[HN Gopher] US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growt...
___________________________________________________________________
US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees,
without logging ban
Author : geox
Score : 96 points
Date : 2024-06-23 16:35 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.opb.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.opb.org)
| lukasb wrote:
| 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
| Firerouge wrote:
| Trees per acre seems like a seriously misleading statistic.
|
| A freshly planted tree farm is going to have the highest trees
| per acre, but be the most useless forest.
|
| I would expect a few old growth trees in an acre would be a
| substantially better forest, visually, environmentally, and
| ecologically, than having three times as many young trees.
| greenie_beans wrote:
| "basal area" is the term you need and now i'm curious what is
| the typical basal area for an old growth stand?
| capitainenemo wrote:
| http://talltimbers.org/wp-
| content/uploads/2014/03/Sloan1998a... I found this, where
| they do note the number of trees has gone up markedly. They
| note the critical role of low intensity fire.
|
| I doubt selective logging can replace regular burns, but
| unfortunately there's a great deal of opposition to doing
| that. Mostly by people living in those fire-prone areas.
| greenie_beans wrote:
| lots of the public are very ignorant about ecologically
| sound forest management, unfortunately. "save the trees"
| is an effective emotional argument. i was once one of
| those people, but then i learned
| neom wrote:
| I spent a couple of years consulting to earthforce.io
| (they make forest management software)- before I started
| I thought I understood forestry, boy how wrong I was, how
| little I knew!
|
| For those interested in learning the basics, this is a
| pretty good playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?li
| st=PLvOmkebY7k2UP4N_BicWV...
| mistrial9 wrote:
| where is the Board of Directors, owners and investors of
| Earthforce.io declared in public?
| zie wrote:
| Unless it's a public company/non-profit they don't have
| to make any of this information public in most(all?) US
| states. Usually all you have to do is make public the
| name of the company and the registered agent(typically
| the lawyer you hire to receive legal notices for the
| company).
|
| They appear to be a private company:
| https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/earth-force-
| technolo...
| greenie_beans wrote:
| that seems like a cool job! do you think they still hire
| freelancers? i'm looking for freelance work and i'm very
| interested in forest management but don't have a forestry
| degree, i just own some land.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| Instead of "us versus them" statements, I encourage
| vigorous examination of presuppositions. The urgency of
| the situation could not be more obvious.
|
| The claim "the public is ignorant" is oft repeated by
| industry-friendly experts in all levels of academia and
| government. But the policies of the experts have been an
| objective disaster in the US West. You appear to promote
| science that is invalidated in real time.
| greenie_beans wrote:
| i get what you're saying, but that's not what i'm saying.
|
| state and national forests are a shared natural resource
| owned by the public, therefore the public has input over
| these things, sometimes overriding the science. a lot of
| the "objective disaster in the US West" is due to these
| policies that are informed by a public who only wants to
| save the trees.
|
| i'm talking particularly about non-old growth stands
| where the forest needs to be thinned, but it hasn't, like
| in the west. old growth stands are a whole 'nother thing.
| here is one such example where this old growth debate is
| happening with public input in vermont:
| https://vtdigger.org/2024/01/18/logging-versus-old-
| growth-pl...
| mistrial9 wrote:
| It is very difficult to cover all the angles in a few
| short comments. I disagree that "the public who wants to
| just save trees" is the responsible party.. it is more
| complex than that.
|
| >policies that are informed by a public who only wants to
| save the trees
|
| I can give citations for a dozen extensive studies and
| workshops, some years in the making, alongside more
| recent research papers from California academia. The ones
| I know of mostly originate in the University of
| California system. Actual policy as implemented is
| informed by those studies but not dictated by them.
|
| Due to the rule of law, actual policy on the ground in
| the last forty years is divided in practice by the owners
| of the lands. In California, most of the "public" forest
| lands are owned by Federal agencies. The "desire to save
| the trees" conveniently dovetailed with a Federal
| obligation to maximize commercial value of National
| Forest timber. The combination of those two, different,
| policy groups resulted in what has happened in the last
| ten years.. that is, overcrowding of trees, disease,
| massive die-offs, and catastrophic wildfire.
|
| Another crucial point.. the pine trees of the low Sierra
| and North-Eastern California are not at all in the same
| category as the Coastal Redwoods, or South Sierra old-
| growth. yet this discussion here seems to make no
| distinctions.
| greenie_beans wrote:
| i think we are saying the same thing yet somehow talking
| past each other
| seadan83 wrote:
| "save the trees" is probably better re-labelled as "save
| the old growth trees". Would you agree?
|
| Would you consider tree farms as ecologically sound?
| (I'll note those are intentionally over-planted,
| homogeneous, and burn like crazy)
|
| Which key facts caused you to change your mind?
| greenie_beans wrote:
| > "save the trees" is probably better re-labelled as
| "save the old growth trees". Would you agree?
|
| yes, we should most certainly protect old growth stands.
| they are very rare in the forests that i'm familiar with
| in the US east, and maintaining that ecology overrides
| any economic benefit gained from cutting the trees, imo.
| i'm in no way advocating for cutting down old growth
| stands, my comment was more in response to how we manage
| the forests that came after we cut the old growth.
|
| > Would you consider tree farms as ecologically sound?
| (I'll note those are intentionally over-planted,
| homogeneous, and burn like crazy)
|
| this depends on how the forest is managed. monocultures
| are bad and diversity is good (though a lot of stands
| have predominant species, naturally), forests need
| disturbances (whether through thinning or fire or
| naturally), etc. but a diverse forest can still be in
| rough shape. i'm getting at the edge of my knowledge
| fwiw.
|
| > Which key facts caused you to change your mind?
|
| i bought forest land and learned as much as i could about
| forest management, so there is too much information to
| list. i can share books if you're genuinely curious.
| seadan83 wrote:
| I think you and parent comment might actually agree. The 3x
| trees is an indication of too much, too many small trees, too
| much fuel. Places that burn and recover lose their "excess"
| trees. The trees get more space and are healthy top to
| bottom.
|
| OTOH, tree farm trees are bred to have few branches and are
| planted very close together. Tree farms grow tree trunks, not
| trees.
|
| There is a line of thought, which honestly I think comes from
| the timber industry, that growing trees are a bigger carbon
| sink than existing trees. They do argue that the tree farm is
| actually better because it is growing. I'm extremely
| skeptical of that claim. Particularly skeptical because the
| trees in tree farms are so unhealthy, the total amount of
| green vegetative surface on them is confined to a small
| canopy and has no vertical depth.
|
| In comparison, old growth vs tree farm is night and day for
| ecology. Tree farms are very dense, rodents thrive in them
| but not necessarily much else. Old growth OTOH is generally a
| pleasure to walk through.
|
| > I would expect a few old growth trees in an acre would be a
| substantially better forest
|
| There's indeed a mixture of ages unless we are talking a tree
| farm. A tree farm is a mono-culture with trees approximately
| the same age all growing like Q-tips together.
|
| Old growth trees are fire resistant. The younger ones trees
| get overshaded and don't grow, or they burn down before they
| get tall enough. The young trees that do survive, they go on
| to become the next generation of old growth trees.
|
| (My experience on the subject: extensive time camping &
| bikepacking in Northwest forests, I've traveled through a
| several thousand miles of northwest forests in the last 10
| years)
| parineum wrote:
| > They do argue that the tree farm is actually better
| because it is growing. I'm extremely skeptical of that
| claim.
|
| One could measure the tonnage of tree farm wood extracted
| per day against the estimated tonnage of the trees in a
| non-farm environment pretty easily I would think.
|
| Frankly, the claim, to me, seems incredibly intuitive and
| your skepticism sounds like stubborn environmentalist
| thought.
| pineaux wrote:
| I don't agree with this claim. It is only intuitive on
| the surface. But growth in trees does not slow down as
| they get older. It actually accelerates. This article
| corroborates that:
| https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12914
|
| Sickness and bad conditions usually slow growth down.
|
| In tree farms almost all the trees are in bad condition.
| The low biodiversity creates a low quality environment.
| They catch fire very easily. It's low quality wood that
| ends up in a landfill (and then in the air via rotting)
| within a few decades.
|
| Eventually a tree will get sick and die. The most ideal
| situation would be to harvest the tree when it's dead. I
| would think there could be a businessmodel that maps dead
| trees and extracts them from forrests for high quality
| old growth wood.
|
| This is not about "stubborn environmentalism". Although I
| do agree with you that some environmentalist ideas are a
| bit short sighted (like dismissing all nuclear options
| without weighing the properly), it is generally based in
| science and research. The anti-environmentalist side are
| usually mostly based in money and corporate interests...
| chimpanzee wrote:
| > One could measure the tonnage of tree farm wood
| extracted per day against the estimated tonnage of the
| trees in a non-farm environment pretty easily I would
| think.
|
| Old growth has a far deeper and broader root system which
| is a relatively permanent and ever increasing store of
| carbon in relation to farmed new growth. Roots and stumps
| of cut new growth are sometimes extracted and used for
| biofuel, transferring that carbon back to the atmosphere
| immediately. At best they are left to decompose or
| converted to mulch and biochar. But the growth process
| has been halted and no further carbon sequestration will
| occur. Any further human processing will itself release
| additional carbon.
|
| Old growth is itself a habitat for other carbon stores.
| New growth...not really.
|
| Old growth is a habitat for animals which themselves
| assist in the storage of carbon through indirect means
| such as pollination and defecation. New growth...not
| really.
|
| This is just the tip of the iceberg and what I could come
| up with quickly off the top of my amateur-
| environmentalist head. It's complex. A simple estimation
| of wood tonnage is not going to account for the
| complexity of the system at all.
|
| > Frankly, the claim, to me, seems incredibly intuitive
| and your skepticism sounds like stubborn environmentalist
| thought.
|
| Nice.
| partitioned wrote:
| I mean if you're turning carbon into wood and then turning
| that into buildings that's good right
| chimpanzee wrote:
| If the building would be built anyways using more
| destructive processes or materials, then _perhaps_.
| There's no guarantee that the building would have been
| built though. Sure _most_ would probably be built
| anyways, but at some point the different costs would
| affect the supply and demand at a macro level.
|
| Nonetheless, it's ignoring the entire carbon-
| sequestration system that the tree enables. What
| percentage of buildings are a net carbon-sink (including
| construction, use, maintenance and eventual demolition),
| or improve the naturally occurring carbon-sequestration
| process by merely existing? Any? I really don't know.
| It'd be cool if we were constructing such buildings, but
| I doubt they'd be as efficient as just leaving old growth
| forests alone.
| adolph wrote:
| The statistical trees per acre reminds me of:
|
| _If the utilitarian state could not see the real, existing
| forest for the (commercial) trees, if its view of its forests
| was abstract and partial, it was hardly unique in this
| respect. Some level of abstraction is necessary for virtually
| all forms of analysis, and it is not at all surprising that
| the abstractions of state officials should have reflected the
| paramount fiscal interests of their employer. The entry under
| "forest" in Diderot's Encyclopedie is almost exclusively
| concerned with the utilite publique of forest products and
| the taxes, revenues, and profits that they can be made to
| yield. The forest as a habitat disappears and is replaced by
| the forest as an economic resource to be managed efficiently
| and profitably. Here, fiscal and commercial logics coincide;
| they are both resolutely fixed on the bottom line._
|
| "Seeing Like a State" Jaces C. Scott
|
| https://files.libcom.org/files/Seeing%20Like%20a%20State%20-.
| ..
| akira2501 wrote:
| > substantially better forest
|
| Why is it better environmentally and ecologically?
| pineaux wrote:
| Environmentally because more diverse forrests tend to be
| more robust, depending on their climate (taiga is not very
| diverse). Tree growth doesn't slow down as trees get older.
| Their growth accelerates because: they have more foliage to
| gather sunlight and exchange gasses, everytime they add a
| growth ring it is a bigger ring than the last one, they
| grow taller or wider to get more sunlight and gas exchange.
| There is an optimal size/m2 of course. Tree farms have ROIs
| and efficiency problems, they cannot take advantage of
| these qualities of forrests. They need straight timber and
| a payday at some point.
|
| Ecologically because old growth forrests have a much more
| diverse system with big fungal networks, ecological nooks
| and crannies, etc. A system takes time to build.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| The thing is that, yes, development in wildland areas has
| produced scraggly areas that are not good ecologies but are
| serious fire dangers.
|
| But logging isn't the answer in the sense that logging
| companies have no interest in just taking small trees - they
| have no economic value.
|
| I live in one of these areas, btw (Nevada City). There are lots
| of stick-like trees, lots of scotch broom, lots of flameable
| underbrush. Removing that by logging is extremely expensive
| unless you do something like clear cutting, which uses a
| titanic lawn-mower thing. Cutting a single tall but thin tree
| requires a professional.
|
| Really, there's no solution for a situation of houses spread
| through the urban-wildland borders. The logging companies claim
| the fuel build up is the from logging restrictions but they
| will always claim that - actually, logging is no longer
| profitable in California because most large trees are gone,
| home owners won't let people clear cut and even clear cutting
| isn't economical given foreign competition and society's
| decreased use of paper.
| sitkack wrote:
| Old Growth forests are already thin.
|
| The tree density is large because they are all thin and likely
| to burn.
| goda90 wrote:
| Better than logging would be to pull trees down and leave them
| in place on the ground: https://youtu.be/BiDBAU2d7oE
| zdragnar wrote:
| Where I live, the state government agency in charge of forest
| management will prioritize specific trees. Oak wilt, emerald
| ash borer and other diseases and pests mean that removing some
| trees is healthier than letting nature take its course.
|
| Additionally, they'll open up larger sites to thin out
| overgrown young growth, though they'll pre-mark what they want
| taken down in both cases.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| 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.
| seadan83 wrote:
| Which 'deal' specifically, could you provide a link so we can
| read more?
| bitxbitxbitcoin wrote:
| Anytime a post references the "feds" in such an ambiguous
| way, it seems like a flag for potential misunderstanding.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| You could look up the original Bureau of Land Management
| charter by congress, which does in fact mandate that the
| BLM's charter[1] is to manage federal lands with the goals of
| sustained resource yield:
|
| > The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United
| States that goals and objectives be established by law as
| guidelines for public land use planning, and that management
| be on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield unless
| otherwise specified by law.[4]
|
| They are managed to balance interests to ensure long-term
| needs, not cannot simply declare that timber, minerals, etc
| are off-limits:
|
| > The government must consider "a combination of balanced and
| diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term
| needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable
| resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range,
| timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural
| scenic, scientific and historical values."
|
| The deal was very explicitly that federal land was to be
| managed to avoid a tragedy of the commons with regards to
| resource extraction. Resource extraction was one of the
| primary goals mandated by congress and no, they cannot simply
| decide they don't want to.
|
| [1] https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_Land_Policy_and_Managemen
| t_A...
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Outside of cities, the main ways to make a living is using the
| natural resources. Logging, mining, farming etc.
|
| Laws are made by city people, who think of work as something
| you do sitting by a desk. They see the countryside as a nature
| reserve to keep beautiful for their vacation trips. So they ban
| most commercial use of natural resources.
|
| This is part of what makes rural communities poor and desperate
| societies, surrounded my massive wealth that they "own", but
| are not allowed to prosper from.
| lantry wrote:
| yes, poor people prosper when international megacorps pay
| them minimum wage to chop down all their trees. the corp
| keeps all the profit, and moves on when the trees are gone,
| and usually leaves a bunch of pollution behind. That's why
| old mining towns in the appalachians are so prosperous!
| MSFT_Edging wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FuTiGdN-i8
|
| Relevant tune
| akira2501 wrote:
| > and moves on when the trees are gone
|
| Is that how the timber industry works?
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| I think you are unintentionally proving their point. We
| tightened regulations and have just exported pollution to
| dictatorships (e.g., CCP). If city folks just do local bans
| without similar import bans, what is the point?
|
| > yes, poor people prosper when international megacorps pay
| them minimum wage to chop down all their trees
|
| Or, why not let the poor people decide for themselves? In
| your story, the only illegal thing the megacorp did was
| pollution. Why didn't existing laws address that?
| 486sx33 wrote:
| 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
| wavefunction wrote:
| 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.
| TheChaplain wrote:
| Road construction is afaik used to make traffic/transportation
| more effective, so not doing so seems like a gigantic waste of
| resources in a growing society.
| poorman wrote:
| There are vast amounts of land in this country that only have
| roads and infrastructure because of logging and mining.
|
| Anyone who spends any mount of time outdoors at any longitude
| west of Denver, is sure to drive down these forest and mining
| roads when camping. Not to mention, these roads often open up
| access to lands for new towns and communities. And, as we are
| approaching the season, these roads are used for emergency
| services and additionally the maintenance of forests through
| controlled burns and the prevention of further spreading
| wildfires.
| tbrownaw wrote:
| > _Not to mention, these roads often open up access to
| lands for new towns and communities._
|
| That would be the "other ancillary development that always
| seems to follow" that the GP comment says there's value in
| preventing.
|
| There a line of thinking that says that humans are evil and
| there should be less of them and those that remain should
| be confined to a more limited area.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| > humans are evil
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
| doubloon wrote:
| Imagine if there was 'old growth internet' and the federal
| government forced big tech companies to preserve big chunks of
| it.
| ohmyiv wrote:
| I don't understand your point. Internet and forests are
| different systems. They both have different uses and different
| types of management. It doesn't make sense to me to compare.
| Could you expand more?
| soultrees wrote:
| I think the OP is making a point that we should resources as
| The Internet Archive as services that are in the best
| interest of the public.
| ohmyiv wrote:
| Ah, okay, that makes more sense. Yeah, theyre right about
| that. Thanks!
| paulmd wrote:
| I mean we do have "old growth standards" that are legally
| mandated in the tech industry... EU mandates for USB micro-B
| and usb-C are an example, as are PCI standards and similar
| security standards around banking endpoint security etc.
| poorman wrote:
| 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.
| tallowen wrote:
| I think we now know about a lot more externalities of this kind
| of logging than we did generations ago. For example, much of
| the hydrological basis that provide drinking water to the
| Seattle metro area was aggressively logged 100 years ago which
| impacts the hydrology of the basin in a negative way for the
| purpose collecting drinking water.
|
| I think extra knowledge in the space of the environment often
| leads to indecision which is certainly it's own drawback but I
| think these choices are not without tradeoffs that should be
| acknowledged.
| poorman wrote:
| I'll admit I'm not up to speed on the affect of the
| aggressive logging of Seattle on the hydrological cycle. From
| the little time I've spent there, I managed to gleam one
| small fact, that by the 1950's the Seattle city sewage system
| was dumping up to 50 million gallons of sewage into the Puget
| sound (per day).
|
| I'm only a software engineer and have no understanding of
| hydrological cycles, but I suspect the evaporation and
| precipitation of that alone would have an impact on the
| nearby watersheds used for drinking water.
| Arainach wrote:
| You'd be mostly wrong. The Sound is salt water and not a
| source of drinking water. Other bodies of drinkable water
| flow into the sound, not out of.
|
| Pollutants don't evaporate with water. They're left behind.
| Acid rain was from pollutants in the air mixing with water
| droplets.
| loeg wrote:
| > by the 1950's the Seattle city sewage system was dumping
| up to 50 million gallons of sewage into the Puget sound
| (per day).
|
| Seattle started building water treatment plants in 1961 and
| they entered service throughout the 1960s:
| https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/dnrp/waste-
| services/wastewate...
|
| Meanwhile, Victoria, BC (Canada) continued to dump raw
| sewage into the ocean until _2021_ :
| https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/victoria-
| sew...
| loeg wrote:
| > logged 100 years ago which impacts the hydrology of the
| basin in a negative way for the purpose collecting drinking
| water.
|
| Can you elaborate on the problems?
| beaeglebeachedd wrote:
| Very common scam. Introduce revenue source, say "it's going to
| the schools/teachers." Do that for a bit, defund the prior
| source of cash so the teachers are at what they were before.
| When it's time to run the next scan rinse and repeat. Seen it
| done with about every new tax introduced. Teachers still get
| paid shit and other taxes either barely move or go up.
| Loughla wrote:
| I'm not trying to be shitty, but what other examples do you
| have? I don't know about that.
| webstrand wrote:
| Another example would be various gas taxes were supposed to
| be for the maintenance of roads but now a fair portion of
| the revenue is diverted for other purposes. It depends on
| the state.
| mminer237 wrote:
| The lottery is the big thing.
| blululu wrote:
| The lottery is another example where tickets allegedly fund
| education. The reality is that most of a state's budget is
| set holistically and paid for out of the general fund. From
| an accounting standpoint you can't really target a specific
| program for additional funding under these circumstances.
| mburns wrote:
| >The reality is that most of a state's budget is set
| holistically and paid for out of the general fund.
|
| Isn't this just conflating states that do that with other
| states that don't?
|
| Oregon keeps the general fund and the lottery fund
| separate, 53% of the lottery fund goes to education (the
| rest to other voter-approved programs).
| Retric wrote:
| No because you can cut funding by slowing the annual
| increase from the general fund. Be that for inflation or
| just population growth.
|
| Year 0: general fund hands 100m to schools.
|
| Year 1: General fund hands 101m / year and lotteries add
| 10m to that yay! 111m for school, or except 'inflation'
| was 2% so it's more like 109m.
|
| Year 2: General fund hands 102m / year and lottery adds
| 10.2m, 'inflation' was 2%. So adjusting for inflation
| Schools get ~108 million and general fund only spends
| ~98m.
|
| Repeat as needed until general fund is handing the
| equivalent of 90m with the slack taken up by the lottery.
| mburns wrote:
| Backdoor defunding by not adjusting for inflation is
| definitely a thing but that seems like a separate issue
| from what I was responding to re: where the funds come
| from and if they are kept separate, not how much should
| be spent in total.
|
| > Repeat as needed until general fund is handing the
| equivalent of 90m with the slack taken up by the lottery.
|
| The lottery picking up the slack so that the general fund
| doesn't have to do all of it is the whole point.
| Retric wrote:
| > The lottery picking up the slack so the general fund
| doesn't have to do all of it is the whole point.
|
| That's identical to the lottery just putting money
| directly into the general fund. Unless the funding source
| results in an increase in total funding this stuff is
| pure theatre.
| loeg wrote:
| I'm not sure I'd call it a scam. It certainly takes advantage
| of the fact that voters don't seem to really believe (or
| understand) that money is fungible.
| jeffbee wrote:
| The state CSF forest is like a gnat in the eye of the national
| forest. They only own 40k acres, while the USDA/USFS
| administers 16 million acres and BLM administers another 4
| million acres.
| floodedburner wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-23 23:00 UTC)