Hacker News Reader

Comment by pfarnsworth | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure how long you think it takes to repopulate a forest, but 20 years isn't a very long time. As a human, with a lifespan of 80 years, it might seem long but to nature it's just a drop in a bucket. I'm pretty confident that the forest will regrow, just not in a time frame convenient for you. And from your picture you can clearly see that the forest is regrowing.

View on HN

> I'm not sure how long you think it takes to repopulate a forest, but 20 years isn't a very long time.

I really dislike this sneering tone that's so common on HN. Just come out and say "I think you're a moron". I have some notion of geological time scales, thank you.

Doug fir grows at approximately two feet per year. Do you see a lot of 40 foot tall trees in those burn scars? It's the tree that most commonly repopulates a burned area in this region of Oregon. This article has further reading on fire ecology in Douglas Fir forests: https://www.nps.gov/pore/learn/management/firemanagement_fir...

Note that the article makes several distinctions between varying fire severities.

As it turns out, you were wrong, and all the ancient redwoods survived. I suggest being a bit more introspective and open to the idea that you could be wrong.

I think you're probably just a troll, you sure sound like one. But just in case you're not, and on the tiniest, merest chance that there's any point at all to this: (a) I made no statement about all the redwoods, only "a number of the larger trees", a statement for which I provided ample photographic evidence and by which I still stand; (b) the only reports so far are from an AP photographer, who is not an arborist; (c) it will be difficult to assess the full extent of the damage until at least next Spring, so I'll be waiting until then before being convinced of anything either way; (d) you do not have the grace and skill to make suggestions that anybody would follow.

Bye now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com