US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban

The rationale that a certain amount of logging to thin forests is beneficial is correct. I don't know the details, or how they'll administer it to avoid excesdive logging, but at least in California we have almost 3x as many trees per acre compared to pre-white settlement: https://story.californiasunday.com/gone-paradise-fire

People often forget the original purpose of these state forests was to harvest the timber and pay the teacher salaries as part of the Oregon Common School Fund... As the great great grandson of Francis Elliott (Oregon's first state forester), I have been reminded of this by my family many times over the years. I'm unsure of it's purpose today, but I suspect the teachers wouldn't mind the extra pay.

The Federal government made a deal with forrest communities. We will have national forests that you won't get any property tax revenues from, but you will get revenue from the forestry, mining, and other economic activity on that land.

Then the federal government shutdown most economic activity, and local communities had to shutdown their schools and other government functions (while at the same time losing their lumber mills). Of course no one that mattered cared because it only impacted 'flyover people' and coastal people don't care if they break their commitments (in the form of the federal government that represents them).

I'd love to see sometime in my lifetime the feds get held accountable to keep the promises they made in the past that they just stop keeping, while the feds use the full force of the law to ensure THEIR side of the deals are kept up.

The logging ban also has the effect of preventing road construction and other ancillary development that always seems to follow. I think there is value to the logging ban beyond just the direct effect on trees.

Forest management is full of counter-intuitive reasoning. I'm glad we're finally getting around to the of long term studies to see how different forest management plans have worked and we can quote some science.

> Oregon Wild forest program manager Lauren Anderson called the proposal a good first step.

Perfection is the enemy of progress. I too applaud the plan.

> For some forests, logging small-diameter trees ahead of prescribed burns is necessary, a consensus reached by many tribes and scientists.

> “Letting those forests continue to age and get older and more decadent,” Brown said. “That’s what the wildlife need them to do.”

#2 doesn't seem possible without #1 in most forests and species it would seem. You can either artificially thin and avoid fires, protecting old-growth, or you can let wildfires regularly take place and keep firewood thin. What we want to avoid is logging damage to old growth, or not taking care of the forests allowing massive fires to destroy everything.

How much is likely something we can do with computer simulations, and verify them with experiments. We need to thin the forests to avoid fire, but occasionally allow young trees to make it past the young generation. If any giant company with super computing resources wants to use that "AI" for something that would actually benefit the world, this would be a worthy use of time and energy.

On the issue of BLM lands: If we have strategically important, or exceptionally rare forests on BLM land, it's probably time to declare some new national forests and get them under management. I don't really see BLM being equipped to handle forest management. Maybe a temporary 12 year protection of old growth trees in BLM land would be a good compromise, giving time for study and congress time to act.

> Old-growth forest protections proposed Friday will apply to trees on public lands managed by the Forest Service, but not to the Bureau of Land Management

Wow, this just confirmed my lack of knowledge around how national forests are administered. As someone in the PNW, are there any national agencies that govern the use of forests besides National Forest Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management?

It's unclear whether the mention of climate change here is pure editorializing but, if not, then here is another example of where the modern obsession with climate change is negatively impacting conservation of valuable habitats for wildlife. (It shouldn't need pointing out, but conservation of valuable habitat for wildlife is a human obligation and essentially synonymous with looking after the other organisms with which we share Earth, and is partially correlated but not synonymous with countering anthropogenic climate change).

Or put another way, if a human is fearful for their safety due to their proximity to old-growth trees, then they should not live there. Same reasoning as for bears or tigers or sharks: the answer isn't "kill them".

> Officials told the Associated Press that a sweeping ban on logging old-growth would make it harder to thin forests to protect communities against wildfires that have grown more severe as the planet warms.

> “To ensure the longevity of old-growth forests, we’re going to have to take proactive management to protect against wildfire and insects and disease,” Forest Service Deputy Chief Chris French said.

Needs a map showing National Forests and old growths. I mean old old growths, not the tree that was too cragy to turn into boards. Otherwise I am guessing there are not huge swaths that overlap.

The likely outcome of the looming SCOTUS case regarding quasi legislation might make this meaningless.

Imagine if there was 'old growth internet' and the federal government forced big tech companies to preserve big chunks of it.

Old growth trees are the best, tightest grain, toughest wood, they’ve stood the test of time. These are most desirable and we should take advantage of them, but for useful purposes , not firewood or chipwood or other crappy “products”.

We need a real sustainability plan which reuses that land for trees again, but not garage fast growing genetically similar trees. We need to promote genetic diversity