4 ms·
>it's the trees that are dangerous This reads like a lawncare shill quote
by cmpb 5y ago
>it's the trees that are dangerous
This reads like a lawncare shill quote
- mountainb 5y agoSpeaking as someone who owns many acres of forest, I like it a lot, but beware that it's more work than it seems to keep it nice.
- amanaplanacanal 5y agoI love in the pacific northwest. We have untold square miles of forest here. The idea of having to keep a forest "nice" kind of blows my mind. The best forests we have are the ones that are completely untouched.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- socialist_coder 5y agoI could be wrong, but I think that "untouched" forest is not really going to be so nice unless you let natural wildfires come by every decade and clear out the undergrowth, or you have a lot of big animals naturally making trails, or you have forestry employees keeping up the forest. So, if you have a few acres of forest yourself, none of the above things are going to be happening, you actually have to build trails through it and then maintain them. And, you will constantly have fallen branches and fallen trees that need to be cleared. It's a lot of work. I have a few acres of forest in the PNW.
- smeej 5y agoI hear this a lot from a West Coast perspective, but I don't understand it. Northern New England is almost entirely forested, and it isn't managed or maintained to anything like the same degree as West Coast forests, and yet we don't have the problems with giant segments going up in smoke every year. We don't even really have suburbs. We just have towns that are mostly forests, separated from each other by areas that are completely forests with one road going through. I'm (obviously) no expert in this, but it seems that our largely untouched forests do a lot better than the ones that are so intensively managed. I have to imagine this has been studied and state maintenance of forests isn't just some giant government boondoggle that leads to massive fires and no one's noticed, but that's how it looks from several thousand miles away!
- mountainb 5y agoThere's just so much moisture in the plants that fires don't do that much under most normal circumstances in New England. Storm damage is a bigger concern but that just makes trees ugly/dead or has them falling on power lines and houses. Rotted trees are just wet, gross, and full of bugs -- they're not necessarily fire hazards.
- amanaplanacanal 5y agoPart of it is just different climate. The west coast is mostly what is called Mediterranean, which means we have almost no rain during the summer months. By August everything is dry as a bone and ready to burn. Don't you guys get rain pretty much year round?
- watwut 5y agoDo you really think all forests are regularly cleaned? That just does not seem to be the case and only some of them have regular fires.
- socialist_coder 5y agoNot all forests, obviously. But the ones that people are generally hiking in, the trails are maintained. Not many people go off trail.
- mountainb 5y agoIn the northeast we don't have wildfires like that. It's just too wet especially in the river valley in which I live. And 'winter' is basically 6 months long. The undergrowth just uh, under-grows unless you expressly clear it out to make it more pleasant to walk around in.
- beezle 5y agoSpeaking as someone who was nearly killed twice by trees (in a car and out walking), I'd say either trees just don't like me or they really are dangerous. Though a lot of people think I'm a bit of a jerk, my money is on the latter.
- missedthecue 5y agoLogging is the most deadly occupation in North America, on a death per capita basis. (111 deaths per 100,000 workers)