Forest Service under threat?

Either way, the important thing to understand is that MANAGED forests need to be managed. Heavy logging/clear cutting destroys the natural cadence of forest/tree life cycles. The dense understory everyone is complaining about is because of 200 years of heavy logging. Not sure how much time anyone on this thread has spent in old growth forests (the few small groves that still exist, thanks to extensive protections, which I'm sure this admin would love to revoke), but they don't have dense understory and don't require roads and 10000s of man hours every year to stay that way. They also don't experience massive forest fires.

Clear cutting and heavy logging destroys the canopy and allows for the growth of dense understory. Eliminating clear cutting and doing selective thinning and prescribed burning is the best way to manage these young forests back towards their original densities and cadences. But it requires skillful assessment, more manual cutting, and removal of slash, which makes it much less profitable. Considering the voracious greed of this administration, I have no confidence that this type of thoughtful management is what they have in mind

I don’t think you know as much as you think you do.


In recent years, wildfire has replaced logging as the largest threat, and since 2000, federal lands have seen a net loss of 2.6 million acres of mature forest and 700,000 acres of old-growth forest. Those acres were designated for multiple uses including recreation, timber production and wildlife habitat, providing important ecosystem services.”
 
Logged areas are actually good for the local wildlife vs dense forests... and let's not talk about the forest fire prevention of especially selective logging. Ive lost access due to massize fires in national forests due to piss poor state and local management of the forest service. But never have lost access due to logging.

Next up. The earth is indeed flat.
 
Back
Top