Posted on 04/22/2018 5:12:00 PM PDT by grundle
Sounds like a worthy plan.
For instance, the redwoods in Redwood City (on the SF Penninsula)were clear cut back in the 1800s. The growth up on the ridge line (Skyline Drive) is getting impressive. That is with about 100 years or so of growth. One can only imagine what the area looked like back in the 1700s.
Carefully adopting the 35 year old suggestions of the non-environmentalists, another step into progressive postmodernism leaps into mainstream thinking.
200 trees per acre?? An acre is about 208.7’ x 208.7’. That’s a lot of trees per acre.
I thought logging the forests was bad.
That makes it difficult to see the forest....
what evidence is there that redwood stands devoid of a diverse collection of other plants does better than a pure collection of redwoods.
Follow the money.
Gee? Now why didn't we think of that?
“One can only imagine what the area looked like back in the 1700s”
Have been to Muir Woods many times.
I assume that’s somewhat what things may have looked like.
About 3 years ago I took Skyline BLVD to Old La Honda Rd.
I was very impressed. Out in SF for some Solar Inverter training.
Chop down the tree to save it?
So it turns out that the so-called ‘save the redwoods’ groups were really loggers assembling large tracts?
Big Redwoods need space.
Lots of space.
Because they have asbestos in their bark they survive the forest fires that take out all other growth. That’s how they typically get that space.
How many of you have seen the majestic redwoods of Northern CA?
They will make you humble. As will the Giant Sequoias in the Sierras.
I think the logging Industry should Sue, Protest, and anything Possible to STOP This.
The Logging and Timber industries used these EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS when they were Under Assault by the Tree huggers and Environmental Communists.
“what evidence is there that redwood stands devoid of a diverse collection of other plants does better than a pure collection of redwoods.”
the most impressive stands of redwoods have little more than ferns below them.
Their taproots are often 200 feet below the tree. They get their food deep.
I thought logging the forests was bad.Only when corporations do it. Not when environmentalists do it.
But guess where they learned what they know about saving trees and the environment?
Sierra Club? NOPE.
Logging companies.
That is how it is. Like “we had to burn the village to save it”, logging companies are such swell people. Seriously, thinning a stand can improve it by mimicking natural processes.
This sudden revelation by idiot "environmental" come to Jesus moment is so disgusting I can't read the rest of the crap.
Exhibitionist tree-hugging nutjobs have caused more destruction of forests, and more expense to the California economy, the housing industry and the insurance industry, than all the firebugs and careless campers in history.
"Disgusting" is the only word that fits.
“I thought logging the forests was bad.”
These are the same folks that believe...in order to save the human race, they have to kill it’s babies.
Yes, but when old line logging companies wanted to thin, the enviroMentalists yelled that they were ‘raping mother earth’. Now when they want to do the same thing, it is ‘stewardship’
Well, at least their veil of hypocrisy has been removed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.