8 ms·

Canada’s Forgotten Rainforest

209 points by Red_Tarsius 7y ago

DyslexicAtheist 7y ago
Have been watching a show called "Alone" on History channel which is a survival reality-TV thing where they drop off 10 candidates in nature and whoever can hold out the longest wins the game. The first and second season were set on Vancouver island. For some reason have always pictured BC as a cold place very similar to where I'm from in (just on a bigger scale). The show really gives an amazing look into Vancouver Island and how the wet climate creates a very unique habitat with thick moss and lichen covering trees, bears and wood so thick you can't penetrate it on foot. Very different to what I imagine when when hearing the word ""rain forest.
- Tiktaalik 7y ago
  The producers of this season were clever in that most of the bushcraft 'experts' they found were from the US South and Eastern US/Canada so they struggled so, so hard to make fires and were humbled by the wet environment.
  - dirktheman 7y ago
    I enjoyed that show for the reason that they're showing how hard it is to sustain yourself with nothing but you find in nature. I'm a scouts leader and shows like Bear Grylls make surviving look way too easy, and prompts people to take unneccesary risks that will lead to certain death. What I didn't like about the Vancouver location is that they were prohibited to hunt for food, other than fishing. Especially with winter in view, surviving on plants and fish alone would be very, very difficult, if not impossible. What baffled me was that most of these 'survival experts' had little knowledge of local flora/fauna. I'm not certain if they knew where they were going on forehand, but if it were me, I'd make damn sure I would be able to spot at least some basic staple foods around the world. What I like about 'Alone' is that it really shows that surviving isn't just about knowledge or skill, but that psychology plays a vital part, too.
- jammygit 7y ago
  The Mongolia season also made the local plants and animals look interesting
toiletfuneral 7y ago
The market decided this is worth more not existing
abraae 7y ago
Sustainable forests of pine (pinus radiata) here reach maturity in 25 years, when the timber can be harvested, and new trees planted. It's truly horrifying to me to imagine a 400 year old tree being felled.
throwaway13337 7y ago
It's a bigger problem than it first appears. The way we (in the pacific northwest) do logging causes a lot of soil erosion and just makes everything super ugly. https://www.google.com/maps/@47.7121672,-124.2984644,8635m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@47.7121672,-124.2984644,8635m/d... Just move google maps around anywhere heavily forested and you will see giant wounds in the hills. Most countries in Europe don't do this. We could do what they do and use reduced impact logging. Don't cut all the trees at once. This sort of regulation is much easier to achieve than global carbon caps because it's benefits are realized in the backyards of those that deal with them. It's easy to enforce and it also shouldn't cost us much. We'll pay a little more for lumber but that's it.
- sprainedankles 7y ago
  Amazing to see the "Duncan Memorial Cedar Tree" so close to a wiped out area (aaaand a quick search reveals it fell just a few years ago. Ouch.) What exactly does it mean to do "reduced impact logging" in Europe, do you have a link? Coming from the Northeast where our trees are also of great economic value (and of greater natural value), I completely agree that a more strategic approach to logging should be pursued. But at the same time, we need to develop methods for supporting rural logging towns economically. I'm not sure what the answer is, but ideally it can make use of and build upon existing skill-sets and lifestyles in those areas. I want to believe that if communities are properly educated and given opportunities to improve their practices, they would.
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    I don't think there is really such a thing as a logging town anymore. I mean, I live in a county where logging equipment is manufactured, and regionally logging is quite important to the economy, but it's all itinerant, there's no need to be settled near the work.
    - grosswait 7y ago
      I imagine he means towns supported by mills.
avip 7y ago
First, from a pure narrow CO2 economy POV, cutting down a mature forest is good. Trees peak sequestration at 20-40 years. Second, BC can’t stop logging as long as it’s trapped in a PC First Nations talk. Tangent, though this is technically a rainforest, it bares little resembles to what the word is usually associated with.
- ricardobeat 7y ago
  Your first statement seems to have been debunked long ago: > The researchers have found that carbon uptake of trees (as measured by growth rates) continuously increases with their size because the overall leaf area increases as they grow. This enables bigger trees to absorb more carbon from the atmosphere. Thus, the oldest trees in a forest capture the most carbon from the atmosphere. These oldest trees are to be found in ancient forests. Importantly, older trees are also more valuable for biodiversity than younger trees because they support a wider range of species Coming from Brazil, it pretty much looks like rain forest to me, except all the tree species are different. Besides, what is the point you are trying to make? That this is somehow ok?
  - avip 7y ago
    Pls source your claims https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259766087_Rate_of_tree_carbon_accumulation_increases_continuously_with_tree_size https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259766087_Rate_of_t... Maybe instead of "debunked", you meant to say "this is a controversial issue". Here's a better source to support your claims: http://www.co2science.org/subject/f/summaries/forestold.php http://www.co2science.org/subject/f/summaries/forestold.php
    - ricardobeat 7y ago
      You’re right, I should. Was on mobile and in a bit of a hurry. Quote from the second link: > with respect to the Brazilian forests in the central Amazon - about 50% of their above-ground biomass is contained in less than the largest 10% of their trees
    - recusancy 7y ago
bobske4 7y ago
Stupidity rules the world. Mankind just deserves to die. Eod.
- dang 7y ago
  Ok, but could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments here? We're trying to be ruled by at least a little less stupidity than that, and it takes energy to hold entropy at bay for a bit. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
fallingfrog 7y ago
Can any Canadians comment on the political situation that allows this to happen? From our point of view in the us you guys seem relatively left leaning and yet you still have deforestation, Athabasca tar sands, etc going on.
- michaelmachine 7y ago
  Taking away jobs makes people mad. 17% of Canada’s economy is natural resource extraction: mining, logging, hydrocarbons. Greater than 200,000 Canadians are employed by the logging sector [1]. [1]: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/files/pdf/10_key_facts_nrcan_2016-access_e.pdf https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/files/pd...
- Tiktaalik 7y ago
  There is a massive gap between the successful economies of urban Canada (especially. Toronto & Vancouver) and rural Canada. It is politically difficult to turn away from resource development because there are few if any jobs in rural Canada otherwise. This is a problem I've been watching politicians wrestle with my whole life and we are no closer to a solution. BC's economy took an incredible nosedive in the 90s when there was a secular decrease in demand for its wood and pulp products which were a huge part of the economy (think how phone books no longer exist and you'll understand why). Some regions of rural BC have pivoted toward eco-tourism, but it hasn't been a real replacement.
- walrus01 7y ago
  BC's economy outside of major cities remains heavily dependent on logging and mining and other forms of resource extraction. Look at the trainloads of cargo going to the coast and what they contain, and what's getting loaded onto ships in Burrard Inlet and at Deltaport.
- ant6n 7y ago
  Canadians live under the impression that their land is infinitely big, so strip-mining it etc. is only a problem in other, smaller countries.
- jammygit 7y ago
ricardobeat 7y ago
The series of three pictures captioned 'Clear cut logging in the Anzac River Valley' is heart-breaking. How can we allow such mass-scale destruction?
cmurf 7y ago
There are temperate rainforests in the U.S. as well. I've been to the Hoh rainforest on the peninsula of Washington state, and it's probably similar to the rainforest in this story. Quite a lot of logging has been happening for a long time in the surrounding area that you can see while driving through, but I'm not sure they're indigenous trees as they're tree farms explicitly for logging.
nazca 7y ago
I cringe when I see lede's like this. It further reinforces the general perception of logging = evil. The reality is that our forested ecosystems in north america need fire to be healthy. But we've built homes & towns in areas that need fire, effectively tying our hands. So, we actually need to be logging more rather than less in order to compensate for a natural amount of fire. Sure, we could be doing less clear cutting and more shelterwood harvests & thinning. But generally logging is now an essential tool for us to manage forest & ecosystem health.
- cowpig 7y ago
  Can you link to something for evidence that this kind of logging can play a similar role as fires in some ecosystems? Because afaik fires don't typically raze down entire forests. I would encourage you to read the article: it addresses the issues of fire (this ecosystem doesn't go through fire cycles because it's too wet) and talks about this being a case where logging is especially harmful to the environment.
- viburnum 7y ago
  Rainforests are damp and don’t burn. Right there in the name.
- TYPE_FASTER 7y ago
  Logged areas can burn more severely: https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr208en/psw_gtr208en_525-534_stone.pdf https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr208e...
jameswst 7y ago
Hey all, Jimmy Thomson here from The Narwhal. We noticed all the traffic coming from all y'all and we've been sharing this discussion on our Slack this morning. Just wanted to say we really appreciate all the thoughtful comments — it's great to see Sarah's article generating such an interesting conversation, and we hope you keep coming back.

209 points by Red_Tarsius 7y ago

Have been watching a show called "Alone" on History channel which is a survival reality-TV thing where they drop off 10 candidates in nature and whoever can hold out the longest wins the game. The first and second season were set on Vancouver island. For some reason have always pictured BC as a cold place very similar to where I'm from in (just on a bigger scale). The show really gives an amazing look into Vancouver Island and how the wet climate creates a very unique habitat with thick moss and lichen covering trees, bears and wood so thick you can't penetrate it on foot. Very different to what I imagine when when hearing the word ""rain forest.

Tiktaalik 7y ago
The producers of this season were clever in that most of the bushcraft 'experts' they found were from the US South and Eastern US/Canada so they struggled so, so hard to make fires and were humbled by the wet environment.
- dirktheman 7y ago
  I enjoyed that show for the reason that they're showing how hard it is to sustain yourself with nothing but you find in nature. I'm a scouts leader and shows like Bear Grylls make surviving look way too easy, and prompts people to take unneccesary risks that will lead to certain death. What I didn't like about the Vancouver location is that they were prohibited to hunt for food, other than fishing. Especially with winter in view, surviving on plants and fish alone would be very, very difficult, if not impossible. What baffled me was that most of these 'survival experts' had little knowledge of local flora/fauna. I'm not certain if they knew where they were going on forehand, but if it were me, I'd make damn sure I would be able to spot at least some basic staple foods around the world. What I like about 'Alone' is that it really shows that surviving isn't just about knowledge or skill, but that psychology plays a vital part, too.
jammygit 7y ago
The Mongolia season also made the local plants and animals look interesting

toiletfuneral 7y ago

The market decided this is worth more not existing

abraae 7y ago

Sustainable forests of pine (pinus radiata) here reach maturity in 25 years, when the timber can be harvested, and new trees planted. It's truly horrifying to me to imagine a 400 year old tree being felled.

throwaway13337 7y ago

It's a bigger problem than it first appears. The way we (in the pacific northwest) do logging causes a lot of soil erosion and just makes everything super ugly. https://www.google.com/maps/@47.7121672,-124.2984644,8635m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@47.7121672,-124.2984644,8635m/d... Just move google maps around anywhere heavily forested and you will see giant wounds in the hills. Most countries in Europe don't do this. We could do what they do and use reduced impact logging. Don't cut all the trees at once. This sort of regulation is much easier to achieve than global carbon caps because it's benefits are realized in the backyards of those that deal with them. It's easy to enforce and it also shouldn't cost us much. We'll pay a little more for lumber but that's it.

sprainedankles 7y ago
Amazing to see the "Duncan Memorial Cedar Tree" so close to a wiped out area (aaaand a quick search reveals it fell just a few years ago. Ouch.) What exactly does it mean to do "reduced impact logging" in Europe, do you have a link? Coming from the Northeast where our trees are also of great economic value (and of greater natural value), I completely agree that a more strategic approach to logging should be pursued. But at the same time, we need to develop methods for supporting rural logging towns economically. I'm not sure what the answer is, but ideally it can make use of and build upon existing skill-sets and lifestyles in those areas. I want to believe that if communities are properly educated and given opportunities to improve their practices, they would.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  I don't think there is really such a thing as a logging town anymore. I mean, I live in a county where logging equipment is manufactured, and regionally logging is quite important to the economy, but it's all itinerant, there's no need to be settled near the work.
  - grosswait 7y ago
    I imagine he means towns supported by mills.

avip 7y ago

First, from a pure narrow CO2 economy POV, cutting down a mature forest is good. Trees peak sequestration at 20-40 years. Second, BC can’t stop logging as long as it’s trapped in a PC First Nations talk. Tangent, though this is technically a rainforest, it bares little resembles to what the word is usually associated with.

ricardobeat 7y ago
Your first statement seems to have been debunked long ago: > The researchers have found that carbon uptake of trees (as measured by growth rates) continuously increases with their size because the overall leaf area increases as they grow. This enables bigger trees to absorb more carbon from the atmosphere. Thus, the oldest trees in a forest capture the most carbon from the atmosphere. These oldest trees are to be found in ancient forests. Importantly, older trees are also more valuable for biodiversity than younger trees because they support a wider range of species Coming from Brazil, it pretty much looks like rain forest to me, except all the tree species are different. Besides, what is the point you are trying to make? That this is somehow ok?
- avip 7y ago
  Pls source your claims https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259766087_Rate_of_tree_carbon_accumulation_increases_continuously_with_tree_size https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259766087_Rate_of_t... Maybe instead of "debunked", you meant to say "this is a controversial issue". Here's a better source to support your claims: http://www.co2science.org/subject/f/summaries/forestold.php http://www.co2science.org/subject/f/summaries/forestold.php
  - ricardobeat 7y ago
    You’re right, I should. Was on mobile and in a bit of a hurry. Quote from the second link: > with respect to the Brazilian forests in the central Amazon - about 50% of their above-ground biomass is contained in less than the largest 10% of their trees
  - recusancy 7y ago

bobske4 7y ago

Stupidity rules the world. Mankind just deserves to die. Eod.

dang 7y ago
Ok, but could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments here? We're trying to be ruled by at least a little less stupidity than that, and it takes energy to hold entropy at bay for a bit. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

fallingfrog 7y ago

Can any Canadians comment on the political situation that allows this to happen? From our point of view in the us you guys seem relatively left leaning and yet you still have deforestation, Athabasca tar sands, etc going on.

michaelmachine 7y ago
Taking away jobs makes people mad. 17% of Canada’s economy is natural resource extraction: mining, logging, hydrocarbons. Greater than 200,000 Canadians are employed by the logging sector [1]. [1]: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/files/pdf/10_key_facts_nrcan_2016-access_e.pdf https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/files/pd...
Tiktaalik 7y ago
There is a massive gap between the successful economies of urban Canada (especially. Toronto & Vancouver) and rural Canada. It is politically difficult to turn away from resource development because there are few if any jobs in rural Canada otherwise. This is a problem I've been watching politicians wrestle with my whole life and we are no closer to a solution. BC's economy took an incredible nosedive in the 90s when there was a secular decrease in demand for its wood and pulp products which were a huge part of the economy (think how phone books no longer exist and you'll understand why). Some regions of rural BC have pivoted toward eco-tourism, but it hasn't been a real replacement.
walrus01 7y ago
BC's economy outside of major cities remains heavily dependent on logging and mining and other forms of resource extraction. Look at the trainloads of cargo going to the coast and what they contain, and what's getting loaded onto ships in Burrard Inlet and at Deltaport.
ant6n 7y ago
Canadians live under the impression that their land is infinitely big, so strip-mining it etc. is only a problem in other, smaller countries.
jammygit 7y ago

ricardobeat 7y ago

The series of three pictures captioned 'Clear cut logging in the Anzac River Valley' is heart-breaking. How can we allow such mass-scale destruction?

cmurf 7y ago

There are temperate rainforests in the U.S. as well. I've been to the Hoh rainforest on the peninsula of Washington state, and it's probably similar to the rainforest in this story. Quite a lot of logging has been happening for a long time in the surrounding area that you can see while driving through, but I'm not sure they're indigenous trees as they're tree farms explicitly for logging.

nazca 7y ago

I cringe when I see lede's like this. It further reinforces the general perception of logging = evil. The reality is that our forested ecosystems in north america need fire to be healthy. But we've built homes & towns in areas that need fire, effectively tying our hands. So, we actually need to be logging more rather than less in order to compensate for a natural amount of fire. Sure, we could be doing less clear cutting and more shelterwood harvests & thinning. But generally logging is now an essential tool for us to manage forest & ecosystem health.

cowpig 7y ago
Can you link to something for evidence that this kind of logging can play a similar role as fires in some ecosystems? Because afaik fires don't typically raze down entire forests. I would encourage you to read the article: it addresses the issues of fire (this ecosystem doesn't go through fire cycles because it's too wet) and talks about this being a case where logging is especially harmful to the environment.
viburnum 7y ago
Rainforests are damp and don’t burn. Right there in the name.
TYPE_FASTER 7y ago
Logged areas can burn more severely: https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr208en/psw_gtr208en_525-534_stone.pdf https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr208e...

jameswst 7y ago

Hey all, Jimmy Thomson here from The Narwhal. We noticed all the traffic coming from all y'all and we've been sharing this discussion on our Slack this morning. Just wanted to say we really appreciate all the thoughtful comments — it's great to see Sarah's article generating such an interesting conversation, and we hope you keep coming back.