Submitted by Johnny9Toes t3_zbqdku in vermont
Comments
buried_lede t1_iyszfep wrote
They’ve got some, as they put it, “patches” of old growth
https://www.vermontpublic.org/programs/2019-06-07/does-vermont-have-any-patches-of-old-growth-forest
quercusshumardii t1_iytkcqp wrote
Having worked/studied these patches, intentional and ecologically informed treatments would hugely benefit these areas. This is mainly because the state’s forests have 1 or 2 dominant age classes in the canopy. Eastern old growth is characterized by a complex structure and high amounts of large fallen deadwood in addition to large old trees. UVM actually developed a forestry treatment called “Structural Complexity Enhancement” to help forests get on a better trajectory to old growth structure. It’s been very successful and used on public & private land in Vermont. It’s widely understood by land managers that if you clear cut, you will get a stand of unmarketable beech and red maple growing up. Thus there’s a desire for more complex and sustainable silviculture.
taylordobbs t1_iyt2nws wrote
funny phrasing, because by definition a forest isn't a patch and a patch isn't a forest.
Upthespurs1882 t1_iyv639v wrote
This spring, my buddy and I were hiking snake mountain and talking about how much we’d like to walk through some old growth, only to read later there’s some on the back of the mt. Oh well, next time!
quercusshumardii t1_iywsn1o wrote
You might not even know you’re in old growth bc a lot of the oldest trees aren’t that big. Red spruce and hemlock can stay small in the shade for a loooong time.
immutable_truth t1_iyto38k wrote
I swear some Vermonters need to live somewhere more controversial to feed their injustice fetish.
Atomic_Watermelon666 t1_iytz8jq wrote
Fuck off. They need to leave the trees alone. That "injustice fetish" is the reason why vermont is nicer than other places, less pollution, more trees small business over box boxes and change... that fetish as you call it is called community and its what happens when people care more about eachother and their home than they care about industry cutting all the trees down for profit. So fuck you and take your attitude back to NY, CT, MA, or NJ or wherever they make people like you.
InterestingAd2575 t1_iyua24g wrote
It's important to properly manage our forests. Look at the cluster fuck California is!
Atomic_Watermelon666 t1_iz4sqc6 wrote
Fuck off back to the city.
Eagle_Arm t1_iz51077 wrote
Haha, what city would that be? My big Vermont city of 1,300 people that I grew up in or my current MASSIVE Vermont city of 17K?
Such large cities! Just because you have bad ideas doesn't mean people who disagree aren't from here. Also, being from Vermont doesn't make you right...just because.
Your self-righteousness and ideas are bad. Full stop.
Atomic_Watermelon666 t1_iz51mgf wrote
So you're justa clown who doesn't mind industry fucking up our state, got it.
Eagle_Arm t1_iz55sf9 wrote
Haha, so now that I'm not a flatlander? I'm a clown?
Who's the industry? The state of Vermont.
So you have no idea what you're talking about? Got it.
Atomic_Watermelon666 t1_iz5b4km wrote
Clear-cutting in national forests for profit is wrong. They just cut down every tree in the state less than 150 years ago.they should let the trees grow. Fuck the paper industry. You want to selectively cut and manage? That's fine, clear cutting in the parks shouldn't be a thing.
fraxinus2000 t1_iz7yg2f wrote
Clear-cutting for profit doesn’t happen on National Forests. And National Forests aren’t “parks”, and neither are State Forests or Wildlife Management Areas..
Eagle_Arm t1_iz5sdge wrote
So you have no idea what they are doing with this project huh? It also seems you don't know anything about forest management huh? Maybe those with that background do know what they are doing here, so easy there keyboard warrior.
I guess that person's initial comment about people having an injustice fetish was pretty spot on.
There is nothing wrong here, but you desperate desire there to be one and will argue about something you don't know anything about. I'm sure there is someone out there that needs to be protected online, go find them.
immutable_truth t1_iyu3qwz wrote
Lol calm down
Atomic_Watermelon666 t1_iyu65xm wrote
No. Go back to skyscraper land and enjoy your view of garbage barges.
immutable_truth t1_iyudd1o wrote
Nope. Please try reading some of the highest upvoted comments to realize why this posting/protest is looking to stir a pot that doesn’t need stirring.
I love Vermont and will continue to enjoy its natural beauty.
[deleted] t1_iyudbcx wrote
[deleted]
Eagle_Arm t1_iyuqln9 wrote
Tell me you can't make an original comment without telling me you can't make an original comment.
Atomic_Watermelon666 t1_iyu1rqp wrote
Thanks for the award kind stranger.
Longjumping_Vast_797 t1_iyvcjm0 wrote
Yep. Enough of the misdirected outrage. This makes me want to take a megaphone to their protest to counter. Fucking morons.
fraxinus2000 t1_iz7z0ui wrote
Society of American Foresters weigh in with a recent comment on ‘proforestation’
Relevant-Elk8336 t1_iysu8w7 wrote
Clearcuts are a relatively small fraction of the silvicultural prescriptions performed on the Green Mountain National Forest. Each harvest is site specific and lots of planning goes into it. Recent clearcuts on the forest were in monoculture plantations of non-native trees, like Norway spruce. They were replanted with a mix of native species. There are designated wilderness areas will never be harvested and a very small fraction of the harvestable acreage is cut annually. Public land is multi-use. Can’t completely satisfy anyone.
rivunel t1_iytir6b wrote
Oh they actually got rid of all those Norway spruce where NOTHING could grow because of how acidic it was
RobertJoseph802 t1_iyswzpa wrote
Very little old growth in VT so you know this is uninformed ragebait
Faerhun t1_iyt44z4 wrote
I was gonna say, what Old Growth? VT was straight clear cut in it's almost entirety in the 1800-1900s. The only places that weren't were the places that they couldn't get the equipment in.
3rdcoffeecup t1_iyt69gg wrote
At the height of the Merino wool boom Vermont was 30% forrest and 70% deforrested. I believe now it's the opposite being 70% forrest and 30% deforrested. The Merino wool bubble burst in the 1840s(?) or 1850s(?).
[deleted] t1_iytf3aw wrote
[deleted]
Legitimate_Proof t1_iyvi6d4 wrote
I think the rate of sequestration is close. We assumed young forests sequestered more because they are growing faster, but studies have shown mature forests may actually sequester more carbon. Using made up numbers to demonstrate how that could be: if a young forest has 10 tons of carbon mass and is growing at 20% a year, it's adding 2 tons a year. A mature forest might have 10 times more mass and grow at 1/10th the rate, that would be 100 tons, growing at 2%, which would be 2 tons a year. I think the reality is that they are close enough that we can't generalize.
popquizmf t1_iyzojmx wrote
Depends on the forest. It's that simple, some mature forests, are great carbon reservoirs, but their ability to bring additional carbon in, is very limited. Other old growth forest continue to become more complex systems that can store more carbon.
All the research I went through as a grad student pointed to younger forests being better at sequestration. The bottom line is: the best carbon sinks are forests that don't exist yet. Allowing a field to go to forest is going to store more carbon over 100 years than any other option.
Johnny9Toes OP t1_iyudeef wrote
I think you're right and that people conflate sequestration (rate of carbon taken out of the atmosphere per some unit of time) with storage (total carbon locked in the forest above and below ground). I believe regenerating forests sequester more carbon and older forests have more carbon stored.
missoularat t1_iytxbnh wrote
You are wrong
Outrageous-Outside61 t1_iyv3ach wrote
No
_lucy_blue t1_iytid6o wrote
So what is the end goal of the people who made the flyer? I genuinely don’t know enough about it, and am curious as to their motivations. Are they just vastly uninformed, or trying to use this to influence or forward other interests?
taylordobbs t1_iytnn54 wrote
Single-minded focus on carbon sequestration, using buzzwords to accomplish goals.
missoularat t1_iytxj1w wrote
You say nothing
taylordobbs t1_iytxp4z wrote
K
Holyoldmackinaw1 t1_iysm59r wrote
Vermont’s public lands barely harvest as is, they harvest well below the amount of growth each year. Not to mention the fact that there is essentially no old growth forest in Vermont at all…
somedudevt t1_iyspxt0 wrote
Yeah anyone who looks at a picture of the state in 1870 knows this. It’s actually crazy to think that the state was fully clear cut in that era. But we sure had a lot of sheep!
taylordobbs t1_iyt2imz wrote
Camel's Hump was bald with a hotel on it. The folks who come to Vermont and say development is ruining places like that are missing the fact that development has already ruined places like that and we took them back. Development isn't evil; poorly planned development is harmful.
VeterinarianFast9440 t1_iyufa3e wrote
"Essentionally none" isn't none, so why not protect what is left?
Holyoldmackinaw1 t1_iyvk7ue wrote
It already is protected… about .002% of the GMNF is old growth. 700 or so acres out of 400,000 total acres.
GratitudeMountain t1_iysxl78 wrote
There’s a lot of information they are leaving out. The forest service isn’t going to clearcut 11,000 acres, rather they want permission to survey the area to see if it is suitable for the prescription. It is against state law to clearcut over 15 continuous acres, so the reality will likely be a sort of patch-work layout similar to what’s happening in the NEK’s wildlife refuge.
Also worth to note that the said wildlife refuge, while also being public land, had no reaction like this to it’s clearcuts. I don’t think the idea of preserving public land is a terrible idea, though there seems to be a lot of bias to what areas are being targeted for preservation and what information this organization is presenting.
vtddy t1_iyu4cuh wrote
It's not 15 acres is 39
GratitudeMountain t1_iyu8utw wrote
Ah my bad. I was told by one of my professors that clearcuts generally don’t exceed 15 acres, but I guess that’s more of a practice than an enforcement.
RoyalIndependence500 t1_iyv5nzl wrote
I worked for the US Forest Service for over 20 years (not as a forester, although I learned a LOT from foresters). The federal rule at the time ( and this would address the GMNF), was no clearcut over 20 acres. And so people know, this claim that thousands of acres are to be cut is total bullshit. The project area may be thousands of acres, but the treatment units total acres is much smaller. And for every inch cut, the FS conducted biological, hydrological, soil science, archaeological, botanical as well as forestry surveys to determine where, when and what type of treatment will meet the long term management objectives. I have a very hard time with Standing Trees and any organization that intentionally misleads the public. These folks claim they want “Wilderness”, which is a racist concept that ignores thousands of years of environmental manipulation by indigenous people. I am an environmentalist. We need to address climate change, water quality and a host of issues by protecting our lands. But that doesn’t mean we can’t manipulate and help restore balance through human intervention.
HardTacoKit t1_iyskvds wrote
I don’t know a lot about this group or this project, but my NIMBY senses are tingling.
Unable-Way8858 t1_iyv4k2r wrote
You absolutely nailed it. I have many quotes after attending a standing trees info session. A favorite: "You can go too far with local" or "Leakage is bogus".
mycophdstudent t1_iysxr58 wrote
Vermont is 78% woodland acres, more woodland acres than 130 years ago. It's okay to manage your forests and selectively lumber to make income on meeting home heating and building material needs.
Faerhun t1_iyt4qf9 wrote
We also have very, very little old growth, it was all cut down a long time ago. While we're very heavily forested now, close to 80% of the forests in Vermont were clear cut and raised in the 1800s for logging and farmland.
https://glcp.uvm.edu/landscape_new/learn/Downloads/scrapbooks/forestsVT.pdf
mycophdstudent t1_iyt7brf wrote
How old must a tree be to be considered old?
Legitimate_Proof t1_iytjyf7 wrote
It's not just tree age:
>Old growth forests can be defined as forested ecosystems which have developed somewhat independently over a long time, usually at least several centuries. https://vtcommunityforestry.org/news/events/old-growth-forests
That long because old growth forests are characterized by a lot of fallen trees that create habitat and openings for different types trees to grow. So these are much older than the forests we see around most of Vermont that have trees that are mostly similar size and only a few downed ones.
mycophdstudent t1_iytpjjm wrote
Life is resilient so wouldn't that same ecosystem rehabilitate around 50 year old forest? I own land which was cleared for farming in the early 1800's which fell fallow so the forest encroached and there's living fossil neolectica irregularis mushrooms growing from the soil. All sorts of diversity.
Faerhun t1_iyt9d9q wrote
It depends on the tree species but generally around 150-250 years or older.
>Hardwood forests of the eastern United States can develop old-growth characteristics in 150–500 years. In British Columbia, Canada, old growth is defined as 120 to 140 years of age in the interior of the province where fire is a frequent and natural occurrence. In British Columbia's coastal rainforests, old growth is defined as trees more than 250 years, with some trees reaching more than 1,000 years of age.[9] In Australia, eucalypt trees rarely exceed 350 years of age due to frequent fire disturbance.[10]
Fly4aPhish t1_iytu6sv wrote
Correct me if I'm wrong but was there not a massive deforestation in the state in the 1860's? Something like 70-80% of land was cleared largely for timber and sheep I've heard.
Seems misleading to argue there are more trees now than at the time of the largest deforestation in the area since I would guess the last glaciation.
Loud_Geologist_7172 t1_iytx6b3 wrote
It’s also the quality of the new forests that is problematic because a less diverse forest is - if I’m not mistaken- also less resilient to the many impacts wrought by climate change (from pests to erosion of soil).
nozamy t1_iysp5gg wrote
I support logging on Nat Forests if done responsibly. You can bet that the foresters managing the cuts care for the environment and responsible land management. They are professionals and public servants. Very little old growth forest is left in Vermont and mature forests should be in rotation for cutting. Lots of species occur in disturbed and successional forests. With out disturbances, you just don’t get certain species of plants and birds. So responsible forestry yes, fear mongering NIMBY no.
Chess_Not_Checkers t1_iyt0hry wrote
The Black Hills NF is a great example of forest mismanagement. Logging and maintenance has been at a standstill and the forest has been ravaged by pine beetles for the last decade and change due to forest overcrowding. The reality is that forests have never just grown unchecked, if we don't let sections burn then we must maintain them.
Rich_Depth7314 t1_iyvbao6 wrote
I'm sorry, but have you ever been there? I've worked backcountry biology jobs in the black hills, and there are old fire areas absolutely everywhere. USFS says they average 99 wildfires per year - that not enough for you?
Holyoldmackinaw1 t1_iysmnqk wrote
Worth adding as well, the huge misunderstanding among the public of what clear cutting actually entails, what it is.l, and what it is not. There are a huge variety of different silvicultural treatments with specific definitions and scientific evidence supporting them, as well a specific rationale as to why different treatments are selected.
fraxinus2000 t1_iyswzfo wrote
And also establishing younger forests is VERY important to certain wildlife and for creating healthy and RESILIENT forests. Pests/hurricanes/droughts leave you with invasive shrubs if you don’t care for the forest. Forest conversion (permanent change for development) is bad, forest management (tending a forest) on public land is good- the campaigners don’t understand the difference.
suzi-r t1_iyt60zs wrote
With warming, we don’t need kudzu. We may, like it or not, get it.
EscapedAlcatraz t1_iystk0e wrote
This is silly. National Forests are land set aside for get this.....logging! They're not national parks, they are tracts of reusable resources for paper, lumber etc.
MontEcola t1_iytjc61 wrote
Forests and natural resources. Resources do include minerals and wildlife. And standing trees. Preserving forests close to streams and rivers help keep a healthy fish population. We do not have commercial fishing in our rivers, that I know about, but we do have people who come to fish particular streams. Keeping that stream healthy is a resource. Who benefits? The travel industry.
My family owned three different properties that were logged regularly. When ever we logged, the forester would mark what to cut this year, what to leave, and what would probably get cut next time, in 3 or 4 years. And by rotating what property got cut this year, we had a harvest almost every year. Or, to be more accurate, when we needed cash we would harvest some trees. Over 35 years, the trees became both taller and thicker. So we cut the same number of trees and produced more board feet and better logs for the mills. That led to more profit, and steady income.
Aromatic-Low-4578 t1_iyt2jt8 wrote
The whole point of National Forests is that they're working forests and are sustainably harvested for resources that belong to all of us. I feel like folks so often think of them as similar to National Parks, they're really quite different.
Eagle_Arm t1_iyslhda wrote
They just don't want the eyesore of logging.
The great thing about trees......they grow back. If this is the same project I looked at before, it is managed at few percent of the total project per year. They aren't just clear cutting. I could be wrong.
taylordobbs t1_iyt2br6 wrote
Not enough nuance. Logging and forest products are critical in keeping forested land economically viable to leave undeveloped. The creators of this poster may know this, but it reads like a "cutting any tree is evil" poster, and "cutting any tree is evil" is not a winning position IMO. (Full disclosure: am an arborist, get paid to trim trees)
Most_Expert_8080 t1_iyslnqt wrote
Their website does not say who they are: “The effort to save our public forests is a collective effort of individuals from many organizations.” So this is obviously some NIMBYs
Sockception t1_iysmzdh wrote
It says right here what organizations comprise the Save Public Forests Coalition - https://www.savepublicforests.org/coalition. Looks like a fair amount of groups from VT, what makes you say it’s obviously NIMBYs?
Most_Expert_8080 t1_iysnwkg wrote
That list doesn’t say who they actually are. XR is listed there lol
Unable-Way8858 t1_iyv4sv6 wrote
I went to an info session put on by standing trees. I wrote down many quotes including "you can go too far with local" and "leakage is bogus". Certainly NIMBYism at work here.
Ambitious_Ask_1569 t1_iysrbem wrote
Reminds me of the propaganda that was spread for the Lowell wind project. Hows that working out for the locals that don't own Teslas?
Drive by it all the time on the way to Barton and never see them spinning. It was a shame to loose the whole mountain top. It was a good hike and a beautiful spot.
This is a bunch of childish college BS. We have to have a debate- with clear heads and no bullshit money influence. Give them a few years paying Vermont taxes with Vermont jobs.
Honestly....clear cutting in Vermont.....fuck are they smoking? Oooh Yeah, lots of clear cutting happening in the Green Mountain State.
Act 40 killed logging in Vermont 25 years ago. Along with all the logging and sawmill jobs to boot.
You cant shit in the Vermont woods without a permit.
College kids with patents that are willing to pay 50k +for a 3rd tear education need to realize what they hear in the classroom is not the majority of what VT is....or was.
So cutting trees....bad. That's worth 40k for 4 years. Sounds about like a transplant entitled burlingtonian kid to me.
It doesn't address the real environmental issues of pollution runoff and Burlington's combined sewer system. Phosphate runoff into the lake from farms. Pesticide use and run off. Zebra mussels and lamprey destroying the lakes ecosystem. The loss of farms.
I remember the lake and rivers as a long time Vermonter and its scary how fast things have gone to shit. Logging isn't Vermonts issue. Its a dog whistle. Serious....flooding??. Asshole writer doesn't live in Vt.
TheKnightwing3 t1_iytc8qe wrote
As a person who works with non-profits to collect donations for their cause with mailings i.e. letters, cards, postcards... This is terrible messaging and the title is written with incorrect English per "climate forests" like what they didn't bother to proofread the flyer??? Along with what the others are talking about how there aren't Old Growth forests here lmao
Outrageous-Outside61 t1_iytn9cc wrote
Just gotta say I’m really pleased with the support of properly managing our forest lands. Fuck this flyer. I thought I was gonna have to type out a whole paragraph in support for responsibly managing resources but we all get it. Go Vermont!
slow-poke-rodriguez t1_iyvbyt7 wrote
Cutting purposefully increases ecological diversity. It creates different age classes of forests allowing for a mix of different flora and thus more beneficial wildlife habitat.
The forest service has best management practices for forestry as others have mentioned that do not just clear cut the land scape. They do it in patches, leave wetland buffers and do thinning, and staged cuts for the benefit of wildlife.
Think about monoculture crops, a monoculture mature forest is the same.
A cut over area regrows first with grasses, forbs, wildflowers, seed and fruit bearing shrubs, excellent wildlife food sources. Early successional forest also provides cover from predators. Open mature forest is often a death trap for many prey species.
This is beneficial for many species such as pollinators, butterflies, numerous bird species, deer and moose.
Old growth is the largest store of carbon, however, forests aged 0 - 50 have the highest sequestration rates.
Unfortunately this type of messaging from “environmentalists” sounds all warm and fuzzy but is a detriment to biodiversity as we as humans have suppressed many forms of ecological disturbance that are beneficial to the ecosystem.
ties__shoes t1_iyt3ax3 wrote
I think it would work better with fewer pictures on the top. Maybe one photo in a banner? I think the main body of text is too small and too long. The double web page call out at the bottom is a little strange. That said I think it looks balanced and that the designer broke up the space well. Although there are too many photos the inclusion of visuals is great.
Johnny9Toes OP t1_iyuet54 wrote
This is an unexpected reaction and I am totally in favor of it. Tip of the lid to you. Not enough critique of graphic design these days.
bingozingo1 t1_iysq21e wrote
People will protest anything because they find it fun and empowering- it doesn’t matter what it is
bobsizzle t1_iyt3a2a wrote
They should focus more on the forests of the sea. And damage certain fishing techniques cause. Instead of complaining about management of new growth forests, go complain about the Chinese and everyone else who treats the ocean like a toilet, sewer and all you can eat Buffett.
[deleted] t1_iywykm7 wrote
These people are ridiculous, speaking as a Forester. If you want to affect Carbon issues, go work on the Amazon Basin.
pretentiousignoramus t1_iyt211w wrote
Messaging implies immediate threat
UnfairAd7220 t1_iytyj39 wrote
The number of 'clearcut acres' seems large. If we assume a massive cut width of 200', every 200' would be roughly an acre (209 by 209), or a 200' wide cut that extends 55 miles.
If the cut is a more modest 100', that'd be 110 miles.
When you consider the forest edge is the most biodiversity rich, that's a vast improvement over 'solid forest.'
Me? I suspect the angst is over acted.
thisoneisnotasbad t1_iysvcu3 wrote
I think responsible forest management is a complex issue and with climate change changing the species of tree that do well in VT is may be appropriate to log large swaths of older forests which will soon die on their own and replace them with species which will thrive in 25 or 50 when the growing conditions are different.
stan__dupp t1_iyt63w5 wrote
Problem solved we have a rally
VeterinarianFast9440 t1_iyuez6m wrote
Old growth forrest is exceptionally rare now; should be protected in perpetuity, in my opinion.
Of note, Biden made an EO earlier this year pertaining to natural resources. In response, the USDA and DOI laid out some of the specifics before a request for public comment.
Longjumping_Vast_797 t1_iyvcg3p wrote
This is the dumbest and most ignorant shit I've ever seen. I've been a vermonter my whole life and witnessed responsible logging practices throughout the entire state. If you support this, you have zero Intel into how was already protect the forest, more than sufficiently.
Stop jumping on the bandwagon without the proper historical info. Vermont used to be 80% clear cut in the early 20th century. Entire mountains have grown back.
Kink4202 t1_iywu6nu wrote
There used to be slavery too. What's your point?
[deleted] t1_iysx8qj wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iyuaiaw wrote
[deleted]
WoodyMD t1_iyugp71 wrote
I prefer my rallies flat out, gravel flying, boxer engine screaming.
sickter6 t1_iyvb2g9 wrote
Buy a tushy, then you don’t need to wipe your ass w trees 🌲
thisoneisnotasbad t1_iyvn8n7 wrote
Or buy bamboo toilet paper online for a small premium so you can still wipe your ass of you want but don’t want it to contribute to deforestation.
Alone_Bicycle_600 t1_izd529y wrote
nimby folks
Johnny9Toes OP t1_j1fchj7 wrote
Huh, go figure. Brave Little State now has a question about this up in its new voting round. https://www.vermontpublic.org/podcast/brave-little-state
Johnny9Toes OP t1_iyskmai wrote
Sort of ironic that their messaging seems to revolve around protecting every last tree (on public land) from being harvested for any sort of use as the primary weapon in the fight against climate change then turn around and advertise this event on ...wait for it... paper.
TheTowerBard t1_iysmjc8 wrote
This is silly. You know this is silly. We do, after all, live in a society.
thisoneisnotasbad t1_iyt9nn3 wrote
It’s not silly though.
Not when there are options for people who feel that passionately about a topic. Who knows, maybe it was printed on hemp paper. It does show a level of “I only want convenient change”.
Be the change you want to see in the world.
For instance, I am opposed to industrial meat farming. I won’t buy red meat at a grocery store or restaurant. Saying, ohhh well.. thats society looks hypocritical.
TheTowerBard t1_iytc72p wrote
But it sounds like you buy other products at those stores thus supporting businesses that support an industry you don’t believe in. It’s a pointless game we can all play and yes, it’s quite silly. It’s ok that you buy other products at those stores and it’s ok that the tree people printed their flier on paper.
The real issue with our environment doesn’t lie with us peons, it lies with a handful of mega corporations. The changes we can make as individuals might make us feel better about ourselves, but ultimately have no real impact. So yes, bickering with each other about this sort of stuff, or really anything, is really silly and pointless. We should redirect our energy where it matters.
thisoneisnotasbad t1_iytdh0z wrote
I dont think you understand the industrial meat production market. Or economic boycotts in general. But yes, buying Boston crisp lettuce is ok and doesn’t add anything to the industrial meat complex.
There is no way to avoid globalization and thus everything you buy supports companies that have their finger in your choosen protest but by not actively participating you reduce demand of any given sector.
For instance, every pound of meat I buy from a local farmer is directly equal to one less pound of meat that needs to be raised in a commercial meat facility, assuming I choose to keep eating meat. If enough people oppose commercial meat and take the same action demand is reduced, supply is reduced and less animals are raised in industrial meat.
Likewise every piece of paper that is used is a tree that is cut down (obviously not a whole tree but you get the point).
That is the basis of economic protest and boycotts that have been shown to work. This is not something like buying gasoline which is a requirement to participate in society with no viable affordable option otherwise. This is an extra couple bucks for a ream of hemp paper.
It is the same as screaming about human right violations and then buying apple products. There is enough competition that you don’t need to actively support any specific vendor to participate in society.
Vote with your dollars. Given the dysfunctional state of politics it really is almost the only agency you have to voice you opinion.
Sudden_Dragonfly2638 t1_iysmwz0 wrote
There are responsible and less harmful ways to manage and harvest forests that allows for the production of wood products.
I don't know anything about this group, but I'm all for responsible forestry in general and I do like the idea of preserving old growth forests.
Edit: You got me doing some reading. According to this study large trees that are only about 3% of the forest accounted for 33%-46% of carbon storage. That's pretty wild.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2020.594274/full
hideous-boy t1_iyso8q5 wrote
environmentalism is when no paper
[deleted] t1_iysxhxy wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iysr1kt wrote
[deleted]
Johnny9Toes OP t1_iystp2q wrote
I don't doubt "environmentalist causes". I doubt causes that rally support based on narrow representations of ecological processes, redirect attention from other problems/ solutions, and disregard the greater societal context of landscape management. Sure, we can stop cutting all the trees on public land, but it's sort of pointless if that timber just has to come from private land instead. I guess we could stop building things out of timber, but I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that concrete and steel are more sustainable materials.
dmcginvt t1_iysxlsx wrote
pfft facts schmacts /s
bioniczion666 t1_iywyl0w wrote
I mean no trees no air
lantonas t1_iyt01df wrote
I propose that we clear-cut the national forest and install solar panels.
Original-Green-00704 t1_iyt4ahp wrote
Same, but instead of solar panels, stripper poles.
dcarsonturner t1_iysz4uc wrote
Theres little reason the cut down old-growth forests. Once you do you irreparable destroy the biome
HappilyhiketheHump t1_iyszy51 wrote
What is and where are old growth forests in Vermont? The entire state was clear cut pre 1900.
dcarsonturner t1_iyt8h56 wrote
What about old-growth forests in general? My points still stands
HappilyhiketheHump t1_iytys5g wrote
There is almost no old growth in Vermont. Which biome in Vermont are you referring to?
dcarsonturner t1_iyu00lf wrote
Well from where my family is from in Ontario we have old-growth red and white pine, it used to be the biggest red and white pine range in Canada
HappilyhiketheHump t1_iyu1gkf wrote
That’s cool. Love the forest. Yet, Ontario isn’t New England. Selective cutting done to modern standards and regulations is generally good for the environment, the economy, and the native flora and fauna.
If there is truly old growth, than leave it alone. Otherwise, humans and their actions are part of the natural environment.
Eagle_Arm t1_iyur6xj wrote
Your point that has nothing to do with this situation.
Vermonter623 t1_iysqvmf wrote
We are clear cutting to make room for services for people flooding here. Stop one and the other becomes unnecessary
Johnny9Toes OP t1_iyssau2 wrote
Is that happening on the National Forest?
Vermonter623 t1_iysyba4 wrote
Is what happening? Running more electric lines to beef up the grid for the exploding population here. Yes. Yes it is.
quercusshumardii t1_iystv1r wrote
New England’s national forests are some of the best managed Silviculture in the country just saying