Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Fupatown t1_ja4bnwr wrote

The pasayten wilderness area is 500,000 acres of untouchable forest land thats probably of similar or older age. But but yes tell me more about why we shouldn't use 100 acres of one of the only truly renewable resources we have. In terms of Forest management, 100 years is not that long of a time scale when trees can live for 500 years. Think of all the carbon stored in them. If they're cut down and used to build houses that carbon will be stored in the beams of a house (think housing shortage) and a new tree will grow and store more carbon in its stem. Young trees grow and sequester more carbon than old trees as the try to outcompete each other. Look it up it's true. If you have 100,000 acres of land in various conditions you could cut 100 acs/year for 1000years before making it back to your first patch. And dnr/USFS have a lott more land than that. Sorry for the rant but we should be using every renewable resource we have. Oil will run out but trees are forever.

17

seacamp t1_ja57l4y wrote

Finally, something a bit more sensible in these comments. Not only are they harvesting a renewable resource, they are specifically targeting fractured timberland that doesn't provide as many benefits as continuous parcels (e.g. wildlife corridors). While I do agree that older stands of trees tend to provide better biodiversity due to their very composition, simply harvesting only stands of young, monoculture trees doesn't solve our financial or ecological issues. If people don't want to use this renewable resource in safe and responsible manners (of which I believe this is), they'd better get ready to spend a hell of a lot more in taxes and also in funding to help maintain these areas (no, Smokey Bear and his outdated teachings aren't gonna cut it).

7

yungcarwashy t1_ja4h5lk wrote

Although it’s sad to see old trees go, you make the most reasonable point here

3