Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban

opb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 147 posts

Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban

#71

Post by noqc »

Retric wrote: post #66
mburns wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Backdoor defunding by not adjusting for inflation is definitely a thing but that seems like a separate issue from what I was responding to re: where the funds come from and if they are kept separate, not how much should be spent in total. > Repeat as needed until general fund is handing the equivalent of 90m with the slack taken up by the lottery. The lottery picking up the slack so that the general fund doesn’t have…

> The lottery picking up the slack so the general fund doesn’t have to do all of it is the whole point. That’s identical to the lottery just putting money directly into the general fund. Unless the funding source results in an increase in total funding this stuff is pure theatre.

If a person arguing on hackernews can't understand the scam that requires a 3rd grade mathematics education, bthen I don't have a lot for the general public.

Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban

#72

Post by alostpuppy »

Loughla wrote: post #44
beaeglebeachedd wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very common scam. Introduce revenue source, say "it's going to the schools/teachers." Do that for a bit, defund the prior source of cash so the teachers are at what they were before. When it's time to run the next scan rinse and repeat. Seen it done with about every new tax introduced. Teachers still get paid shit and other taxes either barely move or go up.

I'm not trying to be shitty, but what other examples do you have? I don't know about that.

Marijuana tax revenue is a big one as well. They pulled the same bait and switch in the state of Nevada

Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban

#73

Post by mik3y »

TheChaplain wrote: post #24
wavefunction wrote: post #19

The logging ban also has the effect of preventing road construction and other ancillary development that always seems to follow. I think there is value to the logging ban beyond just the direct effect on trees.

Road construction is afaik used to make traffic/transportation more effective, so not doing so seems like a gigantic waste of resources in a growing society.

In case you're interested, there's a fascinating recent book about the effects roads & road development have on their surroundings (and the planet at large): _Crossings_ by Ben Goldfarb [1]

[1] https://www.bengoldfarb.com/crossings

Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban

#74

Post by _heimdall »

tallowen wrote: post #34
poorman wrote: post #22

People often forget the original purpose of these state forests was to harvest the timber and pay the teacher salaries as part of the Oregon Common School Fund... As the great great grandson of Francis Elliott (Oregon's first state forester), I have been reminded of this by my family many times over the years. I'm unsure of it's purpose today, but I suspect the teachers wouldn't mind the extra pay.

I think we now know about a lot more externalities of this kind of logging than we did generations ago. For example, much of the hydrological basis that provide drinking water to the Seattle metro area was aggressively logged 100 years ago which impacts the hydrology of the basin in a negative way for the purpose collecting drinking water. I think extra knowledge in the space of the environment often leads to indecis…

Everything has externalities though. Don't get me wrong I'm all for a forest going unlogged, but we will replace those resources with something else.

We still use lumber, if it isn't locally harvested we buy it from another part of the world, outsourcing those externalities and throwing in all the extra costs of shipping, labor overhead for the various middlemen, customs, etc.

My point isn't that we're screwed and should just chop down forests because we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. But saving one forest won't fix anything by itself and could very well make things worse if we don't do it by simply reducing the number of resources we consume. Paying someone else to own the externalities will never help.

Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban

#75

Post by koolba »

loeg wrote: post #69
beaeglebeachedd wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very common scam. Introduce revenue source, say "it's going to the schools/teachers." Do that for a bit, defund the prior source of cash so the teachers are at what they were before. When it's time to run the next scan rinse and repeat. Seen it done with about every new tax introduced. Teachers still get paid shit and other taxes either barely move or go up.

I'm not sure I'd call it a scam. It certainly takes advantage of the fact that voters don't seem to really believe (or understand) that money is fungible.

It’s always a scam because money is fungible and unless the underlying asset itself is held by a separate entity, you’re always at the whim of the party in power.

Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban

#76

Post by Teever »

_heimdall wrote: post #74
tallowen wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we now know about a lot more externalities of this kind of logging than we did generations ago. For example, much of the hydrological basis that provide drinking water to the Seattle metro area was aggressively logged 100 years ago which impacts the hydrology of the basin in a negative way for the purpose collecting drinking water. I think extra knowledge in the space of the environment often leads to indecis…

Everything has externalities though. Don't get me wrong I'm all for a forest going unlogged, but we will replace those resources with something else. We still use lumber, if it isn't locally harvested we buy it from another part of the world, outsourcing those externalities and throwing in all the extra costs of shipping, labor overhead for the various middlemen, customs, etc. My point isn't that we're screwed and sh…

What if America decided to import a lot of Canadian lumber? It's geographically close and the size of the forests are mindbogglingly vast.

Could this happen in a way that benefits American construction interests but also Canadian lumber exporting interests?

If there's ever some dispute about it could it be mediated somehow?

What would the outcome of that possibly be?

Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban

#77

Post by meristohm »

poorman wrote: post #22

People often forget the original purpose of these state forests was to harvest the timber and pay the teacher salaries as part of the Oregon Common School Fund... As the great great grandson of Francis Elliott (Oregon's first state forester), I have been reminded of this by my family many times over the years. I'm unsure of it's purpose today, but I suspect the teachers wouldn't mind the extra pay.

That strikes me as reductive. As an underpaid teacher (though I'm one of those who was happy with my low pay because I absolutely loved my work at one of the schools and was able to keep it all at school & actually work just 40 hours per week), it is nowhere near desirable to get some extra temporary money at the expense of the hundreds to thousands of years of value that a healthy forest ecosystem provides.

Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban

#78

Post by SCUSKU »

Teever wrote: post #76
_heimdall wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything has externalities though. Don't get me wrong I'm all for a forest going unlogged, but we will replace those resources with something else. We still use lumber, if it isn't locally harvested we buy it from another part of the world, outsourcing those externalities and throwing in all the extra costs of shipping, labor overhead for the various middlemen, customs, etc. My point isn't that we're screwed and sh…

What if America decided to import a lot of Canadian lumber? It's geographically close and the size of the forests are mindbogglingly vast. Could this happen in a way that benefits American construction interests but also Canadian lumber exporting interests? If there's ever some dispute about it could it be mediated somehow? What would the outcome of that possibly be?

All very interesting and complex questions, I look forward to hearing your findings in 6 years at your PhD thesis defense :^)

Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban

#79

Post by ars »

Loughla wrote: post #44
beaeglebeachedd wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very common scam. Introduce revenue source, say "it's going to the schools/teachers." Do that for a bit, defund the prior source of cash so the teachers are at what they were before. When it's time to run the next scan rinse and repeat. Seen it done with about every new tax introduced. Teachers still get paid shit and other taxes either barely move or go up.

I'm not trying to be shitty, but what other examples do you have? I don't know about that.

"70 Years Later, Pennsylvanians Still Paying Johnstown Flood Tax" https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/pennsylvanians-still...

Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban

#80

Post by m463 »

lukasb wrote: post #2

The rationale that a certain amount of logging to thin forests is beneficial is correct. I don't know the details, or how they'll administer it to avoid excesdive logging, but at least in California we have almost 3x as many trees per acre compared to pre-white settlement: https://story.californiasunday.com/gone-paradise-fire

that's quite misleading.

In the california bay area, the beautiful 2000 year old redwoods were almost completely exterminated to rebuild after the 1906 san francisco earthquake.

The regrowth pattern was usually a group of maybe 7 redwoods sprouting around the stump of a former giant. They compete with each other are not and will not replace the tree that was cut down.

It is sad to hike around the hills, see this pattern and wonder what the big one was like.

There are still some amazing old-growth giants, say in Henry Cowell state park. Just walk around there for an hour and your viewpoint on old-growth will probably change dramatically.

The really big ones in Big Basin State Park burned in the fires, and although they are huge, they are very black and much has been lost.

Post reply on HN