US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban
1–10 of 147 posts
Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban
#2The 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
Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban
#3The 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.
Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban
#4The 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.
"basal area" is the term you need and now i'm curious what is the typical basal area for an old growth stand?
Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban
#5Earlier 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.
"basal area" is the term you need and now i'm curious what is the typical basal area for an old growth stand?
http://talltimbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Sloan1998a... I found this, where they do note the number of trees has gone up markedly. They note the critical role of low intensity fire.
I doubt selective logging can replace regular burns, but unfortunately there's a great deal of opposition to doing that. Mostly by people living in those fire-prone areas.
Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
"basal area" is the term you need and now i'm curious what is the typical basal area for an old growth stand?
http://talltimbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Sloan1998a... I found this, where they do note the number of trees has gone up markedly. They note the critical role of low intensity fire. I doubt selective logging can replace regular burns, but unfortunately there's a great deal of opposition to doing that. Mostly by people living in those fire-prone areas.
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
Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban
#7The 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 lumber mills). Of course no one that mattered cared because it only impacted 'flyover people' and coastal people don't care if they break their commitments (in the form of the federal government that represents them).
I'd love to see sometime in my lifetime the feds get held accountable to keep the promises they made in the past that they just stop keeping, while the feds use the full force of the law to ensure THEIR side of the deals are kept up.
Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://talltimbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Sloan1998a... I found this, where they do note the number of trees has gone up markedly. They note the critical role of low intensity fire. I doubt selective logging can replace regular burns, but unfortunately there's a great deal of opposition to doing that. Mostly by people living in those fire-prone areas.
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...
Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban
#9The 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?
Re: US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban
#10The 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 thing is that, yes, development in wildland areas has produced scraggly areas that are not good ecologies but are serious fire dangers.
But logging isn't the answer in the sense that logging companies have no interest in just taking small trees - they have no economic value.
I live in one of these areas, btw (Nevada City). There are lots of stick-like trees, lots of scotch broom, lots of flameable underbrush. Removing that by logging is extremely expensive unless you do something like clear cutting, which uses a titanic lawn-mower thing. Cutting a single tall but thin tree requires a professional.
Really, there's no solution for a situation of houses spread through the urban-wildland borders. The logging companies claim the fuel build up is the from logging restrictions but they will always claim that - actually, logging is no longer profitable in California because most large trees are gone, home owners won't let people clear cut and even clear cutting isn't economical given foreign competition and society's decreased use of paper.