3 ms·

I’m curious, why wouldn’t a private owner just clear cut all of the land for maximum value? Private land owners choose short term windfall over long term sustai

I’m curious, why wouldn’t a private owner just clear cut all of the land for maximum value? Private land owners choose short term windfall over long term sustainability all the time. I don’t see why private owners would preserve old growth forests if the lumber is more financially profitable when cut down and sold.

jeffbee 6y ago
Yeah there's really no evidence that private interests would do anything other than clear-cut sections. Check out this picture. The USFS manages the green squares as part of Shasta-Trinity National Forest. The brown squares are private in-holdings. https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9320397,-122.0779696,13898a,35y,37.68t/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9320397,-122.0779696,13898a,...
njarboe 6y ago
Yes, private ownership would lead to tree farms which might find that clear cutting is the best way to maximize output. With regulations on soil runoff, I don't see that as a problem. My proposal was one that might have a chance of being implemented, thus the reason for private sale of part of the public forest land. It would be impossible politically to get a 1/3 transfer of Forest Service land into wilderness designation and steep reduction of lumber sales on the rest. Allowing the sale of some areas to open up space for towns and cities and some for high output tree farms seems like a reasonable compromise to me that might be possible and I think a better situation that the current one. You would not transfer any old growth to private hands. There is almost none left outside national parks and wilderness areas (Edit: excluding Alaska), in any case.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Yes, private ownership would lead to tree farms which might find that clear cutting is the best way to maximize output. With regulations on soil runoff, I don't see that as a problem. Private ownership could lead to tree farms. It could also just as easily lead to private owners clear-cutting the forest without replacement planting, if the ultimate value of the lumber isn't worth the cost of running a tree farm.

jeffbee 6y ago

Yeah there's really no evidence that private interests would do anything other than clear-cut sections. Check out this picture. The USFS manages the green squares as part of Shasta-Trinity National Forest. The brown squares are private in-holdings. https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9320397,-122.0779696,13898a,35y,37.68t/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9320397,-122.0779696,13898a,...

njarboe 6y ago

Yes, private ownership would lead to tree farms which might find that clear cutting is the best way to maximize output. With regulations on soil runoff, I don't see that as a problem. My proposal was one that might have a chance of being implemented, thus the reason for private sale of part of the public forest land. It would be impossible politically to get a 1/3 transfer of Forest Service land into wilderness designation and steep reduction of lumber sales on the rest. Allowing the sale of some areas to open up space for towns and cities and some for high output tree farms seems like a reasonable compromise to me that might be possible and I think a better situation that the current one. You would not transfer any old growth to private hands. There is almost none left outside national parks and wilderness areas (Edit: excluding Alaska), in any case.

gamblor956 6y ago
Yes, private ownership would lead to tree farms which might find that clear cutting is the best way to maximize output. With regulations on soil runoff, I don't see that as a problem. Private ownership could lead to tree farms. It could also just as easily lead to private owners clear-cutting the forest without replacement planting, if the ultimate value of the lumber isn't worth the cost of running a tree farm.