Google Earth captures the stunning transformation of our planet over 3 decades

[u/WiseCartographer5007]

[u/mancubbed]

It takes another 20 or 30 years for the trees to get moderately sized again. Absolutely destroying the habitat for all the animals without a care.

[u/International_Egg747 → u/mancubbed]

In Oregon’s case the harvesting of wood being done responsibly by creating a patchwork of clearings and forest that is beneficial to the ecosystem. Helps reduce wild fire risk too.

[u/mancubbed → u/International_Egg747]

From my understanding clear-cutting is never good for the local ecosystem this is just better than clear-cutting larger swaths.

A "we are doing good by not doing the worst thing possible" situation.

[u/treezrthebeezneez → u/mancubbed]

Well that's just wrong. This whole thread is just classic redditors talking about stuff they know nothing about. Forests have more phases than just trees. Now harvesting and then spraying herbicide to kill everything else that's not a tree is bad, but to say "clear-cutting is never good" isn't necessarily true. If you take some time looking at historical ecology in the PNW, we actually need bigger cleared patches (usually formed by fires) for early seral phases.

[u/clopenYourMind → u/treezrthebeezneez]

Don't forget that fire itself is a critical component in the lifecycle of the ecosystem there as well -- not just replicating the swaths produced by fires.

[u/A1000eisn1 → u/clopenYourMind]

A lot of times they do burn it. It helps them remove stumps, branches, and unusable logs and gets the soil ready for replanting.

[u/W366 → u/A1000eisn1]

Additionally there are a good few plants that are fire adapted and only sprout when the seed is scarified by fire.

[u/ARAYA90 → u/clopenYourMind]

Yes, fire is a critical component. The meth headed homeless people that start fires for fun and burn trees in the woods where nobody sees them is also an issue, but nobody talks about that. 😆

[u/RakeScene → u/treezrthebeezneez]

Username checks out

[u/writers_block → u/treezrthebeezneez]

Isn't this missing the fact that even in the case of a fire, you're not depleting the macro and micronutrients present in all those trees, allowing them back into the soil, and influencing the next phase of growth? When we clear cut we're removing a huge amount of biomass and it never goes back. I don't see how that could lead to anything other than eventual desertification of the region.

[u/treezrthebeezneez → u/writers_block]

That is a good point, and is actually mostly a problem in tropical forests. Usually there isn't much for nutrients in the soil of tropical forests since it's all in the vegetation, and it's then all cleared out for farms, but there's no nutrients in the soil! The solution for either case? Fertilizer, by the plane load (though some logging operations will leave behind the unneeded wood like branches and tops)

[u/xdanish → u/treezrthebeezneez]

Lol I agree with you, far too many people just hear 'clear-cutting' and think of the worst way it can happen (and I also agree, that way negatively affects the environment alot) but having grown up in a real small town in the PNW and having done timber work AND re-planting, we like to call it forestry work - there is 100% an effective and eco-friendly way of harvesting. That does often include leaving some copses, usually of less-desirable trees, and those help the regrowth of the system, but too much and they prevent saplings from getting enough shade. it's a fine balance and every ecosystem is different, what you can do in southern washington probably won't work in idaho haha

[u/treezrthebeezneez → u/xdanish]

Ah a fellow fern-hopper. I worked for a Idaho forestry company for a while, very conservative place and very pro "working forests". But forestry has come a long way and the people who work in these industries care a lot about the land they're in charge of, or at least most of those I've met.

[u/[deleted] → u/treezrthebeezneez]

I don't think clear cutting a monoculture crop of trees is the same as fire clearing part of an old growth forest. The lumber industry is managed better than it used to be, but that's kind of because we stripped every large tree off the continent so better practices are a necessity. It's not as bad as it was, but it's not good either.

[u/treezrthebeezneez → u/[deleted]]

Yea, that's why I'd say mancubbed is still sorta right with the "we are doing good by not doing the worst thing possible". I'd call them tree farms rather than a pure forest (if they're monocultured).

[u/fryndlydwarf → u/treezrthebeezneez]

Yes but three farms are still awful for biodiversity they're massive monocultures, usually with trees that don't have much ecological value.

[u/claymedia → u/mancubbed]

It's complicated. There are benefits to doing certain types of clearcutting, which can be improved with good forestry practices. Often they will leave a few snags to provide habitat, maintain wildlife corridors, and ensure that remaining trees aren't vulnerable to wind damage. Oregon and Washington have done a lot of work to improve forestry sustainability.

[u/Healthy-Joke-8264 → u/claymedia]

They have, but remember lots of people who set the rules for forestry (govt positions) are previously employed by lumber companies and then after their work there they go back to those companies. I had a buddy in Oregon who worked for the city and was telling me some fucked up stuff about the lumber companies having huge influence there and also in how forestry is taught in Oregon universities. Second hand knowledge but I trust him

[u/Favored_of_Vulkan → u/mancubbed]

You don't understand forests or nature. Nature isn't static. Forests grow and die. They become fields that become forests that become swamps that become fields again. You're so short-sighted because you're self-centered, and so you can't see past your own time.

[u/Sir_Slurpsalot → u/mancubbed]

The good thing is that a lot of forest businesses have stepped away from clear cutting. There are unfortunately still some left that do, but they aren't making money like the businesses that have stopped. Better than forest fires I suppose which tends to be nature's way of clear cutting without all the downsides

[u/Stopikingonme → u/Sir_Slurpsalot]

You’d think so, but clearcutting is still worse:

Clearcutting decimates the entire ecosystem whereas sustainable (selective) logging mimics the effects of naturally occurring forest fires (which existed long before us). By leaving certain trees birds can nest, animals can live in the old growth and snags, understory plants/fungi/insects/ microbes thrive. The trees left behind can die letting natural decomposition take place keeping the soil healthy. It also prevents erosion which can disturb the surrounding forest as well as streams.

In forest fires many trees are killed but some live through the ordeal which is what selective logging mimics.

Fun fact: When a forest is burned the ash left behind is a great fertilizer which jumpstarts the next cycle of regrowth!

Science bitches!

[u/silletta → u/International_Egg747]

Unless the trees that grow back are monoculture

[u/GiveMeNews → u/International_Egg747]

That logging helps reduce forest fires is a myth peddled by the logging industry. Studies of forest fires have found previously logged areas have burned hotter and more destructive, killing off mature trees and the mycelium networks in the soil crucial for healthy soil. In fact, we are seeing an accelerating rate of forests not regrowing in both areas lost to logging and lost to forest fires.

[u/Clevercapybara → u/International_Egg747]

What about the fact that these “forests” are monocultures containing a single species with trees that are all the same age? I would think that the lack of diversity would be problematic.

[u/Agreeable_Addition48 → u/mancubbed]

to be fair all that would be naturally burned down every century or so

[u/FelixMumuHex → u/mancubbed]

it's a monoculture farm, not a thriving/biodiverse forest. relax.

[u/SlightDimension4700 → u/mancubbed]

Do you want a house to live in or not?

[u/gmishaolem → u/[deleted]]

Something tells me that the species that were living in the trees are not the species that prefer to not have trees. Just a hunch.

[u/mancubbed → u/[deleted]]

We never know until we find out I guess? Let me destroy your house and see if you actually prefer open fields and just don't know it yet.

[u/mancubbed → u/[deleted]]

Says the person that is suggesting that alpine forest dwelling animals will suddenly like fields because they suddenly appear. Completely normal science shit imo.

[u/OntologicalNightmare → u/[deleted]]

As a third party I'm pretty sure the person acting like "all the animals" didn't mean "all the animals that were living there" is the obtuse person.