Why You Should Cut a Christmas Tree on National Forest Land

Because you can get a gorgeous fir, pine, or cedar up to twelve feet tall for just $5.00! At least in my forest – Deschutes & Ochoco National Forests. Up to five of these beauties per household. Deck the halls, my friends!

And because it is the very least you can do to get out of the “system” what you deserve. When a mammoth, behemoth of a government beast, known as the United States …

  1. DocJay

    We did our usual ritual and killed this fine noble fir.  We always select a beauty that involves a hike.  noble-fir.jpg

  2. Diaryof1

    DocJay, that is stunning! I can almost smell it. The hike is nearly as good as the tree. And if there’s a snowy hill nearby for sledding and there are children? That’s the best.

  3. DocJay

    When it’s too snow laden the hike becomes a slog for the kids although the dog still has fun.  I always carry two saws, one a reciprocal saw and the other a manual.  I make the kids start cutting with the manual saw for historical perspective.  My wife is insanely picky about our tree, last years was twelve feet and wide which made the gorgeous thing unsuitable for its regular location.  We may well get a second this year for another room.   The critical issue is to let the most discerning in the marriage make the choice.  The longer I suffer from the hike out with the tree the more she seems to like the tree :) , the kids just have adored the ritual.

  4. Jojo

    That does sound lovely but Oregon to NY is a long way with a 12′ tree in the pickup.  We will stick with our tradition of a hike into our own woods, where we have a stand of Scotch Pine that probably strayed from someone’s tree farm.  The choices are limited but there is always something satisfactory, and you can’t beat the price.

  5. John Murdoch

    Actually, as a conservative, this strikes me as a suitable use of land the government probably shouldn’t own.

    Sound forestry management typically calls to keep the under-canopy reasonably clear. Taking down smaller trees may help with overall canopy management. Getting people to pay you $1 to $5 per tree for the privilege of removing a potential problem seems reminiscent of Tom Sawyer and the Whitewashed Fence. 

    Should the federal government own more than half the land west of the Mississippi, so that they have to pay staff to worry about canopy management? That’s a macro question. 

    At a micro level, I kinda like the idea.

    As a thought experiment, consider how the Forest Service would manage the canopy of Rock Creek Park in Washington, DC. Consultants, studies, environmental impact statements, public bids, award periods, bid protests, final awarding–then the inevitable legal struggles to fight through the throngs of Neo-Druids who want to launch yet another Occupy movement.

  6. Diaryof1
    John Murdoch: Actually, as a conservative, this strikes me as a suitable use of land the government probably shouldn’t own.

    Sound forestry management typically calls to keep the under-canopy reasonably clear. Taking down smaller trees may help with overall canopy management. Getting people to pay you $1 to $5 per tree for the privilege of removing a potential problem seems reminiscent of Tom Sawyer and the Whitewashed Fence. 

    Should the federal government own more than half the land west of the Mississippi, so that they have to pay staff to worry about canopy management? That’s a macro question. 

    At a micro level, I kinda like the idea.

    As a thought experiment, consider how the Forest Service would manage the canopy of Rock Creek Park in Washington, DC. Consultants, studies, environmental impact statements, public bids, award periods, bid protests, final awarding–then the inevitable legal struggles to fight through the throngs of Neo-Druids who want to launch yet another Occupy movement. · 2 hours ago

    Edited 2 hours ago

    Yes, a good idea considering the gov’t ownership that can’t immediately be changed–a win-win situation. I like your breakdown into macro and micro.

  7. Foxfier

    When I was a kid, we always went and got junipers off of my godfather’s range land– by a water source, if we could.  That was win-win because it helped protect our water (it’s REALLY amazing how much even a small juniper will drink) and we didn’t have to pay the state anything for taking out a weed tree.

    I still can’t sip a gin and tonic without thinking about Christmas…. (juniper berries, yum)

  8. Diaryof1
    Foxfier: When I was a kid, we always went and got junipers off of my godfather’s range land– by a water source, if we could.  That was win-win because it helped protect our water (it’s REALLY amazing how much even a small juniper will drink) and we didn’t have to pay the state anything for taking out a weed tree.

    I still can’t sip a gin and tonic without thinking about Christmas…. (juniper berries, yum) · 18 hours ago

    Awesome. I live in a juniper forest in Central Oregon, actually. And the thought crossed my mind the other day–I could just cut down one of our hundreds of junipers. But, when you also have access with 10 miles of gorgeous fir, pine, and cedar… But I think I’ll string lights on one of the junipers out in the front of the house. My son is sort of allergic to juniper, what a tragedy for where I live!–so I’ll keep them outside.

  9. Mollie Hemingway
    C

    This post makes me miss Central Oregon already.

    My family used to cut our own trees (in Colorado) but now we just get them at the lot. One advantage to being liturgical Christians who celebrate Advent until, well, Christmas, is that by the time we begin decorating for Christmas, those expensive trees are half off.

Want to comment on stories like these? Become a member today!

You'll have access to:

  • All Ricochet articles, posts and podcasts.
  • The conversation amongst our members.
  • The opportunity share your Ricochet experiences.

Join Today!

Already a Member? Sign In