3 ms·

Or you know, we could actually log the lands like these agencies were supposed to enable in the first place. There's a lot of healthy logging that can exist on

Or you know, we could actually log the lands like these agencies were supposed to enable in the first place. There's a lot of healthy logging that can exist on the spectrum between clear cutting and total preservation. So for conservationists to advocate literally letting the forests burn before considering even a bit of actual forest management is insanity. We're sitting on one of the largest reserves of renewable resources in the world, and we would literally rather let it burn to the ground. Most of these forests in question (USFS and related agencies) shut down logging on these lands decades ago, mostly as an act of conservation hubris. And the irony is they are now spending more money on replanting and thinning than they ever did when they were getting paid to do it by logging companies. Managed logging not only thins out the forests so that burns are less damaging. And trees being logged instead of burned not only reduce the carbon, they act as a store of it!

WheatMillington 3y ago
This comment is being downvoted, however it seems sensible to me? Can someone who is downvoting offer a counter argument instead?
- kurthr 3y ago
  Much of the land is not commercially profitable to log due to competition with much larger, less steep, and more uniform forests. Also, there would be significant externalities to those living there (you can argue with them, but there are millions), including wildlife disruption/movement, surface water contamination/flooding/landslide, road obstruction/damage. Once you allow a significant number of people to live there, the easiest political thing is just to make the costs of insurance/rebuilding/maintenance so high that people move out.
  - legitster 3y ago
    From the official CRS report on the NFS lands (https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45688.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45688.pdf): > Numerous interrelated factors, including statutory, administrative, biological, and market influences, may have contributed to the decline in timber harvesting on NFS lands. The effect of each individual factor is not settled, as is the effect of each factor over time. These factors occurred at varying points in time and may not coincide directly with observed harvest level changes. Some sources have noted that statutory changes added complexity to forest management and increasing litigation frequency, while also increasing transparency and public participation.48 Other sources have noted changing management priorities. Others have noted decreasing domestic demand, volatile prices, and the prevalence of less valuable timber due to high harvest levels in previous decades. The listing of the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) under the Endangered Species Act in 1990 is often discussed in regard to declining timber harvest levels. So, the declining demand for wood probably means the industry is probably pretty happy to use the tree farms they have developed over the years. But it still seems like they would be happy to log public lands if it was made more convenient.
- dbrueck 3y ago
  Yeah, it is in fact very sensible. The following is an uncharitable take but here goes: the stereotypical social media conservationist will be 100% anti-logging because there's no room for nuance - you either love the planet or you're a corporate money grubber - while people who recognize that complex problems typically aren't black and white and who genuinely care enough about the environment to become informed on the topic generally agree that some amount of controlled logging is a very good thing.
  - legitster 3y ago
    I will be even more specific - most modern conservationists are generally pro-logging! It's a renewals resource that's carbon negative! Anti-logging activism is a holdover from a specific time in the 80s when we had no other environmental concerns other than to superficially preserve the beauty of nature. Anyone who tied themselves to a tree to stop a logger is now in their 50s and 60s. A minority, but at a peak age to influence policy.
    - mschuster91 3y ago
      > Anyone who tied themselves to a tree to stop a logger is now in their 50s and 60s. A minority, but at a peak age to influence policy. Here in Germany, it's routine. 2021 had the Forst Kasten in Munich occupied to protest against a gravel strip-mining operation [1], and the Hambacher Forst adjacent to a lignite strip-mining operation is still occupied [2]. [1] https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/muenchen-forst-kasten-kiesabbau-vertragsaufloesung-1.5908656 https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/muenchen-forst-kasten-k... [2] https://hambacherforst.org/besetzung/waldbesetzung/ https://hambacherforst.org/besetzung/waldbesetzung/
- doikor 3y ago
  Problem is that you would have to do the logging in a very uneconomic way. Basically you would want to leave the most profitable trees (big/old ones) and cut down all the small ones. This is because big trees don't really burn down and survive the fires for the most part. After a fire they provide a canopy stopping the forest from growing to be as dense in the future. With the less dense forest the fires after that won't be as intense.
  - legitster 3y ago
    Determining trees for cutting is usually determined by the forester, not the logger. If the forest manager wants to leave the big trees, that's on them and their management plan. All the more reason to have logging happen on publicly managed lands than private ones where "controlled wildfire burns" might not be a consideration.
PedroBatista 3y ago
True but let's not pretend the logging industry has a long and rich history of good conservationism. They are there ( obviously ) for the money, and clear cutting everything and "investing" by planting huge areas of mono cultures is anything but "less damaging" Also, most of the timber doesn't actually burn during these fires, most get cut and sold as it's perfectly good wood if you don't let them rot in 1-2 years. As always and anything, the virtue is in the middle. A good system where these companies can cut tree and be economical viable but also rules that keep the biodiversity alive and well. A long and not-corrupt department.. That's why these things are so difficult.
- legitster 3y ago
  Sure, but it's the whole reason this model was set up in the first place! It's like we built a school for the kids and banned them from it for being uneducated. There's enough forests in the US west for loggers to log bits and pieces of it and not return for a hundred years. Perfect for biodiversity. They have been forced onto dense monoculture lots out of necessity. Unless we want to want to go back to the 80s and pretend plastic is more environmentally friendly than paper products (which was a real argument of the time), we shouldn't be so hostile to forestry concerns.

WheatMillington 3y ago

This comment is being downvoted, however it seems sensible to me? Can someone who is downvoting offer a counter argument instead?

kurthr 3y ago
Much of the land is not commercially profitable to log due to competition with much larger, less steep, and more uniform forests. Also, there would be significant externalities to those living there (you can argue with them, but there are millions), including wildlife disruption/movement, surface water contamination/flooding/landslide, road obstruction/damage. Once you allow a significant number of people to live there, the easiest political thing is just to make the costs of insurance/rebuilding/maintenance so high that people move out.
- legitster 3y ago
  From the official CRS report on the NFS lands (https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45688.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45688.pdf): > Numerous interrelated factors, including statutory, administrative, biological, and market influences, may have contributed to the decline in timber harvesting on NFS lands. The effect of each individual factor is not settled, as is the effect of each factor over time. These factors occurred at varying points in time and may not coincide directly with observed harvest level changes. Some sources have noted that statutory changes added complexity to forest management and increasing litigation frequency, while also increasing transparency and public participation.48 Other sources have noted changing management priorities. Others have noted decreasing domestic demand, volatile prices, and the prevalence of less valuable timber due to high harvest levels in previous decades. The listing of the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) under the Endangered Species Act in 1990 is often discussed in regard to declining timber harvest levels. So, the declining demand for wood probably means the industry is probably pretty happy to use the tree farms they have developed over the years. But it still seems like they would be happy to log public lands if it was made more convenient.
dbrueck 3y ago
Yeah, it is in fact very sensible. The following is an uncharitable take but here goes: the stereotypical social media conservationist will be 100% anti-logging because there's no room for nuance - you either love the planet or you're a corporate money grubber - while people who recognize that complex problems typically aren't black and white and who genuinely care enough about the environment to become informed on the topic generally agree that some amount of controlled logging is a very good thing.
- legitster 3y ago
  I will be even more specific - most modern conservationists are generally pro-logging! It's a renewals resource that's carbon negative! Anti-logging activism is a holdover from a specific time in the 80s when we had no other environmental concerns other than to superficially preserve the beauty of nature. Anyone who tied themselves to a tree to stop a logger is now in their 50s and 60s. A minority, but at a peak age to influence policy.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    > Anyone who tied themselves to a tree to stop a logger is now in their 50s and 60s. A minority, but at a peak age to influence policy. Here in Germany, it's routine. 2021 had the Forst Kasten in Munich occupied to protest against a gravel strip-mining operation [1], and the Hambacher Forst adjacent to a lignite strip-mining operation is still occupied [2]. [1] https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/muenchen-forst-kasten-kiesabbau-vertragsaufloesung-1.5908656 https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/muenchen-forst-kasten-k... [2] https://hambacherforst.org/besetzung/waldbesetzung/ https://hambacherforst.org/besetzung/waldbesetzung/
doikor 3y ago
Problem is that you would have to do the logging in a very uneconomic way. Basically you would want to leave the most profitable trees (big/old ones) and cut down all the small ones. This is because big trees don't really burn down and survive the fires for the most part. After a fire they provide a canopy stopping the forest from growing to be as dense in the future. With the less dense forest the fires after that won't be as intense.
- legitster 3y ago
  Determining trees for cutting is usually determined by the forester, not the logger. If the forest manager wants to leave the big trees, that's on them and their management plan. All the more reason to have logging happen on publicly managed lands than private ones where "controlled wildfire burns" might not be a consideration.

PedroBatista 3y ago

True but let's not pretend the logging industry has a long and rich history of good conservationism. They are there ( obviously ) for the money, and clear cutting everything and "investing" by planting huge areas of mono cultures is anything but "less damaging" Also, most of the timber doesn't actually burn during these fires, most get cut and sold as it's perfectly good wood if you don't let them rot in 1-2 years. As always and anything, the virtue is in the middle. A good system where these companies can cut tree and be economical viable but also rules that keep the biodiversity alive and well. A long and not-corrupt department.. That's why these things are so difficult.

legitster 3y ago
Sure, but it's the whole reason this model was set up in the first place! It's like we built a school for the kids and banned them from it for being uneducated. There's enough forests in the US west for loggers to log bits and pieces of it and not return for a hundred years. Perfect for biodiversity. They have been forced onto dense monoculture lots out of necessity. Unless we want to want to go back to the 80s and pretend plastic is more environmentally friendly than paper products (which was a real argument of the time), we shouldn't be so hostile to forestry concerns.