DO YOU CARE ABOUT THE OLD GIANT REDWOOD TREES?

I read the article and find it sad and very moving. Being from the west coast and a big tree fan I have gone out of my way many times to see the coast redwoods as well the sequoias and some of the other giants we have here and in the UK. The need to cut down the last remaining old trees is a sickening example of twisted greed ruining the environment. Our family makes its living from using timber, but no one should have been allowed to cut down the last of the old growth. Ten percent could have and should have been left to give us some wild areas.

Instead out-of-state corporate greed of the worst kind has taken our environment to its knees. Here is an example of this from the article:

"Headwaters is the rallying cry for an epic conservation fight that began in 1985, when a Texas businessman bought the biggest timber company in Humboldt county, with junk bonds from Michael Milken. The deal was behind 6 counts of Milken's indictment for a host of financial frauds. But he plea-bargained guilty to 6 other counts, so the high-interest bonds got serviced, by multiplying the cut of old-growth redwoods. Much of the increased cut comes out of Headwaters Forest, home to roughly ten percent of the wild salmon left in California, and other endangered species."

I was unaware that anyone is explicitly working to cut down every giant redwood. Can someone point me to a source to support this claim? (Please point me to the company or group that intends to cut them all down, not simply some environmentalist site that claims this is someone's intention.)

What are you aware of, TresspassersWill, so we can figure out where to start educating you?

Hi Babs and Piffka!
The story was indeed very moving. I have been fortunate to have seen these magnificent trees - once I visited them with my husband and two sons. And the scent of the forest - it is really quite fantastic. How sad the tale of their destruction is! When will we ever learn?

Well, I am aware that when someone wastes time with petty insults rather than answering the question it usually means he or she feels impotent to the task.

Is that enough to go on?

Or should we just concede that NO ONE has stated a goal of cutting down all giant redwood trees, and agree to meet back on EARTH and discuss reality? :wink:

That too many may be being cut is something that can be rationally debated, but I simply have no tolerance for ridiculous, overwrought and patently untrue statements, and you can expect me to point them out anywhere I see them.

I live about 200 miles from that area and have been there several times. The Redwoods are breathtaking and very unusual. I don't think there is a plan to cut down every single one of the trees. There are groves of them protected by law. However, I'd be happy if they never cut down another one. They are a treasure and something that should be preserved.

An excellent, well-reasoned and impassioned post!

Without knowing enough about them, I would tend to want to only cut one down if it were known to be beneficial for the remaining trees; perhaps a necessary thinning of the canopy or because of some disease.

I don't believe any trees should be cut down, at all, anywhere!

We now have a law in Florida that if a builder takes down one tree during the process of building a home, they must replace it with 5 more.

I think that's a great idea!

How do you feel about drinking water? Can we drink water, or are you against that too? :wink:

Do you realize that we have more trees in this country today than 100 years ago because lumber is a commodity? Those who cut down the most trees are also the ones planting the most trees. Biodiversity being a separate issue, saying you don't think any trees should be cut down at all is a bit shortsighted.

TW: Shortsighted, on whose part?

You haven't broached your reason for opposing this argument, so let's have it so that we all are either fer or agin?

Okay, your turn:)

TW -- A hundred years ago? Oh, please. There is a huge difference between 20 foot tall seedlings and a 200 foot behemoth that has lived for centuries. Of course, you can say that there are more trees now than 100 years ago -- that was the heyday of indiscriminate logging... but almost all the trees today are not old growth, but are young and most of them have been planted. If you went back say... 200 years and more, it would not be true at all. We have less trees, even counting the tiny seedlings. Since you aren't even from the west, let's talk about the east. There used to be trees covering the eastern seaboard all the way to the Mississippi River. Huge, incredible hardwood trees that reached more than a hundred feet in height and spread. Gone now. All of them.

This resource has been squandered and it continues to be... it is NOT a crop. There is a vast difference between a climax forest, which is what old growth is, and a managed forest. There are plenty of managed forests... is it necessary to turn the remaining old growth into lumber for somebody's lawn furniture? Paaauuugh

Maxxam Pacific Lumber Mill purchased by a Texas
business man who bought it with junk bonds from
Michael Milkin. It all began in 1985, an organization
called Headwaters fighting it all the way. It seems
Milken plea bargained to 6 counts of fraud after being
charged with a host of financial frauds - he somehow
managed to plea bargain it so that this Texas
businessman managed to buy this lumber company
by multiplying the cut of old giant redwood forests.
It seems that these are the people behind what
destruction is going on there.

I think my reason was quite clear. Commoditizing lumber has increased the amount of forested acreage in North America, not diminished it. While this ignores issues like bio-diversity, it is a positive datum relating to the issue, and though it alone may not be reason to decide this issue one way or the other it should be factored into our thinking on the subject.

As a rule, I tend to find absolute positions untenable, as I do yours. Likewise I usually find those who hold them unwilling to consider the possibility that their positions are flawed.

May I respectfully pose a question to you? ...

Why are you categorically opposed to cutting down trees?

=============

Pifka - Despite the fact that you wish they were not, some trees clearly are a crop. As to the notion that we have squandered this commodity, I guess that depends on whether you value housing the people of our country and creating jobs and wealth.

I understand full well the difference between old-growth forests and newly planted trees that are limited to a few species considered ideal for harvesting as lumber. Unlike you I recognize that we have to find a balance between the two; it isn't an "either/or" proposition.

Having written that, there may be some value to the argument that we need to protect more old growth forests, but then I have not challenged that statement. I have challenged and questioned the value of extremist rhetoric that I believe ignores the fundamental and inescapable trade-offs inherent in life. Any argument that pretends these trade-offs need not be considered is of no value to the debate, because--by definition--it merely leads us to a solution for a situation that does not exist.

IF you HAD read my original post, you would have seen that my family makes its living using timber. I CLEARLY DON'T WISH that trees were NOT a crop. I fully expect trees to be harvested. I am practical enough to understand and accept that large areas have been turned into monocultures, though foresters have found that trees do better (healthier, grow faster) when there is a variety of species around them. And I understand that the long straight grain of old growth is wonderful for building... in fact, our house is built from old growth fir... trees that shattered during the eruption of Mt. St. Helens and were harvested. That shows a part of the problem -- you can't leave a few specimens and expect that they will survive; natural forces are always at work that may topple them. The UK found that out when most of the venerable 1000 year oaks in the New Forest came down in a horrific wind storm about ten years ago. This country found that out when single trees of the remaining giant deciduous were left... and they came down in big storms.

Old growth forests are like species going extinct. You can't leave one and expect the forest itself to remain viable. Trees need other trees of similar size and age around them. There is a huge difference between a fifty year old redwood and one that is 500 years old. Let's put some of the harvest schedule on a century by century time frame, instead of a decade by decade one.... as they do in Britain with their oak plantations. We could even try to regrow old growth... but that is patently absurd in this short-sighted culture.

In the US, we've cut 97% of all old growth in this country, the little bit that is left is mostly in National Parks. A bit more is in National Forests, vulnerable to loggers, and a tiny bit is on privately held land and being cut down right now, except for the tree-sitters who are trying to save them. When shall we stop? I say, we should have stopped at 10% of the conifers which would have been in the 1960's. I've seen the balance and I think the either/or was passed about forty years ago. I say, that just as the government has put restrictions on so many other things, they could easily... if it were desired... deny the harvest of the remaining old growth. The problem is the trees are valuable and people are mostly greedy. I know this is true... we are currently protecting second growth on our property and it is difficult, knowing that each tree is worth $10,000 or more. Many others don't care. As someone was polled here (and I assume it was your vote) -- they don't care if all the old growth is cut down.

How can we whine to Brazil about their cutting down the Rain Forest when we won't even protect our own natural forests?

I see now that I read this line wrongly. I thought you were referring to trees in general. Now I see (I think) that you were referring to old growth forests.

Without understanding the issue fully, I think I agree with you that we should be more careful stewards of our old growth forests, and have more respect for biodiversity in general.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, it was not intentional.

I live in a state (South Carolina) which is poor, but the hard clay created before we knew about replenishing the land with organic material and allowing the land to rest, is capable of sustaining and producing fast and straight growth of loblolly pine. From planting of seedlings to harvest, we are only talking about 20 years. The paper and timber companies own huge tracts of it, and also lease the land for this specific purpose. And it is planted and treated as a 'crop'.

But old growth is a different issue altogether, particularly old growth which has attained an age of substantial years. We can not predict what the future will bring in terms of ecological change or natural disaster. It would behoove us, I would think, to preserve as much old growth as we can, particularly of the redwoods, which are of time and place. They may not come our way again.

The consequences of any and all logging operations are different issues, and I just posted a question today about potential negative effects in a pre-existing watershed area, and the link given is relatively well balanced in its presentation, although slanted against unregulated logging. Worth a read. And this is just one of the many issues about logging.

Since the early settlers did deforest the land, to farm and to use the material for building purposes, the ecology of that place changed in dramatic ways. It will do so again, but we are better armed with knowledge of cause and effect now, and must evaluate all priorities.

Uh ... pardon me here - but I just wondered Trespassers
Will - if you happened to see the reference I gave you??
You were inquiring about what company is doing this and
how they came about getting their hands on property that
is/was/should have been protected land.
*I understand the foresting and harvesting & reforesting and
harvesting of pine and oak particularly in areas that are owned
by lumber companies and on which they grow their own trees -
cut and regrow etc etc. THIS, I understand.
*What I DO HAVE DIFFICULTY WITH - is that there is no need
to cut down ancient trees that are an asset to our country in
and of themselves. As an ASSET that means that they have
great value & that value is measured in how much this asset
of OURS is worth to us. OURS IS THE KEY WORD HERE. Are
we willing to throw any of our assets away? As a private citizen
& an owner of - for example - a HUGE collection of antique
cameras worth a very great deal of money AND worth a
priceless value due to the fact that they are irreplaceable, can
our government say - ooops - well - you may have thought
that the collection belonged to you, but you were mistaken.
We had to let your neighbor have them because he sued
your other neighbor and in order to keep everyone happy,
we had to promise them YOUR CAMERA COLLECTION.
*It's the same as if we all purchased government bonds and
then our government turned on us and said Well, sorry, but
we can't pay you .. no money left to cover those bonds.
The reasonable use of foresting for paper products is one thing.
*The destruction of huge swaths of ancient and majestic
trees for no good reason ( and GREED is simply not a good
enough reason in this person's humble opinion ) is akin to
taking our country - giving up our constitution and asking
to be under the "protection of mother England" again.
In the same way that this is unthinkable - it's unthinkable
that any lumber company could have to LEGALLY purchased
rights to cut down trees in a vast wilderness area full of old
growth ancient redwoods. These are NOT the kind of trees
commonly used for the paper or building industry.
*Just as we are the caretakers of our own homes and our
own back yards; as a NATION - WE ARE ALSO INTENDED TO
BE THE CARETAKERS OF OUR HOMES AND OUR LANDS!!
*WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE HUSBANDING OUR RESOURCES*
Our representatives in the capital are supposed to be serving
OUR INTERESTS. When they are not - as in a case such as
this one; were it put before WE THE PEOPLE to decide --does
this greedy lumber company get dibs on this land (with these
majestic trees to destroy) because a crook plea bargained his
way to a lesser - and a lumber company got acccess to this
land as a payoff in what appears to be a very stinking rotten financial/political/legal action - what would WE have said.
*The problem seems to be - WE WERE NEVER ASKED!! Our
representatives promise to REPRESENT OUR INTERESTS
but they don't because they are too busy getting in to bed
with the same crooks as the ones in the above financial
/political/legal scandals & criminal behavior.
*Aside from overthrowing our corrupt & useless system of
government (which, by the way has ceased working) what
are we to do???

No, I asked for information about what group or company was explicitly planning to cut down ALL giant redwoods ("Do you care if all the giant redwoods are cut down?"). Who wouldn't care if they were all cut down, but is that really something we should worry about? ALL of them??? Oh, and I made no comment, asked no question, regarding how anyone got their hands on anything.

Trees
Just another thought... Don't know if it changes your equation.
If you chop off your own arm or leg, and replace it with a prosthetic, you still have all your limbs. But it's not necessarily just as good.

The wood from "managed" forests is very inferior to old-growth wood, because it is raised to grow fast. Less dense, less "interesting", less natural, less supportive of a balanced ecosystem. It can never replace the trees and ecosystems that were cut down.

I would really like to see a law that requires designated harvest zones (of minimal size needed to get our needs met) and says you can only cut what someone has artificially planted before you.

No, I don't have references and quotes and logically reasoned arguments to entertain your objectivity. It's just a lowly gut feeling. My instinct says we are destroying our wonderful planet at almost every oppurtunity, and our greedy nature will find logical arguments to excuse most anything we do.

That's why I try to live lightly, and let Nature be.
(That's my own personal opinion and choice. In my spirituality, a tree is actually the same thing as an arm or a leg. A bizarre idea, yes, but a destructive one, no.)