Logging Inudstry = Good for environment?

I was talking with someone, and they said that the best things for forests are, in fact, the logging industry. Here is the idea:

1. It's not in the best interest of the logging industry to systematically decimate the resources that they need. I've heard that for every tree cut down one to two are actually planted.
2. If the logging industry didn't want the trees, they would just be clear-cut for farmland or development.

It actually makes sence.

So could the logging industry actually be good for the environment, or a lesser of two evils? (As we all learned from Captain Planet, cutting down any tree is always BAD.) (That and the Puerto Rican kid had a really lame power. Poor guy.)

Originally posted by Toxic Fox
I was talking with someone, and they said that the best things for forests are, in fact, the logging industry. Here is the idea:

1. It's not in the best interest of the logging industry to systematically decimate the resources that they need. I've heard that for every tree cut down one to two are actually planted.

However, they're not planting for biodiversity and that's the problem. They plant the same kind of tree over and over again. This produces a forest where all the trees are of the same kind (making them vulnerable to disease and insect predators) and of the same age (no older trees or dead trees, which offer shelter to quite a bit of wildlife.)

There are many areas that aren't logged and wouldn't be logged, including national parks and recreation areas. Many homeowners like their trees (I certainly do) and private landholders and cities also like corridors of trees to reduce heat.

I think it's a nice try, but I don't go along with the logic completely.

2. If the logging industry didn't want the trees, they would just be clear-cut for farmland or development.

Not true. You see, there's a lot of trees they DON'T want. For instance, they wouldn't take my cottonwood that's in the back yard even if it was in the forest. They want only certain types of wood.

I think tree farming makes more sense, personally. The problem is that a good hardwood tree (like a pecan) takes 30 or more years to grow to a height where you can actually harvest it for lumber and a good 100 years to get to be huge. The industry isn't interested in waiting that long.

(pecan's a poor example. It's useful for wood but it's far more useful as a nut/harvesting crop.)

Even replanting land is a lost cause if the land isn't managed. Recently a man caused forest fire devastated several hundred thousand acres of national forest and much of it had been replanted. No one had systematically cleared out the underbrush and once the fire started there was no stopping it. Unfortunately many of the desireable trees, like Spruce, are diseased. They are diseased because they have already depleted the land of what kept them healthy and another species was needed to move in. The fire stopped that.
Many times replanting doesn't work because the trees that are planted can't be supported by the nutrients that have already been used. They need to look ahead, find the next species that is moving in and plant that. And keep the brush down which is expensive and very hard work in winderness areas.

Originally posted by Alikospah
Even replanting land is a lost cause if the land isn't managed. Recently a man caused forest fire devastated several hundred thousand acres of national forest and much of it had been replanted. No one had systematically cleared out the underbrush and once the fire started there was no stopping it. Unfortunately many of the desireable trees, like Spruce, are diseased. They are diseased because they have already depleted the land of what kept them healthy and another species was needed to move in. The fire stopped that.
Many times replanting doesn't work because the trees that are planted can't be supported by the nutrients that have already been used. They need to look ahead, find the next species that is moving in and plant that. And keep the brush down which is expensive and very hard work in winderness areas.

While you are correct in your observations, you do not yet fully understand the shackles the forest industry must wear. All the underbrush was the result of extremist enviromentlism that made clearing brush and dead trees illegal. Had the area been husbanded by the loggers, there would have been clean, clear growth of trees and ground cover native to the environment. The renewable resource could have been used in another 50 years for your grandchildrens homes. Managed forests have much less destruction by forest fire, due to the low levels of out-of-control brush growth which chokes out trees and depletes the soils of nutrients that other plants and trees require.

The argument that the same trees planted in the same area will deplete is wrong. This is not a farm that cleans and chemically sterilizes the dirt of chaff and weeds. Modern logging leaves all the chaff, sawdust, broken limbs, and incidentally broken trees to decay and pass their natural nutrients back into the soil. Also, without the upper canopy that so-called "old growth" provides, ground plants, mosses, and grasses can return until the newly planted trees regain the canopy that denies sunlight to the ground. Meanwhile, an explosion of animal life returns to the cut areas, mainly because of the new forage that can now grow again...and the predators that feed on the grass eaters. Animals prefer sunlit open meadow areas that provide food, shelter, and protection, much better than canopied, shadowed, minimal growth/food plot heavily forested with minimal cover for protection or shelter.

Managed, science based forestry has proven itself in the abundance of harvestable trees we now enjoy...more than ever available in the USA.

Enviro-terrorists have NEVER saved one tree....but they have burned BMW's and houses under construction.

Some statement.

it right on with fire thing.

Forests naturally burn during fire season, however under natural conditions forests benefit from these fires. Because in a natural state the underbrush is less dense, the fires never get to the point that they burn everything in their paths.

When you add the need to keep the fires at bay due to ever encroaching civilization, however, the ground cover is allowed to grow so dense that it creates a fuel for the fire that causes the super-fires we have been dealing with in recent years.

In its natural state, the forest will not supply enough fuel to burn a fire so hot that the ground is kilned 15 feet down or create a fire so hot it is nearly impossible to put out.

So sorry if it hurts nature worshipers feelings to "hear a tree scream" when it gets cut down, but logging is the best means of caring for the forest. That is, unless, you don’t mind letting fires run their natural course and burn houses that get in their way. Why not if we are going to put nature worship above people and scientific fact about healthy forests any way.

Originally posted by Toxic Fox
I was talking with someone, and they said that the best things for forests are, in fact, the logging industry.

You are utterly mistaken.

Originally posted by Toxic Fox
1. It's not in the best interest of the logging industry to systematically decimate the resources that they need.

Actually they don't care.
All they care about is making short-term profits.

Originally posted by Toxic Fox
I've heard that for every tree cut down one to two are actually planted.

And I've heard that a toothferry comes in at night and gives you money for baby teeth.

Originally posted by Toxic Fox
2. If the logging industry didn't want the trees, they would just be clear-cut for farmland or development.

Which is exactly what they do.

Originally posted by Toxic Fox
So could the logging industry actually be good for the environment

No.

While it is true that in certain places, certain companies set up special areas where they log and plant, log and plant - it takes a heck of a lot longer to grow a tree than to log one. By the time the trees are grown back, the CEO of the logging company would probably no longer hold their position, so it's not in their best interest to log only as many trees as grow back, but as many as possible, so the amount of money they get when they finish up is as big as possible.


If you still don't get it, just look what's being done to the Amazon rainforest on google maps.

It's horrifing.

These posts have only looked at the "practical" aspects of clearing and possibly "replacing" forests. Old growth forest has a unique aesthetic impossible to "replace." That's an important existential consideration in some people's eyes. (And some would say in the eyes of unseen Nature oriented entities. I posit it's not just about people's jobs and such.

And lets not forget the habitats of animals...

Originally posted by Manincloak
And lets not forget the habitats of animals...

Yes, and while we are it, lets not forget the lives of the humans involved. Sorry, but humans are more important.

Originally posted by michaelanteskiby That's an important existential consideration in some people's eyes. (And some would say in the eyes of unseen Nature oriented entities

Like I said, nature worship. Environmentalism is a religion, and the lives of those working in the timber industry should be protected against certain environmentalist superstition about their god "Mother Nature" or some little fairy that lives in someone’s back yard.

Originally posted by cavscout
Yes, and while we are it, lets not forget the lives of the humans involved. Sorry, but humans are more important.

What are you on about?
Humans don't exactly benefit from destroying habitats of animals, quite the opposite actually!

And it's extremely aggorant and ignorant of you to say that humans are more important than animals.

We are animals.

Originally posted by cavscout
Like I said, nature worship. Environmentalism is a religion, and the lives of those working in the timber industry should be protected against certain environmentalist superstition about their god "Mother Nature" or some little fairy that lives in someone’s back yard.

Err no, environmentalism is also called common sense, nothing to do with religion.

Too bad the logging industry doesn't have any common sense, or intellignce

The view that logging is actually beneficial to forests is so myopic and self-serving, I can hardly think of a more ignorant notion.

All logging impacts biodiversity. While the extent of the damage varies, the impact is quite clear on the scale that logging takes place today. Forest structure is ruined, significant soil erosion occurs, and untimbered locations become more open to other threats associated with human activity.

This is not to say that logging could not be properly managed to mitigate the damage. But the simple fact is that logging is NOT properly managed. Moreover, a significant amount of illegal logging also takes place in the world.

To suggest environmentalism is a religious concept, or in itself the stuff of nonsense, is utterly ridiculous!

True environmentalism is an economic concept- and a conservative one at that- hence the term "conservation."

If you think short-term windfall does not inure to the benefit of the logging companies and that long-term expense is not simply ultimately borne by the consumer, you have no concept of how all this really works. Don't be naive into thinking otherwise.



[edit on 4-11-2005 by loam]

Originally posted by loam
All logging impacts biodiversity. While the extent of the damage varies, the impact is quite clear on the scale that logging takes place today. Forest structure is ruined, significant soil erosion occurs, and untimbered locations become more open to other threats associated with human activity.

Everything you listed happens also when out of control forest fires fueled by decades of unchecked dense foliage due to human intervention in nature kiln the ground fifteen feet down. We are not speaking of virgin forest here! When we curb forest fires he first place in order to protect homes and property, we allow tinder to build up. Anyone who has ever built a good campfire knows you need that hot base to really get it going and burn the hard wood, and if the wood is live and not seasoned, you have to get real hot to do anything but singe it.

We create these conditions for super fires in the first place, you cannot ignore that fact. We alter it by not letting it burn.

Natural fires don’t burn every tree, more like half. They promote growth. They invite animals.

Unnatural man-fueled fires burn everything in their path to include the burning the ground so deep that it takes decades for new trees to sprout. Even clear cutting dues not ruin the soil like man-assisted fires.

Selective cutting is GOOD for a forest where natural fires are quenched. Period. So sorry teacher lied to you. So sorry your hippy parents lied to you while teaching you their NATURE WORSHIP RELIGION (environmentalism.)

Worship Mother Nature, your goddess, all you want on land you own. You don’t have to chop down her "children" the oak and the pine. But damnit, butt out when others want to cut down their own trees on land they own!

Trees are not "owned by all the earths’ people" as many a lefty commie pinko would contend. Trees are owned by the land owner, who can do WHATEVER HE WANTS to them. There are no tree cruelty laws that I am aware of. You go make out with the trees on your land, and I will cut down the trees on mine.

Nature worshipers, mind your own business!

Trimming back growth increases animal habitat by tremendous amounts. Old growth forests block out sunlight. Without sunlight, the ground canopy cannot grow. Without ground canopy, the forest floor is wide open with little to no cover, shelter, or habitat.

Shown to the world after the Yellowstone fires, animal populations increased by nearly 200%, due the the thousands of acres of newly uncovered grasslands and brush zones. Logging does the same thing, without the destruction of watershed or seed and root systems.

Your old growth choked out ground cover, eliminated habitat, and forced away most animal life.

BTW, in 100 years, trees newly planted today---will be the old growth.


"Butterfly" lived in a marvelous old giant tree, in a futile attempt to somehow save it. Curious how you enviros applauded her scarring, breaking, and slowly destroying that old tree with her building of platforms and safety lines. Not to mention the destruction of the forest floor beneath her as her daily trash, excretment, and supporters stripped ground cover and poisoned the immediate area around the trunk.

You should set up a fund, like we hunters did back in the 30's (Pittman-Robertson act) that adds a few cents to every hunting and fishing equipment purchase we make. This has added up to over 30 BILLION over the years. This money can ONLY be used to improve wildlife/wetland areas for wildlife and migratory game. Which is a huge reason why there are more wetlands than ever, and more deer/elk/moose/bear/geese/duck/quail/upland and lowland birds than ever before....and their complimentary predator animals.

Logging of trees is healthy management of the earth. Allowing disease, tree killing vermin, and un-controllable fire to run rampant over the trees is foolish at best, shameful at the norm.


Enviros talk alot, but the rest of us foot the bill for nature.

I don't appreciate you calling everybody who cares about the environment "lefty commie pinkos" with "hippy" parents.

Keep posting like that and you can find another board to hang out on.

Your points about forest fires are correct. Some of us tree-huggers actually have a bit of grey matter between the ears you know.

As for the rest of your posts, I hope you realise that we precious humans are a part of it. The more you kill it the more damage you do to yourself whether you realise it or not.

Think the grocery store has nothing to do with nature? Better stop eating if you don't want to take part in communion.

Oh and you better stop driving and using electricity if you don't want to accept a foreign "religion" into your life. And stop breathing too (trees have nothing to do with the air right?).

You could have made your points without attacking a good portion of the membership and demonstrate and impressive level of ignorance.

Good thing you came to ATS where we DENY IGNORANCE.

On topic: A tree farm is not a forest and a forest should be selectively "harvested" IMO.
.

[edit on 11-5-2005 by Springer]

Gools, not to defend him, but I gotta presume that he only wants to point out the extreme arm of the enviro movement, which includes PETA, ALF, ELF and the other destructive groups that cause heavy environmental damage in the name of "saving nature".

Yes, I realize some factions want to see the forest remain as it is. But even benign neglect has shortcomings. I have seen acres of unlogged and uncleared forest simply die from disease. The forest is always changing. In some places it is simply not possible to clear undergrowth because there is no way to get there. Environmentalists' "no roads".
The Hayman fire in Colorado shows that something so simple as burning a letter can start a fire. Colorado is arid and we are also in drought. A woman, forest ranger no less, admitted to starting the fire by burning a letter from her ex. I, myself, saw a fire start up in the dry grass, it goes so fast it is nearly invisible.
Personally, I like selective harvesting. Some trees have gone beyond their prime and can be taken out. It removes a source for disease and allows younger growth room to grow.
I regret the loss of the eastern forest. As a child I saw eastern US, lush with forest. In the '60s civilization was seen a bit more. In the '70s that great eastern forest was gone. It wasn't logging that killed it, it was population. Logging today is for people, if we didn't use wood the forests would be left to burn on their own. Should we deforest other countries? There is no happy medium, to some even a snag is a thing of beauty not to mention home for creatures.
What we need is an environment "Corps". Kids are having trouble finding jobs. Why not enlist them to clean up the brush while tagging trees that are diseased and need to be removed. Clear cutting is ugly and destructive and I have seen it in the Rockies.
The aftermath of the Hayman fire is probably decades of trouble, muddy drinking water, mudslides and starving wildlife. The woman who confessed has been paroled. Where is the middle ground?

Originally posted by Gools

I don't appreciate you calling everybody who cares about the environment "lefty commie pinkos" with "hippy" parents.

Keep posting like that and you can find another board to hang out on

You could have made your points without attacking a good portion of the membership and demonstrate and impressive level of ignorance.

So implying that there exists in the world lefty commie pinkos is a demonstration of an impressive level of ignorance? Or was it the differing view points (you know, where I stated scientific fact) that made me ignorant? Just wondering what you consider ignorance so I can make an effort to not display it in your presence, I don’t want to make you angry, your to scary.

I did not call everybody who cares about the environment lefty commie pinkos with hippy parents. I said "Trees are not "owned by all the earths’ people" as many a lefty commie pinko would contend. "
Let me make it a little clearer for the "grey matter between your ears." SOME, not all, but SOME lefty commie pinkos contend that all trees are COMMUNITY (see where the commie part kicks in) property of all people of the earth. If you do not subscribe to this thought pattern, feel free to excuse yourself from the group of lefty commie pinkos I was referring to.
BTW, anyone who has guilty feelings about being a lefty commie pinko needs to square with that, it is their problem. I did not call anyone a lefty commie pinko; I simply insinuated that somewhere in the world there exists at least a single lefty commie pinko. Anyone who takes offence at that needs to do some soul searching and figure out why they consider themselves a lefty commie pinko.

Good thing you came to ATS where we DENY IGNORANCE.

[edit on 11-5-2005 by Springer]

Good thing I came to ATS? You come at me like I'm new here or something. I "came to ATS" two months after you did. Sorry my points aren’t as high as some others, but I didn’t know there was a point accumulation contest going on and was therefore spending them. I will try to be more of a point-whore in the future, so as not to be treated like someone new to this community.


Mind if I make a suggestion? I have never had a problem with a MOD here (not even RANT, who rumor has it actually is one of those lefty commie pinkos! ) but maybe you should go puff your chest at someone who actually broke the TOS. I love it when MODs take an active role in discussion, just don’t let your title go to you "grey matter." Just my humble opinion a low achiever....errr, I mean low point earner.


[edit on 5-11-2005 by cavscout]

Yes, environmentalism is a religion; for some. To deny that is to turn a deaf ear to many environmentalists' shrill and ignorant screechings, that, to them, is the reciting of Holy Words. These blind worshippers almost brought about the extinction of the California Condor. They would wet on themselves if someone so much as set foot in the woods with their shoes on, but would stomp to death 64 chipmunks while running to tell you to put that smoke out as you might cause a forest fire. Because of all this "love and worship", the undergrowth got so thick that the Condor couldn't find his food!

On the other hand, we have another idol of worship, and that is money. These worshippers are the cause of the hillsides that have washed into the streams and choked the water ways with silt because the vegetation is destroyed from places. As far as the 2 for 1 deal, removing tracks of beautiful, old oaks and replacing them with fast-growing pines is not proper stewardship. That is the money-maker in the South, now. Do you own the family farm of a few hundred acres? Great, strip the heritage from it for some excellent cash and plant pines. You'll be able to make another profit in 13 years. Never mind the fact that you've created a green wasteland. But, hey, you've planted a tree, right? Everyone should applaud you for doing that while making money, right? Meanwhile, most of the wildlife has to move elsewhere as little thrives in a pine tree farm.

Proper stewardship is the right answer, is what we are supposed to do. That is God's way. Of course, God's way doesn't turn a quick buck, and following God's principles isn't high on the list of the Eco-cultists, either.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Proper stewardship is the right answer, is what we are supposed to do. That is God's way. Of course, God's way doesn't turn a quick buck, and following God's principles isn't high on the list of the Eco-cultists, either.

I don't call myself a Christian, but I believe this.

hmmm....

A great deal of misinformation here.

Managed forests usually have more biodiversity than unmanaged. Literally thousands of peer reviewed and published studies document this. It is not in dispute and tacitly acknowledged by most mainline environmental industry. Note that the Nature Conservancy actively manages their forests -- including clearcutting where appropriate. Both the Sustained Forest Initiative and the Forest Stewardship Council advocate it, as does the UN. Every science-based environmental organization supports active management of forests. As mentioned above, clearcutting is ecologically beneficial in certain situations and is better for the environment than individual tree selection harvesting in many forest types. Silviculture is the science of applied forest ecology -- using the knowledge of how forest ecosystems change and react to disturbances to shape forests to a more desirable condition.

The U.S. currently has about the same amount of forest cover now as in 1900 (~34%), and more than 1970 -- the nadir year with ~30%. The amount is currently increasing, although at a decreasing rate. Average tree diameter is increasing, and nationally the U.S. is current growing wood at a rate about 1.5 times the amount harvested. At current trends, around 2040 or so harvesting will equal growth. California currently has about the same amount of old growth, or slightly more, than when the first settlers arrived. The amount of old growth actually fluctuated tremendously from century to century. Careful harvesting can actually create old growth, or more accurately, accelerate its development much faster than it would develop on its own.

The fire issue is very complex and cannot be summed as simply as put here. Historically in the U.S. about 40% of the forests experienced the common description of 'low intensity fires that cleaned the understory'. About 20% experienced fires infrequently and so rarely when the fire did occur it totally destroyed the forest. The remaining 40% or so was mixed with a combination of light frequent and intense infrequent fires. Any given forest area varied, with the forest changing from one fire regime to another over time. Except in the remotest backcountry areas fires cannot be allowed to burn now. The impacts on people and communities has negated any perceived benefits of fires. Fires are not all beneficial to the natural environment, either. Fire effects are mixed with both positive and negative impacts.