Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway13337 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com