3 ms·
Nah, if you bulldoze the trees, you get fire-based shrubs in however many years and those aren't necessarily better. Also, California cities don't even have th
by joe_the_user 3y ago
Nah, if you bulldoze the trees, you get fire-based shrubs in however many years and those aren't necessarily better.
Also, California cities don't even have the money to bulldoze the trees in an N-mile radius around them. California did log the entire Sierra Nevadas a hundred years ago, yes but those trees were valuable and there actually weren't as many of them (due to the fire ecology). A hundred years of fire suppression forestry and logging have turned the Sierras into a giant thicket - filled with small trees and shrubs with no market value, not easy to remove and ready to explode.
- mistrial9 3y ago> California did log the entire Sierra Nevadas a hundred years ago insufficient detail, plus people lied in writing to get paid in Sacramento because "who could know" basically a BS statement, right?
- amanaplanacanal 3y agoAre you saying they didn't log all those trees? I don't know the specifics, but I know that where I am up in Oregon there is very little of the old growth left. Almost everything got logged at one time or another. We still have plenty of forests, but they are all second growth.