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

41–50 of 147 posts

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

#41

Post by mistrial9 »

greenie_beans wrote: post #30
mistrial9 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It is very difficult to cover all the angles in a few short comments. I disagree that "the public who wants to just save trees" is the responsible party.. it is more complex than that.

>policies that are informed by a public who only wants to save the trees

I can give citations for a dozen extensive studies and workshops, some years in the making, alongside more recent research papers from California academia. The ones I know of mostly originate in the University of California system. Actual policy as implemented is informed by those studies but not dictated by them.

Due to the rule of law, actual policy on the ground in the last forty years is divided in practice by the owners of the lands. In California, most of the "public" forest lands are owned by Federal agencies. The "desire to save the trees" conveniently dovetailed with a Federal obligation to maximize commercial value of National Forest timber. The combination of those two, different, policy groups resulted in what has happened in the last ten years.. that is, overcrowding of trees, disease, massive die-offs, and catastrophic wildfire.

Another crucial point.. the pine trees of the low Sierra and North-Eastern California are not at all in the same category as the Coastal Redwoods, or South Sierra old-growth. yet this discussion here seems to make no distinctions.

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

#42

Post by bpodgursky »

seadan83 wrote: post #9
_DeadFred_ wrote: post #7

The 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…

Which 'deal' specifically, could you provide a link so we can read more?

You could look up the original Bureau of Land Management charter by congress, which does in fact mandate that the BLM's charter[1] is to manage federal lands with the goals of sustained resource yield:

> The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that goals and objectives be established by law as guidelines for public land use planning, and that management be on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law.[4]

They are managed to balance interests to ensure long-term needs, not cannot simply declare that timber, minerals, etc are off-limits:

> The government must consider "a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values."

The deal was very explicitly that federal land was to be managed to avoid a tragedy of the commons with regards to resource extraction. Resource extraction was one of the primary goals mandated by congress and no, they cannot simply decide they don't want to.

[1] https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_Land_Policy_and_Management_A...

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

#43

Post by tbrownaw »

poorman wrote: post #26
TheChaplain wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 emerg…

> Not to mention, these roads often open up access to lands for new towns and communities.

That would be the "other ancillary development that always seems to follow" that the GP comment says there's value in preventing.

There a line of thinking that says that humans are evil and there should be less of them and those that remain should be confined to a more limited area.

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

#44

Post by Loughla »

beaeglebeachedd wrote: post #39
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.

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

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

#45

Post by greenie_beans »

mistrial9 wrote: post #41
greenie_beans wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It is very difficult to cover all the angles in a few short comments. I disagree that "the public who wants to just save trees" is the responsible party.. it is more complex than that. >policies that are informed by a public who only wants to save the trees I can give citations for a dozen extensive studies and workshops, some years in the making, alongside more recent research papers from California academia. The on…

i think we are saying the same thing yet somehow talking past each other

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

#46

Post by soultrees »

ohmyiv wrote: post #36
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?

I think the OP is making a point that we should resources as The Internet Archive as services that are in the best interest of the public.

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

#47

Post by jeffbee »

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.

The state CSF forest is like a gnat in the eye of the national forest. They only own 40k acres, while the USDA/USFS administers 16 million acres and BLM administers another 4 million acres.

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

#48

Post by [deleted] »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #7

The 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…

[deleted]

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

#49

Post by mistrial9 »

tbrownaw wrote: post #43
poorman wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 emerg…

> Not to mention, these roads often open up access to lands for new towns and communities. That would be the "other ancillary development that always seems to follow" that the GP comment says there's value in preventing. There a line of thinking that says that humans are evil and there should be less of them and those that remain should be confined to a more limited area.

> humans are evil

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

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

#50

Post by ohmyiv »

soultrees wrote: post #46
ohmyiv wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think the OP is making a point that we should resources as The Internet Archive as services that are in the best interest of the public.

Ah, okay, that makes more sense. Yeah, theyre right about that. Thanks!
Post reply on HN