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

91–100 of 147 posts

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

#91

Post by _heimdall »

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?

You're still going to miss externalities when you limit the factors you consider. Sure, lumber sellers in Canada could do well and the US could avoid cutting downt heir own trees, but can we really assume that deforedtstion in Canada would be without consequence?

Assuming that stripping resources from other parts of the world is how we got into this ecological mess in the first place.

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

#92

Post by sidewndr46 »

alostpuppy wrote: post #72
Loughla wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Which is why I'll never support these short sighted "legalization" efforts. I see no utility in arresting someone for smoking a joint in their own home. Arming the government with yet another source of tax revenue is simply unacceptable

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

#93

Post by ramblingrain »

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.

Timber is still the original and main purpoes of state forests in Oregon and Washington.

The article is discussing federal forests. The timberlands in Oregon are owned by private, federal and state entities.

Forests managed for for timber by the state are protected differently, like, first to get sprinkler lines in a wildfire. They are a crop which is invested in and harvested. Federal forests are easier to log after a burn anyway, and you can log outside the burn with that cover. The United States Forest Service (USFS) is actually, basically, a road building and logging company, but owls and so on really got in the way for a couple decades. We're figuring out how to keep logging. We're capitalists.

The only state forests with old growth are going to be the "experimental" state forests in the Cascades and the Olympic and Coast ranges. Otherwise we woulda logged 'em. I mean there are old growth pine trees and juniper in Oregon and Washington east of the Cascades, a few, but those aren't timberlands.

https://oregonforests.org/forest-ownership-map

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

#94

Post by briffle »

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.

This article is about the federal forests, not the state ones.

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

#95

Post by SOLAR_FIELDS »

gamepsys wrote: post #90

> Old-growth forest protections proposed Friday will apply to trees on public lands managed by the Forest Service, but not to the Bureau of Land Management Wow, this just confirmed my lack of knowledge around how national forests are administered. As someone in the PNW, are there any national agencies that govern the use of forests besides National Forest Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management?

I also found this tidbit following interesting:

> Similar to the Forest Service’s proposed amendment, BLM’s rule was met with mixed emotions, with some conservationists saying it lacks teeth and some timber industry representatives saying it’s too restrictive.

Not even knowing how all of this works I can immediately tell BLM is walking the line on this well, because they are coming up with compromises that everyone grumbles about.

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

#96

Post by kubectl_h »

_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…

The rationale(s) for creating National Forests are multitude, but one good reason why they exist is in the Northeast the Green Mountain NF and White Mountain NF form the watersheds of multiple important rivers (Hudson, Connecticut, Androscoggin, etc) that are critical for industry and welfare (drinking water, etc). The federal govt recognized this a century ago and put these forests into management without putting them into 100% preservation and as such created a delicate balance between conservation/preservation and commercial and recreational use.

IMO the National Forests are the true jewels of the American conservation system because they set aside some of the most valuable (from a land value perspective) lands in the interest of multiple use.

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

#97

Post by oivey »

SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #95
gamepsys wrote: post #90

> Old-growth forest protections proposed Friday will apply to trees on public lands managed by the Forest Service, but not to the Bureau of Land Management Wow, this just confirmed my lack of knowledge around how national forests are administered. As someone in the PNW, are there any national agencies that govern the use of forests besides National Forest Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management?

I also found this tidbit following interesting: > Similar to the Forest Service’s proposed amendment, BLM’s rule was met with mixed emotions, with some conservationists saying it lacks teeth and some timber industry representatives saying it’s too restrictive. Not even knowing how all of this works I can immediately tell BLM is walking the line on this well, because they are coming up with compromises that everyone g…

The strategy for those sorts of groups is to ALWAYS grumble that way no matter what happens it at worst appears like a compromise.

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

#98

Post by carsoon »

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?

There is plenty of timber in northern California and southern Oregon, these regions are actually temperate rain forests, that are harvested sustainably and aren't old growth forests. Every 30-50 years, (depending on species: redwood or doug fir) the same tracts of forest can be logged again and again.

Once you get further north the taigas are colder and slower growing and may take 200 years or longer to grow back.

The best thing for the USA is to use the resources which supports jobs in logging, wood processing, transportation, and have lower costs associated with transportation and fees from importation. I'm not against importing timber into very northern parts of the US but there is no reason to ONLY use canadian timber.

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

#99

Post by carsoon »

seadan83 wrote: post #14
Firerouge wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you and parent comment might actually agree. The 3x trees is an indication of too much, too many small trees, too much fuel. Places that burn and recover lose their "excess" trees. The trees get more space and are healthy top to bottom. OTOH, tree farm trees are bred to have few branches and are planted very close together. Tree farms grow tree trunks, not trees. There is a line of thought, which honestly I t…

Why would you be skeptical of tree farming leading to less carbon sequestering?

The whole point of farming timber is to harvest wood which is lignin and cellulose aka CARBON.

The green leaves on the tree are not what will store carbon. The green will fall off and become forest duff which gets digested by fungi and bugs and the carbon released back to the atmosphere.

Goal of timber companies == make more timber timber == captured carbon

Post reply on HN