*
It’s a good point. We are using the resources, and have
been for a long hard pull. Sensiblility says that we are
headed for a balance, but what PALCO has done with the
redwoods and other forest lands is unacceptable, no matter
what their misleading ads in FHB and other trade magazines
may say. Their record is completely deplorable, and anyone
with even a minor degree of awareness of what’s been done in
California should be appalled by the audacity of their
claims as an environmentally responsible company.
Gaby has a point. We can make a difference, even if all we
do is tell the stupid homeowners or workers not to burn
treated framing lumber. It all adds up, and the sum is: the
future is ugly.
Sorry about the pessimism. I am in touch with the
incredible loss and waste of our natural resources. Some
will bounce back, many others will never recover.
All I can say is, use your knowledge to help for the greater
good of the future.
MD
Replies
*
Ron,
I'll try to be as delicate here as I can, but your statement
about clearcutting being the same thing as a "natural" fire
is not even close to reality.
First, fires do not necessarily clear the forest, especially
the canopy. They provide a service of burning off weeds and
rotting wood low to the ground on an interval of benefit,
given that the fires started as a matter of natural cause,
not man's intrusion. The fires supplant nutrients to the
soil through ash, and they do not destroy roots, which hold
the soil from erosion, which is the single biggest problem
with clearcutting. Downstream from clearcuts on a slope of
even a small grade will be the best of the soil, running
through, say trout or salmon habitat, especially out west
where the problem is historically dramatic and well known.
Fires are an actual necessity for some species of plants and
animals. Clearcutting has not been proven necessary for the
survival of anything yet. With fire, native trees recover
naturally. Under a clearcut, the forest changes from
site-specific trees and plants to invader species, which
become dominant second growth and in most cases, are not
desirable to the original forest.
Just a little factual "clearing" up.
MD
xxxxxxxxxxxx
*I'm not a professional builder so probably don't have much of an impact, but I don't like to feel responsible for using lumber that may have been harvested from old-growth timber. I usually try to find used lumber for my projects - especially for the big pieces like the two 2x12 headers over my garage door. It isn't easy to find salvaged wood that is usable though. If I ever build a house for myself, I'd like to try straw-bale construction, which I think has great potential. Low cost, low impact, extremely energy efficient, and houses built using this technique a hundred years ago are still standing, so it isn't like the proverbial straw house. It also would help solve a problem in California of what to do with all the leftover rice straw, which is currently burned, causing tremendous air pollution in the Central Valley. The drawbacks are that few cities or counties permit this type of construction currently, and it does take up room for the 3-foot thick walls, so it would be harder to build the typical (disgustingly oversized, IMHO) 5000 square foot house on your typical city lot.
*
I can see there is a lot tied into this subject. It looks like it comes down to what people want. Some people want larger homes than what they need. Some want only real wood and lots of it. Others want homes built with solid timbers. I suppose to these people price doesn't matter and I don't mean money. Just for the record, I do think log homes are very nice and would love to own one but in these times maybe they shouldn't be built as much.
Your right James. Builders can suggest all the alternatives in the world to customers but until customers get concerned about our resources the situation won't get any better. I have to admit that I like homes with lots of wood. I'm renovating now and I'm using lots of red cedar. I sometimes try to justify it by telling myself that "the house is only 25' x 30' with 1200sq ft of living space so it's not that bad". When I began my project I thought all cedars can be grown on a farm and cultivated for the building industry. From what I learned lately, I can't justify any of it.
I'm not suggesting we stop using these wood products all together. I just think it can be used more selectively. Like Olav said, you don't need to use redwood outside if you're going to slap on 6 coats of white paint. I have many projects planned and I think I'm going to revise my choice of materials. I know it won't make a difference in the big picture. It's like if I stop driving my gas guzzling Jeep. It won't put a dent in world pollution. I suppose I just want to feel better about it. To make a difference, I think everyone has to do a little bit. Maybe in time eh!
Oh BTW, my offroad club had a Xmas part last saturday. I won the "I left my brain at home award".I'll take a picture of it and post it soon. It's hilarious. They've decided that this will become an annual award. I plan on winning some more!
Gaby
*Yes and no. Clearcutting opens up the canopy so that young trees needing strong sunlight can flourish but it doesn't provide the high temperatures that some conifer cones need to open and some seeds need to promote sprouting. Clearcutting can be part of a proper forest management plan, but it has been far overdone in the past to the point of earning it an overly bad public image. It is certainly no appropriate to many of the steep areas that are prone to erosion where it commonly has been used. One of the big problems with clearcuts is that they are often reforested with a monoculture (usually Douglas Fir in my area) and then the area is sprayed with herbicides, which diminishes the resiliency and diversity of the forest. There are some indications that things are slowly getting better, however.
*In the end , it's all going to come down to the same thing.Trees are a renewable resource. New England has much more forests now than a hundred years ago.Check these numbers out: I didn't...1900-----25,000 deer left, today 25,000,000 (million), most of 'em living in the suburbs.1900--------Rhode Island, most densely populated state in the union. But still mostly farmland. Today , heavily forested, from south to north.I won't be using much "whole tree" products in 10 years, mostly because it will all be junk. I'll be using 90% engineered products. The good stuff will be exported or turned into veneer. And if I want clear, all heart, vertical grain, it will probably come out of a 100 year old mill from the industrial age.Clear wood products will be poplar, and red cedar (FARMED), so I ain't worried about the trees.I'm worried that there is an un-educated mindset that thinks all woods are good woods, and all wild animals should be living in our back yards.Block Island is overrun with deer, introduced by Dept. Enviornmental Magmnt. The entire east is overrun. The biggest natural enemy is gone , and the two legged hunter ain't allowed to hunt them to a manageable level. Can't grow anything unless you have a ten foot fence. How many dead deer on the Jersey Turnpike every night ?I'd like to see a more European type management of our forests and wildlife. This is crazy ! The beaver are comming back into RI and damming streams and flooding roads, what's up with that ?The Canadian Geese have changed their migration and breeding habits. They're contaminating our reservoirs and taking over every open meadow.The raccoons move into every sewer, all unwatched attics, all the sheds, steal the garbage, eat the domestic cats.None of this went unchecked thru the 50's, the Rod and Gun clubs kept everything managed. Now, the enviornmental agencies don't have a clue. The only deer where I live used to be the ones that swam across the Bay, now we have a resident herd in excess of 300, and no deer season.
*
I think the problem occurs by building structures that shouldn't last a hundred years out of materials that will, and vice versa. Not all buildings should last 100, 50 or 20 years in some cases. If it's a "throw away" building it ought to use "throw away" materials. Trash trees, osb, and recyclable stuff.
As far as, "...(what) any reasonable person needs,..." that is entirely subjective.
*
MD,
I think we may be comparing apples and oranges when we compare the type of fire you are talking about with fire in old growth (or 2nd growth) Doug Fir. I'm just starting to learn a little about managing Pine. I see the evidence of the type of fires you're talking about on the East side of the Cascades all the time. Quick little grass fires under trees with little other brush or over burden. Much different than the crown fires we see in naturally occurring same age stands of old growth Doug Fir. Remember that Doug Fir doesnt normally grow in mixed age stands or in the understory and favors that scorched earth site prep to get established. Replanting clearcuts seems to give good results if done promptly as State law requires here. Unfortunately, State law doesnt necessarily apply to Federal lands. You might enjoy reading Norman MacLean's "Young Men And Fire". Dude can write.
I kind of suspect that there arent going to be any easy universal answers to the complex subject of forest managment.
JonC
*
Jon C-
You're right, about apples/oranges, my statement is more general than about a monoculture forest of doug fir. I wanted to compare an average clearcut of an average forest to any old fire, basically.
Mike, there are definitely some success stories with the rebound of various animals and the succession of forest. I agree that some species will profit greatly and thrive in the increasing presence of man, but you pointed out correctly that without natural control the population of these animals gets out of hand and leads to useless waste. (I've seen the deer on the Jersey turnpike too, and Pennsylvania, and here in Wisconsin where cars kill about 80,000 deer a year and several people in deer collisions as well.
Anyway, it's more about loss of diversity and balance.
MD
*
This subject is of more than just passing interest to me, since we're in the middle of establishing Perth, Ontario as a world model for CO2 reduction, and our company is part of taking a stand against what's down the road for us if we don't smarten up. That said, I have to admit I don't know nearly enough about how our building activities affect the environment, and I hope this thread can continue to shed new light for me. We have been building with ICF's, which are completely recyclable (NOT BLUE MAXX, WHICH CANNOT BE RECYCLED DUE TO INCOMPATIBLE WEB MATERIAL!). At the end of "framing" a concrete house, we have a couple of green garbage bags of recyclable waste left over. Concrete floors, etc. don't seem to be as environmentally unsound as acres of oak. Drywall waste is way down, because sheets don't have to be cut when they're applied to ICF walls, they can end anywhere. Passive solar % of over 50% is standard in all houses we build, which is pretty good for Canadian winters. Super-energy-efficient construction techniques bring the energy consumption well below normal.... but there's a long, long way to go. We still build monster homes, if that's what the customer wants and can afford. We still smash places down with a high hoe rather than dismantle, because it's "cheaper". We still don't know nearly enough about how these huge piles of lumber, asphalt shingles, concrete, hardwoods, drywall, insulation, plastics, etc. that we call homes have on the environment. But, folks, it's time we find out. It's time we can all give a good discourse to our customers about the environmental footprint and life cycle costs of the homes we build. Resources? Let's start brainstorming! Everyone should try to add one piece of knowledge to this thread, and we'll all learn from it. Here's my contribution, a web site: http://www.its-canada.com/reed/
*This thread has been very interesting reading. Too often when I have read articles on this subject they come from flakey people on both ends of the lunatic fringe. The replies here have been insiteful and balanced.I make my living as a commercial arborist. What does that have to do with home building, especially "Fine" homebuilding? Well, someone has to clear the lot for new homes or make room for the additions. There is more to taking down trees than just grabbing a chainsaw. I make pretty good money when I am hired to do tree preservation. This is much more involved than putting up some orange plastic fencing three feet away from the trunk of a twenty some inch diameter oak tree. In that case, you are going to kill the tree, you may as well cut it down now and put it out of its misery. And, save your customer some money. By taking time to come up with a practical tree preservation plan, I can assure people of which trees will have the best chance of surviving. Unfortunatly, I also have made money cutting down trees that have been killed by crappy contractors. I could go, on but I will stop.There are rumblings in forestry, read logging, groups that attention should be paid to the urban forest. This is a huge source of potential high quality hardwoods. This is beyond those folk tales of people coming into yards and cutting down a large black walnut and taking just the trunk. Tree rustlers, yeah, right...Right now I have some ash stacked and stickered in my living room from a tree that I got paid to remove. This will be used to trim out my bedroom in Craftsman style. In my back yard I have burr and white oak that will become fencing next summer. In the same pile there is red oak for lumber. At my shop I have a pile of walnut, ash, white and burr oak, and spruce to get milled. The spruce will either be milled into framing material for a storage shed or sold to a fellow who turns them and makes log houses. When I bid all of these jobs I got paid the same as if I had to haul the logs to the dump.All of my work is within the metropolitan area of the Twin Cities. If you guys are looking for wood, connect with some arborists in your area. With a little sweat equity you can get some really nice lumber. Every urban tree that is re-used is one that is saved in the woods.The best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago,The second-best is today!Tree-fuly yours,Tom Dunlap, aka Tom the Tree Guy
*I knew a guy in college who chained himself to a tree out east somewhere. Apparently he imagined himself as a member of Earth First...I'm not anywhere's near as fanatical as that, but:I think another important difference between forest fires and clearcutting (or any other type of cutting) is that cutting removes huge amounts of nutrients from the forest ecosystem- nutrients that may have taken hundreds of years to accumulate. Fires, on the other hand, act as natural fertilizing events.Northern Minnesota is a lot like Pennsylvania- most of the trees were gone by the turn of the century, and now there are miles and miles of forests. However, finding a 3' diameter white pine is a real challenge and they often serve as landmarks...I would be interested to know if anyone has worked with lumber reclaimed from lakes and rivers (there are a lot of ads for it around). Seems to be pretty expensive...-Olav
*Here's my take on clearcutting versus wildfires:Wildfires destroy trees, kill wildlife, kill people, cost millions of dollars to fight, and contribute greenhouse gasses to the environment. Nothing material is gained from it. Clearcutting provides useful wood products to people who need them. Some wildlife may be killed in the process, but not in massive numbers. Both look like hell afterwards. (For a while) And both allow for the regeneration of new trees. A young, growing forest produces more oxygen than an older one. While clearcutting isn't the answer to every forrestry problem, I think it's a viable tool. The public seems to think it's bad just because it b looksbad.
*Kind Of IRONIC Gabby,that you are touting enviornmental responsibility AND your membership in an " Off-Road Club" in the same thread.
*Stephen,Like I told Joe, I'm not touting anything. I simply wanted to ask builders at this forum if they thought it would be a good idea to educate their customers about environmental building practices. Go back and read the first post. I'm not saying they should or should not. I'm asking if they think it's a good idea!I had a feeling some guys would bring up my offroad activities. I can understand why you might think it's ironic that I bring up an environmental issue. Unfortunately there are many offroad enthusiasts that give a bad name to the sport (if you want to call it that..I don't). It's the same with everything else. Take hunting for example. I am completely against it but I know there are responsible hunters who follow the law and kill only what they can eat. Then there is dumb f**k, fat ass, beer chugging, M16 toting, uneducated hick who thinks he's Rambo, fires off shots it the parking lot to show everyone he's cool, then goes of and kills anything he can.I'm an avid outdoors kind of guy Stephen. I love animals (...11 cats and a dog) , I like to hike, kayak, mountaineer, and pretty much do anything else that has something to do with the outdoors. I care about the impact I leave on the places I go to. The same thing goes for my offroad activities. The club has it's own area that we maintain and use. These areas are mainly sand pits, quarries and private lands that belong to some of our members (the lake I drove into for example). We don't "bushwack" and cut trails through the forests. We stay on existing trails that have been there for years for one reason or another. I don't know if this makes you feel any better. I can't justify offroad oriented activities as a whole. It comes down to being aware of what you're doing and doing it responsibly. This applies to everything you do in life that affects your environment. Gaby
*I saw a program years ago about a guy who started a company reclaiming wood from lakes and rivers. He made millions. The wood he found didn't exist anymore in those areas. Much of the lumber he found went to fine furniture makers and musical instrument makers.
*I suppose clear cutting can work if it's managed properly. It becomes a problem when greed takes over. I think that's why the public looks at it as being bad...because greed does take over!Gaby
*Wildfires can indeed get out of hand and do excessive damage. One of the reason why many wildfires become so devistating is because, ironically, wildfires have been so rigorously suppressed for the past several decades. This allows brush to grow and provide a fuel load which then results in a huge fire when it is eventually ignited. Allowing small burns is much more effective than massive confligrations. Many forests developed with regular fires clearning the understory. The bark on mature firs and pines would protect the trees from the major damage so that the larger trees survived and thrived in such conditions. Unfortuntely, Smokey the Bear did too good a job of bad mouthing forest fires and now even the fire of a controlled burn is viewed negatively by the general public. By messing with Mother Nature, we created a situation where huge confligrations can do considerable damage. This situation is becoming even more complicated by the extensive in-building in forested areas. People don't want controlled fires in the area where they have their home, yet by allowing the fuel load to build up, if there ever is a fire a major confligration is almost assured that will wipe out many homes in such an area. As to the over abundance of deer, indeed there are more here now than ever. A result of all those hunters wiping out the wolves, bears, and cougars that used to keep the herds in check. As long as we don't allow the predators to return, hunting is the main means of limiting the number of deer (although "birth control pills" were tried on Angel Island in California - without total success). Unfortunately, most suburban dwellers (or even rural dwellers) aren't too anxious to have a bunch of hunters blasting away in their back yards with their 30-06es...(Read an article the other day indicated some groups are concerned about the decreasing number of young people interested in hunting. Described a program where they took captive pheasants and swung them around until they were dizzy and then released them and let the kids blast at them with shot guns. I couldn't tell from the tone of the article if this was for real or a parody. If it is for real, I wonder if they will start doing that with deer...)
*
That's sending the wrong message about hunting, no matter what your previous viewpoint is.
MD
*
11 Cats?Are you sure you are a guy?
LOL,Stephen
*Yeah, I know what you mean!...but we have them mostly because because of me. Most of my friends think it's because of my girlfriend. Oh well!Gaby
*
Should builders suggest alternatives to clients who demand "old growth" products in their construction and remodels. Is redwood considered "old growth" or can it be grown on a farm. Is western red cedar grown on a farm?
I've used western red cedar around my home quite a bit and I was wondering if I've been guilty of contributing to the decline of a natural resource. I know that in my area, eastern white cedar is farmed and is used extensively.
I remember visiting the Pacific Rim National Park on Vancouver Island and seeing all the clear cutting going on. Many consumers may not realize the impact of using rare wood products. Should builders have a roll in reducing the demand for these products by educating their clients about he situation in our forests? Any thoughts on this?
Gaby
*As long as we build anything that is not completely from recycled material that is not further processed and done with only hand power, we are going to have an impact on the environment that can probably be considered detrimental, at least by some. Most of the old growth redwood has already been cut so what you buy is undoubtedly second growth (what old growth is available goes at a significant premium). Much of what is left that is not in parks or reserves was in the Headwaters Forest that was/is owned by Pacific Lumber Company - a company not noted for their environmentally friendly practices. There were negotiations to buy most of the Headwaters old growth redwoods, but I don't know if that is completely a done deal. There hasn't been nearly as much rumbling about cedar, at least in the press, although since much of the northern rainforest conifers on the West Coast are cedars, I guess the the general debate about saving old growth forests in is largely about them. Canada and particularly British Columbia has been noted as being particularly anti-ecological in their mass clear cutting of their forests. There is finally getting to be some organized opposition in BC to their practices and which is attempting to get the BC government to set aside at least a few of the most beautiful areas as complete ecosystems. The current argument is that BC stands to make more money on tourism than they will on harvesting the last of the gorgeous rain forest areas. Haven't heard a report on their progress of late, but they had a long way to go last I heard. The latest I know of on the Headwaters Reserve is:http://www.ca.blm.gov/arcata/headwaters.htmlThere is a PR blurb from the California Redwood Association at:http://www.calredwood.org/probuild/techtalk/ttusing.htmand a press release on Home Depot agreeing to not sell old growth redwood:http://csf.colorado.edu/ecofem/sep98/0167.htmlNot much info on cedar, but it does grow over a much wider range along the Pacific Coast - Northern California, Pacific Northwest, Canada, and Alaska - than does redwood. There is an interesting argument for the use of cedar being more environmental than concrete about half way down the page and some comments and concerns about the lack of reforestation of cedar as they are logged, further down the page, at:http://www.soundhome.com/consult/40.shtmlThere is a list of links to old growth resources at http://botany.about.com/education/botany/library/weekly/aa031099.htm?iam=mt A blurb from a lumber company on their cedar products extolling the virtues of second growth cedar is at:http://www.skookumlumber.com/western.htmIf you really start feeling remorse about having used old growth timber, you can always try to atone by joining the Rainforest Action Network and chain yourself to an old Redwood somewhere...http://www.ran.org/ran/intro.html(Or just join the Nature Conservancy if you have a hang-up about civil disobedience... http://www.tnc.org/ )
*The guy who parks his Jeep in a lake wants to know what the rest of us are doing to save the world? Joe H
*Joe, this isn't about saving the world. I'm focusing on one aspect of the environment and I'm not questioning what you do or don't do. I'm asking if you builders think it's a good idea to suggest alternative building products to your customers to lessen the impact on sensitive areas in our environment. If you lessen the demand you lessen the impact. Just a thought since builders are in the position to do so.I'm not justifying my antics in the lake but driving a truck 25 ft on a gravel bottom has little effect compared to things we do everyday. This is a whole other subject which I would really like to stay away from.BTW, I checked to make sure I didn't run over any fish!!!Gaby
*Gaby-It seems to me that builders (and architects/designers) could have a large impact on the move towards environmentally friendly building procedures. I have heard a homeowner who was having a home built of huge logs say that they "hope it wasn't old growth". Yeah, right. I also remember on several occasions nailing up redwood fascia that I knew was going to be covered in a nice layer of white paint. There are a lot of options out there now (e.g. exterior MDF and synthetic decking) that are weather resistant and come from easily renewable resources. Granted Trex may not have the same classy look as pure redwood, but in these times I think that's a sacrifice we just might have to make. OSB and TJIs are also a good example of how fast-growing "trash" trees can be transformed into perfectly good building products.That said, as I framed an addition to my house last summer out of doug fir, I winced as I remembered hiking through clearcut stands of it in Washington. As Casey says above, anytime we build something new we are going to have an impact. Another reason to build things that will last a hundred years...Good thread-Olav
*It's a good point. We are using the resources, and have been for a long hard pull. Sensiblility says that we are headed for a balance, but what PALCO has done with the redwoods and other forest lands is unacceptable, no matter what their misleading ads in FHB and other trade magazines may say. Their record is completely deplorable, and anyone with even a minor degree of awareness of what's been done in California should be appalled by the audacity of their claims as an environmentally responsible company.Gaby has a point. We can make a difference, even if all we do is tell the stupid homeowners or workers not to burn treated framing lumber. It all adds up, and the sum is: the future is ugly.Sorry about the pessimism. I am in touch with the incredible loss and waste of our natural resources. Some will bounce back, many others will never recover.All I can say is, use your knowledge to help for the greater good of the future.MD
*When I demo something I salvage as much as possible and reuse it as soon as possible. I'm not in the homebuilding business so I don't need a lot of materials. I wish buildings being demolished had to be dissasembled. It is painfull to watch an old building framed with old growth get smashed by a backhoe and sent to the landfill. Like Casey says, BC is notorious for massive coastal clearcuts for Western Red Cedar and Sitka Spruce and the like. Ontario just next to you Gaby probably has some of the biggest clearcuts in North America. Of course just south of Ontario, Michigan was burned and cut to the last stick or two a hundred years previously.On the upbeat side my wife cut our Christmass tree high in the Cascades last week. We took a walk before dark through a fragment of old growth that included 4-5' diameter Doug Firs and 3' Western Red Cedars. Several of the big old boys were down and rotting in place. I walked 40 paces from 42" diameter to 22" on one of them. The canopy there was so dense that even the Hemlocks weren't growing up in the shade.Gaby you're not likely to live that jeep soaking down any time soon.joe
*Don't blow off clearcutting entirely. Enviromentalists are always willing to embrace a forest fire as being "natural". But clearcutting does the same thing, without the fire.
*Personally, I feel every time I build something that I have a responsibility to build it to last a hundred years (like Olav said) not just for myself or the customer but because I am using up valuable resources. I'm not a bleeding heart, but it really pisses me off when I see the huge stucco palaces being put up around here. First, they chop down the trees on the lot. Then , they build a house that is twice the size any reasonable person needs, and to top it off, nine times out of ten they build it so poorly that it is like throwing the materials away.Having said that, driving through the Poconos (in PA) with my friend, were talking about this. The Poconos are almost all wooded as far as they eye can see. My friend tells me that 100 years ago it was all clearcut, which was true. Pennsylvania had been almost completely logged out, particularly during one governor's term(s). He owned a few lumber companies, if I remember correctly. Anyway, it's nice to think that at least in some places the trees have grown back.
*Are there alternatives that we can use? YOU BETWill most homeowners go for these alternatives? NO WAY, although some will.We have a trend going on here in Southeast Texas. People are wanting to have their homes built/remodeled with lots of natural wood on the walls and floors. They want solid, real wood doors (not hollow core, metal, fiberglass, etc...) The flooring market has come a long way, and there are a lot of products that at least look like wood. I have found that although these wood like products are popular among the DIY'ers, most homeowners that are hiring the work done want real wood floors, paneling, trim, etc... They want clear, expensive wood. Because these products are hard to come by, they tend to get real expensive. Homeowners don't seem to care about price. They just want what they want.In my area, we have 7 major lumber companies, and all have extremely large mills. Each and every one of these companies own a massive amount of land, and this land is used exclusively for replanting. The wood is pine mostly, but a few hardwood forest have been growing here for as long as I can remember. I am sure one day they will cut it all down, and start over. Several years ago I went on vacation with my parents. We went all over the western side of the U.S. One thing I remember that must have had a bigger impact on me than I thought was when we got to go see a house that was built out of tires. This may sound nuts, but the actor Dennis Weaver built a house (or had it built) out of everything BUT lumber. According to the info we got, the walls are 4 tires thick, and each tire was filled with mud and straw of some sort. Then they mixed in some cement type product, and anchored the walls. The slab is concrete, the roofing framework is metal, and just about all of the rest is also man made materials. We did not get to see inside the home. They showed a pickup truck, and all of the wood contained in this house fit in the back of this truck. The exterior of the house had a stucco like texture, and the roof was metal. (It looked new, so I don't know if it had been replaced or not) The house was very large, environmentally friendly, very energy conserving, and looked very nice. So YEAH, IT CAN BE DONE!Until we get the populace concerned about our natural resources, and especially our forests, we will see a dramatic decline in the number and size of our forests. Trees are money, in more ways than one. James DuHamel