8 ms·

People often forget the original purpose of these state forests was to harvest the timber and pay the teacher salaries as part of the Oregon Common School Fund.

• tallowen 2y ago
  I think we now know about a lot more externalities of this kind of logging than we did generations ago. For example, much of the hydrological basis that provide drinking water to the Seattle metro area was aggressively logged 100 years ago which impacts the hydrology of the basin in a negative way for the purpose collecting drinking water. I think extra knowledge in the space of the environment often leads to indecision which is certainly it's own drawback but I think these choices are not without tradeoffs that should be acknowledged.
  • poorman 2y ago
    I'll admit I'm not up to speed on the affect of the aggressive logging of Seattle on the hydrological cycle. From the little time I've spent there, I managed to gleam one small fact, that by the 1950's the Seattle city sewage system was dumping up to 50 million gallons of sewage into the Puget sound (per day). I'm only a software engineer and have no understanding of hydrological cycles, but I suspect the evaporation and precipitation of that alone would have an impact on the nearby watersheds used for drinking water.
    • Arainach 2y ago
      You'd be mostly wrong. The Sound is salt water and not a source of drinking water. Other bodies of drinkable water flow into the sound, not out of. Pollutants don't evaporate with water. They're left behind. Acid rain was from pollutants in the air mixing with water droplets.
    • loeg 2y ago
      > by the 1950's the Seattle city sewage system was dumping up to 50 million gallons of sewage into the Puget sound (per day). Seattle started building water treatment plants in 1961 and they entered service throughout the 1960s: https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/dnrp/waste-services/wastewater-treatment/about/history https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/dnrp/waste-services/wastewate... Meanwhile, Victoria, BC (Canada) continued to dump raw sewage into the ocean until 2021: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/victoria-sewage-plant-1.5867582 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/victoria-sew...
  • loeg 2y ago
    > logged 100 years ago which impacts the hydrology of the basin in a negative way for the purpose collecting drinking water. Can you elaborate on the problems?
    • RoyalHenOil 2y ago
      Trees effectively behave as a buffer for the water cycle. Under conditions of high rainfall, they absorb a lot of water from the ground. Under conditions of low rainfall, they must nonetheless continue to release moisture via evapotranspiration, which promotes the production of rain in dry conditions. This mean that forested locations are more resistant to both floods and droughts. Tree roots also greatly reduce erosion, which means that rainfall is more likely to end up in a few well-established waterways and less likely to be spread across numerous tiny rivulets; it also means that waterways are less likely to change shape over time. Large, stable waterways are much easier to collect water from (e.g., via dammed reservoirs) than small or unstable waterways. However, I'm not sure how much of a factor erosion is here. I suspect it will only directly impact small communities that rely on minor waterways for drinking water. (Mind you, when small communities connect up to city water because their existing water supply becomes unreliable, that can affect the city's water supply.)
      • loeg 2y ago
        Sure, but this region is still heavily forested -- just with second-growth forest (trees ~100 years old and not older). Is there a significant difference between old growth and second growth for this purpose?
        • RoyalHenOil 2y ago
          A forest with larger trees and more extensive root systems will have a stronger effect than a forest with smaller trees with less extensive root systems. Different tree species can also be more or less effective at functioning as a buffer. "Thirsty" trees typically do a better job of taking up water when it's wet and continuing to release water when it's dry. (Unfortunately, many new tree plantings favor more drought-resistant trees because they are easier to grow in clearcut fields, which are drier than forests.) So, because I don't know much about this region specifically, these are my two questions: Has there been a change in tree biomass in the region? Has there been a change in the tree species makeup of the region?
  • _heimdall 2y ago
    Everything has externalities though. Don't get me wrong I'm all for a forest going unlogged, but we will replace those resources with something else. We still use lumber, if it isn't locally harvested we buy it from another part of the world, outsourcing those externalities and throwing in all the extra costs of shipping, labor overhead for the various middlemen, customs, etc. My point isn't that we're screwed and should just chop down forests because we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. But saving one forest won't fix anything by itself and could very well make things worse if we don't do it by simply reducing the number of resources we consume. Paying someone else to own the externalities will never help.
    • Teever 2y ago
      What if America decided to import a lot of Canadian lumber? It's geographically close and the size of the forests are mindbogglingly vast. Could this happen in a way that benefits American construction interests but also Canadian lumber exporting interests? If there's ever some dispute about it could it be mediated somehow? What would the outcome of that possibly be?
      • SCUSKU 2y ago
        All very interesting and complex questions, I look forward to hearing your findings in 6 years at your PhD thesis defense :^)
      • oooyay 2y ago
        The boreal forest aka Taiga is quite a bit more at risk than the forests of Oregon. There may be an argument to be made that the wrong kind of firs have grown in the south of Oregon (they're much more susceptible to fire from heat) and that logging and replacement with the right type of firs could be a win economically and environmentally. Somebody with specific knowledge would need to fact check that idea though.
      • thaumasiotes 2y ago
        > and the size of the forests are mindbogglingly vast. The size of the forests isn't really relevant; compared to lumber demand, they're mostly insignificant. Humans have never had a problem wiping out local forests. What matters is how much wood a forest can produce per year, not how much has accumulated over the course of the past.
• beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
  Very common scam. Introduce revenue source, say "it's going to the schools/teachers." Do that for a bit, defund the prior source of cash so the teachers are at what they were before. When it's time to run the next scan rinse and repeat. Seen it done with about every new tax introduced. Teachers still get paid shit and other taxes either barely move or go up.
  • Loughla 2y ago
    I'm not trying to be shitty, but what other examples do you have? I don't know about that.
    • webstrand 2y ago
      Another example would be various gas taxes were supposed to be for the maintenance of roads but now a fair portion of the revenue is diverted for other purposes. It depends on the state.
      • amanaplanacanal 2y ago
        That seems unlikely. The movement of money is usually the other way: fuel taxes are not high enough to cover the expenses and it is made up from the general fund. It’s a huge subsidy for roads.
    • mminer237 2y ago
      The lottery is the big thing.
    • blululu 2y ago
      The lottery is another example where tickets allegedly fund education. The reality is that most of a state’s budget is set holistically and paid for out of the general fund. From an accounting standpoint you can’t really target a specific program for additional funding under these circumstances.
      • mburns 2y ago
• jeffbee 2y ago
  The state CSF forest is like a gnat in the eye of the national forest. They only own 40k acres, while the USDA/USFS administers 16 million acres and BLM administers another 4 million acres.
• meristohm 2y ago
  That strikes me as reductive. As an underpaid teacher (though I'm one of those who was happy with my low pay because I absolutely loved my work at one of the schools and was able to keep it all at school & actually work just 40 hours per week), it is nowhere near desirable to get some extra temporary money at the expense of the hundreds to thousands of years of value that a healthy forest ecosystem provides.
• ramblingrain 2y ago
  Timber is still the original and main purpoes of state forests in Oregon and Washington. The article is discussing federal forests. The timberlands in Oregon are owned by private, federal and state entities. Forests managed for for timber by the state are protected differently, like, first to get sprinkler lines in a wildfire. They are a crop which is invested in and harvested. Federal forests are easier to log after a burn anyway, and you can log outside the burn with that cover. The United States Forest Service (USFS) is actually, basically, a road building and logging company, but owls and so on really got in the way for a couple decades. We're figuring out how to keep logging. We're capitalists. The only state forests with old growth are going to be the "experimental" state forests in the Cascades and the Olympic and Coast ranges. Otherwise we woulda logged 'em. I mean there are old growth pine trees and juniper in Oregon and Washington east of the Cascades, a few, but those aren't timberlands. https://oregonforests.org/forest-ownership-map https://oregonforests.org/forest-ownership-map
• briffle 2y ago
  This article is about the federal forests, not the state ones.