New trees are planted, but the lumber industry wants the old growth trees. The new growth is good for pulp and small dimensional lumber. The good stuff is heart wood and can be used as beams. Much of the wood salvaged from old churches and other large buildings is of a size that can’t be milled, since all the big trees have been taken in that area.
Somehow the pro-Lumber people want you to believe that all of those ten-trees-planted-for-one-cut-down reach maturity. They also neglect that it can take decades for those that survive to reach maturity and that existing trees are still being cut faster than can be replaced. Also, Night-Gaunt is so right that replacing the trees doesn’t rebuild the ecology.
I think it is more trees than 1900 – back then, we cut down trees not for their wood, but for farmland. Farms are more efficient now, so they get more food out of less land. So some farms are sold off for building lots, and people put trees in their backyards
“Plant a tree, write a book, have a son.” Arab proverb. [Tree for the environment, book to share your ideas with the future, and son to carry on the family name] I have written several books, had a son and a daughter, and have planted a couple thousand trees versus cut down maybe ten which didn’t survive old age or drought and cut up enough naturally shed limbs to heat a bookstore instead of using gas.
Okay, I’m back. Had to go throw up after reading these tree hugger posts. My question: How many of you huggers live in the wilderness, curled up in a pile of leaves, and how many of you live in a house built from limber?
That reminds of a John Denver song called Paradise. He told about a beautiful forest and land. Way into the song he sang: ♫♪♫♪Mr. Peabody’s shovels have hauled it away.♫♪♫♪
As has been noted – monoculture tree planting after clear cutting doesn’t produce a healthy forest – and the timber companies know this, which is why they prefer uncut, mature forest rather than returning to areas re-planted 30 or 40 years ago, even when those areas are more accessible or closer to the mills. In the foothills west of Calgary, where I have lived my whole life, it isn’t hard to recognize the areas logged 50, and even 100 years ago to build the booming town and then city – the forest that grew back still is more sparse, more stunted, drier, and less ecologically varied and vibrant than undisturbed areas – or indeed than areas burned by fire more recently. Clear-cutting is cost effective for the timber company, as long as they can keep moving on to virgin forest, but highly destructive to the long-term forest ecology.
tr.phipps almost 12 years ago
the difference between a contractor and an enviromentalist is that the enviromentalist already has his house in the mountains.
PICTO almost 12 years ago
So did the contractor cut down the forest so we could see the trees?
PoodleGroomer almost 12 years ago
Would the environmentally concerned people point out the trees that they have planted.
agentadq almost 12 years ago
Can’t see the forest for the trees…
route66paul almost 12 years ago
New trees are planted, but the lumber industry wants the old growth trees. The new growth is good for pulp and small dimensional lumber. The good stuff is heart wood and can be used as beams. Much of the wood salvaged from old churches and other large buildings is of a size that can’t be milled, since all the big trees have been taken in that area.
PShaw0423 almost 12 years ago
That seems improbable, but the data should be interesting. “Land with trees on it” is not the same thing as “Still stands the forest primeval.”
mistercatworks almost 12 years ago
Somehow the pro-Lumber people want you to believe that all of those ten-trees-planted-for-one-cut-down reach maturity. They also neglect that it can take decades for those that survive to reach maturity and that existing trees are still being cut faster than can be replaced. Also, Night-Gaunt is so right that replacing the trees doesn’t rebuild the ecology.
flyintheweb almost 12 years ago
I think it is more trees than 1900 – back then, we cut down trees not for their wood, but for farmland. Farms are more efficient now, so they get more food out of less land. So some farms are sold off for building lots, and people put trees in their backyards
hippogriff almost 12 years ago
“Plant a tree, write a book, have a son.” Arab proverb. [Tree for the environment, book to share your ideas with the future, and son to carry on the family name] I have written several books, had a son and a daughter, and have planted a couple thousand trees versus cut down maybe ten which didn’t survive old age or drought and cut up enough naturally shed limbs to heat a bookstore instead of using gas.
beaver48612 almost 12 years ago
When are we gonna admit that environmental problems are caused by OVER-POPULATION?
johnmanjaybee almost 12 years ago
Okay, I’m back. Had to go throw up after reading these tree hugger posts. My question: How many of you huggers live in the wilderness, curled up in a pile of leaves, and how many of you live in a house built from limber?
iced tea almost 12 years ago
That reminds of a John Denver song called Paradise. He told about a beautiful forest and land. Way into the song he sang: ♫♪♫♪Mr. Peabody’s shovels have hauled it away.♫♪♫♪
Greg Johnston almost 12 years ago
As has been noted – monoculture tree planting after clear cutting doesn’t produce a healthy forest – and the timber companies know this, which is why they prefer uncut, mature forest rather than returning to areas re-planted 30 or 40 years ago, even when those areas are more accessible or closer to the mills. In the foothills west of Calgary, where I have lived my whole life, it isn’t hard to recognize the areas logged 50, and even 100 years ago to build the booming town and then city – the forest that grew back still is more sparse, more stunted, drier, and less ecologically varied and vibrant than undisturbed areas – or indeed than areas burned by fire more recently. Clear-cutting is cost effective for the timber company, as long as they can keep moving on to virgin forest, but highly destructive to the long-term forest ecology.