3 ms·

You could use old growth redwoods as a renewable resource, you just cut down ~1/500th per year across a large enough area, make sure replacements are of the sam

by Retric 3y ago

You could use old growth redwoods as a renewable resource, you just cut down ~1/500th per year across a large enough area, make sure replacements are of the same species, and you can keep doing so essentially forever. At that scale it wouldn’t even be obvious the forest was being harvested. People don’t do that because they don’t really want old growth redwoods specifically and or don’t generally care about sustainability. However, setting up a trust to manage some forest while maintaining an income stream is probably viable.

RetroTechie 3y ago
> At that scale it wouldn’t even be obvious the forest was being harvested. Humans' hand is always visible: the stumps of cut-down trees, and the (mostly, if not complete) absence of fallen trees. Besides the odd trail used for vehicles. And trash, wood chips, markings on trees, etc. Such signs remain visible for centuries. Natural forests are littered with fallen trees, which serve as food for sapplings that take their place (nurse logs). And trees don't fall with a clean cut: they are ripped from the ground in a storm, split by a lightning strike, or they die, rot & come down in pieces. Doesn't take an expert to see what's what.
- Retric 3y ago
  Noticeable yes, obvious no. I seriously doubt you’re going to notice century old wood chips and markings on trees. Similarly large branches would look like fallen trees in other forests. A given section may not have seen anyone in 30+ years, others would have more noticeable impact but you’d have trouble seeing the logging vs all the trees. There would be remnants of trails and even some fresh ones, but that doesn’t specifically imply logging.
shitpostbot 3y ago
[dead]
seadan83 3y ago
> People don’t do that because they don’t really want old growth redwoods specifically and or don’t generally care about sustainability. Yip, folks got greedy and cut down the redwoods. They use to be common, running all the way from south of San Francisco to well into Oregon. What remains is a patch work. "Today, only 5 percent of the original old-growth coast redwood forest remains, along a 450-mile coastal strip." [1] > You could use old growth redwoods as a renewable resource, you just cut down ~1/500th per year across a large enough area Hence to do that, we're probably talking nobody cutting down another red wood for a good 500 years. Considering Europeans have been at it for only about 200, and have nearly cut down all of the redwoods... ... I would urge anyone to go visit these trees. It's truly soul-touching, they are something to be protected, if only for that. [1] https://www.savetheredwoods.org/redwoods/coast-redwoods/# https://www.savetheredwoods.org/redwoods/coast-redwoods/#

by Retric 3y ago

RetroTechie 3y ago

> At that scale it wouldn’t even be obvious the forest was being harvested. Humans' hand is always visible: the stumps of cut-down trees, and the (mostly, if not complete) absence of fallen trees. Besides the odd trail used for vehicles. And trash, wood chips, markings on trees, etc. Such signs remain visible for centuries. Natural forests are littered with fallen trees, which serve as food for sapplings that take their place (nurse logs). And trees don't fall with a clean cut: they are ripped from the ground in a storm, split by a lightning strike, or they die, rot & come down in pieces. Doesn't take an expert to see what's what.

Retric 3y ago
Noticeable yes, obvious no. I seriously doubt you’re going to notice century old wood chips and markings on trees. Similarly large branches would look like fallen trees in other forests. A given section may not have seen anyone in 30+ years, others would have more noticeable impact but you’d have trouble seeing the logging vs all the trees. There would be remnants of trails and even some fresh ones, but that doesn’t specifically imply logging.

shitpostbot 3y ago

[dead]

seadan83 3y ago

> People don’t do that because they don’t really want old growth redwoods specifically and or don’t generally care about sustainability. Yip, folks got greedy and cut down the redwoods. They use to be common, running all the way from south of San Francisco to well into Oregon. What remains is a patch work. "Today, only 5 percent of the original old-growth coast redwood forest remains, along a 450-mile coastal strip." [1] > You could use old growth redwoods as a renewable resource, you just cut down ~1/500th per year across a large enough area Hence to do that, we're probably talking nobody cutting down another red wood for a good 500 years. Considering Europeans have been at it for only about 200, and have nearly cut down all of the redwoods... ... I would urge anyone to go visit these trees. It's truly soul-touching, they are something to be protected, if only for that. [1] https://www.savetheredwoods.org/redwoods/coast-redwoods/# https://www.savetheredwoods.org/redwoods/coast-redwoods/#