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

131–140 of 147 posts

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

#131

Post by _heimdall »

loeg wrote: post #121
_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…

Washington has absolutely tons of other lumber forest that isn't part of the Cedar River watershed, and it is still harvested today. We don't need to be logging in our drinking water watershed.

While I agree that we shouldn't be logging in Washington, is the answer really that we should just pay someone else to log in their watershed instead?

We need to not be logging, period. There's a huge difference in selectively felling trees locally and commercial logging. The problem is that we have collectively grown so accustomed to immediate gratification and the appearance of unlimited resources that we've completely disconnected from how the world really works.

If we really want to fix anything meaningful it's going to take people realizing that cheap energy from coal and oil, combined with paying someone else to deal with the immediate ecological damages caused, aren't sustainable approaches to living here.

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

#132

Post by exabrial »

Forest management is full of counter-intuitive reasoning. I'm glad we're finally getting around to the of long term studies to see how different forest management plans have worked and we can quote some science.

> Oregon Wild forest program manager Lauren Anderson called the proposal a good first step.

Perfection is the enemy of progress. I too applaud the plan.

> For some forests, logging small-diameter trees ahead of prescribed burns is necessary, a consensus reached by many tribes and scientists.

> “Letting those forests continue to age and get older and more decadent,” Brown said. “That’s what the wildlife need them to do.”

#2 doesn't seem possible without #1 in most forests and species it would seem. You can either artificially thin and avoid fires, protecting old-growth, or you can let wildfires regularly take place and keep firewood thin. What we want to avoid is logging damage to old growth, or not taking care of the forests allowing massive fires to destroy everything.

How much is likely something we can do with computer simulations, and verify them with experiments. We need to thin the forests to avoid fire, but occasionally allow young trees to make it past the young generation. If any giant company with super computing resources wants to use that "AI" for something that would actually benefit the world, this would be a worthy use of time and energy.

On the issue of BLM lands: If we have strategically important, or exceptionally rare forests on BLM land, it's probably time to declare some new national forests and get them under management. I don't really see BLM being equipped to handle forest management. Maybe a temporary 12 year protection of old growth trees in BLM land would be a good compromise, giving time for study and congress time to act.

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

#133

Post by exabrial »

whoiscroberts wrote: post #113
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

The planet was covered with forests before humans got involved in forest management. Why is it a bad idea to just leave the forests alone, declare them wilderness, and let the wildlife and ecosystem return to how it was?

This is a great question and proposal and it's how we got here. It's step 0, but it's not the end-all-be-all; as itself will create problems.

You can let the forests grow, but you then _also_ have to let the other natural processes take place: disease and fire. Finally, you have to deal with something nature isn't good at: invasive species.

So now we're onto steps 1 and 2: how do we protect these forests that we're rebuilding? We don't really want them to burn the ground (excessive fuel build up), we don't want them to be out competed by invasive species, nor succumb to disease. We have to emulate natural processes then to protect old-growth... which is the core of this proposal.

Does that make sense? I too was pretty anti-interference until I attended university in the plains. For fun, I joined an outdoor club and assisted with nature research which studied many things, including fire, and realized that fire is very much a natural process that many species and ecosystems are dependent on.

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

#134

Post by RoyalHenOil »

loeg wrote: post #120
RoyalHenOil wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trees effectively behave as a buffer for the water cycle. Under conditions of high rainfall, they absorb a lot of water from the ground. Under conditions of low rainfall, they must nonetheless continue to release moisture via evapotranspiration, which promotes the production of rain in dry conditions. This mean that forested locations are more resistant to both floods and droughts. Tree roots also greatly reduce eros…

Sure, but this region is still heavily forested -- just with second-growth forest (trees ~100 years old and not older). Is there a significant difference between old growth and second growth for this purpose?

A forest with larger trees and more extensive root systems will have a stronger effect than a forest with smaller trees with less extensive root systems.

Different tree species can also be more or less effective at functioning as a buffer. "Thirsty" trees typically do a better job of taking up water when it's wet and continuing to release water when it's dry. (Unfortunately, many new tree plantings favor more drought-resistant trees because they are easier to grow in clearcut fields, which are drier than forests.)

So, because I don't know much about this region specifically, these are my two questions:

Has there been a change in tree biomass in the region?

Has there been a change in the tree species makeup of the region?

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

#135

Post by greenie_beans »

seadan83 wrote: post #128
greenie_beans wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "save the trees" is probably better re-labelled as "save the old growth trees". Would you agree? yes, we should most certainly protect old growth stands. they are very rare in the forests that i'm familiar with in the US east, and maintaining that ecology overrides any economic benefit gained from cutting the trees, imo. i'm in no way advocating for cutting down old growth stands, my comment was more in response to…

A sincere and big thank you for the response! The extra context and nuance are really useful to have. My reading list is already kinda long, I think that spares you from having to dig out any references :) My curiosity is perhaps most of what would interest a thru-hiker. I always want to learn more about how forests work, things like "bears would live here" - "these types of edible plants would grow here". If there a…

it depends on where you hike? "southeast medicinal plants" by coreypine shane would give you a lot of applicable information for the entire AT. i read "bear attacks" by stephen herrero last year before a backcountry trip in glacier national park and the information made me feel a lot more comfortable.

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

#136

Post by tallowen »

loeg wrote: post #120
RoyalHenOil wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trees effectively behave as a buffer for the water cycle. Under conditions of high rainfall, they absorb a lot of water from the ground. Under conditions of low rainfall, they must nonetheless continue to release moisture via evapotranspiration, which promotes the production of rain in dry conditions. This mean that forested locations are more resistant to both floods and droughts. Tree roots also greatly reduce eros…

Sure, but this region is still heavily forested -- just with second-growth forest (trees ~100 years old and not older). Is there a significant difference between old growth and second growth for this purpose?

From the recreational perspective (summer hiking / back-country skiing) - the forests are night and day difference. Having a map of what has been logged and what has not often is the difference between forests that are easy to travel through and forests that are harder. A forest that was clear cut will have trees that are much denser and tightly packed together but tend to be smaller in diameter. These are very hard to travel through (hiking or skiing) compared with the old growth forests.

I don't know a ton about forest ecology but my sense is that trees that do the best are a function of what's already there and that it takes much longer than 100 years for the pre-clear cut conditions to return.

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

#137

Post by loeg »

_heimdall wrote: post #131
loeg wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Washington has absolutely tons of other lumber forest that isn't part of the Cedar River watershed, and it is still harvested today. We don't need to be logging in our drinking water watershed.

While I agree that we shouldn't be logging in Washington, is the answer really that we should just pay someone else to log in their watershed instead? We need to not be logging, period. There's a huge difference in selectively felling trees locally and commercial logging. The problem is that we have collectively grown so accustomed to immediate gratification and the appearance of unlimited resources that we've comple…

I did not say we shouldn't be logging in Washington -- just not in drinking water reservoirs (which we don't). DNR managed logging / the Campbell Global Snoqualmie tree farm seem like mostly a success.

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

#138

Post by Teever »

kalupa wrote: post #115
rascul wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if America decided to import a lot of Canadian lumber? Isn't that already happening?

yep. in fact, it's the #1 import source https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/USA/Yea...

How does Canada feel about the state of the lumber trade between America and Canada?

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

#139

Post by loeg »

tallowen wrote: post #136
loeg wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but this region is still heavily forested -- just with second-growth forest (trees ~100 years old and not older). Is there a significant difference between old growth and second growth for this purpose?

From the recreational perspective (summer hiking / back-country skiing) - the forests are night and day difference. Having a map of what has been logged and what has not often is the difference between forests that are easy to travel through and forests that are harder. A forest that was clear cut will have trees that are much denser and tightly packed together but tend to be smaller in diameter. These are very hard…

The Cedar River Watershed is not open to recreational use (it's a protected pristine watershed that supplies drinking water to Seattle and surrounding suburbs). The difference for that use is not relevant here.

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

#140

Post by _heimdall »

loeg wrote: post #137
_heimdall wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree that we shouldn't be logging in Washington, is the answer really that we should just pay someone else to log in their watershed instead? We need to not be logging, period. There's a huge difference in selectively felling trees locally and commercial logging. The problem is that we have collectively grown so accustomed to immediate gratification and the appearance of unlimited resources that we've comple…

I did not say we shouldn't be logging in Washington -- just not in drinking water reservoirs (which we don't). DNR managed logging / the Campbell Global Snoqualmie tree farm seem like mostly a success.

Do you know how much logging they actually do there? I haven't kept up with that project at all and can't find any recent data.

I know when they were first proposing the project the state was going to limit them to a couple hundred acre clear cuts and Campbell had their own limit at less than that. Unless that number increased dramatically, I'd say the project is a success mainly because they just aren't logging a meaningful amount of timber at all.

Someone actually just clear cut a few hundred acres down the street from me before the locals ran the investor out of town. It's terrible to see it cleared and it's basically just a massive, open, festering wound now but st the end of the data a few hundred acres of timber is a drop in the bucket relative to what we actually consume.

Post reply on HN