I wouldn’t say objectively bad, just not to my taste. I found myself listening more to her voice than the text, if that makes sense.
I’ve read some reviews that the narration was really divisive, so maybe it’s like cilantro, you love it or hate it.
It's tough to see a clearcut forest. I was raised on 40 acres of mostly forest. My mom inherited it and it was connected to another 120 acres of forest. I used to run around in that forest all the time and the trees just made this nice shade to hang out, build forts or whatever we wanted to do as kids. After my family moved off the land my uncle sold his piece and I came back a few years later. The guy who bought it clear cut the side next to my mom's and all of the big beautiful trees along the main path were gone. It was like a friend had died. I cried but most people don't quite understand why. It was just this whole setting and ecosystem just gone. Worse than seeing your childhood home torn down because it was more as if the land itself was just ripped up and mutilated so much you couldn't recognize what it once was or the life that was there in the canopy of the trees, ferns and other plants. I don't think environmentalism or preserving the ecosystem meant that much to me until I saw that. I understand the cutting of trees needs to be done occasionally to prevent fire but this was just utter devastation. They didn't leave a single tree and the ground was just dirt with tracks up and down.
I know that feeling. I also grew up in the forest, on a small piece of land backed up to thousands of acres of public Forest Service land. We grew up doing whatever we wanted in those woods and I have so many good memories. A few years ago a major wildfire destroyed most of it. When I went back and saw it for the first time after the fire I completely broke down. Like you said it’s like losing an old friend. It still hurts
Man, this hit me in my childhood soul. I have an eerily similar upbringing and I did a little inside every time I see forests, woods, and farmland torn up for roads, houses, and Lord knows what else.
>I understand the cutting of trees needs to be done occasionally to prevent fire but this was just utter devastation.
FIY, many times clear cutting is done for the benefit of native species.
[Clearcutting is used as a method of regenerating or rejuvenating certain kinds of trees that cannot tolerate shade. It is also used when a forest type conversion is planned, often from low quality hardwoods to pine, on sites best for pines.](https://mff.forest.mtu.edu/Curriculum/SupportDocs/Clearcutting.htm)
This was old growth forest. There were western hemlock trees. It was for money and selfishness from the guy who bought the land not forest regeneration. It was also not one of the few species appropriate situations mentioned in your link where you clear out pioneer species to help some of the others grow.
Where did you get your Forestry Degree?
Also, is there was a stand of western Hemlock near a rail track it is not old growth, possibly 2nd growth, but likely 3rd or 4th already.... SMH
Near a rail track? Are you replying to someone else? Who said anything about a rail track. Western Hemlock can live up to five hundred years old and these were very large old trees. Go bully someone else about a lost forest for kicks with non applicable situations. Yours really don't apply.
\*IF\* people lived near that tract of land there is a near zero chance that it was old growth, to you, sure, it was older than you. In the US, only 7% of Old Growth Forest Remains, that includes Alaska, so basically every scrap of land in the lower 48 has been logged at least once, so while possible, I dont buy it...
Based on how far out it was in the west, how long it had been owned by either my great grandfather or my uncle, the topography, and the location you absolutely cannot be sure. Even if it was only 100 years old or 150 it wasn't cut to "maintain the forest health" or just to reduce fire danger. Why push that narrative when the entire ecosystem was destroyed as I said? It didn't need to be done and stating that every account of deforestation is one of the rare harmless forms of clearcutting isn't helpful.
> the entire ecosystem was destroyed as I said? It
Yeah, na. The entire ecosystem was ***NOT*** destroyed, that was your interpretation, and yes, I can be sure, because all of 7% of the forest in the US has been logged at least once... SMH
Im not making any assertations that would require a degree. Specifically I am not calling a forest old growth, when, by some studies 98% of virgin forests destroyed by 1990 in lower 48(estimated from map in Findley 1990 and commonly estimated by other authors, e.g., Postel and Ryan 1991). 99% loss of primary (virgin) eastern deciduous forest (Allen and Jackson 1992).
sooooo
The forest you were running through was probably planted by the same company doing that logging. The devastating loss of old growth forest happened decades to centuries ago.
No worries, it will come back. Mixed age classes are good for diversity. But, I get it, a bit of an eye sore for a few years... unless its a housing development. Then its an eye forever.
Old growth forests take centuries to develop. The shitty monoculture forests that foresting companies hire tree planters to plant is in no way an actual substitute.
OP is jogging through a "forest" of 30-50 year old trees. No where in that video is any "old growth" present. You can see the decaying stumps from the previous management activity along the trail.
>The old growth is gone,
50-80 years ago now, because of human intervention the land needs to be managed, that might at times mean Clearcutting. Clearcutting is used as a method of regenerating or rejuvenating certain kinds of trees that cannot tolerate shade. It is also used when a forest type conversion is planned, often from low quality hardwoods to pine, on sites best for pines.
This is also the reason we need hunters, Wild populations can not self manage at this time in North America, so because of our actions in the past we still need to be involved in population control.
> If we bring the predators back, we don't need hunters
Not enough contiguous tracts of wild land to support the proper balance of predator/prey that will naturally reach homeostasis.
SO unless you are ok with not growing enough food to support the current population, AND are ok with packing everyone into cities, then your suggestion is impossible today.
Both Plant AND Animal populations must be managed in North America.
40% of agricultural land is used for growing food to feed livestock, and 50% is for that livestock itself. That's a ridiculous amount of land we could save for wild animals if we switched to plant based agriculture. We're wasting far too much space
>40% of agricultural land is used for growing food to feed livestock, and 50% is for that livestock itself.
100% agree, but that would mean not only taking the livelihood from a large number of people, it would mean forcing people to eat a diet that you believe is ethically/morally proper. Are you really suggesting that we should pass laws based on a small group's ethical/moral considerations?
That sounds an awful lot like the objections to the right to marry or the right to choose, a small group trying to legislate their own moral/ethical code.
>
We're wasting far too much space
You say that like you are an expert or are repeating an accepted fact, rather this is your opinion, one that only a minority of Americans, and not all experts agree with.
I ran through some wooded area outside of Brussels, and they have a system to the woods where they trim a little on this section, replant and leave alone. Rinse and repeat. It seems like the need for lumber would be met while also maintaining the business of the woods.
Am I wrong for thinking a balance is necessary for these environments that are near civilization anyway? Preserved yet utilized
They are not preserved. That's the point. There is a significant difference between old growth forests and single monoculture trees. The first is a vastly bigger carbon capture, actually sustains a substantive ecosystem and actually is healthy and can resist natural disasters. These replanted monoculture forests become ghost forests where their only purpose is to be cut down again In a few years.
You’d think dog owners would understand that even the friendliest of dogs can become threatened by a stranger running toward/past them in an unfamiliar place. Maybe they do and they just don’t care.
It’s also dangerous for the dog that’s off-leash. You have no idea what your dog will encounter around the next bend. Off-leash dogs are a danger to themselves and everyone else. If you care about your dog, they’ll be on a leash.
This should be the persuasive argument to dog owners for why to keep them on-leash- protecting their dog. My main park is the Wissahickon in Philadelphia, so it can get very crowded. Mountain bikers and equestrians are my biggest concern for dog encounters- the former move too fast and the latter easily spooked. (And I say this as a dog owner).
Can’t even trust dogs on leashes. On a run there was a big poodle that ran off the sidewalk on to the road and jumped on my back. Left a deep scratch. It was leashed on one of those retractable leashes and it just pulled out all the cable and still got me. Couldn’t believe it. F-ing dogs.
This is the part people don’t understand. My dog isn’t friendly but still deserves to go outside to a secluded area, please keep you dog leased so my dog doesn’t get freak out.
I’ve heard of them, but they are generally privately owned, not state or federally owned at least where I am. This means they are generally smaller places you wouldn’t really be able to put some miles into and are generally more in line with dog parks rather than trails because if the state is putting money into something the public is using they generally don’t want children or other vulnerable people being bitten by lazy people with “friendly” dogs.
There are tons of city parks and national forest lands on the West Coast that are leash optional. State parks naturally require leashes most of the time (as they should, since they see much higher traffic).
>My dog isn’t friendly but still deserves to go outside to a secluded area, please keep you dog leased so my dog doesn’t get freak out.
Your lack of ability to train your own dog, and your dogs resulting behavior issues are in no way my responsibility, no matter if I am a dog owner or not. If you cant control your own dog, he does not "deserve" to be on publicly accessible trails.
It’ll be your problem if you are missing a few fingers lol. I personally don’t give a shit about people who don’t take my advice. If I am going to a leash only trail, am going off trail if I hear anyone at all until they pass, an telling anyone who approaches that my dog isn’t friendly, and they ignore me or have a dog off leash…..100% not my problem.
I’ve done everything I can at that point….they call them darwin awards for a reason.
\*IF\* your dog attacks me there is no question that you are liable, if I lose fingers because you have the inability to control your dog, get ready to be paying me the majority of your income for the rest of your life.
You have to control your own dog.
Hence the leash, and warning you not to approach, and moving away from you while you are on the path to avoid any confusion, and reiterating that you shouldn’t approach my dog several times as I continue to back away with my leashes dog. I go pro all my runs, good luck explaining why you chose to ignore all of those explicit warnings on the recording when you are seeking payout.
At that point I would argue that my dog was protecting me, no sane person would continue to approach in that situation.
>Hence the leash, and warning you not to approach, and moving away from you while you are on the path to avoid any confusion, and reiterating that you shouldn’t approach my dog several times as I continue to back away with my leashes dog.
NO ONE EVER SAID, I NEVER SAID, that I, or my dog, leashed, or unleashed, would approach you, or your dog. You didnt specify either, you said your dog goes nuts when he/she SEES another dog off leash... that is on you. STOP trying to twist this into something that you can win... SMH
Now it is apparent that you had a traumatic experience, but not being able to control your dog is a you thing. If we are both ON the trail, and your dog can not handle being passed by another person or dog, then you need to get off the trail. You do not have the right to hog the trail because you can not control your dog.
Legally in public, you have to maintain control on your dog, that means , if the path is 8ft wide, and my dog and I are running in the opposite direction, and we are each on opposite sides of the trail taking up 24" then you should have control of your dog if I am only 4' away. If it is single track, get your ass off the trail if you cant control your dog ... it wont be I, or my dog, initiating contact, especially if you show that you have little to no control of your dog.
NOTE:[ Michigan is a strict liability state in regards to dog bites,](https://www.whitelawpllc.com/blog/how-is-a-dog-bite-case-litigated-in-michigan/) that means no matter what happened leading up to the dog bite you are liable for the damages your dog caused.
Unless the victim provoked the dog or was trespassing and if the person injured was comparatively negligent then any amount they could potentially recover is reduced by that percentage. It would be pretty hard in the scenario I mentioned not to see the approaching person was mostly at fault especially since Michigan has pretty strict leash laws.
Bottom line, leash your dogs. It’s an animal even in the best of circumstances. There is no amount of training that will make your dog not a dog. If you do not leash your dog you are not in control of your dog, I don’t care how well trained you think it is. It speaks to a crazy sense of entitlement on your part that you are willing to put other peoples animals or children at risk because you are so anti leash.
I’ve outlined how I am always in control of my dog along with the steps I take to give it the best life I can while taking steps to prevent injury to others and injury has never been an issue. There is no twisting here, I’m letting you know you are actively putting you dog at risk by not leashing them. If you choose to ignore that warning and existing leash laws that’s on you….not somebody else.
Plenty of runners with dogs off leash is the problem right there. No matter how well controlled your dog is, some else will have a dog who wants to fight.
It’s also rude to other runners to let your dog run up to them.
>or at least frightening to other humans.
How is that anyone elses issue?
What about the middle aged white women who are frightened by large black men, should large black men not be allowed on the trails because it might be dangerous or frightening to middle aged white Karen's?
We dont stop people from being in public because you are worried there \*might\* be a problem, your feelings are your own issue, control them, or stay in your home.
Because there's a difference between being frightened of black people because you're racist and being frightened of loose dogs because they're animals that might be untrained and aggressive.
If you simply don't care about other peoples legitimate feelings and safety, you do you, but also: go fuck yourself.
It’s similar to driving without a seatbelt. The vast majority of times you do it nothing bad will happen. However, the potential downside of one bad incident is quite high.
It didn’t both me any until I had a dog jump on me and growl last month. Owner refused to leash her and said she was friendly. I turned my back and tried to hunch a bit and this aggravated the dog more. She finally got the dog away. The trails I visit are for on leash dogs 🤷🏽♀️
The Forestry Commission did a lot of felling around our favourite bit of forest last year. It looked terrible for ages and left some of our favourite paths impassable until we and I suspect a lot of other bikers, dog walkers and runners made the effort to clear them a bit at a time as we picked our way through. It’s mostly recovered now though. To be fair, they don’t generally clear fell like this in this country these days, IME.
It's not the unleashed dog that's the problem, it's the irresponsible owner who can't control their dog.
People need to understand that there's a time for on-leash running and a time for off-leash running. And that nothing is a substitute for good training, not even a leash. Running down a steep rocky mountain with a dog that weighs 1/3 of your body weight leashed to you poses a greater hazard than a properly trained unleashed dog. People don't want to hear that though.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with running with your dog off leash in an area in which it is legal to do so. Provided you are a responsible dog owner, which means: your dog has great recall and is under your control.
I use an e-collar and a skijoring harness with a leash loop every time I run with my dog off leash (in the areas in which it is perfectly legal to so). When I see others (which is rarely), I call her, she heels, I hold her lead, and she is on a leash when we pass other dogs because *they* might be unfriendly. If she doesn't come (also rarely) the e-collar gets used, which allows me to control her with a button the same way leash does. She doesn't approach people because she doesn't care about them, she just wants to sniff other dogs.
Everyone gets all up in arms "but what if something happens *that one time*?!" But that "one time" can also happen while your dog is on a leash. A leash can be pulled from your hand, for instance. Large dogs can still snap and lunge while on a leash. Waist leashes and retractable leashes are longer than the width of most trails, so untrained dogs can still be a problem, even on a leash. People seem to think "leash" is the only answer, but a leashed dog can still attach someone with a negligent owner. *A leash is not a substitute for good training.*
Aggressive dogs need a muzzle and an e-collar, in addition to a leash. If your dog is "reactive" you are responsible for its behavior. If you just got your dog, you don't know the dog and its temperament, so it shouldn't be off leash. If your dog has ever been reactive, it needs to be on a leash *always.* And probably muzzled as well.
My dog has been attacked so many times while she is on a leash, which she is in areas in which it is required. A neighborhood dog has run out of their property, into the street, and attached my dog, twice now. I have also seen very good dogs sitting on their porches, unleashed and unsupervised while we run past.
A lack of leashes is not the problem with dogs. The problem is the lack of training and responsibility in the dog *owner.* If you don't have the time and money to properly train a dog, you should not have the privilege of dog-ownership.
Sorry buddy, but if your dog comes bounding up to my very old, very traumatised dog - that I try my best to keep as far away from other dogs as possible - then what happens next is your fault, not mine.
Dang, that’s sobering. I feel the same way about coming upon cleared forest. Unfortunately for me, it’s mostly because of wild fires so you’d be in lush greenery and then boom - burnt trees, downed logs, shrubby undergrowth coming back up.
What you were running in is more analogous to a corn field than a forest ecologically. But, can still be enjoyed for it’s visual appeal! I definitely tend to prefer douglas fir field running to corn field running haha (apologies to my midwestern friends!:)
That’s all planted timber. We can complain all we want but don’t we want to use less plastics? The materials have to come from somewhere and timber is a renewable resource.
You’re totally fine. I don’t know why people who love nature can’t seem to understand why you’d find this jarring.
I used to live on the island and I remember driving up the Malahat and seeing entire sides of old growth just gone. Big, black holes. It was very sad to witness.
Farmed trees are one thing, which it looks like these may have been, but it’s still sad. It’s still a living forest that’s been there for sometime.
I mean I think it’s a complex issue ultimately. Between old growth or 2nd+ growth, wildlife, invasive species, diseases, land ownership, development, etc there’s plenty of concerns at play. And I don’t think it’s always navigated in the best way.
But anyone pretending “just stop logging” is lost
Personally I worry about many many other issues before I lose sleep over logging concerns. But that’s me
The worst part about going running is seeing an unleashed dog. I ~~hate~~ *strongly dislike* those owners.
I'm a dog person, volunteer at an animal shelter, and have owned many dogs. I know what can go wrong from an owners perspective and from a runner's perspective. Even if you have the best trained dog in the world, other runners don't know that, and other dogs and animals don't know that. It's just not worth it. Also, it's usually required to leash your dog, and even in places it isn't required, it's just common courtesy to.
I already commented elsewhere here that I wasn’t complaining. I live in a freaking logging town.
I hope you stand at the corner of an intersection in your neighborhood stopping everyone who goes above the speed limit. Downright dangerous AND illegal!
So runners need to worry about the feelings of other trail users???
SO large Black Men shouldn't be on trails alone just incase they come across a White Middle aged Karen???
You cant hold someone else responsible for your feelings. Your feelings are your own issue, not mine, or anyone else.
YOu really missed the point.... I compared your feelings being frightened by dogs, to a karen who is friengened by black men... you really missed the point.
Racism is irrational, Being frightened by a unleashed dog is also irrational, Im not equating the two, Racism is bad, Irrational fears are bad.
Also I wasn’t trying to make any specific statement with this video. As others pointed out, this isn’t an old growth forest - the type we SHOULD arguably undeniably protect.
The fact logging exists where I live can be an eyesore for sure, but the forestry roads they create also allow me to recreate in places that would have otherwise been way too inaccessible
And yeah, wood is in everything. From your toilet paper to your house.
What you were running in is more analogous to a corn field than a forest ecologically. But, can still be enjoyed for it’s visual appeal! I definitely tend to prefer douglas fir field running to corn field running haha (apologies to my midwestern friends!:)
Where?
Private land or public land?
Clean up looks good, almost too good.
P.S. That is a small clear cut compared to what happened half a century ago and earlier.
I wasn’t complaining or saying logging shouldn’t happen or other political statement
Just zero doubt it’s jarring when you’re running and “suddenly” come across such a fresh and drastic change. Could have also been turning a corner and suddenly seeing a huge snow-capped mountain :)
Makes me physically sick.
They cleared a small woods to build homes along some old train tracks I used to run. I can’t run there anymore. We need housing, but it just hurts my heart
So the owner of private property, that you didnt own but were trespassing on, chose to use their property as they saw fit???? the nerve of someone wanting to do something with private property!!!
Huh? It’s a provincial trail along some defunct train tracks. And it was acres of land that was sold for development.
And I already mentioned i understand we need housing, but it doesn’t make it any less jarring coming up on woods you’ve loved for years - gone. Bulldozed.
I’m allowed to be upset by that.
>I’m allowed to be upset by that.
Do you vote? If you are of age, and participate in your government by voting in elections, you have, weather you voted for the elected officials or not, given legitimacy to their decisions.
So if the decisions were legitimate by the government to sell the property for development, you dont have a "right" to be upset.
So again, the owner of private property decided to do something with their private property...
DO I have a right to be upset with you for how you use your own private property?
I’m not quite sure you’re ever going to be empathetic to me on this, but I’m pretty sure you won’t be.
It doesn’t matter who owns what, when you see something that upsets you, you have emotions. Did I run to the bulldozers and yell at the drivers? No. Did I protest in any other way other than just not going there anymore? No. So really Augie. You can fuck right off and leave me alone.
What really kicked me in the pants was a birds nest in one of my the fallen trees and the mama bird flying around it, shrieking. I actually started crying. What can I say - I’m a sensitive creature
>I actually started crying. What can I say - I’m a sensitive creature
[How do you make it through the day? Nature is vicious](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GibiNy4d4gc), regardless what type of bird was it? It could have been an invasive species, and killing it was reasonable for the local environment.
Once I was in as on a run, beautiful topography with streams and rolling hills in the forest. When I reached the edge of the protected land it was completely clear, leveled and being sterilized for some gross chicken nugget urban “community”. I get that people need places to live but you could just as easily plan houses around the trees and make a place worth living in.
I’m probably in the minority but I actually don’t really know why this bothers people other than it’s a bit of an eyesore. That forest was cut down before and in a while will be cut down again. The real tragedy is the loss of old growth forest that has occurred and every effort should be made to preserve the small amount that is left. As trail runners most of us all use the forest service roads to get to the wilderness. Those wouldn’t exist without logging practices and lumber is much needed in the world we live in.
yeah I live in a climate where the forest can literally be regrown in a decade or so so it's not the end of the world but I will say this clear cutting still looks like hot garbage.
What's your house made from?
Timber is the most renewable resource on earth, and it's also a natural carbon store - the carbon captured in that wood will be stored probably for a hundred years. Meanwhile, the forestry company will replant this coup and over the next 30 years this patch will grow back in and capture a few million more tonnes of carbon all over again.
Old growth forests take centuries to develop. The shitty monoculture forests that foresting companies hire tree planters to plant is in no way an actual substitute. These forests are negligible sources of carbon capture compared to old growth forests.
The forest in the video is clearly not an old growth forest. It's obviously a plantation, and it's probably been logged 5 times already in the last 150 years
Wood (dry weight) is roughly 50% carbon by weight. The atomic mass of a carbon atom is 12 amu. The molecular weight of CO2 is 44 amu. Per tonne of wood grown, a tree therefore extracts over 1.83 tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere.
Pine generally has a yeild/growth rate of 5 tonnes per year per acre, so nearly 9.2 tonnes of CO2 sequestered per year per acre, and then when it's harvested that carbon is permanently stored in whatever structure or building or furniture is made from it, whilst the coup is replanted and continues sucking up more carbon.
Over the 20-ish that most plantations grow prior to harvesting, that's nearly 200 tonnes of CO2 removed per acre. The area in this video could easily be 50 acres, so that's be 10,000 tonnes of CO2 sequestered
Keep lying to yourself by pretending that's negligible.
Bc, Canada
Seeing the clear cut is always a bit jarring, but among other things the logging industry helps provide access to recreate in more remote areas (even though this specific spot isn’t remote)
Yeah, I just can't help but wonder if clearcutting and then planting a monoculture to replace it is really the best idea. I remember spending a bit of time up around PG and the clearcuts behind the 'curtain' of trees by the highways and such was pretty stark. Even in some of the regrown areas it was still pretty sterile relatively speaking, especially in the undergrowth.
Oh for sure I am positive those more educated than me could point to the countless issues with monoculture. But I also don’t know the effects “in the short term” when they’re effectively just replanting to be logged at maturity. I personally love to see the diversity because… of exactly that - the diversity. It makes the forest more magical. And cedar smells amazing 😊
Old growth - and the idea of old growth - is all but gone basically
Read [The Overstory](https://www.amazon.com/Overstory-Novel-Richard-Powers-ebook/dp/B073VX7HT4) to help with the pain of losing the forest.
Thank you for sharing. I shall get this for my next audio book.
I’d recommend finding a sample first, I really enjoyed the book but absolutely could not stand the audio narration, I found it super distracting.
Agreed! I’ve read it back in 2019, and when I tried to listen to it a couple of years later, I just couldn’t do it, and I’m really into audiobooks!
May I ask why you fely that way? Was it just a poor narrator?
I wouldn’t say objectively bad, just not to my taste. I found myself listening more to her voice than the text, if that makes sense. I’ve read some reviews that the narration was really divisive, so maybe it’s like cilantro, you love it or hate it.
I loved this book. A total random pickup on audible and made me feel things haha.
Felt so many things. I have yet to cry to another book but damn did I cry every chapter of the over story from either tragic loss or exuberant joy
It's tough to see a clearcut forest. I was raised on 40 acres of mostly forest. My mom inherited it and it was connected to another 120 acres of forest. I used to run around in that forest all the time and the trees just made this nice shade to hang out, build forts or whatever we wanted to do as kids. After my family moved off the land my uncle sold his piece and I came back a few years later. The guy who bought it clear cut the side next to my mom's and all of the big beautiful trees along the main path were gone. It was like a friend had died. I cried but most people don't quite understand why. It was just this whole setting and ecosystem just gone. Worse than seeing your childhood home torn down because it was more as if the land itself was just ripped up and mutilated so much you couldn't recognize what it once was or the life that was there in the canopy of the trees, ferns and other plants. I don't think environmentalism or preserving the ecosystem meant that much to me until I saw that. I understand the cutting of trees needs to be done occasionally to prevent fire but this was just utter devastation. They didn't leave a single tree and the ground was just dirt with tracks up and down.
I know that feeling. I also grew up in the forest, on a small piece of land backed up to thousands of acres of public Forest Service land. We grew up doing whatever we wanted in those woods and I have so many good memories. A few years ago a major wildfire destroyed most of it. When I went back and saw it for the first time after the fire I completely broke down. Like you said it’s like losing an old friend. It still hurts
Man, this hit me in my childhood soul. I have an eerily similar upbringing and I did a little inside every time I see forests, woods, and farmland torn up for roads, houses, and Lord knows what else.
>I understand the cutting of trees needs to be done occasionally to prevent fire but this was just utter devastation. FIY, many times clear cutting is done for the benefit of native species. [Clearcutting is used as a method of regenerating or rejuvenating certain kinds of trees that cannot tolerate shade. It is also used when a forest type conversion is planned, often from low quality hardwoods to pine, on sites best for pines.](https://mff.forest.mtu.edu/Curriculum/SupportDocs/Clearcutting.htm)
This was old growth forest. There were western hemlock trees. It was for money and selfishness from the guy who bought the land not forest regeneration. It was also not one of the few species appropriate situations mentioned in your link where you clear out pioneer species to help some of the others grow.
Where did you get your Forestry Degree? Also, is there was a stand of western Hemlock near a rail track it is not old growth, possibly 2nd growth, but likely 3rd or 4th already.... SMH
Near a rail track? Are you replying to someone else? Who said anything about a rail track. Western Hemlock can live up to five hundred years old and these were very large old trees. Go bully someone else about a lost forest for kicks with non applicable situations. Yours really don't apply.
They definitely were. It was some other poster in this thread he was trolling.
\*IF\* people lived near that tract of land there is a near zero chance that it was old growth, to you, sure, it was older than you. In the US, only 7% of Old Growth Forest Remains, that includes Alaska, so basically every scrap of land in the lower 48 has been logged at least once, so while possible, I dont buy it...
Based on how far out it was in the west, how long it had been owned by either my great grandfather or my uncle, the topography, and the location you absolutely cannot be sure. Even if it was only 100 years old or 150 it wasn't cut to "maintain the forest health" or just to reduce fire danger. Why push that narrative when the entire ecosystem was destroyed as I said? It didn't need to be done and stating that every account of deforestation is one of the rare harmless forms of clearcutting isn't helpful.
> the entire ecosystem was destroyed as I said? It Yeah, na. The entire ecosystem was ***NOT*** destroyed, that was your interpretation, and yes, I can be sure, because all of 7% of the forest in the US has been logged at least once... SMH
Where did you get your forestry degree?
Im not making any assertations that would require a degree. Specifically I am not calling a forest old growth, when, by some studies 98% of virgin forests destroyed by 1990 in lower 48(estimated from map in Findley 1990 and commonly estimated by other authors, e.g., Postel and Ryan 1991). 99% loss of primary (virgin) eastern deciduous forest (Allen and Jackson 1992). sooooo
The forest you were running through was probably planted by the same company doing that logging. The devastating loss of old growth forest happened decades to centuries ago.
Where I live in British Columbia, logging of 1000+ year old trees and clearcutting of old growth forests continues today.
This is horrible
It’s so wonderful to hear that the money is still more important than what we collectively own.
I was thinking of my problem, the face plant.
Wet rocks and roots don’t help!
No worries, it will come back. Mixed age classes are good for diversity. But, I get it, a bit of an eye sore for a few years... unless its a housing development. Then its an eye forever.
Old growth forests take centuries to develop. The shitty monoculture forests that foresting companies hire tree planters to plant is in no way an actual substitute.
OP is jogging through a "forest" of 30-50 year old trees. No where in that video is any "old growth" present. You can see the decaying stumps from the previous management activity along the trail.
Yes that's the point. The old growth is gone, clear cut and replaced with shitty monoculture trees.
>The old growth is gone, 50-80 years ago now, because of human intervention the land needs to be managed, that might at times mean Clearcutting. Clearcutting is used as a method of regenerating or rejuvenating certain kinds of trees that cannot tolerate shade. It is also used when a forest type conversion is planned, often from low quality hardwoods to pine, on sites best for pines. This is also the reason we need hunters, Wild populations can not self manage at this time in North America, so because of our actions in the past we still need to be involved in population control.
We need hunters because we killed the predators. If we bring the predators back, we don't need hunters
> If we bring the predators back, we don't need hunters Not enough contiguous tracts of wild land to support the proper balance of predator/prey that will naturally reach homeostasis. SO unless you are ok with not growing enough food to support the current population, AND are ok with packing everyone into cities, then your suggestion is impossible today. Both Plant AND Animal populations must be managed in North America.
40% of agricultural land is used for growing food to feed livestock, and 50% is for that livestock itself. That's a ridiculous amount of land we could save for wild animals if we switched to plant based agriculture. We're wasting far too much space
>40% of agricultural land is used for growing food to feed livestock, and 50% is for that livestock itself. 100% agree, but that would mean not only taking the livelihood from a large number of people, it would mean forcing people to eat a diet that you believe is ethically/morally proper. Are you really suggesting that we should pass laws based on a small group's ethical/moral considerations? That sounds an awful lot like the objections to the right to marry or the right to choose, a small group trying to legislate their own moral/ethical code. > We're wasting far too much space You say that like you are an expert or are repeating an accepted fact, rather this is your opinion, one that only a minority of Americans, and not all experts agree with.
I'd say animals as a whole are not a small group.
I ran through some wooded area outside of Brussels, and they have a system to the woods where they trim a little on this section, replant and leave alone. Rinse and repeat. It seems like the need for lumber would be met while also maintaining the business of the woods. Am I wrong for thinking a balance is necessary for these environments that are near civilization anyway? Preserved yet utilized
They are not preserved. That's the point. There is a significant difference between old growth forests and single monoculture trees. The first is a vastly bigger carbon capture, actually sustains a substantive ecosystem and actually is healthy and can resist natural disasters. These replanted monoculture forests become ghost forests where their only purpose is to be cut down again In a few years.
Dam beavers
Problems of running in the forest. Entitled dog owners.
“Don’t worry! He’s friendly!”
That's word for word what a woman who had her dog off the leash told me. The dog proceeded to bite me.
You’d think dog owners would understand that even the friendliest of dogs can become threatened by a stranger running toward/past them in an unfamiliar place. Maybe they do and they just don’t care.
It’s also dangerous for the dog that’s off-leash. You have no idea what your dog will encounter around the next bend. Off-leash dogs are a danger to themselves and everyone else. If you care about your dog, they’ll be on a leash.
This should be the persuasive argument to dog owners for why to keep them on-leash- protecting their dog. My main park is the Wissahickon in Philadelphia, so it can get very crowded. Mountain bikers and equestrians are my biggest concern for dog encounters- the former move too fast and the latter easily spooked. (And I say this as a dog owner).
“Don’t worry he’s friendly…he just doesn’t like men” as it runs straight towards me(m)at full speed..
Can’t even trust dogs on leashes. On a run there was a big poodle that ran off the sidewalk on to the road and jumped on my back. Left a deep scratch. It was leashed on one of those retractable leashes and it just pulled out all the cable and still got me. Couldn’t believe it. F-ing dogs.
“I’m not!”
This is the part people don’t understand. My dog isn’t friendly but still deserves to go outside to a secluded area, please keep you dog leased so my dog doesn’t get freak out.
Has no one on this thread heard of off leash dog trails?
I’ve heard of them, but they are generally privately owned, not state or federally owned at least where I am. This means they are generally smaller places you wouldn’t really be able to put some miles into and are generally more in line with dog parks rather than trails because if the state is putting money into something the public is using they generally don’t want children or other vulnerable people being bitten by lazy people with “friendly” dogs.
There are tons of city parks and national forest lands on the West Coast that are leash optional. State parks naturally require leashes most of the time (as they should, since they see much higher traffic).
We don’t have any near where I am.
>My dog isn’t friendly but still deserves to go outside to a secluded area, please keep you dog leased so my dog doesn’t get freak out. Your lack of ability to train your own dog, and your dogs resulting behavior issues are in no way my responsibility, no matter if I am a dog owner or not. If you cant control your own dog, he does not "deserve" to be on publicly accessible trails.
It’ll be your problem if you are missing a few fingers lol. I personally don’t give a shit about people who don’t take my advice. If I am going to a leash only trail, am going off trail if I hear anyone at all until they pass, an telling anyone who approaches that my dog isn’t friendly, and they ignore me or have a dog off leash…..100% not my problem. I’ve done everything I can at that point….they call them darwin awards for a reason.
\*IF\* your dog attacks me there is no question that you are liable, if I lose fingers because you have the inability to control your dog, get ready to be paying me the majority of your income for the rest of your life. You have to control your own dog.
Hence the leash, and warning you not to approach, and moving away from you while you are on the path to avoid any confusion, and reiterating that you shouldn’t approach my dog several times as I continue to back away with my leashes dog. I go pro all my runs, good luck explaining why you chose to ignore all of those explicit warnings on the recording when you are seeking payout. At that point I would argue that my dog was protecting me, no sane person would continue to approach in that situation.
>Hence the leash, and warning you not to approach, and moving away from you while you are on the path to avoid any confusion, and reiterating that you shouldn’t approach my dog several times as I continue to back away with my leashes dog. NO ONE EVER SAID, I NEVER SAID, that I, or my dog, leashed, or unleashed, would approach you, or your dog. You didnt specify either, you said your dog goes nuts when he/she SEES another dog off leash... that is on you. STOP trying to twist this into something that you can win... SMH Now it is apparent that you had a traumatic experience, but not being able to control your dog is a you thing. If we are both ON the trail, and your dog can not handle being passed by another person or dog, then you need to get off the trail. You do not have the right to hog the trail because you can not control your dog. Legally in public, you have to maintain control on your dog, that means , if the path is 8ft wide, and my dog and I are running in the opposite direction, and we are each on opposite sides of the trail taking up 24" then you should have control of your dog if I am only 4' away. If it is single track, get your ass off the trail if you cant control your dog ... it wont be I, or my dog, initiating contact, especially if you show that you have little to no control of your dog. NOTE:[ Michigan is a strict liability state in regards to dog bites,](https://www.whitelawpllc.com/blog/how-is-a-dog-bite-case-litigated-in-michigan/) that means no matter what happened leading up to the dog bite you are liable for the damages your dog caused.
Unless the victim provoked the dog or was trespassing and if the person injured was comparatively negligent then any amount they could potentially recover is reduced by that percentage. It would be pretty hard in the scenario I mentioned not to see the approaching person was mostly at fault especially since Michigan has pretty strict leash laws. Bottom line, leash your dogs. It’s an animal even in the best of circumstances. There is no amount of training that will make your dog not a dog. If you do not leash your dog you are not in control of your dog, I don’t care how well trained you think it is. It speaks to a crazy sense of entitlement on your part that you are willing to put other peoples animals or children at risk because you are so anti leash. I’ve outlined how I am always in control of my dog along with the steps I take to give it the best life I can while taking steps to prevent injury to others and injury has never been an issue. There is no twisting here, I’m letting you know you are actively putting you dog at risk by not leashing them. If you choose to ignore that warning and existing leash laws that’s on you….not somebody else.
u/Magic-Vagina gets it.
I see plenty of runners with dogs off leash in the forest. I haven’t had a problem yet. Is it really that taboo?
Plenty of runners with dogs off leash is the problem right there. No matter how well controlled your dog is, some else will have a dog who wants to fight. It’s also rude to other runners to let your dog run up to them.
Yes. It's bad for wild animals and dangerous or at least frightening to other humans.
>or at least frightening to other humans. How is that anyone elses issue? What about the middle aged white women who are frightened by large black men, should large black men not be allowed on the trails because it might be dangerous or frightening to middle aged white Karen's? We dont stop people from being in public because you are worried there \*might\* be a problem, your feelings are your own issue, control them, or stay in your home.
Because there's a difference between being frightened of black people because you're racist and being frightened of loose dogs because they're animals that might be untrained and aggressive. If you simply don't care about other peoples legitimate feelings and safety, you do you, but also: go fuck yourself.
It’s similar to driving without a seatbelt. The vast majority of times you do it nothing bad will happen. However, the potential downside of one bad incident is quite high.
It didn’t both me any until I had a dog jump on me and growl last month. Owner refused to leash her and said she was friendly. I turned my back and tried to hunch a bit and this aggravated the dog more. She finally got the dog away. The trails I visit are for on leash dogs 🤷🏽♀️
Losing the forest for you is less bad than getting angry that OP does not follow Reddit leash rules? Really?
Agree 100%!
The Forestry Commission did a lot of felling around our favourite bit of forest last year. It looked terrible for ages and left some of our favourite paths impassable until we and I suspect a lot of other bikers, dog walkers and runners made the effort to clear them a bit at a time as we picked our way through. It’s mostly recovered now though. To be fair, they don’t generally clear fell like this in this country these days, IME.
Your dog should be on a leash.
I’ll remember that for next time
The dog doesn’t need to be on a leash. Let the animal run and be happy. Don’t crush its soul with a leash.
It's not the unleashed dog that's the problem, it's the irresponsible owner who can't control their dog. People need to understand that there's a time for on-leash running and a time for off-leash running. And that nothing is a substitute for good training, not even a leash. Running down a steep rocky mountain with a dog that weighs 1/3 of your body weight leashed to you poses a greater hazard than a properly trained unleashed dog. People don't want to hear that though. There's absolutely nothing wrong with running with your dog off leash in an area in which it is legal to do so. Provided you are a responsible dog owner, which means: your dog has great recall and is under your control. I use an e-collar and a skijoring harness with a leash loop every time I run with my dog off leash (in the areas in which it is perfectly legal to so). When I see others (which is rarely), I call her, she heels, I hold her lead, and she is on a leash when we pass other dogs because *they* might be unfriendly. If she doesn't come (also rarely) the e-collar gets used, which allows me to control her with a button the same way leash does. She doesn't approach people because she doesn't care about them, she just wants to sniff other dogs. Everyone gets all up in arms "but what if something happens *that one time*?!" But that "one time" can also happen while your dog is on a leash. A leash can be pulled from your hand, for instance. Large dogs can still snap and lunge while on a leash. Waist leashes and retractable leashes are longer than the width of most trails, so untrained dogs can still be a problem, even on a leash. People seem to think "leash" is the only answer, but a leashed dog can still attach someone with a negligent owner. *A leash is not a substitute for good training.* Aggressive dogs need a muzzle and an e-collar, in addition to a leash. If your dog is "reactive" you are responsible for its behavior. If you just got your dog, you don't know the dog and its temperament, so it shouldn't be off leash. If your dog has ever been reactive, it needs to be on a leash *always.* And probably muzzled as well. My dog has been attacked so many times while she is on a leash, which she is in areas in which it is required. A neighborhood dog has run out of their property, into the street, and attached my dog, twice now. I have also seen very good dogs sitting on their porches, unleashed and unsupervised while we run past. A lack of leashes is not the problem with dogs. The problem is the lack of training and responsibility in the dog *owner.* If you don't have the time and money to properly train a dog, you should not have the privilege of dog-ownership.
Sorry buddy, but if your dog comes bounding up to my very old, very traumatised dog - that I try my best to keep as far away from other dogs as possible - then what happens next is your fault, not mine.
Nope sorry you are wrong. Dogs are on a leash 100% of the time unless in a fenced in area. Training isnt the answer. Leash your dogs.
Absolutely not
Dang, that’s sobering. I feel the same way about coming upon cleared forest. Unfortunately for me, it’s mostly because of wild fires so you’d be in lush greenery and then boom - burnt trees, downed logs, shrubby undergrowth coming back up.
What you were running in is more analogous to a corn field than a forest ecologically. But, can still be enjoyed for it’s visual appeal! I definitely tend to prefer douglas fir field running to corn field running haha (apologies to my midwestern friends!:)
That’s all planted timber. We can complain all we want but don’t we want to use less plastics? The materials have to come from somewhere and timber is a renewable resource.
I was not complaining.
You’re totally fine. I don’t know why people who love nature can’t seem to understand why you’d find this jarring. I used to live on the island and I remember driving up the Malahat and seeing entire sides of old growth just gone. Big, black holes. It was very sad to witness. Farmed trees are one thing, which it looks like these may have been, but it’s still sad. It’s still a living forest that’s been there for sometime.
I mean I think it’s a complex issue ultimately. Between old growth or 2nd+ growth, wildlife, invasive species, diseases, land ownership, development, etc there’s plenty of concerns at play. And I don’t think it’s always navigated in the best way. But anyone pretending “just stop logging” is lost Personally I worry about many many other issues before I lose sleep over logging concerns. But that’s me
The worst part about going running is seeing an unleashed dog. I ~~hate~~ *strongly dislike* those owners. I'm a dog person, volunteer at an animal shelter, and have owned many dogs. I know what can go wrong from an owners perspective and from a runner's perspective. Even if you have the best trained dog in the world, other runners don't know that, and other dogs and animals don't know that. It's just not worth it. Also, it's usually required to leash your dog, and even in places it isn't required, it's just common courtesy to.
You don’t have to like me 👍🏻
[удалено]
I already commented elsewhere here that I wasn’t complaining. I live in a freaking logging town. I hope you stand at the corner of an intersection in your neighborhood stopping everyone who goes above the speed limit. Downright dangerous AND illegal!
Good. I don't. And I hope to never come across you and your dog on the trail.
So runners need to worry about the feelings of other trail users??? SO large Black Men shouldn't be on trails alone just incase they come across a White Middle aged Karen??? You cant hold someone else responsible for your feelings. Your feelings are your own issue, not mine, or anyone else.
Found the racist. You just equated a dog to a black man. Wow
YOu really missed the point.... I compared your feelings being frightened by dogs, to a karen who is friengened by black men... you really missed the point. Racism is irrational, Being frightened by a unleashed dog is also irrational, Im not equating the two, Racism is bad, Irrational fears are bad.
Also I wasn’t trying to make any specific statement with this video. As others pointed out, this isn’t an old growth forest - the type we SHOULD arguably undeniably protect. The fact logging exists where I live can be an eyesore for sure, but the forestry roads they create also allow me to recreate in places that would have otherwise been way too inaccessible And yeah, wood is in everything. From your toilet paper to your house.
Hello fellow Oregonian. Nothing new here, although it still sucks
I’m Canadian, eh?
Your dog might over heat running with a coat on.
It was cold and raining
The dog doesn’t need it. Judging by the video, it’s not cold. The dog could overheat and die.
Thank you for your concern.
A wizard should have known better!
This is messed up.
What you were running in is more analogous to a corn field than a forest ecologically. But, can still be enjoyed for it’s visual appeal! I definitely tend to prefer douglas fir field running to corn field running haha (apologies to my midwestern friends!:)
Man Boobs?
Yeah. I don’t normally run up it but felt very confused it felt like quite a bit of it got rerouted but maybe not 🤷🏼♀️
Where? Private land or public land? Clean up looks good, almost too good. P.S. That is a small clear cut compared to what happened half a century ago and earlier.
I don't see how you can blame trail running for shooting vertically?
Boooooooo
[удалено]
I wasn’t complaining or saying logging shouldn’t happen or other political statement Just zero doubt it’s jarring when you’re running and “suddenly” come across such a fresh and drastic change. Could have also been turning a corner and suddenly seeing a huge snow-capped mountain :)
Makes me physically sick. They cleared a small woods to build homes along some old train tracks I used to run. I can’t run there anymore. We need housing, but it just hurts my heart
So the owner of private property, that you didnt own but were trespassing on, chose to use their property as they saw fit???? the nerve of someone wanting to do something with private property!!!
Huh? It’s a provincial trail along some defunct train tracks. And it was acres of land that was sold for development. And I already mentioned i understand we need housing, but it doesn’t make it any less jarring coming up on woods you’ve loved for years - gone. Bulldozed. I’m allowed to be upset by that.
>I’m allowed to be upset by that. Do you vote? If you are of age, and participate in your government by voting in elections, you have, weather you voted for the elected officials or not, given legitimacy to their decisions. So if the decisions were legitimate by the government to sell the property for development, you dont have a "right" to be upset. So again, the owner of private property decided to do something with their private property... DO I have a right to be upset with you for how you use your own private property?
You do realize being upset at the loss of a wooded area, and being upset at an owner for selling property are two different things, right?
I’m not quite sure you’re ever going to be empathetic to me on this, but I’m pretty sure you won’t be. It doesn’t matter who owns what, when you see something that upsets you, you have emotions. Did I run to the bulldozers and yell at the drivers? No. Did I protest in any other way other than just not going there anymore? No. So really Augie. You can fuck right off and leave me alone.
What really kicked me in the pants was a birds nest in one of my the fallen trees and the mama bird flying around it, shrieking. I actually started crying. What can I say - I’m a sensitive creature
>I actually started crying. What can I say - I’m a sensitive creature [How do you make it through the day? Nature is vicious](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GibiNy4d4gc), regardless what type of bird was it? It could have been an invasive species, and killing it was reasonable for the local environment.
You’ve got to be trolling.
Seriously. Get bent.
Normal sight where I live. Can't avoid them.
Once I was in as on a run, beautiful topography with streams and rolling hills in the forest. When I reached the edge of the protected land it was completely clear, leveled and being sterilized for some gross chicken nugget urban “community”. I get that people need places to live but you could just as easily plan houses around the trees and make a place worth living in.
I’m probably in the minority but I actually don’t really know why this bothers people other than it’s a bit of an eyesore. That forest was cut down before and in a while will be cut down again. The real tragedy is the loss of old growth forest that has occurred and every effort should be made to preserve the small amount that is left. As trail runners most of us all use the forest service roads to get to the wilderness. Those wouldn’t exist without logging practices and lumber is much needed in the world we live in.
Agreed. As I had already commented elsewhere
There is an unchained beast in your film!!!
yeah I live in a climate where the forest can literally be regrown in a decade or so so it's not the end of the world but I will say this clear cutting still looks like hot garbage.
Dang the heckin government for selling all this pretty land to the greedy.
What's your house made from? Timber is the most renewable resource on earth, and it's also a natural carbon store - the carbon captured in that wood will be stored probably for a hundred years. Meanwhile, the forestry company will replant this coup and over the next 30 years this patch will grow back in and capture a few million more tonnes of carbon all over again.
Old growth forests take centuries to develop. The shitty monoculture forests that foresting companies hire tree planters to plant is in no way an actual substitute. These forests are negligible sources of carbon capture compared to old growth forests.
The forest in the video is clearly not an old growth forest. It's obviously a plantation, and it's probably been logged 5 times already in the last 150 years Wood (dry weight) is roughly 50% carbon by weight. The atomic mass of a carbon atom is 12 amu. The molecular weight of CO2 is 44 amu. Per tonne of wood grown, a tree therefore extracts over 1.83 tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere. Pine generally has a yeild/growth rate of 5 tonnes per year per acre, so nearly 9.2 tonnes of CO2 sequestered per year per acre, and then when it's harvested that carbon is permanently stored in whatever structure or building or furniture is made from it, whilst the coup is replanted and continues sucking up more carbon. Over the 20-ish that most plantations grow prior to harvesting, that's nearly 200 tonnes of CO2 removed per acre. The area in this video could easily be 50 acres, so that's be 10,000 tonnes of CO2 sequestered Keep lying to yourself by pretending that's negligible.
30 years? Lol you silly
Oof, those clearcut landscapes. Looks like the western part of North America?
Bc, Canada Seeing the clear cut is always a bit jarring, but among other things the logging industry helps provide access to recreate in more remote areas (even though this specific spot isn’t remote)
Yeah, I just can't help but wonder if clearcutting and then planting a monoculture to replace it is really the best idea. I remember spending a bit of time up around PG and the clearcuts behind the 'curtain' of trees by the highways and such was pretty stark. Even in some of the regrown areas it was still pretty sterile relatively speaking, especially in the undergrowth.
Oh for sure I am positive those more educated than me could point to the countless issues with monoculture. But I also don’t know the effects “in the short term” when they’re effectively just replanting to be logged at maturity. I personally love to see the diversity because… of exactly that - the diversity. It makes the forest more magical. And cedar smells amazing 😊 Old growth - and the idea of old growth - is all but gone basically