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.
[deleted]
US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban
21–30 of 147 posts
Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban
#22People 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.
Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban
#23The Federal government made a deal with forrest communities. We will have national forests that you won't get any property tax revenues from, but you will get revenue from the forestry, mining, and other economic activity on that land. Then the federal government shutdown most economic activity, and local communities had to shutdown their schools and other government functions (while at the same time losing their lum…
Outside of cities, the main ways to make a living is using the natural resources. Logging, mining, farming etc. Laws are made by city people, who think of work as something you do sitting by a desk. They see the countryside as a nature reserve to keep beautiful for their vacation trips. So they ban most commercial use of natural resources. This is part of what makes rural communities poor and desperate societies, sur…
yes, poor people prosper when international megacorps pay them minimum wage to chop down all their trees. the corp keeps all the profit, and moves on when the trees are gone, and usually leaves a bunch of pollution behind. That's why old mining towns in the appalachians are so prosperous!
Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban
#24The 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.
Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban
#25The 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
Trees per acre seems like a seriously misleading statistic. A freshly planted tree farm is going to have the highest trees per acre, but be the most useless forest. I would expect a few old growth trees in an acre would be a substantially better forest, visually, environmentally, and ecologically, than having three times as many young trees.
The statistical trees per acre reminds me of:
If the utilitarian state could not see the real, existing forest for the (commercial) trees, if its view of its forests was abstract and partial, it was hardly unique in this respect. Some level of abstraction is necessary for virtually all forms of analysis, and it is not at all surprising that the abstractions of state officials should have reflected the paramount fiscal interests of their employer. The entry under "forest" in Diderot's Encyclopédie is almost exclusively concerned with the utilité publique of forest products and the taxes, revenues, and profits that they can be made to yield. The forest as a habitat disappears and is replaced by the forest as an economic resource to be managed efficiently and profitably. Here, fiscal and commercial logics coincide; they are both resolutely fixed on the bottom line.
“Seeing Like a State” Jaces C. Scott
https://files.libcom.org/files/Seeing%20Like%20a%20State%20-...
Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban
#26The 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.
There are vast amounts of land in this country that only have roads and infrastructure because of logging and mining.
Anyone who spends any mount of time outdoors at any longitude west of Denver, is sure to drive down these forest and mining roads when camping. Not to mention, these roads often open up access to lands for new towns and communities. And, as we are approaching the season, these roads are used for emergency services and additionally the maintenance of forests through controlled burns and the prevention of further spreading wildfires.
Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
lots of the public are very ignorant about ecologically sound forest management, unfortunately. "save the trees" is an effective emotional argument. i was once one of those people, but then i learned
I spent a couple of years consulting to earthforce.io (they make forest management software)- before I started I thought I understood forestry, boy how wrong I was, how little I knew! For those interested in learning the basics, this is a pretty good playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvOmkebY7k2UP4N_BicWV...
that seems like a cool job! do you think they still hire freelancers? i'm looking for freelance work and i'm very interested in forest management but don't have a forestry degree, i just own some land.
Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Outside of cities, the main ways to make a living is using the natural resources. Logging, mining, farming etc. Laws are made by city people, who think of work as something you do sitting by a desk. They see the countryside as a nature reserve to keep beautiful for their vacation trips. So they ban most commercial use of natural resources. This is part of what makes rural communities poor and desperate societies, sur…
yes, poor people prosper when international megacorps pay them minimum wage to chop down all their trees. the corp keeps all the profit, and moves on when the trees are gone, and usually leaves a bunch of pollution behind. That's why old mining towns in the appalachians are so prosperous!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FuTiGdN-i8
Relevant tune
Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban
#29The 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
Trees per acre seems like a seriously misleading statistic. A freshly planted tree farm is going to have the highest trees per acre, but be the most useless forest. I would expect a few old growth trees in an acre would be a substantially better forest, visually, environmentally, and ecologically, than having three times as many young trees.
> substantially better forest
Why is it better environmentally and ecologically?
Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
lots of the public are very ignorant about ecologically sound forest management, unfortunately. "save the trees" is an effective emotional argument. i was once one of those people, but then i learned
Instead of "us versus them" statements, I encourage vigorous examination of presuppositions. The urgency of the situation could not be more obvious. The claim "the public is ignorant" is oft repeated by industry-friendly experts in all levels of academia and government. But the policies of the experts have been an objective disaster in the US West. You appear to promote science that is invalidated in real time.
i get what you're saying, but that's not what i'm saying.
state and national forests are a shared natural resource owned by the public, therefore the public has input over these things, sometimes overriding the science. a lot of the "objective disaster in the US West" is due to these policies that are informed by a public who only wants to save the trees.
i'm talking particularly about non-old growth stands where the forest needs to be thinned, but it hasn't, like in the west. old growth stands are a whole 'nother thing. here is one such example where this old growth debate is happening with public input in vermont: https://vtdigger.org/2024/01/18/logging-versus-old-growth-pl...