how do you harvest birch bark?
- Thread starter moved on agiles10
- Start date
Here in Canada the harvest of bark is quite a contentious issue. The philosophy of Leave No Trace is firmly entrenched amongst a large number of outdoor recreators resulting in a very 'hands-off' approach to interacting with the natural world.
Depending on the season that the bark is harvested it is possible to do very little damage to the tree. As a previous poster noted, harvesting bark from dead trees results in a very brittle material that is difficult to work effectively. If the bark is harvested while the sap is flowing freely, a single vertical cut will release the outer bark from the inner corky layer. Rather than using a circular cut to free the top and bottom of the bark panel, gently tear the bark horizontally and natural grain of the bark will guide the tear around the bole of the tree. The first time you experience this it is amazing, as the bark appears to literally 'pop' off the tree. This leaves the inner corky bark to protect the tree, unfortunately this corky layer does not retain its beautiful colouration and will become blackened and scarlike. Non-aesthetic to be sure, but protective of the tree nonetheless.
Throughout Canada in areas that were frequently used by First Nations people, it is still possible to find trees that have had portions of bark removed, in some cases, hundreds of years previously (depending on the species). These trees are referred to as culturally altered and are actually an important part of the historical record.
Having supported the concept of removing bark from living trees I would like to qualify my position. The following considerations are always in place:
We are fortunate to have large expanses of land that is open for anyone to wander and enjoy. This freedom does require care and respect, something that is sadly lacking in some users. It would be very easy for my actions to interpreted as negative, damaging, immature, inappropriate, etc. These possible interpretations deserve attention and consideration to avoid giving people the wrong impression of my chosen pasttime or my intentions.
Depending on the season that the bark is harvested it is possible to do very little damage to the tree. As a previous poster noted, harvesting bark from dead trees results in a very brittle material that is difficult to work effectively. If the bark is harvested while the sap is flowing freely, a single vertical cut will release the outer bark from the inner corky layer. Rather than using a circular cut to free the top and bottom of the bark panel, gently tear the bark horizontally and natural grain of the bark will guide the tear around the bole of the tree. The first time you experience this it is amazing, as the bark appears to literally 'pop' off the tree. This leaves the inner corky bark to protect the tree, unfortunately this corky layer does not retain its beautiful colouration and will become blackened and scarlike. Non-aesthetic to be sure, but protective of the tree nonetheless.
Throughout Canada in areas that were frequently used by First Nations people, it is still possible to find trees that have had portions of bark removed, in some cases, hundreds of years previously (depending on the species). These trees are referred to as culturally altered and are actually an important part of the historical record.
Having supported the concept of removing bark from living trees I would like to qualify my position. The following considerations are always in place:
- Aesthetics
Limiting harvest to usable quantities
Distributing impact of subsequent harvest
Local Abundance
Only on Crown Land, or by permission of landowner
We are fortunate to have large expanses of land that is open for anyone to wander and enjoy. This freedom does require care and respect, something that is sadly lacking in some users. It would be very easy for my actions to interpreted as negative, damaging, immature, inappropriate, etc. These possible interpretations deserve attention and consideration to avoid giving people the wrong impression of my chosen pasttime or my intentions.
Grey owl, reading your reply you come across as an old-time native 
I always imagine folk in Canada ripping the bark from birch trees to make canoe's for tourists. I'd love to see the difference in birch materials where you are compared to my locality.
Andy >>>>>-----------------------------<>
I always imagine folk in Canada ripping the bark from birch trees to make canoe's for tourists. I'd love to see the difference in birch materials where you are compared to my locality.
Andy >>>>>-----------------------------<>
I respect your comment, however I don't see the wild grass/wheat field comparison as really being on the same wavelength.
I still see de-barked living trees as a blot, when on an otherwise relatively unspoiled landscape.
And if you preach that "Man is part also of nature, not a syntetic bystander. ", then perhaps this could encourage anyone in nature to dispense with any concern for leaving nature as they found it? Just where do you draw the line?
This is a fair point. However a city dwellers opinion of being "out in the wilds" is really quite different to how the locals see it. As an example, outside the Helsinki ring road is "wolf country" for many city dwellers there, but here in the countryside we just get peed off when they turn up, scar trees, then go back to their concrete jungle.
Please let me dispel any myths about "the wilds of Finland". ALL forest here is owned by someone and it is a criminal offence to fell, damage or otherwise deface a tree without either owning the forest, or having the permission of the owner.
So rigger john, yes it would be a problem.
I can understand where your coming from.
Over here birch is one of the first trees to colinise areas after disturbance. Lots of quarries around me have massive stands of birch, it grows so easily in this climate. There is always a ready supply to use for firewood or whatever. That dont mean its a free for all with the trees, just that sometimes you do find ones that are leaning and are prime candidates for thinning etc. I see this as a valid source of fresh bark.
For my purposes i'd rather use the fallen stuff though
Andy >>>>>-----------------------------------<>
Over here birch is one of the first trees to colinise areas after disturbance. Lots of quarries around me have massive stands of birch, it grows so easily in this climate. There is always a ready supply to use for firewood or whatever. That dont mean its a free for all with the trees, just that sometimes you do find ones that are leaning and are prime candidates for thinning etc. I see this as a valid source of fresh bark.
For my purposes i'd rather use the fallen stuff though
Andy >>>>>-----------------------------------<>
To summarise, for anyone visiting Finland:
- if you have permission from the forest owner, do what you wish with trees, cut them down, strip their bark, feel free to make whatever you wish, even build a canoe
- if you think you can turn up and "enjoy the wilds of Finland", cutting down trees or stripping bark because you think this is a wilderness, in a word, just don't, you will not be welcomed back.,
Tor can entertain you in Norway
- if you have permission from the forest owner, do what you wish with trees, cut them down, strip their bark, feel free to make whatever you wish, even build a canoe
- if you think you can turn up and "enjoy the wilds of Finland", cutting down trees or stripping bark because you think this is a wilderness, in a word, just don't, you will not be welcomed back.,
Tor can entertain you in Norway
I agree most emphatically with susi. I would never dream of defacing a tree by intentionally removing the bark. It would open up the tree to harmful insects and fungus, if the tree survives the damage to the floem.
The insects and fungus could spread to nearby, unharmed trees as well. The growth of that tree may be stunted for ever. And the blemish may be visible for decades.
Bark should only be harvested from fallen trees or when you cut down trees for firewood or something.
I would recommend those who want to harvest bark from living trees to try to do some leather work first.
And they can provide the hide themselves.
(Yes, I've had to take down defaced birches from my wood. Some people,,, )
A.
The insects and fungus could spread to nearby, unharmed trees as well. The growth of that tree may be stunted for ever. And the blemish may be visible for decades.
Bark should only be harvested from fallen trees or when you cut down trees for firewood or something.
I would recommend those who want to harvest bark from living trees to try to do some leather work first.
And they can provide the hide themselves.
(Yes, I've had to take down defaced birches from my wood. Some people,,,
)A.
I know trees that have had bark harvested from them when i was a kid. The trees still grow the same, they dont *seem* to be stressed at all. I agree it could open up the tree to infection etc, but in my personal experience i've never seen it. Yes, it does look unsightly,
but the bark heals with age.
I have seen the effects of harvesting birch sap and not plugging the hole aftrewards, where the tree starts to almost droop and look lacklustre through moisture loss.
I dont condone gathering bark from living trees or collecting sap. Do as you will though.
I've never seen any negative comments about harvesting ash,willow or lime bark to use for containers/bows/string or whatever, where a whole tree/sapling has been cut down. Seems thats ok but getting birch bark is a no-no.
I use what i need. I never take too much and i always condsider the impact of my actions.
Andy >>>>>-------------------------------------<>
but the bark heals with age.
I have seen the effects of harvesting birch sap and not plugging the hole aftrewards, where the tree starts to almost droop and look lacklustre through moisture loss.
I dont condone gathering bark from living trees or collecting sap. Do as you will though.
I've never seen any negative comments about harvesting ash,willow or lime bark to use for containers/bows/string or whatever, where a whole tree/sapling has been cut down. Seems thats ok but getting birch bark is a no-no.
I use what i need. I never take too much and i always condsider the impact of my actions.
Andy >>>>>-------------------------------------<>
There is a traditional technique to get good wood for axe-handles from birch. Used in the northern parts of Sweden (and elsewhere?). To the south there are better hardwoods available.
You remove a strip of bark and wait for perhaps 20-30 years. After that time the tree has tried to cover the damage and that growth of wood could be used to make handles.
Here is a page with some pics. (Autotranslated using Google, so the language is a bit strange...)
http://translate.google.com/transla...terialen/svallved/&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&sl=sv&tl=en
Traditional techniques were fine when there wasn't so much people around. But now the pressure is much higher. And there really is no need anymore. If it was somehow necessary to strip bark of a tree, then fine. But to do it just for fun disturbs me. And to intentionally leave obvious damages to the trees like that also seems strange to me.
I'll thin out a dense birch wood by the lake this winter. Not very big dimensions. Will use the wood for firewood. There will be considerable amounts of birch bark available. And I'd happily give all the bark away for free if someone would take it. But it will also burn fine in my stove.
I suppose there must be similar possibilities in GB?
Yes, it's possible to harvest surface birch bark without harming the underlaying bark. But I've seen plenty of failed attempts...
A.
You remove a strip of bark and wait for perhaps 20-30 years. After that time the tree has tried to cover the damage and that growth of wood could be used to make handles.
Here is a page with some pics. (Autotranslated using Google, so the language is a bit strange...)
http://translate.google.com/transla...terialen/svallved/&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&sl=sv&tl=en
Traditional techniques were fine when there wasn't so much people around. But now the pressure is much higher. And there really is no need anymore. If it was somehow necessary to strip bark of a tree, then fine. But to do it just for fun disturbs me. And to intentionally leave obvious damages to the trees like that also seems strange to me.
I'll thin out a dense birch wood by the lake this winter. Not very big dimensions. Will use the wood for firewood. There will be considerable amounts of birch bark available. And I'd happily give all the bark away for free if someone would take it. But it will also burn fine in my stove.
I suppose there must be similar possibilities in GB?
Yes, it's possible to harvest surface birch bark without harming the underlaying bark. But I've seen plenty of failed attempts...
A.
Shant go near the trees where you are then! I'll get a fierce viking woman after me
Without wishing to be pedantic, Vikings didn't come from Finland and last time I checked, I wasn't a woman
But back to the discussion, I share the same opinion as Mr Adoby above.
In addition, after reading this thread, I got the worrying feeling that some people may think that because it is sparsely populated up here, that it is somehow "OK" to behave in a different way to how a UK native would behave at home (someone please correct me if I've misinterpreted some of the posts). This seems akin to the behaviour of UK tourists in the Med., who think that they can adopt different rules when they're abroad. After a long time reading this forum, this is the first time that a thread has left a real bad taste in my mouth.
Looking at your name i would have guessed you were a woman! Sorry old chap!
I thought Norseman came from the north, Scandinavia, not just Norway. Please excuse my ignorance!
It's even debatable wether Scandinaivia includes more than Norway, Denmark and Sweden. "Scandinavia" is a rather rescent political construct originally used for suspect rascist(?) propaganda purposes.
It's believed that the Vikings never even had any settlements in Finland. Just made a lot of brisk trade with the Finns... Perhaps the Finns was too fierce for the Vikings?
But the term "The Nordic Countries" definitely includes both Finland and Iceland. And also Greenland and Åland.
But Finland is considered to be the land of the birch tree. So I guess I know whose opinion I prefer... Especially since I think the same...
(Had to mention something about birch to avoid going totally OT... )
A.
"Scandinavia" is a rather rescent political construct originally used for suspect rascist(?) propaganda purposes.It's believed that the Vikings never even had any settlements in Finland. Just made a lot of brisk trade with the Finns... Perhaps the Finns was too fierce for the Vikings?
But the term "The Nordic Countries" definitely includes both Finland and Iceland. And also Greenland and Åland.
But Finland is considered to be the land of the birch tree. So I guess I know whose opinion I prefer... Especially since I think the same...
(Had to mention something about birch to avoid going totally OT...
)A.
Hello Susi, I seemed to have caused some offence here, let me assure you that was not my intention. While I did say stripping a Birch tree of bark in Finland would have no enviromental consequences I did not intend to imply that everybody should just feel free to do so.
Maybe if you had read the entire thread and seen my comments
you would have not felt the need to direct your remarks at me personaly, in any event I appologise if I caused offence.
Thanks rigger_john for clarifying your post. perhaps I should have quoted it in full:
But I still take issue with your comments, but I try to clarify (these notes for all, not all targeted at you John ).
- There are 35 or so national parks in Finland, where much of the forest is left in its natural state. Some of these areas are often referred to as "wilderness" and there are strict rules preventing anyone from just "taking down" a tree.
- The rest of the forest is owned by someone and it is managed and cared for as is any other crop. Forests are thinned when needed to allow new growth, forest owners will not welcome anyone else thinning their forest and it is against the law.You cannot even collect fallen wood from someone else's forest.
- Your quote, "Of coures there is the issue of ownership to be considerd I suppose" - I don't want anyone visiting Finland to just "suppose" they have to consider ownership. If it's not your forest and you don't have permission from the owner, you leave the trees alone, period.
- You said "is not a problem" to remove bark from a birch tree in Finland, in contrast to the UK where people would "get upset". Finland isn't some playground that you can visit to practice your bushcrafting hobby, causing whatever damage to someone else's property, just because you consider it to be less populated that your home country. For the record, forest owners here would get equally upset about visitors damaging their trees, as would any owner in the UK.
Here in Finland, we have "Everyman's Right", which gives us the luxury of travelling through, and staying in, otherwise privately-owned forests. We can fish with simple hook and line in most lakes, we can collect berries and mushrooms where we like. But we cannot cut, damage or otherwise "play" with the trees (unless in emergency). These rights work very well because the vast majority of people follow the rules and respect the places they visit. The rules are not open to debate, no matter how "wild" you think our forests are.
Our "Everyman's Rights", pdf in English:
http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=25603
Sorry to be so blunt, but we respect out forests here, if you don't behave in the proper way when you visit them, then Tapio, the forest god will come after you
It is not my intention to make enemies on this forum, I just feel obligated to protect our Finnish forests from people looking for a free-for-all area to practice their hobby. However anyone who follows our rules is very welcome to come and enjoy this beautiful, and relatively unspoit (!) nature
Tor Helge, make a good point here, I don't think taking down a tree in the wilds of Finland in any way would be harmful to the enviroment, I often fell perfectly healthy trees to thin out woodlands and promote growth in the trees we leave standing. Of coures there is the issue of ownership to be considerd I suppose and also location, stipping a standing tree in a city park would be a no no.
Maybe it boils down to uncommon sense, I think in the uk you would be hard pushed to find a wooded area where you could ring bark a birch tree without sombody getting upset about it. Whereas in Finland it seems that it's no problem.
"Man is part also of nature, not a syntetic bystander." Fantasitc quote, guess what my new signature is
But I still take issue with your comments, but I try to clarify (these notes for all, not all targeted at you John
).- There are 35 or so national parks in Finland, where much of the forest is left in its natural state. Some of these areas are often referred to as "wilderness" and there are strict rules preventing anyone from just "taking down" a tree.
- The rest of the forest is owned by someone and it is managed and cared for as is any other crop. Forests are thinned when needed to allow new growth, forest owners will not welcome anyone else thinning their forest and it is against the law.You cannot even collect fallen wood from someone else's forest.
- Your quote, "Of coures there is the issue of ownership to be considerd I suppose" - I don't want anyone visiting Finland to just "suppose" they have to consider ownership. If it's not your forest and you don't have permission from the owner, you leave the trees alone, period.
- You said "is not a problem" to remove bark from a birch tree in Finland, in contrast to the UK where people would "get upset". Finland isn't some playground that you can visit to practice your bushcrafting hobby, causing whatever damage to someone else's property, just because you consider it to be less populated that your home country. For the record, forest owners here would get equally upset about visitors damaging their trees, as would any owner in the UK.
Here in Finland, we have "Everyman's Right", which gives us the luxury of travelling through, and staying in, otherwise privately-owned forests. We can fish with simple hook and line in most lakes, we can collect berries and mushrooms where we like. But we cannot cut, damage or otherwise "play" with the trees (unless in emergency). These rights work very well because the vast majority of people follow the rules and respect the places they visit. The rules are not open to debate, no matter how "wild" you think our forests are.
Our "Everyman's Rights", pdf in English:
http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=25603
Sorry to be so blunt, but we respect out forests here, if you don't behave in the proper way when you visit them, then Tapio, the forest god will come after you
It is not my intention to make enemies on this forum, I just feel obligated to protect our Finnish forests from people looking for a free-for-all area to practice their hobby. However anyone who follows our rules is very welcome to come and enjoy this beautiful, and relatively unspoit (!) nature
In some of the Nordic countries we enjoy free public access to private woods. But to make that work we are usually very well educated in school and by parents how we have to behave in order to make the idea of public access possible. Don't destroy - don't disturb.
But the rules of public access differs between the different countries. For instance you may NEVER make an open fire in Finland in the woods without the landowners permission, but in Sweden you could if you show proper care and respect open fire bans during dry spells in the summer.
Not everyone respect the rules of public access, but the vast majority does. So public access usually works fine for us. Perhaps the low population density helps as well.
But every year there are stories about abuse and trangression of the public access. I have experienced some myself in my own woods. Usually, but not always, by foreign tourists who have misunderstood how the public access works. Most foreign tourists do understand and respect the rules of public access.
Around densly populated areas there are sometimes conflicts between landowners and the public. Simply to much pressure. But usually publicly owned parks and reservations near cities help alliviate those problems.
For us public access is not only a precious right. Is also a responsibility and a behavioural code.
And stripping birch bark from standing trees is a very common abuse. I suppose that's why you get a reaction from both me and susi to some of the things said in this thread.
A.
But the rules of public access differs between the different countries. For instance you may NEVER make an open fire in Finland in the woods without the landowners permission, but in Sweden you could if you show proper care and respect open fire bans during dry spells in the summer.
Not everyone respect the rules of public access, but the vast majority does. So public access usually works fine for us. Perhaps the low population density helps as well.
But every year there are stories about abuse and trangression of the public access. I have experienced some myself in my own woods. Usually, but not always, by foreign tourists who have misunderstood how the public access works. Most foreign tourists do understand and respect the rules of public access.
Around densly populated areas there are sometimes conflicts between landowners and the public. Simply to much pressure. But usually publicly owned parks and reservations near cities help alliviate those problems.
For us public access is not only a precious right. Is also a responsibility and a behavioural code.
And stripping birch bark from standing trees is a very common abuse. I suppose that's why you get a reaction from both me and susi to some of the things said in this thread.
A.
Similar threads
