in the 50s proclaimed itself Timber Capital of the world so was surprised to see your claim.

Currently, I think the pine forests of the SE would lay claim to the timber capital. They get a phenomenal growth rate and the land is flat therefore amenable to mechanization. Flat is not a description of either Maine or Oregon.

Southern yellow pine grows incredibly fast, and it is the basis for for probably 90% of the pressure-treated lumber sold in our neck of the woods. We still have a logging industry in Maine, but the saw-logs generally go to Canada to be processed. Most of the stuff cut around here now feeds pulp and paper mills, though the bad economy has put a damper on that. The remainder of the trees cut here generally go to stud mills, though all but one of the largest ones have shut down due to poor demand for building materials for housing.

The big sawmill in Moose River has stayed open at a reduced capacity because the owner wants to retain what market share that he can, and he doesn't want to lose his trained work-force. That place is so remote, that if he shut it down, the workers would likely all have to move to find some kind of work and it might be really hard to get them back if the economy up-ticks. He's taking losses now as an investment in his future.

If you look at the history of logging in Maine, you'll see that it was predicated on the existence of large rivers like the Penobscot. There was no other practical way to get logs from the forest to the downriver towns where saw-mills sprang up. By the 1920's log-driving had given way to floating 4' pulpwood downriver, and the rivers were dammed by hydro-electric companies, who installed sluices and spillways that could accommodate the smaller wood. Sometime after I got into college, even that river-transport stopped, so the "navigable" waters were actually navigable once again.

 

[Integral]

I have been looking for some numbers on just how much lumber has come out of Oregon. From http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/26728" it appears that Oregon produced just short of 10million Bdft a year through the 50's and 60's.

Currently they are cutting about 2million bdft a year.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It is hard to believe that the wilds of the PNW were reduced to sawdust and 2x4s in just a few decades. When we moved here in 1990, the local mill had just closed.

 

[Borek]

It is hard to believe that the wilds of the PNW were reduced to sawdust and 2x4s in just a few decades.

Homo sapiens is a very efficient species when it comes to such things. Only some arthropods are comparable.

 

[turbo]

Homo sapiens is a very efficient species when it comes to such things. Only some arthropods are comparable.

The arthropods are less efficient at creating lumber of consistent dimension, though. :tongue:

 

[edward]

Lots of good information on the maine forrests here:

http://www.forestsformainesfuture.org/Default.aspx?tabid=98

With more than 90 percent of its land area covered by trees, Maine is the most heavily forested state in the country. Forests provide thousands of jobs, abundant clean water, critical wildlife habitat and a host of other benefits to Maine people. They are the foundation of Maine's wood products, outdoor recreation and tourism industries. They define the Maine way of life.

The above quote really surprised me. I have never been to the northeastern states. I'll have to put that trip on my bucket list.

 

[turbo]

Great link, Edward. I made the comment about Maine having been the lumber capitol of the nation to explain why so many people live in this very rural forested state (back in the thread about the loss of broadcast TV). Many of us live here because a hundred or two years ago, our ancestors made their livings in pretty rough occupations. In the 1800s, logging camps were very rough outfits with many, many loggers sleeping in huge common beds to conserve heat, and subsisting on camp-rations that consisted largely of beans, potatoes, corn bread, salt pork, etc. Still, they managed to earn enough money to keep their wives and kids alive, though many of those had to work for their father's bosses in the down-river towns and only got to see husband/father rarely.

There are towns in rather unlikely places (poor soil, etc) along rivers or near relatively level access to nearby rivers just because of logging in those days. The lucky ones that bought bottom-land on those rivers at least got the chance to move their families north and get them into farming before logging collapsed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The arthropods are less efficient at creating lumber of consistent dimension, though. :tongue:

I noticed recently that some finishing plywood was marked as 0.322 inches thick. I had to look several times to convince myself that they were actually claiming accuracy to 1/1000ths of an inch.