3 ms·

I can't speak to the forest practices of S. America or other continents but regarding US and Canadian forest practices that article is complete FUD. First, it

by Zimahl 13y ago

I can't speak to the forest practices of S. America or other continents but regarding US and Canadian forest practices that article is complete FUD. First, it equates 'forest loss' to legitimate forest management - grow, cut, replant. Second, there is more forests now than there were in 1930 (I'll find the source in the morning). Now that's a slightly dubious stat since post-railroad logging there was only natural regrowth but we manage our forests very, very well these days. The last place for environmental concern in the US and Canada should be to the forests. It's in everyone's interest to have healthy forests - from the logger to the landowner to the mill worker to the multinational.

johnchristopher 13y ago
From disparate information I gathered it seems second growth forest don't come with the same ecology (animals, fungus, etc.) so the argument could be made that regrown managed forest don't equate primary forests. I am not sure I am proponent of this argument but it seems to make sense.
- specialist 13y ago
  Yup. Tree farms are not habitat. I have no problem with timber companies managing their tree farms, so long as they protect water ways (offsets), slopes (no clear cuts causing mud slides), etc. I also think we need new management practices (eg permit more smallers fires to reduce likelihood of huge fires). My problem is when timber companies must extract every board foot from every acre, threatening critical habitat, from public forests. To add insult to injury, we (the public) build the roads, and sell the timber at a loss. I wouldn't mind so much if the mythical "free market" was working, so that timber, mining, fishing, and ranching companies actually paid fair market price for the resources they're stealing.
  - Zimahl 13y ago
    Tree farms are not habitat. How is a 40 year old forest not habitat? My problem is when timber companies must extract every board foot from every acre, threatening critical habitat, from public forests. To add insult to injury, we (the public) build the roads, and sell the timber at a loss. Lies, lies, and more lies. Have you even been to a cut down forest within the last 20 years? Streams have required easements, there are requirements for leaving a number of trees per acre and any logging roads are paid for by the landowner. The roads are a cost of the harvesting. ...actually paid fair market price for the resources they're stealing. You act like it's a quick turn around. We are talking decades after replanting, there are very few industries that have to follow this. And then, after waiting all that time, you need to hope that the market isn't in the state that it's currently in. Domestic timber is in the dumpster right now due to foreign logs and a lack of new housing.
    - enraged_camel 13y ago
      >>How is a 40 year old forest not habitat? Did you not read the parent's comment? 40 year old forests are not habitat because they don't come with the same ecology. It takes a very, very long time for a proper ecosystem to establish in an area. 40 years is not enough for that. I went camping in Holland ten years ago. Almost all the forests there are second growth forests. As we were setting up our tents, my buddy stopped in his tracks and motioned at me to hush. In the silence, do you know what we heard? Absolutely nothing. No birds, no insects, no forest animals or any kind. It was eerily quiet. It was a forest alright, but it had no ecosystem. It was the most bizarre camping experience I've ever had.
      - Zimahl 13y ago
        So obviously you didn't read my original post where I said I was talking about the US and Canada exclusively, which the parent comment was responding to. Go into Canada and the US and camp. Railroad logged anywhere from 150 to 100 years ago, second growth logged from then on. Birds. Deer. Elk. Insects. Owls (even Spotted ones!). Fish in the streams. The US and Canada isn't Europe. This continent has been largely undisturbed until about 300 years ago, and most of it untouched until the last 100 years. We've seen Europe's folly and fortunately didn't make the same mistakes or at least have had time to correct the problem. We also didn't have 2 world wars march across our lands, no trenches, no mustard gas. Much of N. America from just east of the Rockies to the Pacific Ocean is amazing forests. We've made our mistakes with forestry but have atoned and things have healed up nicely. Now we manage the forests for the good of everybody - everyone can have what they want without sacrificing the quality of that resource. Don't be so blind as to just blanket all logging in the world as 'logging bad'.
    - specialist 13y ago
      Lies, lies, and more lies. Nice. Domestic timber is in the dumpster right now due to foreign logs and a lack of new housing. Um, no. Timber, pulp, paper are all cyclic. Always have been, always will be. We are talking decades after replanting, there are very few industries that have to follow this. And then, after waiting all that time, you need to hope that the market isn't in the state that it's currently in. We're talking about public lands. What are you talking about? I care little what timber companies do with the land we gave them last century. But if they're cutting down OUR trees on OUR land, then they have to replant that acreage. If they can't do that profitably, then too bad. There is no right to profit. Don't be so blind as to just blanket all logging in the world as 'logging bad'. You said it. Not me. Projection much?
- talmand 13y ago
  That's true, but you could also go with the notion that for every acre of managed timber land there could be an acre, if not more, of untouched primary forest. Hopefully anyway.

by Zimahl 13y ago

johnchristopher 13y ago

From disparate information I gathered it seems second growth forest don't come with the same ecology (animals, fungus, etc.) so the argument could be made that regrown managed forest don't equate primary forests. I am not sure I am proponent of this argument but it seems to make sense.

specialist 13y ago
Yup. Tree farms are not habitat. I have no problem with timber companies managing their tree farms, so long as they protect water ways (offsets), slopes (no clear cuts causing mud slides), etc. I also think we need new management practices (eg permit more smallers fires to reduce likelihood of huge fires). My problem is when timber companies must extract every board foot from every acre, threatening critical habitat, from public forests. To add insult to injury, we (the public) build the roads, and sell the timber at a loss. I wouldn't mind so much if the mythical "free market" was working, so that timber, mining, fishing, and ranching companies actually paid fair market price for the resources they're stealing.
- Zimahl 13y ago
  Tree farms are not habitat. How is a 40 year old forest not habitat? My problem is when timber companies must extract every board foot from every acre, threatening critical habitat, from public forests. To add insult to injury, we (the public) build the roads, and sell the timber at a loss. Lies, lies, and more lies. Have you even been to a cut down forest within the last 20 years? Streams have required easements, there are requirements for leaving a number of trees per acre and any logging roads are paid for by the landowner. The roads are a cost of the harvesting. ...actually paid fair market price for the resources they're stealing. You act like it's a quick turn around. We are talking decades after replanting, there are very few industries that have to follow this. And then, after waiting all that time, you need to hope that the market isn't in the state that it's currently in. Domestic timber is in the dumpster right now due to foreign logs and a lack of new housing.
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    >>How is a 40 year old forest not habitat? Did you not read the parent's comment? 40 year old forests are not habitat because they don't come with the same ecology. It takes a very, very long time for a proper ecosystem to establish in an area. 40 years is not enough for that. I went camping in Holland ten years ago. Almost all the forests there are second growth forests. As we were setting up our tents, my buddy stopped in his tracks and motioned at me to hush. In the silence, do you know what we heard? Absolutely nothing. No birds, no insects, no forest animals or any kind. It was eerily quiet. It was a forest alright, but it had no ecosystem. It was the most bizarre camping experience I've ever had.
    - Zimahl 13y ago
      So obviously you didn't read my original post where I said I was talking about the US and Canada exclusively, which the parent comment was responding to. Go into Canada and the US and camp. Railroad logged anywhere from 150 to 100 years ago, second growth logged from then on. Birds. Deer. Elk. Insects. Owls (even Spotted ones!). Fish in the streams. The US and Canada isn't Europe. This continent has been largely undisturbed until about 300 years ago, and most of it untouched until the last 100 years. We've seen Europe's folly and fortunately didn't make the same mistakes or at least have had time to correct the problem. We also didn't have 2 world wars march across our lands, no trenches, no mustard gas. Much of N. America from just east of the Rockies to the Pacific Ocean is amazing forests. We've made our mistakes with forestry but have atoned and things have healed up nicely. Now we manage the forests for the good of everybody - everyone can have what they want without sacrificing the quality of that resource. Don't be so blind as to just blanket all logging in the world as 'logging bad'.
  - specialist 13y ago
    Lies, lies, and more lies. Nice. Domestic timber is in the dumpster right now due to foreign logs and a lack of new housing. Um, no. Timber, pulp, paper are all cyclic. Always have been, always will be. We are talking decades after replanting, there are very few industries that have to follow this. And then, after waiting all that time, you need to hope that the market isn't in the state that it's currently in. We're talking about public lands. What are you talking about? I care little what timber companies do with the land we gave them last century. But if they're cutting down OUR trees on OUR land, then they have to replant that acreage. If they can't do that profitably, then too bad. There is no right to profit. Don't be so blind as to just blanket all logging in the world as 'logging bad'. You said it. Not me. Projection much?
talmand 13y ago
That's true, but you could also go with the notion that for every acre of managed timber land there could be an acre, if not more, of untouched primary forest. Hopefully anyway.