3 ms·

You're missing the point.. These forests have been logged multiple times over history, and many were replanted with terrible replanting practices. 1. Monocult

You're missing the point.. These forests have been logged multiple times over history, and many were replanted with terrible replanting practices. 1. Monoculture, with a focus on economic species. This means that fire-resistant Alder (deciduous) that helps mitigate fires, are not planted. 2. Glyphosate bombing. Yes, we aerial bomb our forests with Glyphosate in order to kill of the Alder which fills in much faster than the desired economic species. I bet you didn't know that.. 3. Trees were planted WAY to close together. Many of these forests looks like matchsticks, because that's what they are. At the time it was thought that closer-spacing would lead to faster harvesting and more biomass(money), but what you end up with is a giant tinderbox with small trees, TONS of deadfall. What all this leads up to is way more fire frequency and a MUCH higher fire magnitude. Large healthy trees, with their canopies way about the forest floor, are naturally resistant to fires, even without Alder around. Once the fire reaches the canopy it will spread fast and far, and likely kill the tree.

Ensorceled 3y ago
> You're missing the point.. I'm not sure how providing statistics that dispute the point is "missing the point"... > These forests have been logged multiple times over history, and many were replanted with terrible replanting practices. SOME of these forests have been logged multiple times over history. The bulk of forests in Canada have never been logged. Simple math tells you that, 0.2% * 200 years is still a maximum 40% of the forest and, as the original article points out, we drastically increased logging the past decade. If these forests have been logged multiple times that means it's much less that 40% of the forest is/has been logged. Logging where I grew up is ALL being done on land that was previously logged, not old growth forest and the bulk of that logging is on natural regrowth, not plantations. I won't argue about the replanting practices since a lot of these are no longer done because of the problems you point out. There are terrible pine plantations where I grew up were the pines are 80 years old but only 6 inches in diameter because of how close together they were planted. There are no new plantations like this. > What all this leads up to is way more fire frequency and a MUCH higher fire magnitude. Fire frequency increasing is overwhelmingly caused by climate change. Most of the fires this summer were in unlogged, remote areas.

Ensorceled 3y ago

> You're missing the point.. I'm not sure how providing statistics that dispute the point is "missing the point"... > These forests have been logged multiple times over history, and many were replanted with terrible replanting practices. SOME of these forests have been logged multiple times over history. The bulk of forests in Canada have never been logged. Simple math tells you that, 0.2% * 200 years is still a maximum 40% of the forest and, as the original article points out, we drastically increased logging the past decade. If these forests have been logged multiple times that means it's much less that 40% of the forest is/has been logged. Logging where I grew up is ALL being done on land that was previously logged, not old growth forest and the bulk of that logging is on natural regrowth, not plantations. I won't argue about the replanting practices since a lot of these are no longer done because of the problems you point out. There are terrible pine plantations where I grew up were the pines are 80 years old but only 6 inches in diameter because of how close together they were planted. There are no new plantations like this. > What all this leads up to is way more fire frequency and a MUCH higher fire magnitude. Fire frequency increasing is overwhelmingly caused by climate change. Most of the fires this summer were in unlogged, remote areas.