
Canada’s Forgotten Rainforest - Red_Tarsius
https://thenarwhal.ca/canadas-forgotten-rainforest/
======
throwaway13337
It's a bigger problem than it first appears.

The way we (in the pacific northwest) do logging causes a lot of soil erosion
and just makes everything super ugly.

[https://www.google.com/maps/@47.7121672,-124.2984644,8635m/d...](https://www.google.com/maps/@47.7121672,-124.2984644,8635m/data=!3m1!1e3)

Just move google maps around anywhere heavily forested and you will see giant
wounds in the hills.

Most countries in Europe don't do this. We could do what they do and use
reduced impact logging. Don't cut all the trees at once.

This sort of regulation is much easier to achieve than global carbon caps
because it's benefits are realized in the backyards of those that deal with
them. It's easy to enforce and it also shouldn't cost us much. We'll pay a
little more for lumber but that's it.

~~~
ricardobeat
Wow, when you look a bit further south it seems like the entire state is being
eaten little by little:
[https://www.google.com/maps/place/46.943860,+-123.486175/@46...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/46.943860,+-123.486175/@46.9213538,-123.4889211,10z/data=!3m1!1e3)

~~~
lawkwok
That is scary. I zoomed in expecting to see farmland but instead they were
bald patches. Just like male pattern baldness by the time you notice it, the
process is already well underway.

~~~
novaleaf
Yes it's ugly, but much better to clear cut pockets every couple decades than
to clearcut everything to turn into farm land.

~~~
ricardobeat
These forests take a lot longer than a couple decades to recover.

~~~
fraserharris
On Vancouver Island the harvesting cycle is 40 - 50 years. Trees grow fast
with reasonable temperatures with lots of rain.

~~~
novaleaf
In Washington I think the cycle is similar for hardwoods. Wherhauser is a
pretty good steward of their land, as that's really the only "asset" they
have.

------
DyslexicAtheist
Have been watching a show called "Alone" on History channel which is a
survival reality-TV thing where they drop off 10 candidates in nature and
whoever can hold out the longest wins the game. The first and second season
were set on Vancouver island. For some reason have always pictured BC as a
cold place very similar to where I'm from in (just on a bigger scale). The
show really gives an amazing look into Vancouver Island and how the wet
climate creates a very unique habitat with thick moss and lichen covering
trees, bears and wood so thick you can't penetrate it on foot. Very different
to what I imagine when when hearing the word ""rain forest __.

~~~
Tiktaalik
The producers of this season were clever in that most of the bushcraft
'experts' they found were from the US South and Eastern US/Canada so they
struggled so, so hard to make fires and were humbled by the wet environment.

~~~
dirktheman
I enjoyed that show for the reason that they're showing how hard it is to
sustain yourself with nothing but you find in nature. I'm a scouts leader and
shows like Bear Grylls make surviving look way too easy, and prompts people to
take unneccesary risks that will lead to certain death.

What I didn't like about the Vancouver location is that they were prohibited
to hunt for food, other than fishing. Especially with winter in view,
surviving on plants and fish alone would be very, very difficult, if not
impossible.

What baffled me was that most of these 'survival experts' had little knowledge
of local flora/fauna. I'm not certain if they knew where they were going on
forehand, but if it were me, I'd make damn sure I would be able to spot at
least some basic staple foods around the world.

What I like about 'Alone' is that it really shows that surviving isn't just
about knowledge or skill, but that psychology plays a vital part, too.

------
abraae
Sustainable forests of pine (pinus radiata) here reach maturity in 25 years,
when the timber can be harvested, and new trees planted. It's truly horrifying
to me to imagine a 400 year old tree being felled.

------
ricardobeat
The series of three pictures captioned 'Clear cut logging in the Anzac River
Valley' is heart-breaking. How can we allow such mass-scale destruction?

------
cmurf
There are temperate rainforests in the U.S. as well. I've been to the Hoh
rainforest on the peninsula of Washington state, and it's probably similar to
the rainforest in this story. Quite a lot of logging has been happening for a
long time in the surrounding area that you can see while driving through, but
I'm not sure they're indigenous trees as they're tree farms explicitly for
logging.

------
fallingfrog
Can any Canadians comment on the political situation that allows this to
happen? From our point of view in the us you guys seem relatively left leaning
and yet you still have deforestation, Athabasca tar sands, etc going on.

~~~
Tiktaalik
There is a massive gap between the successful economies of urban Canada
(especially. Toronto & Vancouver) and rural Canada.

It is politically difficult to turn away from resource development because
there are few if any jobs in rural Canada otherwise. This is a problem I've
been watching politicians wrestle with my whole life and we are no closer to a
solution.

BC's economy took an incredible nosedive in the 90s when there was a secular
decrease in demand for its wood and pulp products which were a huge part of
the economy (think how phone books no longer exist and you'll understand why).
Some regions of rural BC have pivoted toward eco-tourism, but it hasn't been a
real replacement.

------
jameswst
Hey all, Jimmy Thomson here from The Narwhal. We noticed all the traffic
coming from all y'all and we've been sharing this discussion on our Slack this
morning.

Just wanted to say we really appreciate all the thoughtful comments — it's
great to see Sarah's article generating such an interesting conversation, and
we hope you keep coming back.

------
bobske4
Stupidity rules the world. Mankind just deserves to die. Eod.

~~~
dang
Ok, but could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments here? We're
trying to be ruled by at least a little less stupidity than that, and it takes
energy to hold entropy at bay for a bit.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
nazca
I cringe when I see lede's like this. It further reinforces the general
perception of logging = evil.

The reality is that our forested ecosystems in north america need fire to be
healthy. But we've built homes & towns in areas that need fire, effectively
tying our hands. So, we actually need to be logging more rather than less in
order to compensate for a natural amount of fire.

Sure, we could be doing less clear cutting and more shelterwood harvests &
thinning. But generally logging is now an essential tool for us to manage
forest & ecosystem health.

~~~
cowpig
Can you link to something for evidence that this kind of logging can play a
similar role as fires in some ecosystems? Because afaik fires don't typically
raze down entire forests.

I would encourage you to read the article: it addresses the issues of fire
(this ecosystem doesn't go through fire cycles because it's too wet) and talks
about this being a case where logging is especially harmful to the
environment.

------
avip
First, from a pure narrow CO2 economy POV, cutting down a mature forest is
good. Trees peak sequestration at 20-40 years. Second, BC can’t stop logging
as long as it’s trapped in a PC First Nations talk.

Tangent, though this is technically a rainforest, it bares little resembles to
what the word is usually associated with.

~~~
ricardobeat
Your first statement seems to have been debunked long ago:

> The researchers have found that carbon uptake of trees (as measured by
> growth rates) continuously increases with their size because the overall
> leaf area increases as they grow. This enables bigger trees to absorb more
> carbon from the atmosphere. Thus, the oldest trees in a forest capture the
> most carbon from the atmosphere. These oldest trees are to be found in
> ancient forests. Importantly, older trees are also more valuable for
> biodiversity than younger trees because they support a wider range of
> species

Coming from Brazil, it pretty much looks like rain forest to me, except all
the tree species are different. Besides, what is the point you are trying to
make? That this is somehow ok?

~~~
avip
Pls source your claims
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259766087_Rate_of_t...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259766087_Rate_of_tree_carbon_accumulation_increases_continuously_with_tree_size)

Maybe instead of "debunked", you meant to say "this is a controversial issue".

Here's a better source to support your claims:
[http://www.co2science.org/subject/f/summaries/forestold.php](http://www.co2science.org/subject/f/summaries/forestold.php)

~~~
recusancy
CO2 Science is a fossil fuel funded climate denial center.
[https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_for_the_Study_o...](https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change)

~~~
avip
Ok. Why do climate deniers find it important to convince us old forests are
important for CO2 balance maintenance?

