4 ms·

I'll second talking to a local nonprofit over the USDA or USFS. At least in the PNW, these agencies are focused on extracting value from the land and their repl

I'll second talking to a local nonprofit over the USDA or USFS. At least in the PNW, these agencies are focused on extracting value from the land and their replantings are tightly-packed monocultures designed to be harvested again. They have about as much in common with a forest as a golf course has with a prairie.

Ericson2314 6y ago
All the stories I hear add up to the USDA basically being pound-for-pound the worst federal agency. (DoD is bad, but so much bigger, and has redeeming bits like DARPA. I don't know of any redeeming bits in USDA off hand.)
jointpdf 6y ago
I was going to add that consulting a nonprofit (like the Nature Conservancy) would be a good idea as well. But why either or? If I were undertaking a project as large as reforesting several hundred acres of land, I’d want to consult as many sources as possible. USDA has field offices in almost every county, not to mention loan (including easy-to-qualify-for microloans of <$50K) and payment programs to help with capital and expenses. Genuine question—are “tightly-packed monocultures” that are recurrently harvested optimal (from a carbon removal perspective) under some conditions? Similarly, if you inherit a mature forest, is it optimal to harvest some portion of it so that new trees can absorb carbon?
- iammiles 6y ago
  Certainly! After rereading my comment I can see how it comes off as unduly harsh on the aforementioned federal agencies. However given the context of the article and the question of replanting a clearcut in the PNW, I'm guessing the intent is to create a forest with a sustainable and vibrant ecosystem. That intent puts it at odds of the forestry practices that favors harvesting trees for economic value. There's certainly a need for timber in modern society, but the way that's achieved doesn't create a forest or an environment that fosters a well-balanced ecological system.

Ericson2314 6y ago

All the stories I hear add up to the USDA basically being pound-for-pound the worst federal agency. (DoD is bad, but so much bigger, and has redeeming bits like DARPA. I don't know of any redeeming bits in USDA off hand.)

jointpdf 6y ago

I was going to add that consulting a nonprofit (like the Nature Conservancy) would be a good idea as well. But why either or? If I were undertaking a project as large as reforesting several hundred acres of land, I’d want to consult as many sources as possible. USDA has field offices in almost every county, not to mention loan (including easy-to-qualify-for microloans of <$50K) and payment programs to help with capital and expenses. Genuine question—are “tightly-packed monocultures” that are recurrently harvested optimal (from a carbon removal perspective) under some conditions? Similarly, if you inherit a mature forest, is it optimal to harvest some portion of it so that new trees can absorb carbon?

iammiles 6y ago
Certainly! After rereading my comment I can see how it comes off as unduly harsh on the aforementioned federal agencies. However given the context of the article and the question of replanting a clearcut in the PNW, I'm guessing the intent is to create a forest with a sustainable and vibrant ecosystem. That intent puts it at odds of the forestry practices that favors harvesting trees for economic value. There's certainly a need for timber in modern society, but the way that's achieved doesn't create a forest or an environment that fosters a well-balanced ecological system.