Well, that's a good start for building some skills. It would be interesting if they built it up to the proper size, then got in it while you simulated rain over it, so they could actually see how effective their efforts would be.

As kids we hacked and burned all sorts of foliage out behind our house in the 13 years I was there, so did most of our neighborhood friends. For all our efforts (and they were prolific), you'd never have known of any of it if you didn't go looking. At one point, we managed to start a small forest fire and got the fire department called on us. That was a painful lesson, and taught us to be more clandestine and plan ahead a little better.

A couple years after I came home from my first (and only) tour in the Navy, I was disappointed to see that the whole forest had been cleared by a developer, and all our special little forts and camps and gathering areas in the woods were gone. Our collection of playboys from the 70s were no more, and our stash of emergency toilet paper (alder leaves proved unacceptable while day camping, and our stash of beer we stole from dad had all been scoured away along with all those beautiful Douglas fir and Western Hemlocks we'd played around and chopped and sawed and burnt. Nothing we ever did, it seemed, could ever make a dent in that forest, but I was told it took the devleoper's contractor a week to log off all the trees, rake the stumps into a slash pile, and basically turn the hillside into another fenced in row of ticky tacky houses.

Get your kids out there and hack as many limbs as it takes to make them proficient at doing something in a natural setting and find some value in doing it often, before it is gone. Lopping a few limbs on a regular basis isn't going to devastate any forest; it may actually benefit the land, much like selective logging does.

People who fanatically insist we must leave the forests unperturbed and pristine just don't understand how nature works. If I could, I would send every school-age kid out into the forest as often as possible and do just what red did. That might be the best way to insure that at least some of the forests aren't turned into tract housing. This notion that limbing a tree or two or two hundred is somehow going to cause global deforestation is just not realistic. Heck, the forest service does far more of that in a year as maintenance in the places I roamed than me and all my friends could ever have hoped to in our entire childhood.

benjammin, you actually make alot of sense every once in a while.

We had a similar project to accomplish for Wilderness Survival merit badge back in my Scouting days. We had to build a shelter in a pine forest and so we propped large branches against a tree, ran smaller branches between the propped ones, and then used handfulls of pine needles to fill in the gaps for waterproofing. It worked pretty well, since we got some steady rain later that evening. Incidentally, we used all deadfall because that was all we could reach. These pines had no live branches lower than 50' off the ground.

The only nature that was disturbed were the bees in the nest that we uncovered in a pile of needles. So we also got to demonstrate our First Aid skills.

When my son got his, they used nothing but deadfall and driftwood found on the lakeshore. I did it with them too, just for fun. No rain that night to test it, but most did survive the midnight attack of the older scouts...

As I wrote before, this debate has been underway for at least hundreds of years and won’t be resolved today. What we can do is try to learn from each other and check to see if maybe our position still makes sense. What we can do is invite the kids to be aware of the debate.

For some, the standard debate technique is to exaggerate the other side’s position so it looks foolish. You all recognize that technique, especially when it is used against your position, and I’d just suggest it may be less than the honesty the topic deserves.

I’m going to try to follow my own suggestion and not exaggerate, but you will be the judges, of course, and that’s just how it should be. You keep me honest, and I will, when I have the resources, keep you honest.

So what is the topic, the debate? I suggest it is respect.

Respect for branches of a tree? Well, sort of, though that does sound funny at first.

Let me again say that this is a debate that began long before us and will continue long after we are gone. Different folks with different experience of the world have honest, heart-felt, disagreements about how to act in the world. It has probably always been to the advantage of our species to take different approaches so the odds are some of us will survive.

But here’s where I think different groups start to come to very different conclusions. Some believe that we are so powerful and numerous that our actions have the potential to, at least, severely limit our ability to survive on the planet. That is, what you do might mean somebody’s kids are going to pay a terrible price – and maybe already are.

Most of us have an immediate reaction to this notion, one way or the other, and it pretty much determines our position in the debate. If the notion that our actions can threaten the well-being of others seems ridiculous, then this is all tree-hugging, preservationist overreaction (polite version). If that notion gives you pause, if you are concerned enough to consider it as a serious possibility and wish to avoid threatening the well-being of others, then this is not just an academic debate and this is all painful disregard for lessons of history and our responsibility as stewards of the planet (polite version)..

So, back to respect for tree branches, sort of. Should anyone, adult or child, harvest live tree branches at any time. Of course they should, in time of need, for educational purposes, to aid tree health, etcetera, and etcetera.

To argue that one side advocates a total ban on branch cutting is to resort to that exaggeration thing I wrote about earlier. To argue that if you allow one branch to be cut, all will be cut is that same kind of exaggeration. Neither side honorably or honestly advances its cause by making these arguments. Everybody knows that, which is why many try to say the other side is making just those arguments.

We all have anecdotal evidence of the effect of cutting live branches, ranging from there does not seem to be any effect to the tree was never the same again. And we all have our collection of what we believe is scientific evidence of the effect of cutting live tree branches, ranging from it stimulates the tree to better growth to it opens the tree to disease, etc.. And everyone is apparently right some of the time (and wrong some of the time) – so I think those arguments are distractions that get us nowhere.

What is on point is deciding what to teach kids about cutting live branches.

I think it is a fair summary to say one side assumes live branch-cutting can have no larger consequences and says that we should let kids have fun and work to teach them branch-cutting technique, uses for cut branches, etc., They accuse the other side of wanting to ban fun and useful learning for no good reason.

And I think it is a fair summary to say the other side assumes that live branch-cutting can have larger consequences and says that fun and technique should include respect for the ecosystem, including the individual tree. They accuse the other side of teaching a disrespectful, thoughtless, and overly-exploitive approach to nature that makes hollow of any fun or learning that is otherwise going on.

I am in the r-e-s-p-e-c-t group. It seems the conservative position to be cautious in using resources. We seem to have had an impact on the ozone layer, we certainly create pollution, and I suspect we are still learning about how much we affect the planet. I think kids are learning every second and that there is enough evidence in the world that teaching concern for our impact on the planet is a survival issue.

Could I be wrong? Sure; so could you. I just think the evidence is pretty clear and, even if I am wrong, it is better to learn to conserve resources. Are there times when it doesn’t matter if live branches are cut? Almost certainly; but I don’t think we see the future to know what the impact of cutting a particular branch will be, and we can choose what habits and attitudes we want kids to learn.

So I say teach kids about the possible consequences of live branch-cutting, when such cutting is appropriate, when it is not, when there are better substitutes, how to use both kinds of branches properly, etc. I say be sure kids know lots of serious, honest people think cutting live branches unnecessarily is a bad thing - and some places even make it against the law. If it is your position that is ridiculous, teach that, too. Let the kids begin to make informed decisions - and begin to find their place in the debate.

Argh - you're missing my point. I'm not drawing a line to global deforestation from limbing trees to demonstrate shelter-building, I have no agenda here except leave no trace, and can make my shelters from downfall and deadfall, thank you - I have the luxury of plenty of material to use out here. Your experience in your populated neck of the woods isn't all that relevant, unless a forest is protected from development the bulldozer is eventually the way of all such woods. When a forest is protected, the question is what kind of forest you want to preserve. I would agree, hack and burn and build your shelters all you like, except the environment you cut up with be that much less desirable for you and the thousand of kids who might enjoy it, until the developer comes. Developers come to the most pristine little forests, if they're in the wrong (or right) spot. In a typical suburban backyard it doesn't matter one whit.

I know a thing or two about tree pruning, if not nature. You clip branches on a pine, and they won't grow back in place. The tree will eventually grow taller, with no branches where you clipped. You can see the remains of such enlightened wood gathering from decades ago near camp sites all over the pacific northwest. Eventually branches fall and are blown off, naturally. Only when the trees topple and give another tree a chance to grow to you get any new growth. Who said limbing a tree for shelter causes deforestation? It creates an ugly tree, faster, that's all. Fill your temporary forests with ugly trees, see if I care.

There are all sorts of folks who know better how to treat our forests. A popular trail near here along Mt Washington is fairly rocky and unappealing in the summer, but a great snowshoe in the winter. This past winter, some wise person found saplings bent over the trail from the weight of snow. Instead of going around, he lopped off the top of 30-40 trees, and they stood straight up, clearing his way. This summer you see columns of saplings along the trail, lopped off at the top. Those won't grow anywhere, they'll die out. Sure, its not the most appealing trail in summer, but tell that to the folks who have spent their spare time improving it. Just more of the idiocy you see from well-meaning folks who can't see past their own path through the forest.

I'm convinced my way is better than yours. That doesn't make me a better person, or a better outdoorsman necessarily, it doesn't make my shelters more holy, just that I know my path through life is light. The forest may burn down behind me, woodcutters may harvest a few trees here and there for their profit or comfort, that's life, but I'd rather leave the place for the next guy just like I found it. If you think that's smug then maybe so, its what I believe and I see the results in where I live.

One more while I'm venting - jungle vs. rainforest, semantics, not a green political agenda. Rainforest because the predominant feature is, well, rain. Stand on the Olympic Peninsula for a while and decide if its a jungle or a rainforest. Jungle is a word that doesn't meant anything to me. Rainforest, I understand.

Perhaps I'm stupid, but this whole thread seems to be based on the assumption that the OP cut branches from public land.

You shouldn't cut branches in a public park due to common courtesy and the fact that they do not belong to you (alone). In a much frequented "wilderness" area if there were no restrictions the area would soon be stripped bare. But in a true wilderness or on private property, "leave no trace" is just a silly "one size fits all" rule for dummies.

Here's a link to an interesting essay about "leave no trace" that someone else posted a while back:
http://www.purcelltrench.com/leaveatrace.htm

This quote pretty much sums it up:

Well, I don't see that the two camps are mutually exclusive. Perhaps what's missing, what can connect us, and what has already been mentioned more or less, is the thoughtful use of the resource. I'll admit wholeheartedly that what we did as kids was downright wrong. It did result in damage to several big trees, and had anyone else besides us ventured into those woods and done some looking, they'd have found our handiwork. Our problem: we were cut loose and left to our own means and methods of learning, and for a young bunch of boys, that meant taking things apart, doing various destructive tests, the kind of things curious and wild boys will do to things. What makes matters worse is my dad worked for Weyerhauser and knew an awful lot about the forest, and chose not to share any more about what he knew than to send me to the woodpile for cordage. Nor was anyone else around that might have known willing to teach us anything about woodlore or conservation or any of that, at least not until high school.

I would advocate taking the time as adults to learn about conservation, and good forest practices, and all those sorts of things that add to the general enjoyment of the outdoors, then taking the kids out into it, teaching them what you know, counseling them about what is ethical, and repeating the process often. Likely it will go a long way toward better stewardship of both public and private lands, will get kids off their butts and doing something interesting, and make better citizens in general.

So far as I know, it isn't something they teach vigorously in elementary schools, and maybe it should be more. Neither is it something I see a lot of parents getting involved in.

I don't think there's any smugness in respecting the natural world. Respect being a subjective thing, it falls then to each our own experience and wisdom as to how we go about it. There are laws and regulations a plenty that prescribe the limits of our respect, or lack of it, so I reckon as long as we are all working within those agreed upon limitations, we can maintain our diverse views and even exercise good discussions that will be of some benefit to us all.

Jungle seems to me to be rainforests in tropical locations, for I've never heard of temperate rainforests referred to as such. In all the times I went there, I would never have thought to call the Hoh river valley a jungle. But I'm not using Webster's version here, just my own experience. There might some places here in Florida I could call jungle, but swamp still seems more appropriate.

I meant no offense by my remarks either RED. Its good that you take the time to teach the kids what you know.

fwiw I've been known to harvest a few flowers and seeds in my time as well. Never from where its prohibited, but I'm not always sure of roadside rules.

It is good to see the tone of the recent posts. Just by caring enough to post here all you folks get my vote; job one is always just showing up.