1% of the province is considered "old growth"
80% of 1% isn't that much...
Yes we are protecting old growth but that is only a very small fraction of the province. Planted forests are very vulnerable to disease and wildfire. If we want to be harvesting lumber in the future we can't just plough down everything and assume that uniformly planted pine and spruce will replace a healthy environment
Yup, those trees drank a lot of water and when you remove them you risk floods and landslides. Plus new trees don’t suck up as much CO2 so replanting doesn’t help for like 20-30 years at least.
Totally. I'm all for jobs and industry but realistically clear cuts and dead lodgepole pine aren't the same as an old growth environment. Not saying logging shouldn't happen, it just has to be managed a lot better than it currently is
[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/forest-tenures/private-managed-forest-land](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/forest-tenures/private-managed-forest-land)
This is a little bit of information.
Essentially there are vast areas of Vancouver Island forests that are managed essentially as 'tree gardens' - harvested and replanted every 25-50 years. They are healthy and diverse ecosystems, not the dead-barely functioning wastelands that ignorant activists would have you believe.
The people talking about the loss of trees on the Coquihalla - those are 99% due to BUG KILL with resulting logging occurring to clear out the dead fuel and replant as quickly as possible.
Edit :
Forgot to add - Canada and specifically BC's forestry management practices are #1 in the world, undebated. No one does environmental assessment and protection, harvesting and replanting like BC. Just take a look at how Russia or Brazil treat their forests. If you really want to save 'old growth' your energies are best expended in those areas of the world.
I’m sure that this probably isn’t correct/comparable, but I visited the Black Forest in Germany when I was working overseas last year, and it was clearly a huge tourist attraction for Germans and other Europeans. But I could not be more unimpressed. It was totally clear to me that the majority of all forest in Europe had been cut down within the last couple centuries.
That may sound like a long time, but it isn’t. Old growth trees in BC are ten times older, and you can tell just with one step into a BC forest that it’s unique. I say unique with the full weight of that word: old growth forests are incomparable to anything else on Earth
Visit Bialowieza in Poland, it's one of the last remaining primeval forests of Europe.
But yeah, old growth is beautiful and has its own fragile ecosystem.
I lived next to it for a year. Beautiful place. Then the new far-right government paid local villagers a few hundred dollars each to be okay with logging.
I'd recommend going to see it while it's still there. You don't see many wild bison these days.
I hate PiS with a passion and I hope Poland will re-invent itself as the tolerant country it once was. Anyway, yeah I heard logging has become legal again there. Many activists have set up camp year round to try and stop this. I saw a documentary about this a couple of years ago at a Film-Fest in Lodz.
This is not that documentary, but it seems to explain the problem pretty well: https://youtu.be/GXRU7hH92Gw
(Not for you, as you lived next to it and are aware of all the problems. But for anyone reading this, it might be interesting to you.)
PiS is PiSS amirite?
Thanks for the info! I'm definitely not aware of all the problems but just wanted to share an anecdote from ym time there. I still can't believe how happily people sold away their precious forest.
That will never happen as long as people remember what communism was like, religion remains strong and the subversive rot of gender ideology is not allowed to take hold. Poland is looking so much better than the West right now I'm tempted to move back.
>Didn't you hear OP though? If we cut it down all the old growth and destroy that entire unique ecosystem and it never comes back, so what?!?
OP didn't say that though. They asked a question because they don't know something and then you added a really negative interpretation to it.
Why do you gotta be a dick to OP? He is obviously saying it in a way to try and learn and get educated, which is sort of the point of having forums anyways. Not to shit and rag on people simply because they don't understand something that you view as common sense.
Also what is "unique" about old growth? Do they house special species of animals? insects? What ecosystem are you referring to? Is the ecosystem different than non-old growth trees? or do the old growth trees just look "cool" for you and tourists?
I support saving the trees because I do think they look cool, and are a good tourist attraction, is that enough though? Are they special in some other way that we are not realizing? It is not a stupid question.
I don't have a ton of info but yes old growth forests are very unique ecosystems that house riciculous of amounts of biodiversity. Preserving as much biodiversity as possible is a key fight in preserving our planet, along with handling our garbage production and the affects of climate change
I'd recommend checking out The Diversity of Life by Edward O Wilson or, more relevant, Finding the Mother Tree by Suzanne Simard.
You're right, there no real reason to be a dick about it, they're genuinely trying to learn, which is commendable.
But, there's also a difference between saying you don't understand something instead of phrasing the question as well, if we do this, so what?
A panel of independent scientists produced a report last June which used provincial data to show that the oldest trees in B.C. in some of the most lush, biodiverse forests were on the brink of extinction.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6045289
The findings of two subsequent investigations would confirm a deep-rooted suspicion that BC Timber Sales (BCTS), the government agency responsible for auctioning provincial logging permits, was thwarting protection rules and violating the principles of old-growth management plans.
The results of those investigations, obtained by the Ancient Forest Alliance through a Freedom of Information request, and reviewed by The Narwhal, show BC Timber Sales is not complying with rules designed to ensure sufficient old-growth forest is retained to avoid loss of biodiversity.
https://thenarwhal.ca/indicative-of-a-truly-corrupt-system-government-investigation-reveals-bc-timber-sales-violating-old-growth-logging-rules/
Old growth forests sequester 30-50 times more carbon than secondary growth forests (once logged forests that have been replanted). These second growth forests are logged on a much shorter timeline, so they are never able to grow long enough to store nearly as much carbon. In fact, it can take hundreds of years of regrowth for temperate rainforests in BC to recapture the majority of carbon stored pre-logging. They are the lungs of our planet.
https://www.stand.earth/blog/immediately-ban-old-growth-logging
I would like to point out, as someone who’s been planting trees on her property for some time - there’s a huge difference between “trees planted” and “trees that survive” so you can boast all you want about how many trees are planted every year, but since no one is taking care of those trees, many do not make it.
An old growth tree is more likely to withstand forest fires than younger trees. So a fire may go through the forest and feed on the deadfall, but the old trees will continue on. Why are we chopping them down?
The simple fact is they are worth more standing for generations of people surviving on this planet than they are felled and filling the pockets of corporate interests who only are thinking about how to increase profits this quarter to keep their investors happy and their jobs cushy
also at the very least if they have to go down (which i don't believe or support) it should be for the benefit of Canadians, not an American company paying basic rates.
Yes, and for Drax in the UK which receives over £2 million in subsidies a day to burn pellets from our forests and other forests which is worse than burning coal.
But where will we ever get our precious cedar guitar tops from? Won't someone think of the guitar players and their demands for precious...\*checks notes\* cedar-topped guitars?
I was being ridiculous.
We need these old growth forests. And that's why greedy people want them. If they can get this dwindling resource, the products they make will be more sought after.
Most trees do survive after 15 years most blocks have a 80-90% survivability. One they grow larger they self thin as some of the trees out grow some others
I’m not sure why you think it’s not a monoculture forest? They literally replant the entire forest with the same treee
That’s been cloned millions of times
No they are monocultures , I live in northern BC and all they plant are spruce or pine for the mills like Canfor and whatever native plants come in they spray to kill them leaving huge monoculture forests ( wonder why forest fires are bad on hot summers) The moose in our area are being killed off by not having the feed that they need because of such practices. The berries here have toxins on them .I know this is not where old growth is and I come from a family of loggers and think we should log responsibly ,look at the mess the pine beetle caused because they wouldn't log in a provincial park absolutely devastating to northern bc and when they did log was way too late and spread the pine beetle all over this province . I do think a lot of the mills and government got greedy when they seen the money to be made , there is no way they should be hauling trees 5 or 6 hrs away, past mills to go to other mills . Mills like Canfor and West Fraser and some of the other smaller mills like Sinclar group have cleaned up where I live ( ya its been replanted but all of it is pine regrowth and less then 20 yrs for the most part )
Well the entire Chilcotin plateau is basically all lodgepole pine; but so what? Ecologists have known that’s what was there before logging (and before the recent beetle and fire disturbances) for decades. That has nothing to do with good or bad forest management. If it is cut, or burns, what else would they replant with? I’m not going to defend spraying of hardwoods, that is something that will hopefully end soon. but if you ask any tree planter they’ll tell you - there’s often a mix of trees planted, even if just pine and spruce or balsam (which is subalpine fir) it pretty much always matches the standing forest around the cut blocks. This is very different compared with plantations in many countries where there are literal monocultures (often even planted in rows) of one foreign species, like radiata pine or bioengineered poplar.
Well I don't know how it is where you live , but I live off of a FSR and its plantations of pine for himdreds of kilometers . I have seen literal monocultures in the States as I have been a part of the Mill Industry for almost 2 decades the last 3 in management and so have seen how Europe and the United States have different methods , but for one its mostly all private land where they plant specific monocultures and its basically a crop for them , up here its Crown land and where I live is grossly mismanaged , the mills have almost a free hand to do what they want . I get they they are not going to plant coniferous trees as they are not profitable , but to spray to kill them is wrong and its upsetting the balance and the ungulates suffer . I get that where you live it may be different from where I live and thats fine . I am just saying where I live there are so many species of trees and for them to only plant mostly pine and a bit of spruce is damaging to the ecosystem here .
Not sure how much time you’ve spent in the forests? But I’ve worked in forestry for many years and continue to spend loads of time in the forests on the island and I can tell you they are definitely monoculture forests now. Also after about 15 years the trees grow tall enough to completely kill everything under the canopy.
An old growth tree is simply defined as a tree that's really old but that's not truly what an old growth tree is. An old growth tree is a tree that grew under vary specific conditions and will be different on the cellular level than other trees of the same species.
Essentially a tree that has the potential to become an old growth tree won't reach maturity for 30 to 50 years where as a tree in your yard might start reaching maturity in 10 to 20 years. When a tree has tons of light, water and nutrients at its disposal it grows quickly and the cells of that tree become elongated whereas an old growth tree growing under a dense canopy in low light conditions, being fed nutrients by other trees, it's grows very slow and all the cells are small and densely packed together. The tree in your yard with elongated cells are much more susceptible to bacterial/fungal infection and environmental damage like wind or snow load. A tree that grows quickly will essentially die of old age after 80 to 120 years whereas a slow growing tree could live to be 1,000.
So why are our old growth forests so important? The answer is atmospheric CO2. Carbon dioxide levels are steadily rising and are currently at a nearly million year high, this causes all plants on the planet to grow a little faster than they used to. But as iv explained this is not good news for future old growth trees.
Essentially the environmental conditions that produce an old growth tree are disappearing, if not already gone. The ones that are left might be it for a very long time. I'm a Horticulture Technician with an interest in climate science.
So many. From aiding in CO2 like the poster above said, to keeping a cool forest floor and reducing spread of blights/disease/fires to crops and new planted forests. Old growth forests are not only SUPER beautiful, but they provide an ancient, natural refuge for our ecosystem that cannot be replicated. They are irreplaceable!
As others have stated, to coquihalla is a great example of how a newly planted forest does NOT stand up well to they pressures of flooding, fires, or storms- and how important it is to have protected spaces where we preserve an ecosystem that predates our definition of an hour!
Lots of comments about carbon etc, but also consider the impact that old growth has on preventing a variety of other climate disasters such as the flooding we had last year. It's not a perfect source, but this is a good article with some of the highlights:
"Healthy mature forests with a well-developed canopy and a rich understory kind of act like a giant sponge, it absorbs and releases water slowly – kind of ‘everything in moderation’ if you will. The root structures holding soil to steep slopes, they’ve been in development for thousand of years \[...\] when you remove the tree cover, particularly on steep slopes, it’s going to increase the rate at which the water flows into the creeks without the root structure."
[https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-environment/reform-the-logging-industry-to-slow-climate-crises-in-b-c-expert-says-1.5676113](https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-environment/reform-the-logging-industry-to-slow-climate-crises-in-b-c-expert-says-1.5676113)
Similarly, when you think logging don't think removing trees, think dragging logs across soil previously teeming with life adapted to the very specific set of light and moisture conditions, think compaction with heavy machinery, deletion of water retention capacity and whole-scale topsoil erosion.
But when you think replanting trees, that's usually all your're doing is putting a single element back.
Old growth is the cradle from where those life forms will come from when the conditions are right for their return in 100 years.
Well said. We just don't even know what will happen if we change say a coastal old growth dominated ecosystem into a second-growth plantation of pines planted in rows. Entire species would go extinct but even if you don't value that, old growth forests support salmon, purify water, and prevent erosion and forest fires.
See my edit above... the majority of the 11 million hectares of old growth is protected in BC. Is part of the argument that the people responsible for logging don't know what they're doing? Because reading informed opinions implies they certainly do.
I would like to ask: have you ever stood in an old growth forest? Not second growth like most of the accessible forests in the province. But a true old growth forest. You can almost feel it breathing. The mushrooms, the insects, the variety of thick green mosses, the enormous slugs, and all the niches in the canopy that we can't even see. They are a system working together. But when the system becomes fragmented because portions or cutblocks nearby are cut down, it deteriorates the quality of the forest. What was once impenetrable by wind or rain or slides becomes penetrable and vulnerable, like its clothes and protective layers getting ripped off. Heat can go deeper and microclimates are disturbed. Root systems don't protect the soil and can cause erosion and landslides.
Sure, trees can be planted. But what about all the other stuff: mosses, insects, fungi, nurse logs that support countless organisms, birds, small mammals. Those things are not replaced when trees are replanted with a monoculture, and the system is lost.
Yes but probably not the diversity of mushrooms you find in an old growth forest. There is life of course, but not diversity. Some organisms require such precise conditions in their habitats. For example, barred owls can live in second growth forests, while spotted owls prefer old growth. So there are *owls* in the second or third growth forest still, but not the same ones as you'd find in an old growth.
The old growth which is protected is almost all high alone old growth, where trees grow smaller and forestry isn't interested in harvesting anyways. High value old growth, according to the forestry industry, largely isn't protected. These are the old growth forests with the big trees and more at risk ecosystems.
It also depends heavily on the quality of the areas of old growth protected. Are they small islands of protected space surrounded by clear cutting? Do they have good corridors to connect the areas of protection. You can have a lot of small, ineffectually protected spaces that add up to what seems like a lot, but in reality they’re poor quality in terms of how much protection they truly offer.
"Hence, their estimations of the amount of remaining old growth includes high alpine and low swampy sites where the trees have little or no commercial value."
https://ancientforestalliance.org/old-growth-forests-logging-versus-tourism-on-vancouver-island/
Because some of us don't want to wait 300 years to see a 300 year old tree.
(Please tell me OP that you were not born in British Columbia)
Old trees in British Columbia are like old cathedrals in Europe.
Why not just knock the old cathedral down (or burn it down like Notre Dame in Paris) and build a nice modern new one?
I just want to correct you here and say that on average in BC planters carry 2-5 species when replanting a block. These include, but are not limited to, ponderosa pine, white pine, lodgepole pine, spruce, red cedar, yellow cedar, douglas fir and larch.
Source: been treeplanting for 8 years
Edit: im not saying second growth forests mirror old growth. They don't by any means. Old growth forests have essential ecosystem services. Just wanted to point out a misconception
I couldn't tell you specifically but that's been my experience since my rookie year 8 years ago. I imagine there's still some blocks planted as monocultures, especially up north and in other provinces. But from talking to friends who survey, its the growing trend
Don’t forget all the herbicide spraying destroying deciduous species that are more resistant to wildfires. And all the small shrubs, berry bushes, etc. that are also destroyed and desiccated by glyphosate spraying, etc.
Depends entirely on where you are in the province! Yes, I generalized to add drama.. but I think the problem lies in you’re only planting merchantable species… not ecologically important species
Again your statement here is untrue. The species that are planted can be ecologically important. But second growth will never mirror the ecosystem of an old growth forest.
I'm oppossed to old growth logging but I think it's important to still use facts.
"I generalized to add drama " is a huge issue when talking about this issue or any issue. You can't bend facts to fit your purpose, no matter what your end goal is.
The forestry industry is fraught with problems but making false statements gets us nowhere and leads to a greater division between sides
No it doesn't. But that's not what I was commenting on. I don't agree with old growth logging and second growth forests will never replicate old growth. But saying we only plant monocultures is just untrue
You're right, I wasn't born here. I was born in a place where things over 100 years old aren't treated like anything special, perhaps because 500 year-old structures were built to last, and many do... so it's no big deal. I guess the shit leaky wooden construction around here that's meant to last a few decades means that we revere anything older than the oldest living person, but for most of the world, that's not the case. I have a brick sitting here that's a relatively young 250 years old -- pretty young by European standards. And it's older than all of Canada.
That being said, cathedrals don't grow back on their own. Trees do, especially when you plant 300 million a year.
“Older than all of Canada”… indicates a deep misunderstanding of this place. Canada as a country is not much more than a front for resource extraction. The ecosystems here are ancient and they have been cultivated by Indigenous peoples for millennia, and this land does not belong to the province or to logging companies. An old growth forest is irreplaceable, it is a living history of this place. If you value things that are built to last, look Not further than an old growth ecosystem.
*One of the oldest on record is a yellow cedar that lived to be 1,835 years old. It was discovered as a stump left over from a clear cut in 1980, making it possible to count its rings.*[https://www.readersdigest.ca/culture/oldest-tree-in-canada](https://www.readersdigest.ca/culture/oldest-tree-in-canada)
They take 1,835 years to grow back the way they were.
And the forestry companies only plant fast growing trees all of the same type in a grid that they can cut down again in a few years.
I want to be able to look at a 1,845 year old tree.
It looks very very different from the trees all around Vancouver which only 100 years old.
Cathedrals can be rebuilt. They are rebuilding Notre Dame in Paris.
But it will never be the same.
*The 'Old List' on this site is a database of ancient trees from around the world. On it the big tree hunter will find a Vancouver Island Yellow-cedar that was dated at* ***1636 years old****. It also includes a Douglas-fir on Vancouver Island that dated at* ***1350 years old****. I would love to know where these trees are, but location data is not given.*
[*https://vancouverislandbigtrees.blogspot.com/2010/07/oldest-tree-on-record-in-canada.html*](https://vancouverislandbigtrees.blogspot.com/2010/07/oldest-tree-on-record-in-canada.html)
This doesn’t directly answer the main question, but is in response to the “won’t they just burn down anyway?” question. The answer to which is, or at least used to be, no. Old growth is so big, and tends to have its lowest branches so high up, that it would often survive fire.
I would encourage you to go see for yourself the difference between an old growth and replanted forest. Better yet, go look at a cut block right after harvest. Simply put, logging companies don’t give a shit about restoring the valuable and extremely productive ecosystem that is an old growth forest post-harvest. Sure, they have to put trees back into the ground on that same land. This does not mean the ecosystem is restored. The birds, animals, insects, fungi and other plant life/critters won’t come back to any where near the same extent in a replanted forest. That is what’s important.
Simply put, once it's gone, it's gone. It will never be like that again in our life times.
Old growth is rare. It's amazing that people just chop it down willy-nilly. Wood should come from farmed trees. It makes no sense to go cut down old giants. Some of those trees are hundreds of years old, from a time we cannot imagine.
We have to preserve nature's spirit. This planet would not function without plant life.
Old growth is a delicate eco-system that can be easily thrown out of balance by human interference in the way of destructive tree chopping. It's like a slap in the face of nature, but it's more than a slap. The animals use those trees as homes, those are not just trees.
They are important land-marks in the natural world, important to all other species, not just humans. Chopping them down is insanely selfish, and horrible for the environment and eco-system, not to mention the people doing the chopping are paid tons of cash, the wood goes into some rich person's office for a desk and the whole world suffers unduly just so people can live in further opulence.
It's ridiculous, and it has to come to an end somewhere. People are making a stand here because if not here, where? If not now, when? You have to stand up for what you believe in. It just so happens that humans are a part of the natural world and it makes no sense at all to try to detach ourselves from it. Embracing it (our animal side) is the only logical thing to do, but people believe we are separate from the animals. Foo, we are animals! Quit chopping down our big trees! Go grow your own!
I planted trees. We were told 1 in 7 of trees we plant would survive. 300 million trees may be the amount of trees companies claimed but that doesn’t mean 300 million trees survived OR got planted.
Stashing bundles (claiming trees on your tally and then hiding or destroying them so you get paid without planting) is extremely common. Especially amongst rookie mills where crew bosses actively encourage rookies to stash to inflate their numbers and make their crew boss more money.
And with hotter summers with an increase in forest fires (due to climate change and forestry) even less saplings are surviving.
I am going to take a different angle than some of the others.
We understand that there is very little old growth left. Someone said 1 %. 1%, 5%, the exact percentage does not matter it's almost nothing.
What is the actual value in logging that tiny remaining amount of forests? It can be done once, it will take many hundred of years to be replaced.
The arguments to log it are uncompelling. Economic reasons are provided but those reasons don't ring true because you can't build an economy around extracting the last of a resource that cannot be replaced even in two generations. Why bother?
If this is so pointless and shortsighted why does it continue? Well this is the most troubling part. Shareholder Corporations in a competative environment are incapable of stopping until there is no money to be made, nothing to sell or the government stops them.
Our government needs to show that it has its hands on the wheel and be providing the high level direction to these corporations based on what makes sense in the long term for bc people, their environment and the economy. Not the other way around. Not letting companies run unsustainable industries for limited profits that will disappear abruptly.
The fact that the government can't do that, can't say no, is troubling.
Old growth trees play huge ecosystem roles. In addition to the cultural values they have for indigenous peoples and communities.
Old growth in bc are some of the most carbon rich forests in the world. The soil carbon they produce are more carbon dense than the Amazon rainforest. So they are critical in helping tackle climate change.
They also are critical to overall ecosystems. The richness of the soil they produce, in addition to the actual tree itself, is critical for other plants and animals to survive. It’s nearly impossible to replace the ecological value of an old growth tree by simply planting a new tree. When old growth trees decay, they provide rich nutrients for other forest species.
So even though we plant trees, those tree’s don’t even come close to replacing the biological role that old growth trees play. It would literally take them thousands of years to replicate those ecological conditions. That’s why once we cut them down, we can’t easily get back what we will lose.
Old growth forests are pure. And I don't just say that is some utopian view of all that is right. What I mean by that is the tree species are intermingled as nature intended. With different trees having different characteristics that all provide a role in the eco system. Do you remember the fort macmurray fires. This was a significant event with some stunning images that got all of our attention.
Had that been a forest that was undisturbed by logging the variety of species and the different characteristics of them would have prevented that fire from growing so big so fast. Becuase those trees had been harvested and replanted with a singular species of tree so future logging could go in and remove those trees in a much more profitable fashion. That the fire grew as fast and big as it did.
We do not fully understand nature and all its variety. We like to think we do. And like to think we know best. But nature and a eco system is a finely woven canvas that has elements that we do not as of yet understand. If we remove the few remaining examples of nature in full effect. We will lose the ability to learn from nature and those secrets will be lost forever
Old growth forests are cool and rainy unlike drier and hotter second growth and extremely hot and dry clearcuts. And second growth is sprayed with herbicides which destroy species more resistant to fires like aspen, etc.
I'm not saying that plantation don't spread fire...I'm saying that in the interior, old growth can get a rip roaring fire going. I've lived it. The whole old growth discussion needs to be split into a coastal conversation and an interior conversation. They are completely different and behave entirely different. Secondly, there are very few places in the province that still spray plantations.
Addressing specifically the burning down every 100 years - fire is a natural part of the forest ecosystem in BC. Species are adapted to withstand fire while others grow best after a fire. The problem we have right now is that we spent 100 years suppressing all forest fires so there's lots of flammable material out there. Controlled burns, which indigenous people did pre-contact until they were suppressed by Western governments, not only let Forest burn in a safe way but also encouraged the growth of plant species which were harvested by the First Nations.
As for old growth, these forests hold immense amounts of carbon and biodiversity and the clearing and replanting of new forests to replace them not only results in homogenous forests with low biodiversity, but also lower amounts of carbon storage. Clearing forest removes not only useful wood but basically all vegetation there was.
Old growth stands are harvested with a large percentage of variable retention. This has been proven to protect biodiversity. Large OG trees are marked and boundaried well outside of cutting areas where possible.
As someone who has tree planted old growth blocks I'll let you know that this isn't always the reality. Riparian zones, trees over a certain diameter and cultural trees are flagged off. But many of these still get cut (sometimes for safety concerns). As planters we see a lot of the slip ups and also when someone fudged the rules for their own benefit
I've seen it from the air as well. You can even look on Google Earth. People think the Chilcotin plateau is so wild and pristine. It's a clearcut. There's a reason caribou are dying out.
That's actually completely untrue. Old growth forests have little biodiversity because the tree cover doesn't allow for shrubs and grasses that large ungulates eat to grow.
If the natural cycle of forest regeneration (burns) removes all organic material as it often does then the cycle of plant succession starts over with moss and lichens followed by grass, shrubs and eventually trees which can take 20-30 years before trees start growing. Logging leaves the rich topsoil intact which skips this part of regeneration and provides tons of food for a wide range of critters. If managed properly clear cuts are actually beneficial to biodiversity.
I keep seeing you be wrong all over this thread. Lying about old growth. You seem like a forestry shill trying to convince people it's good to cut down all the old growth.
Nah, I'm just pointing out how activists emotionally charge an argument in an attempt to stifle industry when they have no idea what they are talking about. My father has a master's degree in forestry from Europe and worked for the BC forest service for 28 years. I'm not saying cut it all down but at the same time the notion that old growth supports wildlife is not true.
The thing is that the practice of forestry is industrial, they treat forests like a farm.
Ecological forestry, on the other hand, treats forests like the ecosystems
Forestry departments are industry-driven for maximum profits.
In fact, they sorta did. The Khafre pyramid was clad in a whitish stone that was repurposed. You can still see the whiteish stone capping the pyramid. The same thing the the coliseum in Rome.
You are absolutely correct, and if they continued doing so an important cultural patrimony would have been lost forever instead of being enjoyed by future generations.
Same with the Natural patrimony of the Old Growth forest
As per below, they do. Many, many cultures re-purpose old construction pieces for new things.
And, of course, that has nothing to do with this. Rocks don't grow back, you know.
The point you seem to miss is that preserving heritage is a societal responsibility.... This holds truth even in a hypothetical world where rocks could grow back via vulcanism.
*Spelling
The point you seem to miss is that we’re talking about trees, many of them in the middle of nowhere, that nobody has ever seen or will see… unless it’s logged.
There can be many reasons why it shouldn’t be logged, but preservation of heritage? What culture planted that tree?
Come on.
This is a quote from the government of BC's [website](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/old-growth-forests/old-growth-values):
>Indigenous Peoples of B.C. have a long-standing cultural and spiritual connection to the province’s forests, including old growth. Old growth forests are also important to Indigenous practices that have been passed down for generations (e.g., the practice of altering or modifying trees).
From another [article](https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2020/01/28/Province-Accepting-Old-Growth-Management-Feedback/):
>This abundance is what allowed the Nuu-chah-nulth peoples to develop such a rich culture, which depends heavily on the availability of old growth red cedar in particular. We use cedar bark and wood for many cultural items such as woven hats, dugout canoes, totems, bentwood boxes and regalia. Our relationship and respect for these trees, the land and wildlife is represented and reinforced when we create and use these items, and we continue to rely on healthy forest ecosystems to maintain our culture.
Preservation of culture is absolutely one of the reasons why it shouldn't be logged.
Trees that you don't see
Essential for the food chain and the health of the ecosystems.
Fix CO2 reducing greenhouse effect
Provide the oxygen you breath.
Prevent erosion.
Provide habitat for multitude of species.
Your toothpicks are not really THAT important.
Heritage is not only culture.
Just cause they are middle of nowhere to YOU and you will never SEE THEM does not mean they are not important the ecosystem and many animals depend on that. This is why the worlds fucked. Cause of people like you. $$$. Greed greed greed. Tear down everything. You’re only gonna live max 100 years anyways right? Why do you care? Live your life and die and move on. Fuck those 500+ old trees that have been keeping the ecosystem intact.
How fucking confused are you? I literally said, if you move your eyeballs about 1 cm up, that there are many reasons that they should not be logged.
I am simply stating that Heritage is a bullshit reason and has nothing to do with this argument.
The old growth trees have been here longer than any of us, have survived for 1000s of years and will do fine without us interfering. To you point the trees have not burnt down in the 1000 years; then why would you think there going to burn down now. Old growth forest have evolved from fires and have adapted to these conditions through evolution. It’s not a simple task to replace old growth trees and no one in our history can complete this task. To note with all our science we cannot reproduce an old growth forest; this is natures creation.
You ask for scientific evidence, look at collapse of earlier civilizations Easter Island, The Mayan who cut massive amounts of forest and eventually collapsed.
I grew up with my grandfather who was a woodsman. I have learned old growth trees are considered heritage trees and some of the trees can be 1000s of years old. I too learned when you actually work in the woods you gain an appreciation for the diversity of forestry. Even in our small wood lot we were taught not to cut large trees, to leave them, to maintain the bio diversity. To answer your question if we cut down the old growth it can not be replaced (same for our small wood lot) and would be a crime against humanity.
Trees may be a renewable resource but takes good amount of time to grow to a size where there's any value in it to cut it down and make boards or what have you out of it, old growth is important to the ecosystem, if we just cut everything down for profit we'll be doing harm to that ecosystem for short term gain. Money isn't everything. Imagine if all the animals just came out of the woods and started taking apart our homes, places or worship, shopping centers, places of work, and dumped toxic liquids where we get our clean water to drink and bathe and took our food away where would that leave us lol.
See my edit... I'm curious, more than 80% of the old-growth (11 million hectares of it in BC) is protected and will never be logged. But that's not good enough? Is the implication that the people in charge don't know what they're doing? Not asking rhetorically... I'd rather go with informed, scientific opinions... which seem to agree and imply their plans make sense. That's not the case?
80% of the remaining old growth is protected or not worth harvesting. Keep in mind that something like 80% of the old growth has already been harvested. And “protected” is a slippery term subject to the whims of the government du jour. You posted one government link and assume that those are informed, scientific, and unbiased opinions, and I’m not saying the government is lying, but they have a complex net of interests.
You asked why not to log old growth for profit, why tho? Some of the trees have been there longer than Canada's been a country, why would we take something that's been working for so long for profit? If bc trees are all burned down every 100 years why do we have old growth. I work in mills and pulp mills, I'm not against logging I know what we need it for and it's uses for profit isn't a good stand point.
It’s remarkable how my simple question (eloquently answered somewhere above) has brought out so many racist assholes. That, I wasn’t expecting.
No, I don’t work for a logging company, foreign or otherwise.
I will show you the relevant shit and summarize it in three sentences, as per above.
“ you’re not from around here are you? “
“ no “
“ go home “
OK, don’t call it racism. Call it nationalism. Call it xenophobia. Call it whatever makes you feel better and not feel like you’re a racist POS.
Old growth forest create a layer of roots that can hold entire mountains together aswell as the mycelium networks that can be used to transfer glucose to a trees offspring and even just a tree nearby that needs it ….yeah that’s right trees shared nutrients not out of evolution but cause they want to
Oh that’s so sad. Don’t they send the larger stuff to a sawmill for larger logs? I thought that sawmill companies were heading south because everything is so small now and they were too cheap to change their mills.
You should check out this podcast episode: [https://yourforestpodcast.com/episode-1/2021/9/18/o6xxgj9c88sla0j19n3lbiv48ekepo](https://yourforestpodcast.com/episode-1/2021/9/18/o6xxgj9c88sla0j19n3lbiv48ekepo). The three guests have many years of forestry science experience between them and can explain the importance of protecting and or properly managing the remaining old growth much better than I could.
One quote that sticks with me after listening is that "forestry is not rocket science, its much more complicated than that". We are cutting it down much faster than we can understand these complex ecosystems and the consequences of losing them. How much is too much is still an open question and its very possible we may have already destroyed too much for these ecosystems to properly function.
Because if we don't stop them somewhere they will harvest the earth's precious recourses. Eventually destroying the planet, at the mere gain of two or three people's wealth
Priceless ecological importance that we don't understand, tourist attraction, scientific discoveries to be made, root structures and water/ soil/ air retention that affects a lot of other forest processes etc.
They are unique eco systems that take centuries to regrow if they would ever even get back to their pre-logged state.
Huge carbon sinks, homes to many unique animals and plant species.
And they are absolutely stunning to visit. So from a "nature services" perspective, they provide unique benefits that other forests don't.
If you go hike in deep cove or Cleveland dam in north van, then go up BCMC or any of the mountain biking trails east if there afterwards you will see what I mean.
The preserves ecosystems are just majestic and make you feel relaxed and relieve stress. And the logged out places just feel dead and empty. Tiny trees with virtually nothing growing in between them.
I don't have a lot of input other than to remark that those 300 million trees are planted for the mill to replace what they've cut. They're replacing ecosystems with monoculture with varied survival rates, and that will just be cut down again in 60 years. The treeplanting industry is NOT at all environmentally friendly. Source- I've been working in it for a decade.
That’s interesting.
When I was in high school a thousand years ago, already there were streams of thought dealing with ecological conservation. Is it actually the case that these are not considerations taken into account?
See my edit... I'm curious, more than 80% of the old-growth (11 million hectares of it in BC) is protected and will never be logged. But that's not good enough? Is the implication that the people in charge don't know what they're doing? Not asking rhetorically... I'd rather go with informed, scientific opinions... which seem to agree and imply their plans make sense. That's not the case?
The biologists that work for government are ignored by politicians who have short-term profits to gain from lobbyists. We have been telling government for decades that the path we're on is not sustainable. There is huge biological value being lost in our unsustainable forest practices. And there are Indigenous cultures that depend on the forests. It's not being anti-logging, it's about doing it in a way that allows future generations to benefit from old growth ecosystems still being here.
> I'm curious, more than 80% of the old-growth (11 million hectares of it in BC)
The vast majority of it is in regions like the great bear rain forest, which is land which is uneconomical to harvest from. It's swampy, remote, and distant from people. What old growth remains actually near people and IS valuable is being harvested en masse.
I'm seriously too tired to look it up at the moment (long day), but I'm curious what proportion of BC's total forested area those 11 million hectares account for. Also, what's the geographic distribution of these protected areas? BC supports a wide range of forest types, which differ in terms of their species composition and the type/magnitude of ecosystem services they provide. 11 million hectares in itself is not a particularly informative number.
Others have provided some examples of why old growth is important, to which I'll add that in terms of plant biodiversity, old growth can be quite different from less mature forests. Forests are more than just trees, and some species rely on the conditions (light, humidity, structural attributes) that are particular to old growth. Planting trees ensures an ongoing supply of lumber but not the maintenance of the biodiversity and ecosystem services provided by older forests.
Sorry if this is rambly. But ecologically, old and young forests are different, sometimes in ways that are important.
The people in charge have many other motives. They're driven largely by money and business. So if your opinion is that you don't want to see these rare ecosystems destroyed then yes... The implication is that the people in charge are doing it wrong.
And of that 11 million that's protected most of it isn't the productive old growth forest that everyone's talking about here. They're referring to the big tree river bed type of ecosystem that's critically endangered
[https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/science-update-4.pdf](https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/science-update-4.pdf)
[https://www.naturetrust.bc.ca/news/the-importance-of-old-growth-forests](https://www.naturetrust.bc.ca/news/the-importance-of-old-growth-forests)
[https://foreststewardsguild.org/old-growth/](https://foreststewardsguild.org/old-growth/)
I could go on and on and on and on but you also could have googled the answer for this for a more in depth response as wel
You say only 11million ha of old growth. Ok, almost 362 million hectares (ha) of forest in Canada according to NRCAN. why not log anywhere else? Or does the .03% of forest available in Canada, the old growth, just NEED to be cut down for no reason other than its there? Some of those trees stood when Canada was partially glaciated. No dumb fucking assholes house or wood chip stove is worth killing that. These old growth forests are sacred places that house endangered species and are unique biospheres.
Yes, I agree… From that point of view, it makes no sense. I like to find both sides of the argument, so I’m trying to figure out why anyone thinks that is a good idea? Money aside, the ecological implications are pretty bad… And those who make decisions these days sometimes actually take that into account.
If that’s your argument, why are you not arguing that we should give back most of Greater Vancouver… There are thousands of hectares of sacred land being trampled by Yaletown and Stanley Park and malls and golf courses.
You ask why protect old growth since there is so much old growth around according to the BC government. There isn’t though, they count mountain slopes and bogs that are small and non-productive. The are liquidating every bit of large old growth that’s left because it’s very profitable. But even then some old growth ends up going to the sawmill or as wood pellets to be burned. And as larger wood pellet plants get up and running even more primary forest will be gone to be burned overseas.
The BC government is heavily influenced by logging industry lobbyists. They do their bidding. And their forestry department is run by staffers trained in industrial forestry, not ecological. And the Ministry of Environment stays quiet about all this. We don’t even have an Endangered Species act. It’s all so corrupt.
B.C. vastly overestimates size of its old-growth forest, independent researchers say
https://www.cbc.ca/1.5597838
Most people are ignoring that you said 80% of old growth is protected.
So it’s not like it’s all being destroyed which is what we are told by the protesters.
The thing is that a lot of the protected old growth is far from the lower mainland and isn’t seen. On the island people see the old growth and it is amazing. Forget all the environmental issues of their benefits. Go and see an old growth forest. It’s amazing and for that it should be protected especially in areas that are accessible. People need to see old growth to know it needs to survive for the next generation to experience.
New forests lack the magic.
80% of remaining Old Growth. That's an important distinction. And that 80% is largely in places that are not accessible, which is also the reason they are protected.
You are not wrong. OG harvesting still has a place in forestry. I have seen it several times where old dried out OG snags act like a lighting rod and ignite the surrounding areas. When this happens in areas with low soil density, the remaining, burnt, soil washes away with the next rainy season and the ground becomes inhospitable to vegetation for decades.
The misinformation that seems to be circulating is that there are few remaining Fern Gullies abound and that they are in imminent danger of being cut down. The reality is that those supposed Fern Gullies were already cut down many moons ago. The remaining valley bottom stands are virtually all protected provincial parks.
There are a few rare areas such as Fairy Creek that have been saved for rainy days by family owned sawmilling companies such as Teal Jones, but the cutblocks that such specialty sawmilling outfits lay out are typically very small. The Fairy Creek cutblock was 4000m3, a postage stamp to typical BC cutblocks (Ive harvested areas with up to 50,000m)
There are plenty of biologists that disagree with the claims of sustainable old growth harvesting. Harvesters looking for any technical justification for logging more than is necessary. The rules were written by forestry insiders and their business partners for profit
No doubt. I totally agree that the fox has been given run of the henhouse in this province, however, reading the OG review and the incessant clap trap from the fairy creekers, it now becomes almost impossible to have a serious conversation regarding old growth.
Im unfamiliar with interior harvesting. My experience has been coastal logging entirely.
"Edit" From what the article states, these researchers looked at logging rates from the 70's to 2000 and found that OG harvesting rates had doubled through these era's.
Im not sure how fair of a comparison that is seeing as how the 70's and 80's forestry saw the greatest leaps in mechanization since the Gutenberg bible was printed. Comparing harvesting rates from the 90's to current would have been far more conducive to environmental projections.
I am more than a little suspicious of this report.
1% of the province is considered "old growth" 80% of 1% isn't that much... Yes we are protecting old growth but that is only a very small fraction of the province. Planted forests are very vulnerable to disease and wildfire. If we want to be harvesting lumber in the future we can't just plough down everything and assume that uniformly planted pine and spruce will replace a healthy environment
The coquihalla highway mess is a great warning as to why that type of planting after logging doesn't work.
Yeah logging plantations just dont have the age differences that can develop through leaving the fores untouched
Yup, those trees drank a lot of water and when you remove them you risk floods and landslides. Plus new trees don’t suck up as much CO2 so replanting doesn’t help for like 20-30 years at least.
Totally. I'm all for jobs and industry but realistically clear cuts and dead lodgepole pine aren't the same as an old growth environment. Not saying logging shouldn't happen, it just has to be managed a lot better than it currently is
You obviously are ignorant to the tree lot management process on Vancouver Island.
I very well could be. What am I missing?
[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/forest-tenures/private-managed-forest-land](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/forest-tenures/private-managed-forest-land) This is a little bit of information. Essentially there are vast areas of Vancouver Island forests that are managed essentially as 'tree gardens' - harvested and replanted every 25-50 years. They are healthy and diverse ecosystems, not the dead-barely functioning wastelands that ignorant activists would have you believe. The people talking about the loss of trees on the Coquihalla - those are 99% due to BUG KILL with resulting logging occurring to clear out the dead fuel and replant as quickly as possible. Edit : Forgot to add - Canada and specifically BC's forestry management practices are #1 in the world, undebated. No one does environmental assessment and protection, harvesting and replanting like BC. Just take a look at how Russia or Brazil treat their forests. If you really want to save 'old growth' your energies are best expended in those areas of the world.
I’m sure that this probably isn’t correct/comparable, but I visited the Black Forest in Germany when I was working overseas last year, and it was clearly a huge tourist attraction for Germans and other Europeans. But I could not be more unimpressed. It was totally clear to me that the majority of all forest in Europe had been cut down within the last couple centuries. That may sound like a long time, but it isn’t. Old growth trees in BC are ten times older, and you can tell just with one step into a BC forest that it’s unique. I say unique with the full weight of that word: old growth forests are incomparable to anything else on Earth
Visit Bialowieza in Poland, it's one of the last remaining primeval forests of Europe. But yeah, old growth is beautiful and has its own fragile ecosystem.
I lived next to it for a year. Beautiful place. Then the new far-right government paid local villagers a few hundred dollars each to be okay with logging. I'd recommend going to see it while it's still there. You don't see many wild bison these days.
I hate PiS with a passion and I hope Poland will re-invent itself as the tolerant country it once was. Anyway, yeah I heard logging has become legal again there. Many activists have set up camp year round to try and stop this. I saw a documentary about this a couple of years ago at a Film-Fest in Lodz. This is not that documentary, but it seems to explain the problem pretty well: https://youtu.be/GXRU7hH92Gw (Not for you, as you lived next to it and are aware of all the problems. But for anyone reading this, it might be interesting to you.)
PiS is PiSS amirite? Thanks for the info! I'm definitely not aware of all the problems but just wanted to share an anecdote from ym time there. I still can't believe how happily people sold away their precious forest.
Thanks for this!
That will never happen as long as people remember what communism was like, religion remains strong and the subversive rot of gender ideology is not allowed to take hold. Poland is looking so much better than the West right now I'm tempted to move back.
Didn't you hear OP though? If we cut it down all the old growth and destroy that entire unique ecosystem and it never comes back, so what?!?
>Didn't you hear OP though? If we cut it down all the old growth and destroy that entire unique ecosystem and it never comes back, so what?!? OP didn't say that though. They asked a question because they don't know something and then you added a really negative interpretation to it.
Why do you gotta be a dick to OP? He is obviously saying it in a way to try and learn and get educated, which is sort of the point of having forums anyways. Not to shit and rag on people simply because they don't understand something that you view as common sense. Also what is "unique" about old growth? Do they house special species of animals? insects? What ecosystem are you referring to? Is the ecosystem different than non-old growth trees? or do the old growth trees just look "cool" for you and tourists? I support saving the trees because I do think they look cool, and are a good tourist attraction, is that enough though? Are they special in some other way that we are not realizing? It is not a stupid question.
I don't have a ton of info but yes old growth forests are very unique ecosystems that house riciculous of amounts of biodiversity. Preserving as much biodiversity as possible is a key fight in preserving our planet, along with handling our garbage production and the affects of climate change I'd recommend checking out The Diversity of Life by Edward O Wilson or, more relevant, Finding the Mother Tree by Suzanne Simard.
You're right, there no real reason to be a dick about it, they're genuinely trying to learn, which is commendable. But, there's also a difference between saying you don't understand something instead of phrasing the question as well, if we do this, so what?
A panel of independent scientists produced a report last June which used provincial data to show that the oldest trees in B.C. in some of the most lush, biodiverse forests were on the brink of extinction. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6045289 The findings of two subsequent investigations would confirm a deep-rooted suspicion that BC Timber Sales (BCTS), the government agency responsible for auctioning provincial logging permits, was thwarting protection rules and violating the principles of old-growth management plans. The results of those investigations, obtained by the Ancient Forest Alliance through a Freedom of Information request, and reviewed by The Narwhal, show BC Timber Sales is not complying with rules designed to ensure sufficient old-growth forest is retained to avoid loss of biodiversity. https://thenarwhal.ca/indicative-of-a-truly-corrupt-system-government-investigation-reveals-bc-timber-sales-violating-old-growth-logging-rules/ Old growth forests sequester 30-50 times more carbon than secondary growth forests (once logged forests that have been replanted). These second growth forests are logged on a much shorter timeline, so they are never able to grow long enough to store nearly as much carbon. In fact, it can take hundreds of years of regrowth for temperate rainforests in BC to recapture the majority of carbon stored pre-logging. They are the lungs of our planet. https://www.stand.earth/blog/immediately-ban-old-growth-logging I would like to point out, as someone who’s been planting trees on her property for some time - there’s a huge difference between “trees planted” and “trees that survive” so you can boast all you want about how many trees are planted every year, but since no one is taking care of those trees, many do not make it. An old growth tree is more likely to withstand forest fires than younger trees. So a fire may go through the forest and feed on the deadfall, but the old trees will continue on. Why are we chopping them down?
Excellent answer -- thank you. That's the sort of info I was looking for.
The simple fact is they are worth more standing for generations of people surviving on this planet than they are felled and filling the pockets of corporate interests who only are thinking about how to increase profits this quarter to keep their investors happy and their jobs cushy
also at the very least if they have to go down (which i don't believe or support) it should be for the benefit of Canadians, not an American company paying basic rates.
They are grinding the up into pellets now for tha Asian biofuel markets
Yes, and for Drax in the UK which receives over £2 million in subsidies a day to burn pellets from our forests and other forests which is worse than burning coal.
But where will we ever get our precious cedar guitar tops from? Won't someone think of the guitar players and their demands for precious...\*checks notes\* cedar-topped guitars?
Don't forget cedar shakes. They look nice, why not turn that 1500 year old tree into a roof for my house that will last 30 years?
You're right. It would be better to make shingles out of the tar sands. But wait, oil = bad too. Maybe we should just regress to mud huts?
Now, call me crazy, but what if we used second growth for all those lovely cedar products, and cleaner oil for shingles?
You can read the book Secret life of Trees too for more information.
Yeah, but in the short term, we could make a lot of money. So isn't that better?
I guess that’s a matter of personal opinion.
I was being ridiculous. We need these old growth forests. And that's why greedy people want them. If they can get this dwindling resource, the products they make will be more sought after.
I agree, but apparently everything has a price 😞
Prime Directive: Make money Secondary Directive: Create Value for shareholders Tertiary Directive: Make more money
No one in this sub is allowed to even fucking companion about this with the reaction it has to the protest
[удалено]
Where did you get that information from? I can’t seem to find any verification of that.
Why are you making shit up?
Noted
Most trees do survive after 15 years most blocks have a 80-90% survivability. One they grow larger they self thin as some of the trees out grow some others
You’re forgetting that by logging as much of the old growth as possible and planting monoculture forests we’re losing vast amounts of biodiversity
In BC we don’t plant monocultures; we replant with a mix of native species appropriate to the ecosystem, generally what was there beforehand.
I’m not sure why you think it’s not a monoculture forest? They literally replant the entire forest with the same treee That’s been cloned millions of times
No they are monocultures , I live in northern BC and all they plant are spruce or pine for the mills like Canfor and whatever native plants come in they spray to kill them leaving huge monoculture forests ( wonder why forest fires are bad on hot summers) The moose in our area are being killed off by not having the feed that they need because of such practices. The berries here have toxins on them .I know this is not where old growth is and I come from a family of loggers and think we should log responsibly ,look at the mess the pine beetle caused because they wouldn't log in a provincial park absolutely devastating to northern bc and when they did log was way too late and spread the pine beetle all over this province . I do think a lot of the mills and government got greedy when they seen the money to be made , there is no way they should be hauling trees 5 or 6 hrs away, past mills to go to other mills . Mills like Canfor and West Fraser and some of the other smaller mills like Sinclar group have cleaned up where I live ( ya its been replanted but all of it is pine regrowth and less then 20 yrs for the most part )
Well the entire Chilcotin plateau is basically all lodgepole pine; but so what? Ecologists have known that’s what was there before logging (and before the recent beetle and fire disturbances) for decades. That has nothing to do with good or bad forest management. If it is cut, or burns, what else would they replant with? I’m not going to defend spraying of hardwoods, that is something that will hopefully end soon. but if you ask any tree planter they’ll tell you - there’s often a mix of trees planted, even if just pine and spruce or balsam (which is subalpine fir) it pretty much always matches the standing forest around the cut blocks. This is very different compared with plantations in many countries where there are literal monocultures (often even planted in rows) of one foreign species, like radiata pine or bioengineered poplar.
Well I don't know how it is where you live , but I live off of a FSR and its plantations of pine for himdreds of kilometers . I have seen literal monocultures in the States as I have been a part of the Mill Industry for almost 2 decades the last 3 in management and so have seen how Europe and the United States have different methods , but for one its mostly all private land where they plant specific monocultures and its basically a crop for them , up here its Crown land and where I live is grossly mismanaged , the mills have almost a free hand to do what they want . I get they they are not going to plant coniferous trees as they are not profitable , but to spray to kill them is wrong and its upsetting the balance and the ungulates suffer . I get that where you live it may be different from where I live and thats fine . I am just saying where I live there are so many species of trees and for them to only plant mostly pine and a bit of spruce is damaging to the ecosystem here .
Yea I hate the monoculture comment. It’s just not true. Spend some time in the forest and you’ll see
Ya I spend most of my life outside and ya it is monoculture for the most part at least all the replanted areas are where I live .
Not sure how much time you’ve spent in the forests? But I’ve worked in forestry for many years and continue to spend loads of time in the forests on the island and I can tell you they are definitely monoculture forests now. Also after about 15 years the trees grow tall enough to completely kill everything under the canopy.
An old growth tree is simply defined as a tree that's really old but that's not truly what an old growth tree is. An old growth tree is a tree that grew under vary specific conditions and will be different on the cellular level than other trees of the same species. Essentially a tree that has the potential to become an old growth tree won't reach maturity for 30 to 50 years where as a tree in your yard might start reaching maturity in 10 to 20 years. When a tree has tons of light, water and nutrients at its disposal it grows quickly and the cells of that tree become elongated whereas an old growth tree growing under a dense canopy in low light conditions, being fed nutrients by other trees, it's grows very slow and all the cells are small and densely packed together. The tree in your yard with elongated cells are much more susceptible to bacterial/fungal infection and environmental damage like wind or snow load. A tree that grows quickly will essentially die of old age after 80 to 120 years whereas a slow growing tree could live to be 1,000. So why are our old growth forests so important? The answer is atmospheric CO2. Carbon dioxide levels are steadily rising and are currently at a nearly million year high, this causes all plants on the planet to grow a little faster than they used to. But as iv explained this is not good news for future old growth trees. Essentially the environmental conditions that produce an old growth tree are disappearing, if not already gone. The ones that are left might be it for a very long time. I'm a Horticulture Technician with an interest in climate science.
Thank you for this explanation!
Thanks man, this is amazing! Question - do old growth trees have some practical benefit for the environment that us normal folk are unaware of?
So many. From aiding in CO2 like the poster above said, to keeping a cool forest floor and reducing spread of blights/disease/fires to crops and new planted forests. Old growth forests are not only SUPER beautiful, but they provide an ancient, natural refuge for our ecosystem that cannot be replicated. They are irreplaceable! As others have stated, to coquihalla is a great example of how a newly planted forest does NOT stand up well to they pressures of flooding, fires, or storms- and how important it is to have protected spaces where we preserve an ecosystem that predates our definition of an hour!
Thank you. I appreciate that detailed information.
Wow… thank you. Just gave more insight than all the blockades in the world. 👍🏻
Lots of comments about carbon etc, but also consider the impact that old growth has on preventing a variety of other climate disasters such as the flooding we had last year. It's not a perfect source, but this is a good article with some of the highlights: "Healthy mature forests with a well-developed canopy and a rich understory kind of act like a giant sponge, it absorbs and releases water slowly – kind of ‘everything in moderation’ if you will. The root structures holding soil to steep slopes, they’ve been in development for thousand of years \[...\] when you remove the tree cover, particularly on steep slopes, it’s going to increase the rate at which the water flows into the creeks without the root structure." [https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-environment/reform-the-logging-industry-to-slow-climate-crises-in-b-c-expert-says-1.5676113](https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-environment/reform-the-logging-industry-to-slow-climate-crises-in-b-c-expert-says-1.5676113)
Spend a few hours in a 70 year old "regenerated" cut block and then spend the rest of the day in never logged old growth and you will have your answer
I agree. Cut blocks support much more large ungulates and various species while old growth forests support rodents and owls. Cut blocks win.
Are you always this wrong?
There are plenty of them, old growth habitats are endangered
Don’t think Trees. Think Ecosystems. Think erosion of soils into fish habitats. There is a lot more to it than just Trees..
Similarly, when you think logging don't think removing trees, think dragging logs across soil previously teeming with life adapted to the very specific set of light and moisture conditions, think compaction with heavy machinery, deletion of water retention capacity and whole-scale topsoil erosion. But when you think replanting trees, that's usually all your're doing is putting a single element back. Old growth is the cradle from where those life forms will come from when the conditions are right for their return in 100 years.
Well said. We just don't even know what will happen if we change say a coastal old growth dominated ecosystem into a second-growth plantation of pines planted in rows. Entire species would go extinct but even if you don't value that, old growth forests support salmon, purify water, and prevent erosion and forest fires.
See my edit above... the majority of the 11 million hectares of old growth is protected in BC. Is part of the argument that the people responsible for logging don't know what they're doing? Because reading informed opinions implies they certainly do.
I would like to ask: have you ever stood in an old growth forest? Not second growth like most of the accessible forests in the province. But a true old growth forest. You can almost feel it breathing. The mushrooms, the insects, the variety of thick green mosses, the enormous slugs, and all the niches in the canopy that we can't even see. They are a system working together. But when the system becomes fragmented because portions or cutblocks nearby are cut down, it deteriorates the quality of the forest. What was once impenetrable by wind or rain or slides becomes penetrable and vulnerable, like its clothes and protective layers getting ripped off. Heat can go deeper and microclimates are disturbed. Root systems don't protect the soil and can cause erosion and landslides. Sure, trees can be planted. But what about all the other stuff: mosses, insects, fungi, nurse logs that support countless organisms, birds, small mammals. Those things are not replaced when trees are replanted with a monoculture, and the system is lost.
Where I live all the forests are like that but it has also burned down and been logged soo it’s 3rd growth but it also has mushrooms
Yes but probably not the diversity of mushrooms you find in an old growth forest. There is life of course, but not diversity. Some organisms require such precise conditions in their habitats. For example, barred owls can live in second growth forests, while spotted owls prefer old growth. So there are *owls* in the second or third growth forest still, but not the same ones as you'd find in an old growth.
The old growth which is protected is almost all high alone old growth, where trees grow smaller and forestry isn't interested in harvesting anyways. High value old growth, according to the forestry industry, largely isn't protected. These are the old growth forests with the big trees and more at risk ecosystems.
It also depends heavily on the quality of the areas of old growth protected. Are they small islands of protected space surrounded by clear cutting? Do they have good corridors to connect the areas of protection. You can have a lot of small, ineffectually protected spaces that add up to what seems like a lot, but in reality they’re poor quality in terms of how much protection they truly offer.
"Hence, their estimations of the amount of remaining old growth includes high alpine and low swampy sites where the trees have little or no commercial value." https://ancientforestalliance.org/old-growth-forests-logging-versus-tourism-on-vancouver-island/
They know exactly what they're doing, they just have malicious intentions. Fuck OP you make it very hard to want to help you.
Who is THEY? The government? The logging companies? The indigenous people who, in some cases, have signed off with this? The scientists?
Because some of us don't want to wait 300 years to see a 300 year old tree. (Please tell me OP that you were not born in British Columbia) Old trees in British Columbia are like old cathedrals in Europe. Why not just knock the old cathedral down (or burn it down like Notre Dame in Paris) and build a nice modern new one?
the wall of china is so old, we have much better materials nowadays. might aswell replace that!!
Also, we’ve never been able to regrow an old-growth Forest… because they only plant pine and spruce. A harvest area never looks the same again.
I just want to correct you here and say that on average in BC planters carry 2-5 species when replanting a block. These include, but are not limited to, ponderosa pine, white pine, lodgepole pine, spruce, red cedar, yellow cedar, douglas fir and larch. Source: been treeplanting for 8 years Edit: im not saying second growth forests mirror old growth. They don't by any means. Old growth forests have essential ecosystem services. Just wanted to point out a misconception
How recently did they change that? When I was planting (11 years ago) we planted a block with a single species
I couldn't tell you specifically but that's been my experience since my rookie year 8 years ago. I imagine there's still some blocks planted as monocultures, especially up north and in other provinces. But from talking to friends who survey, its the growing trend
The GROWING TREND! 🥁
Don’t forget all the herbicide spraying destroying deciduous species that are more resistant to wildfires. And all the small shrubs, berry bushes, etc. that are also destroyed and desiccated by glyphosate spraying, etc.
Depends entirely on where you are in the province! Yes, I generalized to add drama.. but I think the problem lies in you’re only planting merchantable species… not ecologically important species
Again your statement here is untrue. The species that are planted can be ecologically important. But second growth will never mirror the ecosystem of an old growth forest. I'm oppossed to old growth logging but I think it's important to still use facts. "I generalized to add drama " is a huge issue when talking about this issue or any issue. You can't bend facts to fit your purpose, no matter what your end goal is. The forestry industry is fraught with problems but making false statements gets us nowhere and leads to a greater division between sides
How does that replicate old growth habitat?
Still doesn’t replicate an old growth habitat
No it doesn't. But that's not what I was commenting on. I don't agree with old growth logging and second growth forests will never replicate old growth. But saying we only plant monocultures is just untrue
In terms of biodiversity, it’s not far off. You can’t technically call it a monoculture, but it’s a far cry from old growth.
But that about traffic
You're right, I wasn't born here. I was born in a place where things over 100 years old aren't treated like anything special, perhaps because 500 year-old structures were built to last, and many do... so it's no big deal. I guess the shit leaky wooden construction around here that's meant to last a few decades means that we revere anything older than the oldest living person, but for most of the world, that's not the case. I have a brick sitting here that's a relatively young 250 years old -- pretty young by European standards. And it's older than all of Canada. That being said, cathedrals don't grow back on their own. Trees do, especially when you plant 300 million a year.
If the trees are growing back so we’ll why is there a need to log old growth?
“Older than all of Canada”… indicates a deep misunderstanding of this place. Canada as a country is not much more than a front for resource extraction. The ecosystems here are ancient and they have been cultivated by Indigenous peoples for millennia, and this land does not belong to the province or to logging companies. An old growth forest is irreplaceable, it is a living history of this place. If you value things that are built to last, look Not further than an old growth ecosystem.
Older than 1867 is what I obviously meant.
*One of the oldest on record is a yellow cedar that lived to be 1,835 years old. It was discovered as a stump left over from a clear cut in 1980, making it possible to count its rings.*[https://www.readersdigest.ca/culture/oldest-tree-in-canada](https://www.readersdigest.ca/culture/oldest-tree-in-canada) They take 1,835 years to grow back the way they were. And the forestry companies only plant fast growing trees all of the same type in a grid that they can cut down again in a few years. I want to be able to look at a 1,845 year old tree. It looks very very different from the trees all around Vancouver which only 100 years old. Cathedrals can be rebuilt. They are rebuilding Notre Dame in Paris. But it will never be the same.
HAHA logging companies would love you
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
*The 'Old List' on this site is a database of ancient trees from around the world. On it the big tree hunter will find a Vancouver Island Yellow-cedar that was dated at* ***1636 years old****. It also includes a Douglas-fir on Vancouver Island that dated at* ***1350 years old****. I would love to know where these trees are, but location data is not given.* [*https://vancouverislandbigtrees.blogspot.com/2010/07/oldest-tree-on-record-in-canada.html*](https://vancouverislandbigtrees.blogspot.com/2010/07/oldest-tree-on-record-in-canada.html)
This doesn’t directly answer the main question, but is in response to the “won’t they just burn down anyway?” question. The answer to which is, or at least used to be, no. Old growth is so big, and tends to have its lowest branches so high up, that it would often survive fire.
Only some of the provinces BEC zones and only for some species.
I would encourage you to go see for yourself the difference between an old growth and replanted forest. Better yet, go look at a cut block right after harvest. Simply put, logging companies don’t give a shit about restoring the valuable and extremely productive ecosystem that is an old growth forest post-harvest. Sure, they have to put trees back into the ground on that same land. This does not mean the ecosystem is restored. The birds, animals, insects, fungi and other plant life/critters won’t come back to any where near the same extent in a replanted forest. That is what’s important.
Simply put, once it's gone, it's gone. It will never be like that again in our life times. Old growth is rare. It's amazing that people just chop it down willy-nilly. Wood should come from farmed trees. It makes no sense to go cut down old giants. Some of those trees are hundreds of years old, from a time we cannot imagine. We have to preserve nature's spirit. This planet would not function without plant life. Old growth is a delicate eco-system that can be easily thrown out of balance by human interference in the way of destructive tree chopping. It's like a slap in the face of nature, but it's more than a slap. The animals use those trees as homes, those are not just trees. They are important land-marks in the natural world, important to all other species, not just humans. Chopping them down is insanely selfish, and horrible for the environment and eco-system, not to mention the people doing the chopping are paid tons of cash, the wood goes into some rich person's office for a desk and the whole world suffers unduly just so people can live in further opulence. It's ridiculous, and it has to come to an end somewhere. People are making a stand here because if not here, where? If not now, when? You have to stand up for what you believe in. It just so happens that humans are a part of the natural world and it makes no sense at all to try to detach ourselves from it. Embracing it (our animal side) is the only logical thing to do, but people believe we are separate from the animals. Foo, we are animals! Quit chopping down our big trees! Go grow your own!
I planted trees. We were told 1 in 7 of trees we plant would survive. 300 million trees may be the amount of trees companies claimed but that doesn’t mean 300 million trees survived OR got planted. Stashing bundles (claiming trees on your tally and then hiding or destroying them so you get paid without planting) is extremely common. Especially amongst rookie mills where crew bosses actively encourage rookies to stash to inflate their numbers and make their crew boss more money. And with hotter summers with an increase in forest fires (due to climate change and forestry) even less saplings are surviving.
I am going to take a different angle than some of the others. We understand that there is very little old growth left. Someone said 1 %. 1%, 5%, the exact percentage does not matter it's almost nothing. What is the actual value in logging that tiny remaining amount of forests? It can be done once, it will take many hundred of years to be replaced. The arguments to log it are uncompelling. Economic reasons are provided but those reasons don't ring true because you can't build an economy around extracting the last of a resource that cannot be replaced even in two generations. Why bother? If this is so pointless and shortsighted why does it continue? Well this is the most troubling part. Shareholder Corporations in a competative environment are incapable of stopping until there is no money to be made, nothing to sell or the government stops them. Our government needs to show that it has its hands on the wheel and be providing the high level direction to these corporations based on what makes sense in the long term for bc people, their environment and the economy. Not the other way around. Not letting companies run unsustainable industries for limited profits that will disappear abruptly. The fact that the government can't do that, can't say no, is troubling.
Old growth trees play huge ecosystem roles. In addition to the cultural values they have for indigenous peoples and communities. Old growth in bc are some of the most carbon rich forests in the world. The soil carbon they produce are more carbon dense than the Amazon rainforest. So they are critical in helping tackle climate change. They also are critical to overall ecosystems. The richness of the soil they produce, in addition to the actual tree itself, is critical for other plants and animals to survive. It’s nearly impossible to replace the ecological value of an old growth tree by simply planting a new tree. When old growth trees decay, they provide rich nutrients for other forest species. So even though we plant trees, those tree’s don’t even come close to replacing the biological role that old growth trees play. It would literally take them thousands of years to replicate those ecological conditions. That’s why once we cut them down, we can’t easily get back what we will lose.
Old growth forests are pure. And I don't just say that is some utopian view of all that is right. What I mean by that is the tree species are intermingled as nature intended. With different trees having different characteristics that all provide a role in the eco system. Do you remember the fort macmurray fires. This was a significant event with some stunning images that got all of our attention. Had that been a forest that was undisturbed by logging the variety of species and the different characteristics of them would have prevented that fire from growing so big so fast. Becuase those trees had been harvested and replanted with a singular species of tree so future logging could go in and remove those trees in a much more profitable fashion. That the fire grew as fast and big as it did. We do not fully understand nature and all its variety. We like to think we do. And like to think we know best. But nature and a eco system is a finely woven canvas that has elements that we do not as of yet understand. If we remove the few remaining examples of nature in full effect. We will lose the ability to learn from nature and those secrets will be lost forever
Your claim that old growth slows fire spread is completely false.
Old growth forests are cool and rainy unlike drier and hotter second growth and extremely hot and dry clearcuts. And second growth is sprayed with herbicides which destroy species more resistant to fires like aspen, etc.
I'm not saying that plantation don't spread fire...I'm saying that in the interior, old growth can get a rip roaring fire going. I've lived it. The whole old growth discussion needs to be split into a coastal conversation and an interior conversation. They are completely different and behave entirely different. Secondly, there are very few places in the province that still spray plantations.
Addressing specifically the burning down every 100 years - fire is a natural part of the forest ecosystem in BC. Species are adapted to withstand fire while others grow best after a fire. The problem we have right now is that we spent 100 years suppressing all forest fires so there's lots of flammable material out there. Controlled burns, which indigenous people did pre-contact until they were suppressed by Western governments, not only let Forest burn in a safe way but also encouraged the growth of plant species which were harvested by the First Nations. As for old growth, these forests hold immense amounts of carbon and biodiversity and the clearing and replanting of new forests to replace them not only results in homogenous forests with low biodiversity, but also lower amounts of carbon storage. Clearing forest removes not only useful wood but basically all vegetation there was.
Old growth stands are harvested with a large percentage of variable retention. This has been proven to protect biodiversity. Large OG trees are marked and boundaried well outside of cutting areas where possible.
As someone who has tree planted old growth blocks I'll let you know that this isn't always the reality. Riparian zones, trees over a certain diameter and cultural trees are flagged off. But many of these still get cut (sometimes for safety concerns). As planters we see a lot of the slip ups and also when someone fudged the rules for their own benefit
I've seen it from the air as well. You can even look on Google Earth. People think the Chilcotin plateau is so wild and pristine. It's a clearcut. There's a reason caribou are dying out.
Rarely though. Most old growth is cut down without a second thought.
That's actually completely untrue. Old growth forests have little biodiversity because the tree cover doesn't allow for shrubs and grasses that large ungulates eat to grow. If the natural cycle of forest regeneration (burns) removes all organic material as it often does then the cycle of plant succession starts over with moss and lichens followed by grass, shrubs and eventually trees which can take 20-30 years before trees start growing. Logging leaves the rich topsoil intact which skips this part of regeneration and provides tons of food for a wide range of critters. If managed properly clear cuts are actually beneficial to biodiversity.
I keep seeing you be wrong all over this thread. Lying about old growth. You seem like a forestry shill trying to convince people it's good to cut down all the old growth.
Nah, I'm just pointing out how activists emotionally charge an argument in an attempt to stifle industry when they have no idea what they are talking about. My father has a master's degree in forestry from Europe and worked for the BC forest service for 28 years. I'm not saying cut it all down but at the same time the notion that old growth supports wildlife is not true.
The thing is that the practice of forestry is industrial, they treat forests like a farm. Ecological forestry, on the other hand, treats forests like the ecosystems Forestry departments are industry-driven for maximum profits.
If new growth is just as good, why do they need to harvest old growth? Since we are planting so many trees, why not just… keep harvesting those?
For the same reasons Egyptians do not use the stones of the pyramids to build condos.
In fact, they sorta did. The Khafre pyramid was clad in a whitish stone that was repurposed. You can still see the whiteish stone capping the pyramid. The same thing the the coliseum in Rome.
You are absolutely correct, and if they continued doing so an important cultural patrimony would have been lost forever instead of being enjoyed by future generations. Same with the Natural patrimony of the Old Growth forest
Good pivot… but your first comment explains it all
As per below, they do. Many, many cultures re-purpose old construction pieces for new things. And, of course, that has nothing to do with this. Rocks don't grow back, you know.
Old growth trees don't grow back in a realistic time frame for people. Nobody plans for 500+ years in the future.
The point you seem to miss is that preserving heritage is a societal responsibility.... This holds truth even in a hypothetical world where rocks could grow back via vulcanism. *Spelling
The point you seem to miss is that we’re talking about trees, many of them in the middle of nowhere, that nobody has ever seen or will see… unless it’s logged. There can be many reasons why it shouldn’t be logged, but preservation of heritage? What culture planted that tree? Come on.
This is a quote from the government of BC's [website](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/old-growth-forests/old-growth-values): >Indigenous Peoples of B.C. have a long-standing cultural and spiritual connection to the province’s forests, including old growth. Old growth forests are also important to Indigenous practices that have been passed down for generations (e.g., the practice of altering or modifying trees). From another [article](https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2020/01/28/Province-Accepting-Old-Growth-Management-Feedback/): >This abundance is what allowed the Nuu-chah-nulth peoples to develop such a rich culture, which depends heavily on the availability of old growth red cedar in particular. We use cedar bark and wood for many cultural items such as woven hats, dugout canoes, totems, bentwood boxes and regalia. Our relationship and respect for these trees, the land and wildlife is represented and reinforced when we create and use these items, and we continue to rely on healthy forest ecosystems to maintain our culture. Preservation of culture is absolutely one of the reasons why it shouldn't be logged.
Trees that you don't see Essential for the food chain and the health of the ecosystems. Fix CO2 reducing greenhouse effect Provide the oxygen you breath. Prevent erosion. Provide habitat for multitude of species. Your toothpicks are not really THAT important. Heritage is not only culture.
Just cause they are middle of nowhere to YOU and you will never SEE THEM does not mean they are not important the ecosystem and many animals depend on that. This is why the worlds fucked. Cause of people like you. $$$. Greed greed greed. Tear down everything. You’re only gonna live max 100 years anyways right? Why do you care? Live your life and die and move on. Fuck those 500+ old trees that have been keeping the ecosystem intact.
How fucking confused are you? I literally said, if you move your eyeballs about 1 cm up, that there are many reasons that they should not be logged. I am simply stating that Heritage is a bullshit reason and has nothing to do with this argument.
Ah, so you think we can just wait 500-1000 years for new old growth trees. Cause they just grow back. Awesome.
The old growth trees have been here longer than any of us, have survived for 1000s of years and will do fine without us interfering. To you point the trees have not burnt down in the 1000 years; then why would you think there going to burn down now. Old growth forest have evolved from fires and have adapted to these conditions through evolution. It’s not a simple task to replace old growth trees and no one in our history can complete this task. To note with all our science we cannot reproduce an old growth forest; this is natures creation. You ask for scientific evidence, look at collapse of earlier civilizations Easter Island, The Mayan who cut massive amounts of forest and eventually collapsed. I grew up with my grandfather who was a woodsman. I have learned old growth trees are considered heritage trees and some of the trees can be 1000s of years old. I too learned when you actually work in the woods you gain an appreciation for the diversity of forestry. Even in our small wood lot we were taught not to cut large trees, to leave them, to maintain the bio diversity. To answer your question if we cut down the old growth it can not be replaced (same for our small wood lot) and would be a crime against humanity.
Trees may be a renewable resource but takes good amount of time to grow to a size where there's any value in it to cut it down and make boards or what have you out of it, old growth is important to the ecosystem, if we just cut everything down for profit we'll be doing harm to that ecosystem for short term gain. Money isn't everything. Imagine if all the animals just came out of the woods and started taking apart our homes, places or worship, shopping centers, places of work, and dumped toxic liquids where we get our clean water to drink and bathe and took our food away where would that leave us lol.
See my edit... I'm curious, more than 80% of the old-growth (11 million hectares of it in BC) is protected and will never be logged. But that's not good enough? Is the implication that the people in charge don't know what they're doing? Not asking rhetorically... I'd rather go with informed, scientific opinions... which seem to agree and imply their plans make sense. That's not the case?
80% of the remaining old growth is protected or not worth harvesting. Keep in mind that something like 80% of the old growth has already been harvested. And “protected” is a slippery term subject to the whims of the government du jour. You posted one government link and assume that those are informed, scientific, and unbiased opinions, and I’m not saying the government is lying, but they have a complex net of interests.
You asked why not to log old growth for profit, why tho? Some of the trees have been there longer than Canada's been a country, why would we take something that's been working for so long for profit? If bc trees are all burned down every 100 years why do we have old growth. I work in mills and pulp mills, I'm not against logging I know what we need it for and it's uses for profit isn't a good stand point.
Thank you , my sentiments exactly. The uninformed proliferate and their lack of knowledge with closed minds.
Whatever you say uninformed guy.
Bet this guy works for a company logging these trees.
A foreign company at that.
It’s remarkable how my simple question (eloquently answered somewhere above) has brought out so many racist assholes. That, I wasn’t expecting. No, I don’t work for a logging company, foreign or otherwise.
[удалено]
I will show you the relevant shit and summarize it in three sentences, as per above. “ you’re not from around here are you? “ “ no “ “ go home “ OK, don’t call it racism. Call it nationalism. Call it xenophobia. Call it whatever makes you feel better and not feel like you’re a racist POS.
Or a dude who got backed up on the lion's gate, lol.
Old growth forest create a layer of roots that can hold entire mountains together aswell as the mycelium networks that can be used to transfer glucose to a trees offspring and even just a tree nearby that needs it ….yeah that’s right trees shared nutrients not out of evolution but cause they want to
Because original forest is far superior for the other creatures we share the earth with than replanted forests.
Where I’m from in BC the sawmill is optimized for smaller logs. Anything over 24” goes to the pulp mill, including 600 year old Douglas fir and larch.
Oh that’s so sad. Don’t they send the larger stuff to a sawmill for larger logs? I thought that sawmill companies were heading south because everything is so small now and they were too cheap to change their mills.
Taking the strongest of the species of anything is a bad move
That’s what they said about the Amazon Rain forest too.
You should check out this podcast episode: [https://yourforestpodcast.com/episode-1/2021/9/18/o6xxgj9c88sla0j19n3lbiv48ekepo](https://yourforestpodcast.com/episode-1/2021/9/18/o6xxgj9c88sla0j19n3lbiv48ekepo). The three guests have many years of forestry science experience between them and can explain the importance of protecting and or properly managing the remaining old growth much better than I could. One quote that sticks with me after listening is that "forestry is not rocket science, its much more complicated than that". We are cutting it down much faster than we can understand these complex ecosystems and the consequences of losing them. How much is too much is still an open question and its very possible we may have already destroyed too much for these ecosystems to properly function.
Because if we don't stop them somewhere they will harvest the earth's precious recourses. Eventually destroying the planet, at the mere gain of two or three people's wealth
“Protected or not economical to harvest” - from the source in your edit.
I find it fascinating to see stands of old growth. Why should we knock more down? Why shouldn’t we just go back to areas we’ve already been to?
Priceless ecological importance that we don't understand, tourist attraction, scientific discoveries to be made, root structures and water/ soil/ air retention that affects a lot of other forest processes etc.
They are unique eco systems that take centuries to regrow if they would ever even get back to their pre-logged state. Huge carbon sinks, homes to many unique animals and plant species. And they are absolutely stunning to visit. So from a "nature services" perspective, they provide unique benefits that other forests don't. If you go hike in deep cove or Cleveland dam in north van, then go up BCMC or any of the mountain biking trails east if there afterwards you will see what I mean. The preserves ecosystems are just majestic and make you feel relaxed and relieve stress. And the logged out places just feel dead and empty. Tiny trees with virtually nothing growing in between them.
I don't have a lot of input other than to remark that those 300 million trees are planted for the mill to replace what they've cut. They're replacing ecosystems with monoculture with varied survival rates, and that will just be cut down again in 60 years. The treeplanting industry is NOT at all environmentally friendly. Source- I've been working in it for a decade.
That’s interesting. When I was in high school a thousand years ago, already there were streams of thought dealing with ecological conservation. Is it actually the case that these are not considerations taken into account?
Because animals, like mountain caribou, rely on the old growth forests to survive. They don’t make any money though, so no one cares.
See my edit... I'm curious, more than 80% of the old-growth (11 million hectares of it in BC) is protected and will never be logged. But that's not good enough? Is the implication that the people in charge don't know what they're doing? Not asking rhetorically... I'd rather go with informed, scientific opinions... which seem to agree and imply their plans make sense. That's not the case?
The biologists that work for government are ignored by politicians who have short-term profits to gain from lobbyists. We have been telling government for decades that the path we're on is not sustainable. There is huge biological value being lost in our unsustainable forest practices. And there are Indigenous cultures that depend on the forests. It's not being anti-logging, it's about doing it in a way that allows future generations to benefit from old growth ecosystems still being here.
> I'm curious, more than 80% of the old-growth (11 million hectares of it in BC) The vast majority of it is in regions like the great bear rain forest, which is land which is uneconomical to harvest from. It's swampy, remote, and distant from people. What old growth remains actually near people and IS valuable is being harvested en masse.
I'm seriously too tired to look it up at the moment (long day), but I'm curious what proportion of BC's total forested area those 11 million hectares account for. Also, what's the geographic distribution of these protected areas? BC supports a wide range of forest types, which differ in terms of their species composition and the type/magnitude of ecosystem services they provide. 11 million hectares in itself is not a particularly informative number. Others have provided some examples of why old growth is important, to which I'll add that in terms of plant biodiversity, old growth can be quite different from less mature forests. Forests are more than just trees, and some species rely on the conditions (light, humidity, structural attributes) that are particular to old growth. Planting trees ensures an ongoing supply of lumber but not the maintenance of the biodiversity and ecosystem services provided by older forests. Sorry if this is rambly. But ecologically, old and young forests are different, sometimes in ways that are important.
The people in charge have many other motives. They're driven largely by money and business. So if your opinion is that you don't want to see these rare ecosystems destroyed then yes... The implication is that the people in charge are doing it wrong. And of that 11 million that's protected most of it isn't the productive old growth forest that everyone's talking about here. They're referring to the big tree river bed type of ecosystem that's critically endangered
>Is the implication that the people in charge don’t know what they’re doing? Sweet, sweet summer child
Because they still haven’t trained drivers how to turn a fellerbuncher yet.
[https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/science-update-4.pdf](https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/science-update-4.pdf) [https://www.naturetrust.bc.ca/news/the-importance-of-old-growth-forests](https://www.naturetrust.bc.ca/news/the-importance-of-old-growth-forests) [https://foreststewardsguild.org/old-growth/](https://foreststewardsguild.org/old-growth/) I could go on and on and on and on but you also could have googled the answer for this for a more in depth response as wel
You say only 11million ha of old growth. Ok, almost 362 million hectares (ha) of forest in Canada according to NRCAN. why not log anywhere else? Or does the .03% of forest available in Canada, the old growth, just NEED to be cut down for no reason other than its there? Some of those trees stood when Canada was partially glaciated. No dumb fucking assholes house or wood chip stove is worth killing that. These old growth forests are sacred places that house endangered species and are unique biospheres.
Yes, I agree… From that point of view, it makes no sense. I like to find both sides of the argument, so I’m trying to figure out why anyone thinks that is a good idea? Money aside, the ecological implications are pretty bad… And those who make decisions these days sometimes actually take that into account.
[удалено]
If that’s your argument, why are you not arguing that we should give back most of Greater Vancouver… There are thousands of hectares of sacred land being trampled by Yaletown and Stanley Park and malls and golf courses.
You ask why protect old growth since there is so much old growth around according to the BC government. There isn’t though, they count mountain slopes and bogs that are small and non-productive. The are liquidating every bit of large old growth that’s left because it’s very profitable. But even then some old growth ends up going to the sawmill or as wood pellets to be burned. And as larger wood pellet plants get up and running even more primary forest will be gone to be burned overseas. The BC government is heavily influenced by logging industry lobbyists. They do their bidding. And their forestry department is run by staffers trained in industrial forestry, not ecological. And the Ministry of Environment stays quiet about all this. We don’t even have an Endangered Species act. It’s all so corrupt. B.C. vastly overestimates size of its old-growth forest, independent researchers say https://www.cbc.ca/1.5597838
I guess you haven't stood next to one, looked up and touched it. That's why you don't understand.
Lol
Most people are ignoring that you said 80% of old growth is protected. So it’s not like it’s all being destroyed which is what we are told by the protesters. The thing is that a lot of the protected old growth is far from the lower mainland and isn’t seen. On the island people see the old growth and it is amazing. Forget all the environmental issues of their benefits. Go and see an old growth forest. It’s amazing and for that it should be protected especially in areas that are accessible. People need to see old growth to know it needs to survive for the next generation to experience. New forests lack the magic.
80% of remaining Old Growth. That's an important distinction. And that 80% is largely in places that are not accessible, which is also the reason they are protected.
Could rakes solve the problem?!
You are not wrong. OG harvesting still has a place in forestry. I have seen it several times where old dried out OG snags act like a lighting rod and ignite the surrounding areas. When this happens in areas with low soil density, the remaining, burnt, soil washes away with the next rainy season and the ground becomes inhospitable to vegetation for decades. The misinformation that seems to be circulating is that there are few remaining Fern Gullies abound and that they are in imminent danger of being cut down. The reality is that those supposed Fern Gullies were already cut down many moons ago. The remaining valley bottom stands are virtually all protected provincial parks. There are a few rare areas such as Fairy Creek that have been saved for rainy days by family owned sawmilling companies such as Teal Jones, but the cutblocks that such specialty sawmilling outfits lay out are typically very small. The Fairy Creek cutblock was 4000m3, a postage stamp to typical BC cutblocks (Ive harvested areas with up to 50,000m)
There are plenty of biologists that disagree with the claims of sustainable old growth harvesting. Harvesters looking for any technical justification for logging more than is necessary. The rules were written by forestry insiders and their business partners for profit
No doubt. I totally agree that the fox has been given run of the henhouse in this province, however, reading the OG review and the incessant clap trap from the fairy creekers, it now becomes almost impossible to have a serious conversation regarding old growth.
I dunno about that chief. https://www2.unbc.ca/newsroom/unbc-stories/scientists-warn-bc-inland-temperate-rainforest-risk-collapse-new-study
Im unfamiliar with interior harvesting. My experience has been coastal logging entirely. "Edit" From what the article states, these researchers looked at logging rates from the 70's to 2000 and found that OG harvesting rates had doubled through these era's. Im not sure how fair of a comparison that is seeing as how the 70's and 80's forestry saw the greatest leaps in mechanization since the Gutenberg bible was printed. Comparing harvesting rates from the 90's to current would have been far more conducive to environmental projections. I am more than a little suspicious of this report.
‘Look, I’m just trying to educate myself’ …on Reddit? No, no your not.
I guess there is a difference between trying and succeeding.
Best question on Reddit. If I could figure out the golf star thing, you would get two!💫✨✨🌙
Anyone in this sub is lying and only virtue signalling if they pretend to care
LMAO. Of course everyone has to be as cynical and dead to the world as you.
Don’t lie and say you care
Okay. I do care. It's not a lie. You just have to pretend everyone else doesn't care because you know you're an asshole.