Canada’s Forgotten Rainforest | Hacker News Reader

Canada’s Forgotten Rainforest

thenarwhal.ca

209 pointsRed_Tarsius62 comments

It's a bigger problem than it first appears.

The way we (in the pacific northwest) do logging causes a lot of soil erosion and just makes everything super ugly.

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.7121672,-124.2984644,8635m/d...

Just move google maps around anywhere heavily forested and you will see giant wounds in the hills.

Most countries in Europe don't do this. We could do what they do and use reduced impact logging. Don't cut all the trees at once.

This sort of regulation is much easier to achieve than global carbon caps because it's benefits are realized in the backyards of those that deal with them. It's easy to enforce and it also shouldn't cost us much. We'll pay a little more for lumber but that's it.

Amazing to see the "Duncan Memorial Cedar Tree" so close to a wiped out area (aaaand a quick search reveals it fell just a few years ago. Ouch.)

What exactly does it mean to do "reduced impact logging" in Europe, do you have a link?

Coming from the Northeast where our trees are also of great economic value (and of greater natural value), I completely agree that a more strategic approach to logging should be pursued. But at the same time, we need to develop methods for supporting rural logging towns economically. I'm not sure what the answer is, but ideally it can make use of and build upon existing skill-sets and lifestyles in those areas.

I want to believe that if communities are properly educated and given opportunities to improve their practices, they would.

I don't think there is really such a thing as a logging town anymore. I mean, I live in a county where logging equipment is manufactured, and regionally logging is quite important to the economy, but it's all itinerant, there's no need to be settled near the work.

I imagine he means towns supported by mills.

I suppose the term "logging town" is less relevant now as the communities fade, but they certainly exist [Source: I'm working in a Mill Town right now]

Any any industry rooted in the natural resources of an area breeds communities that are located near them. I think most people _prefer_ settling near work if possible.

I guess I find it unfortunate that small but strong communities are a dying breed. A healthy community to live in is an essential part of a quality life. It's quite literally the foundation of modern society, and I sense that the concentration of populations in huge cities is only further compounding the challenges we face (climate change, economic inequality, the overall health of a population)

> I sense that the concentration of populations in huge cities is only further compounding the challenges we face (climate change, economic inequality, the overall health of a population)

On the contrary, dense populations allow for the efficient distribution of goods and services. There may be an aesthetic argument in favor of small town living but there isn’t an environmental one.

That's true, but those distributed goods primarily come from rural areas.

Obviously we need both rural and urban areas, but I suppose my "born in a small town" bias wants a better balance between the two than we currently have. For the benefit of both!

At least in the US, I feel a “better balance” would mean extreme missing middle housing production in the most productive cities so that the difference in the cost of housing between cities and rural areas would decline. I’d also be supportive of promoting actual “small towns” like those areas across much of the Midwest and rust belt that have a dense historic center and allow one to live a car free or reduced car lifestyle. What we do not need is more low density single family home car dependent living space.

I guess it depends on what metric we use to measure quantity but I’d guess that by many measures those goods primarily come from urbanized areas outside the US. Which once again points to the environmental benefits of density, particularly near deep ocean ports.

> On the contrary, dense populations allow for the efficient distribution of goods and services. There may be an aesthetic argument in favor of small town living but there isn’t an environmental one.

I would suggest it is not as cut and dry as you suggest, and is heavily dependent on where the population centres are. For the majority of towns and towns folk, there is a deeper connection to the surrounding environment and what it provides. Rural populations get much of what sustains them from the nearby surroundings, be it through gardens, hunting and fishing, local agriculture etc. You would be hard presses to find big city populations that do the same in anywhere near the same percentage.

I lived in a small, northern town for 20 year, and currently live in the heart of downtown of a major city. The difference could not be more contrasting.

Wow, when you look a bit further south it seems like the entire state is being eaten little by little: https://www.google.com/maps/place/46.943860,+-123.486175/@46...

That is scary. I zoomed in expecting to see farmland but instead they were bald patches. Just like male pattern baldness by the time you notice it, the process is already well underway.

Yes it's ugly, but much better to clear cut pockets every couple decades than to clearcut everything to turn into farm land.

These forests take a lot longer than a couple decades to recover.

On Vancouver Island the harvesting cycle is 40 - 50 years. Trees grow fast with reasonable temperatures with lots of rain.

In Washington I think the cycle is similar for hardwoods. Wherhauser is a pretty good steward of their land, as that's really the only "asset" they have.

Same with Vancouver Island: https://goo.gl/maps/aXADesFXHUbyjPMw8

Interestingly, clear cuts mimic natural disturbance types (particularly in some of the historically fire maintained ecosystems). It's not quite as cut and dry as clear-cut logging is bad. That said, we're pulling far too much wood out of our landscape here in BC, faster than it's able to replenish that's for sure.

What natural disturbance does clear cut mimic?

No, it certainly does not mimic a forest fire. Nor does it mimic rare events such as the blast effects from a volcanic explosion (such as Mount Helena).

>Most countries in Europe don't do this.

It's way worse where I live in terms of jarring patchwork, and it's still one of the more forested areas in France.

https://www.google.fr/maps/place/@45.5731524,1.8908994,18497...

You want to see a crazy patchwork... check this out:

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7723317,-123.3430591,31329m/...

Those squares are the result of land being sold off to fund railroads.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_and_California_Railroad...

Zoom back a bit, and it looks like your landscape has dying GPU syndrome.

Have been watching a show called "Alone" on History channel which is a survival reality-TV thing where they drop off 10 candidates in nature and whoever can hold out the longest wins the game. The first and second season were set on Vancouver island. For some reason have always pictured BC as a cold place very similar to where I'm from in (just on a bigger scale). The show really gives an amazing look into Vancouver Island and how the wet climate creates a very unique habitat with thick moss and lichen covering trees, bears and wood so thick you can't penetrate it on foot. Very different to what I imagine when when hearing the word ""rain forest.

The Mongolia season also made the local plants and animals look interesting

The producers of this season were clever in that most of the bushcraft 'experts' they found were from the US South and Eastern US/Canada so they struggled so, so hard to make fires and were humbled by the wet environment.

I enjoyed that show for the reason that they're showing how hard it is to sustain yourself with nothing but you find in nature. I'm a scouts leader and shows like Bear Grylls make surviving look way too easy, and prompts people to take unneccesary risks that will lead to certain death.

What I didn't like about the Vancouver location is that they were prohibited to hunt for food, other than fishing. Especially with winter in view, surviving on plants and fish alone would be very, very difficult, if not impossible.

What baffled me was that most of these 'survival experts' had little knowledge of local flora/fauna. I'm not certain if they knew where they were going on forehand, but if it were me, I'd make damn sure I would be able to spot at least some basic staple foods around the world.

What I like about 'Alone' is that it really shows that surviving isn't just about knowledge or skill, but that psychology plays a vital part, too.

Sustainable forests of pine (pinus radiata) here reach maturity in 25 years, when the timber can be harvested, and new trees planted. It's truly horrifying to me to imagine a 400 year old tree being felled.

The series of three pictures captioned 'Clear cut logging in the Anzac River Valley' is heart-breaking. How can we allow such mass-scale destruction?

There are temperate rainforests in the U.S. as well. I've been to the Hoh rainforest on the peninsula of Washington state, and it's probably similar to the rainforest in this story. Quite a lot of logging has been happening for a long time in the surrounding area that you can see while driving through, but I'm not sure they're indigenous trees as they're tree farms explicitly for logging.

Can any Canadians comment on the political situation that allows this to happen? From our point of view in the us you guys seem relatively left leaning and yet you still have deforestation, Athabasca tar sands, etc going on.

Taking away jobs makes people mad. 17% of Canada’s economy is natural resource extraction: mining, logging, hydrocarbons. Greater than 200,000 Canadians are employed by the logging sector [1].

[1]: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/files/pd...

BC's economy outside of major cities remains heavily dependent on logging and mining and other forms of resource extraction. Look at the trainloads of cargo going to the coast and what they contain, and what's getting loaded onto ships in Burrard Inlet and at Deltaport.

Canadians live under the impression that their land is infinitely big, so strip-mining it etc. is only a problem in other, smaller countries.

On Vancouver island, there is a generally worry about losing jobs related to natural resources. The conservationists want to replace those jobs with tourism, and it’s actually working, but then you have to say no to all the money ‘just sitting there’ after the tourism jobs are created.

Housing prices have almost doubled recently too

There is a massive gap between the successful economies of urban Canada (especially. Toronto & Vancouver) and rural Canada.

It is politically difficult to turn away from resource development because there are few if any jobs in rural Canada otherwise. This is a problem I've been watching politicians wrestle with my whole life and we are no closer to a solution.

BC's economy took an incredible nosedive in the 90s when there was a secular decrease in demand for its wood and pulp products which were a huge part of the economy (think how phone books no longer exist and you'll understand why). Some regions of rural BC have pivoted toward eco-tourism, but it hasn't been a real replacement.

Many, many, many smaller cities and communities only exist as a byproduct of resource extraction. Taking that away means folks lose their jobs, families are broken up, and a way of life is lost. I had to leave mine to get a job in tech, and I miss the lifestyle and my community every day.

The province BC is like Vermont and the province of Alberta is like (or wants to be) Texas. Imagine if those two states were together in the US.

There is lots of logging in Canada that's how you guys in the US get quite a bit of material for toilet paper and plywood.

In the article they state that it's potentially less economically productive to clear-cut due to all the other benefits the forest provides. Maybe they're talking about an idealistic economy where true costs are incorporated but is there any viability in paying people to NOT do their job?

Hey all, Jimmy Thomson here from The Narwhal. We noticed all the traffic coming from all y'all and we've been sharing this discussion on our Slack this morning.

Just wanted to say we really appreciate all the thoughtful comments — it's great to see Sarah's article generating such an interesting conversation, and we hope you keep coming back.

Stupidity rules the world. Mankind just deserves to die. Eod.

Ok, but could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments here? We're trying to be ruled by at least a little less stupidity than that, and it takes energy to hold entropy at bay for a bit.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I cringe when I see lede's like this. It further reinforces the general perception of logging = evil.

The reality is that our forested ecosystems in north america need fire to be healthy. But we've built homes & towns in areas that need fire, effectively tying our hands. So, we actually need to be logging more rather than less in order to compensate for a natural amount of fire.

Sure, we could be doing less clear cutting and more shelterwood harvests & thinning. But generally logging is now an essential tool for us to manage forest & ecosystem health.

Can you link to something for evidence that this kind of logging can play a similar role as fires in some ecosystems? Because afaik fires don't typically raze down entire forests.

I would encourage you to read the article: it addresses the issues of fire (this ecosystem doesn't go through fire cycles because it's too wet) and talks about this being a case where logging is especially harmful to the environment.

Rainforests are damp and don’t burn. Right there in the name.

Logged areas can burn more severely: https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr208e...

First, from a pure narrow CO2 economy POV, cutting down a mature forest is good. Trees peak sequestration at 20-40 years. Second, BC can’t stop logging as long as it’s trapped in a PC First Nations talk.

Tangent, though this is technically a rainforest, it bares little resembles to what the word is usually associated with.

Your first statement seems to have been debunked long ago:

> The researchers have found that carbon uptake of trees (as measured by growth rates) continuously increases with their size because the overall leaf area increases as they grow. This enables bigger trees to absorb more carbon from the atmosphere. Thus, the oldest trees in a forest capture the most carbon from the atmosphere. These oldest trees are to be found in ancient forests. Importantly, older trees are also more valuable for biodiversity than younger trees because they support a wider range of species

Coming from Brazil, it pretty much looks like rain forest to me, except all the tree species are different. Besides, what is the point you are trying to make? That this is somehow ok?

Pls source your claims https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259766087_Rate_of_t...

Maybe instead of "debunked", you meant to say "this is a controversial issue".

Here's a better source to support your claims: http://www.co2science.org/subject/f/summaries/forestold.php

You’re right, I should. Was on mobile and in a bit of a hurry.

Quote from the second link:

> with respect to the Brazilian forests in the central Amazon - about 50% of their above-ground biomass is contained in less than the largest 10% of their trees

CO2 Science is a fossil fuel funded climate denial center. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_for_the_Study_o...

Ok. Why do climate deniers find it important to convince us old forests are important for CO2 balance maintenance?

The bio diversity of conifer, rain or otherwise, is fractional of tropical rain forests. There are about 5 main coniferous species: Red cedar Douglas fir Sitka Spruce Yellow cedar West coast hemlock

>Tangent, though this is technically a rainforest, it bares little resembles to what the word is usually associated with.

Odd, because I recall a plaque at Lake Quinault of some sort claiming that the term "rain forest" was coined by FDR when he visited the Olympic peninsula, though it's not mentioned in the article linked below.

https://www.historylink.org/File/5434

Cutting it in that manner is definitely not good because it doesn't regenerate when done so, for complicating ecological reasons. It is the regeneration stage of forestation which is remarkably good at capturing CO2.

Logging could be done in an ecological manner enabling and even stimulating natural regeneration but the industry culture has been powerfully opposed to ecological concern and campaigns that have struggled against its practices for many decades past[1]

Despite potentially offering insightful, fit and adventurous outdoor employment opportunities for humanity, global logging industry has politically lobbied to maintain a brutal strategy of maximum impact and immediate return towards its resource.

These practices are developed and carried out wherever profitable, by well established Western logging companies and professionals. Wildlife is poisoned and culled before work begins to simplify operations - the nature of the whole area is eliminated by design :

" Clearfelling, as the name suggests, first involves the complete felling of a forest by chainsaws and skidders. Then, the whole area is torched, the firing started by helicopters dropping incendiary devices made of jellied petroleum, commonly known as napalm. The resultant fire is of such ferocity it produces mushroom clouds visible from considerable distances. In consequence, every autumn, the island's otherwise most beautiful season, china-blue skies are frequently nicotine-scummed, an inescapable reminder that clearfelling means the total destruction of ancient and unique forests."[2]

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=eg+greenpeace+logging&tbs=cd...

[2] https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2007/may/1348543148/rich...

BC law requires planting 3 trees per logged one. So in theory regeneration is there.

No one thinks the logging industry is especially echo friendly. It’s as exploitive as any other.

It has been characteristically eco-destructive and defended its business to be so, even where standards exist and are enforced to require replanting - this has practically resulted in dense monoculture plantations not sustainable forest habitat.

It simply has to be transformed, its legacy of habitat devastation must be outlawed and could even though unlikely -justly be retrospectively prosecuted.

>even where standards exist and are enforced to require replanting - this has practically resulted in dense monoculture plantations not sustainable forest habitat.

This comment is not accurate with current industry practices, or frankly practices in the BC forest industry over last 30 years. The comment suggests that cut blocks are not re-planted? While this was the practice in up to the late '60s, things have changed. There was a massive investment (and resultant industry) focused on silviculture. Historic cut blocks were planted, and subsequently managed (brushed, thinned, fill planted) up to the the mid 90s. I would suggest that the historic backlog was significantly reduced by 1990. Today, it is at an equilibrium, with periodic deficits resulting from fire or the massive pine beetle infestation in the province.

Cut blocks are not planted with a single species, but with a mix of species. Trees are grown from seeds taken from the same area and elevation as the areas harvested.

I am not in the forest industry, however I paid for school and my student loans by planting trees (1988-1993). I am an engineer and earlier in my career I was heavily involved in habitat (aquatic and riparian) rehabilitation resulting from past forestry practices. They were horrific. The industry has adapted and continues to adapt. It ain't perfect, but to base an opinion on one side of a long standing heated debate -- as presented in the article -- is uninformed.

As with most thing, the truth lies somewhere in between.

I tried a bit of treeplanting work myself in 90's Scotland, but couldn't stick the physical workload to be honest. Forestry there and in the rest of the UK is in the main still quite ecologically insensitive and also massively under-developed with national parks kept quite barren through generations of strange policy decisions and over-subsidised sheep farming. Policies seem to be on the verge of improving though.

I take your advice about industrys adaptation in Canada - but I think its adapted to external regulation and environmental oversight. Horrific, internationally contracted and equipped logging business continues around the world. I can appreciate how investors and wage seekers become insensitive to it, and in other industries to combustion, pollution, waste.. so examination, regulation, forcing industry to adapt at home and abroad is the only hope.

To point out the obvious, referencing a 15 year old article about Tasmania (and an irrelevant google search) that describes historic practices on that Island does not strengthen your position, or add to discussions about forestry practices in British Columbia.

I didn't reply to a point that was at all limited to regulated forestry in British Columbia.

The google search was relevant to illustrate that concerned organisations have been campaigning against clearfelling for decades.

Tasmanian rain forest is still be destroyed in the same manner today.

https://www.wilderness.org.au/news-events/end-rainforest-log...

Old growth forests have important ecological advantages over their ability to sink carbon.

Obviously. Hence from a pure narrow CO2 economy POV

Reply on news.ycombinator.com