3 ms·

If it was a commercially-managed forest, it's a bit dramatic to say it was "obliterated" any more than a cornfield gets "obliterated" when the corn is harvested

If it was a commercially-managed forest, it's a bit dramatic to say it was "obliterated" any more than a cornfield gets "obliterated" when the corn is harvested in the fall. Tree seedlings would have been planted in the field soon after the wood was harvested. The days of lumberjacks going into virgin forests to harvest wood in that area are over - it's all either national parks or other protected forests which might get thinned for fire management reasons but never clear-cut, or managed forests that periodically get harvested and replanted, just like corn and wheat. (Source: I grew up in Humboldt County and still have family there.)

Teever 3y ago
The difference between this and a cornfield is that from the looks of the pictures these trees weren't planted by people. These trees took far longer to grow than a corn crop, far longer than a human lives. It's sad that they're gone.
- Cyberdog 3y ago
  I suppose if you had a fondness for that particular arrangement of trees, yes, it's sad they're gone. But there are other forests in that area which look practically identical to what you saw in the movie, believe me, just waiting to be hiked through and camped under. Some of them are literally in city parks. I remember the day that my dad told me that tourists actually came to Humboldt to see the trees. Boring old trees? Really? Having grown up among them I didn't understand how unusual they were yet.
  - danparsonson 3y ago
    Well that's a bit like saying that if you have one forest already then you don't need another one; I personally think it's OK to treat each configuration as having value.
    - Cyberdog 3y ago
      They all have value in the environmental sense, but in terms of hiking and camping and sightseeing, it's pretty hard to tell one forest from another once you're among the trees. (Maybe there's an idiom along those lines.)
      - defrost 3y ago
        If all the forests near you look the same perhaps it's time to try a Queensland rainforest, a Tasmanian horizontal forest, Western Australian jarrah or karri forest (each visibly distinct), or the many other types about the globe. Horizontal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJLp5dgpSjQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJLp5dgpSjQ Karri: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFlmkFBC9tg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFlmkFBC9tg Jarrah: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDCP4ZABpqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDCP4ZABpqM Daintree: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pCXYHdjxyg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pCXYHdjxyg
        Cyberdog 3y ago
        Okay, my fault for forgetting where I was posting. What I meant to say is this: When you are amongst the trees, one redwood (sequoia sempervirens) forest located in or near Humboldt County, California, looks very similar to any other redwood (sequoia sempervirens) forest located in or near Humboldt County, California, unless one forest or the other is very new growth or very old growth or similar extreme circumstances, and assuming you visit the two forests at roughly the same time of year.
        defrost 3y ago
        Sure, I did get what you meant "If all the forests near you look the same ..." I still urge you, if you get the chance, to get out and wander through other forests .. there's quite the variety about the place.
      - serpix 3y ago
        I hear this from time time and it is usually said by people who do not frequently visit forests. They are not at all same, not in the slightest. Nature has so much variation due to landscape such as hills, species competition, water distribution. It is like saying one city on earth is the same as the rest of them. See one suburb in Korea and it is exactly the same in Minnesota. This is just nonsense.
kristjansson 3y ago
This was 1982; Clearcut-logging of old-growth Redwood was a live possibility as late as 1996[1], and Headwaters[2] wasn't fully established until 1999. David Chain[3] was killed by a falling redwood in 1998. Of course there are sustainable, responsible ways to manage and harvest forests including redwood, but wildly destructive, wasteful harvests didn't stop in the 1800s either. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/15/us/company-agrees-to-delay-logging-in-a-virgin-redwood-forest.html https://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/15/us/company-agrees-to-dela... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headwaters_Forest_Reserve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headwaters_Forest_Reserve [3]: https://www.nytimes.com/1998/09/19/us/national-news-briefs-logging-protester-killed-by-falling-redwood-tree.html https://www.nytimes.com/1998/09/19/us/national-news-briefs-l...
xenadu02 3y ago
I think some people get confused because they do log second growth redwoods on state park land (eg Jackson State Forest) here in CA but the old growth forest was destroyed by logging company clear-cutting so even if the trees are 100 years old they aren't old growth. There are places where old growth trees are being logged even today. It's a patchwork: some old growth is federally protected, some state protected, some locally protected. And some is private land where oversight varies.
coalteddy 3y ago
This is not true. I have no idea about the US but Canada, specifically BC, still has large amounts of old growth forest that is being cut. Really sad to see and read about.

Teever 3y ago

The difference between this and a cornfield is that from the looks of the pictures these trees weren't planted by people. These trees took far longer to grow than a corn crop, far longer than a human lives. It's sad that they're gone.

Cyberdog 3y ago
I suppose if you had a fondness for that particular arrangement of trees, yes, it's sad they're gone. But there are other forests in that area which look practically identical to what you saw in the movie, believe me, just waiting to be hiked through and camped under. Some of them are literally in city parks. I remember the day that my dad told me that tourists actually came to Humboldt to see the trees. Boring old trees? Really? Having grown up among them I didn't understand how unusual they were yet.
- danparsonson 3y ago
  Well that's a bit like saying that if you have one forest already then you don't need another one; I personally think it's OK to treat each configuration as having value.
  - Cyberdog 3y ago
    They all have value in the environmental sense, but in terms of hiking and camping and sightseeing, it's pretty hard to tell one forest from another once you're among the trees. (Maybe there's an idiom along those lines.)
    - defrost 3y ago
      If all the forests near you look the same perhaps it's time to try a Queensland rainforest, a Tasmanian horizontal forest, Western Australian jarrah or karri forest (each visibly distinct), or the many other types about the globe. Horizontal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJLp5dgpSjQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJLp5dgpSjQ Karri: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFlmkFBC9tg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFlmkFBC9tg Jarrah: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDCP4ZABpqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDCP4ZABpqM Daintree: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pCXYHdjxyg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pCXYHdjxyg
      - Cyberdog 3y ago
        Okay, my fault for forgetting where I was posting. What I meant to say is this: When you are amongst the trees, one redwood (sequoia sempervirens) forest located in or near Humboldt County, California, looks very similar to any other redwood (sequoia sempervirens) forest located in or near Humboldt County, California, unless one forest or the other is very new growth or very old growth or similar extreme circumstances, and assuming you visit the two forests at roughly the same time of year.
        defrost 3y ago
        Sure, I did get what you meant "If all the forests near you look the same ..." I still urge you, if you get the chance, to get out and wander through other forests .. there's quite the variety about the place.
    - serpix 3y ago
      I hear this from time time and it is usually said by people who do not frequently visit forests. They are not at all same, not in the slightest. Nature has so much variation due to landscape such as hills, species competition, water distribution. It is like saying one city on earth is the same as the rest of them. See one suburb in Korea and it is exactly the same in Minnesota. This is just nonsense.

kristjansson 3y ago

This was 1982; Clearcut-logging of old-growth Redwood was a live possibility as late as 1996[1], and Headwaters[2] wasn't fully established until 1999. David Chain[3] was killed by a falling redwood in 1998. Of course there are sustainable, responsible ways to manage and harvest forests including redwood, but wildly destructive, wasteful harvests didn't stop in the 1800s either. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/15/us/company-agrees-to-delay-logging-in-a-virgin-redwood-forest.html https://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/15/us/company-agrees-to-dela... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headwaters_Forest_Reserve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headwaters_Forest_Reserve [3]: https://www.nytimes.com/1998/09/19/us/national-news-briefs-logging-protester-killed-by-falling-redwood-tree.html https://www.nytimes.com/1998/09/19/us/national-news-briefs-l...

xenadu02 3y ago

I think some people get confused because they do log second growth redwoods on state park land (eg Jackson State Forest) here in CA but the old growth forest was destroyed by logging company clear-cutting so even if the trees are 100 years old they aren't old growth. There are places where old growth trees are being logged even today. It's a patchwork: some old growth is federally protected, some state protected, some locally protected. And some is private land where oversight varies.

coalteddy 3y ago

This is not true. I have no idea about the US but Canada, specifically BC, still has large amounts of old growth forest that is being cut. Really sad to see and read about.