Fupatown t1_ja5f8en wrote

The forest was harvested ~ 100 years ago is that "old growth"? Reality is old growth is a concept like any other and there are forests being managed that way (Nat'l parks, wilderness areas, etc) however timber is one of the only truly renewable resources we have. Consider this, the forest was harvested a century ago and I'm going to take a guess and say that they probably didn't do any tree planting or sustainable practices of any kind. Now 100 years later it's come back in full force and this time when we harvest it'll actually be managed post harvest and carefully done as opposed to back then. Do you think the forest will grow back to a similar condition in 100 years from now? Forest management is on a different time scale than human life times and I think the general public doesn't realize it...


Fupatown t1_ja4bnwr wrote

The pasayten wilderness area is 500,000 acres of untouchable forest land thats probably of similar or older age. But but yes tell me more about why we shouldn't use 100 acres of one of the only truly renewable resources we have. In terms of Forest management, 100 years is not that long of a time scale when trees can live for 500 years. Think of all the carbon stored in them. If they're cut down and used to build houses that carbon will be stored in the beams of a house (think housing shortage) and a new tree will grow and store more carbon in its stem. Young trees grow and sequester more carbon than old trees as the try to outcompete each other. Look it up it's true. If you have 100,000 acres of land in various conditions you could cut 100 acs/year for 1000years before making it back to your first patch. And dnr/USFS have a lott more land than that. Sorry for the rant but we should be using every renewable resource we have. Oil will run out but trees are forever.