-Old growth forests are being created all the time (unless you believe time stops for forests once they reach a certain age)
-being ancient and pristine has nothing to do with conservation, only your perception of time and beauty.
-A forest's age from maturity to "old growth" has no impact on the ecosystem. Further, selected thinning practiced by the forestry industry increases the net biomass available in an ecosystem.
a simple point but perhaps you have missed it? When you take out something, faster than it is replaced, what happens? Ecosystem complexity and thus diversity increases with age. This might have a certain beauty for some, but it also suggests that it does have an impact on thhe ecosystem. A key ingredient is time. Unless of course you believe that we have been here for 2000 years and that man is the wise shepared or some #$@!.
Mathias you probably need to delve a little more deeply into what is going in Tasmania before making these comments.
Replacing stable diverse ecosystems evolved over 1000's of yrs with single species plantation or all same age regeneration trees is like exchanging a mouse for an elephant. There is no comparison.
And as for the corruption and scandals that plague the Tasmanian forestry industry, which COSTS taxpayers many millions... well you'll just have to find that out for yourself mate!
You definitely need to delve into the fine art of reading comprehension. If you actually read my posts you would see I have been talking about AMERICAN forests. adrigen123 brought up Tasmania when he was unable to refute the truth pertaining to AMERICAN forestry.
The studies done on American efforts have no basis when applied to Tasmanian forestry. Your right, you need to compare apples to apples, not Tasmania to America.
I'm sorry my comprehension is poor Mathias. I just assumed since you were making comments about Tasmanian forestry issues, albeit using your views about forestry on the other side of the world, to "counter the idiotic green heads and nature nazies", that you might be interested in an exchange of views with someone who lives there.
I NEVER not once EVER in any way shape or form made ANY comments about the Tasmanian forest or anything to do with Tasmania. Are you really that dense?
Please forgive me. When I read your remarks, I believe you opened with "to counter the idiotic green heads and nature nazies", posted in a video clearly about old growth logging in Tasmania, I thought you were speaking about the Tasmanian forestr industry. I gather you are now withdrawing your remarks, and conceding that you know little or nothing about the video you are commenting on. By all means, if yr interested, do a little research & get back to us with some informed comment!
Have you heard of the Tasmanian Tiger, Mathias? Maybe the Tasmanian Devil? Or perhaps the Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagle? One of these species is already extinct, the other two are almost certainly on the way out. Any last chance for their survival probably rests on preserving the remaining old growth forests in Tasmania. No doubt you are aware of how these three top-order predators function(ed) in the Tasmanian ecology...
By your ahem "logic", it matters not that a tree has been planted buy by whom it was that had planted that tree. Symbolism over substance is no excuse for validity of an ideal or an agenda.
Please provide proof in the form of evidence that the US does not have a net gain of forest growth.
Or perhaps you would care to evaluate your misconception of what you believe?
WRONG, your applying the definition relative to farming, a monoculture means that you remove the entire natural ecosystem, pile the roots and debris and burn them, plow the soil and plant seeds of a food or fiber crop, usually exotic in origin.
In forestry, a monoculture forest refers to a forest that is dominated by a single species of tree. This is a very common feature in forests after natural disturbances ( fire, flood, landslide, or insect attack) or artificially from reforestation.
NO, I am talking about forestry, in much the way you have just defined it. Only the disturbance aint natural. It is to make woodchip for pulp for some trashy product. This IS what is happening in Tasmania. I am NOT talking about farming. And beyond carbon, here is point that you might have missed: After clear felling, burning and poisoning, fertiising and herbiciding, the animals that once inhabitated the place are now living...? and they are now eating...? figure that one monoculture man.
The end product is of no consequence, so mentioning it means nothing in the context of this discussion.
Carbon? Reforested areas produce LESS carbon, that's a fact.
Further, I'm talking about the USA not Tasmania, so if felling, burning, poisoning, fertilizing and using herbicide is how they harvest trees in Tasmania perhaps they should come to America and learn sustainable forestry.
"monoculture man"...perhaps I'll wear a green cape...nah, capes are dangerous (watch The Incredibles).
Ends must always justify means always connected. all works on this basis. In Tas, both ends & means suck. agree we need to learn better practice but m'culture replacements never work like old growth diverse forest can. might provide short term sustainable yield, but as you say, plantations store less carbon. why would you knock down an entire area to replace it with monculture (poisons, fire etc), when we could be planting forests on already cleared land? This is what is so wrong in Tas.
should of pulled the whole sit down.
badlx77 3 months ago
Comment removed
MegaCat312 7 months ago
so that was a waist of time the title has nothing to do with the video
norcallogger 1 year ago
EARTH FIRST we'll log the other planets later
parnzo 1 year ago 4
@parnzo
Never heard that one before.
billk61 1 year ago
Vote greens
judoisoww 1 year ago
now here are some real FACTS to feed your relatively short thinking mathias:
- old growth forests are irreplaceable
- they are ancient and pristine
- the ecosystems of endangered species need full protection
World Heritage not wood chips
blablablog22 2 years ago
-Old growth forests are being created all the time (unless you believe time stops for forests once they reach a certain age)
-being ancient and pristine has nothing to do with conservation, only your perception of time and beauty.
-A forest's age from maturity to "old growth" has no impact on the ecosystem. Further, selected thinning practiced by the forestry industry increases the net biomass available in an ecosystem.
Facts blablablog22, not propaganda.
mathiastheok 2 years ago
a simple point but perhaps you have missed it? When you take out something, faster than it is replaced, what happens? Ecosystem complexity and thus diversity increases with age. This might have a certain beauty for some, but it also suggests that it does have an impact on thhe ecosystem. A key ingredient is time. Unless of course you believe that we have been here for 2000 years and that man is the wise shepared or some #$@!.
adrigen123 2 years ago
Mathias you probably need to delve a little more deeply into what is going in Tasmania before making these comments.
Replacing stable diverse ecosystems evolved over 1000's of yrs with single species plantation or all same age regeneration trees is like exchanging a mouse for an elephant. There is no comparison.
And as for the corruption and scandals that plague the Tasmanian forestry industry, which COSTS taxpayers many millions... well you'll just have to find that out for yourself mate!
FatBoyElv1s 2 years ago
FatBoyElv1s,
You definitely need to delve into the fine art of reading comprehension. If you actually read my posts you would see I have been talking about AMERICAN forests. adrigen123 brought up Tasmania when he was unable to refute the truth pertaining to AMERICAN forestry.
The studies done on American efforts have no basis when applied to Tasmanian forestry. Your right, you need to compare apples to apples, not Tasmania to America.
mathiastheok 2 years ago
I'm sorry my comprehension is poor Mathias. I just assumed since you were making comments about Tasmanian forestry issues, albeit using your views about forestry on the other side of the world, to "counter the idiotic green heads and nature nazies", that you might be interested in an exchange of views with someone who lives there.
FatBoyElv1s 2 years ago
I NEVER not once EVER in any way shape or form made ANY comments about the Tasmanian forest or anything to do with Tasmania. Are you really that dense?
mathiastheok 2 years ago
Please forgive me. When I read your remarks, I believe you opened with "to counter the idiotic green heads and nature nazies", posted in a video clearly about old growth logging in Tasmania, I thought you were speaking about the Tasmanian forestr industry. I gather you are now withdrawing your remarks, and conceding that you know little or nothing about the video you are commenting on. By all means, if yr interested, do a little research & get back to us with some informed comment!
FatBoyElv1s 2 years ago
Have you heard of the Tasmanian Tiger, Mathias? Maybe the Tasmanian Devil? Or perhaps the Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagle? One of these species is already extinct, the other two are almost certainly on the way out. Any last chance for their survival probably rests on preserving the remaining old growth forests in Tasmania. No doubt you are aware of how these three top-order predators function(ed) in the Tasmanian ecology...
FatBoyElv1s 2 years ago
the conflict of interests is yet clearly obvious: the "forestry industry" is an oxymoron itself.
what you call "gain of forest growth" is nothing but more profitable single-tree planting
what you call FACTS is nothing but lies to serve the capitalist propaganda.
blablablog22 2 years ago
By your ahem "logic", it matters not that a tree has been planted buy by whom it was that had planted that tree. Symbolism over substance is no excuse for validity of an ideal or an agenda.
Please provide proof in the form of evidence that the US does not have a net gain of forest growth.
Or perhaps you would care to evaluate your misconception of what you believe?
Propaganda? Yes you know it well.
mathiastheok 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Here's some FACTS people working in the forestry industry can use to counter the idiotic green heads and nature nazies:
FACT, due to the forest industry's reforestation efforts, America achieves a NET 1,000,000 (one million) acre GAIN of forest growth every year.
Thank you forestry industry, you are the true conservators of the forest.
mathiastheok 2 years ago
Hello! monoculture plantations aint the same thang y'all. this is BASIC. get a grip.
adrigen123 2 years ago
WRONG, your applying the definition relative to farming, a monoculture means that you remove the entire natural ecosystem, pile the roots and debris and burn them, plow the soil and plant seeds of a food or fiber crop, usually exotic in origin.
In forestry, a monoculture forest refers to a forest that is dominated by a single species of tree. This is a very common feature in forests after natural disturbances ( fire, flood, landslide, or insect attack) or artificially from reforestation.
mathiastheok 2 years ago
NO, I am talking about forestry, in much the way you have just defined it. Only the disturbance aint natural. It is to make woodchip for pulp for some trashy product. This IS what is happening in Tasmania. I am NOT talking about farming. And beyond carbon, here is point that you might have missed: After clear felling, burning and poisoning, fertiising and herbiciding, the animals that once inhabitated the place are now living...? and they are now eating...? figure that one monoculture man.
adrigen123 2 years ago
The end product is of no consequence, so mentioning it means nothing in the context of this discussion.
Carbon? Reforested areas produce LESS carbon, that's a fact.
Further, I'm talking about the USA not Tasmania, so if felling, burning, poisoning, fertilizing and using herbicide is how they harvest trees in Tasmania perhaps they should come to America and learn sustainable forestry.
"monoculture man"...perhaps I'll wear a green cape...nah, capes are dangerous (watch The Incredibles).
mathiastheok 2 years ago
Ends must always justify means always connected. all works on this basis. In Tas, both ends & means suck. agree we need to learn better practice but m'culture replacements never work like old growth diverse forest can. might provide short term sustainable yield, but as you say, plantations store less carbon. why would you knock down an entire area to replace it with monculture (poisons, fire etc), when we could be planting forests on already cleared land? This is what is so wrong in Tas.
adrigen123 2 years ago