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

31–40 of 147 posts

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

#31

Post by akira2501 »

lantry wrote: post #23
BurningFrog wrote: post #15

Earlier 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!

> and moves on when the trees are gone

Is that how the timber industry works?

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

#32

Post by greenie_beans »

seadan83 wrote: post #17
greenie_beans wrote: post #6

Earlier 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

"save the trees" is probably better re-labelled as "save the old growth trees". Would you agree? Would you consider tree farms as ecologically sound? (I'll note those are intentionally over-planted, homogeneous, and burn like crazy) Which key facts caused you to change your mind?

> "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 how we manage the forests that came after we cut the old growth.

> Would you consider tree farms as ecologically sound? (I'll note those are intentionally over-planted, homogeneous, and burn like crazy)

this depends on how the forest is managed. monocultures are bad and diversity is good (though a lot of stands have predominant species, naturally), forests need disturbances (whether through thinning or fire or naturally), etc. but a diverse forest can still be in rough shape. i'm getting at the edge of my knowledge fwiw.

> Which key facts caused you to change your mind?

i bought forest land and learned as much as i could about forest management, so there is too much information to list. i can share books if you're genuinely curious.

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

#33

Post by cscurmudgeon »

lantry wrote: post #23
BurningFrog wrote: post #15

Earlier 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!

I think you are unintentionally proving their point. We tightened regulations and have just exported pollution to dictatorships (e.g., CCP). If city folks just do local bans without similar import bans, what is the point?

> yes, poor people prosper when international megacorps pay them minimum wage to chop down all their trees

Or, why not let the poor people decide for themselves? In your story, the only illegal thing the megacorp did was pollution. Why didn't existing laws address that?

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

#34

Post by tallowen »

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 indecision which is certainly it's own drawback but I think these choices are not without tradeoffs that should be acknowledged.

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

#36

Post by ohmyiv »

doubloon wrote: post #20

Imagine if there was 'old growth internet' and the federal government forced big tech companies to preserve big chunks of it.

I don't understand your point. Internet and forests are different systems. They both have different uses and different types of management. It doesn't make sense to me to compare. Could you expand more?

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

#37

Post by goda90 »

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

Better than logging would be to pull trees down and leave them in place on the ground: https://youtu.be/BiDBAU2d7oE

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

#38

Post by zdragnar »

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

Where I live, the state government agency in charge of forest management will prioritize specific trees. Oak wilt, emerald ash borer and other diseases and pests mean that removing some trees is healthier than letting nature take its course.

Additionally, they'll open up larger sites to thin out overgrown young growth, though they'll pre-mark what they want taken down in both cases.

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

#39

Post by beaeglebeachedd »

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.

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.

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

#40

Post by poorman »

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…

I'll admit I'm not up to speed on the affect of the aggressive logging of Seattle on the hydrological cycle. From the little time I've spent there, I managed to gleam one small fact, that by the 1950's the Seattle city sewage system was dumping up to 50 million gallons of sewage into the Puget sound (per day).

I'm only a software engineer and have no understanding of hydrological cycles, but I suspect the evaporation and precipitation of that alone would have an impact on the nearby watersheds used for drinking water.

Post reply on HN