It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
LonelyHell yeah brother. Continue to use renewable resources. Also what's the bar length on that?
That's a 36" bar
Every time someone tells me I shouldn't cut trees I like to ask them what their house is made of.
We have a local environmental action group that indiscriminately opposes every single forest practices application through DNR in our county. Absolute cunts.
Every time someone tells me I shouldn't cut trees I like to ask them what their house is made of.
We have a local environmental action group that indiscriminately opposes every single forest practices application through DNR in our county. Absolute cunts.
Some quick facts
-Trees gain most of their mass from the carbon they absorb. When they are cut down and used in buildings or furniture or other products, they act as carbon batteries. The carbon that they absorbed is not released. Making the carbon positive in terms of sequestration.
-Concrete and steel on the other hand require a huge carbon footprint in comparison to be fabricated/smelted/created. Resulting in net negative sequestration.
-Even if woody material is burned for energy, it is generally carbon neutral. If that tree absorbed 1 ton of carbon over its life, the 1 ton of carbon it releases does not change the amount of carbon originally in the biosphere, unlike natural gas or oil, which comes from outside of the biosphere deep within the earth.
-At least in most lands managed by the state/private companies in the states, more trees are planted than are cut in a harvest, or the harvest is designed to increase forest health
-The largest issues with deforestation come from agriculture and development. Harvesting trees for building materials, paper, furniture, etc. is actually pretty dang good for the environment. If we're really concerned about climate change, we should start building more wooden skyscrapers
Every time someone tells me I shouldn't cut trees I like to ask them what their house is made of.
We have a local environmental action group that indiscriminately opposes every single forest practices application through DNR in our county. Absolute cunts.
"Oh. You're cutting a bunch of ash to stop the spread of a terrible invasive species? You bastards hate the environment!"
-Trees gain most of their mass from the carbon they absorb. When they are cut down and used in buildings or furniture or other products, they act as carbon batteries. The carbon that they absorbed is not released. Making the carbon positive in terms of sequestration.
-Concrete and steel on the other hand require a huge carbon footprint in comparison to be fabricated/smelted/created. Resulting in net negative sequestration.
-Even if woody material is burned for energy, it is generally carbon neutral. If that tree absorbed 1 ton of carbon over its life, the 1 ton of carbon it releases does not change the amount of carbon originally in the biosphere, unlike natural gas or oil, which comes from outside of the biosphere deep within the earth.
-At least in most lands managed by the state/private companies in the states, more trees are planted than are cut in a harvest, or the harvest is designed to increase forest health
-The largest issues with deforestation come from agriculture and development. Harvesting trees for building materials, paper, furniture, etc. is actually pretty dang good for the environment. If we're really concerned about climate change, we should start building more wooden skyscrapers
Interesting case about burning wood.
I cannot help but to dwell on the fact that a 2x4 was 6+ bucks and millions of acres of pine forest were in flames simultaneously. We're livin in crazy times.
Obviously there is a balance and place for logging. Nothing looks worse than a completely cut down forest tho imo. But the only thing that bothers me about the logging industry is when they log hardwoods in unsustainable practices. Like those r come cool trees. Why man
Obviously there is a balance and place for logging. Nothing looks worse than a completely cut down forest tho imo. But the only thing that bothers me about the logging industry is when they log hardwoods in unsustainable practices. Like those r come cool trees. Why man
This.
Sustainable forestry is dope.
Fire prevention is dope.
Wood is dope.
Destroying entire ecosystems is not dope.
Profahoben_212This.
Sustainable forestry is dope.
Fire prevention is dope.
Wood is dope.
Destroying entire ecosystems is not dope.
So, I think the comparison to fire is not a great one. I know you didn't make it, the other guy did. Very different things
As far as sustainable forestry goes, yes, very dope.
What I take issue with is that I would wager a slight majority of people think that any type of harvest is unsustainable or destroying the environment. Even clearcutting has its place. There has definitely been a narrative propagated throughout politics and policy, especially on the left, that cutting down trees is bad. It is generally good, excluding agriculture and urban sprawl.
Hell, I even saw an article in newsweek or somewhere about how some scandi countries were doing this harvest and it was terrible. They have some of the most sustainable practices in the world and that one if I remember correctly was particularly sustainable. It seems to get derived down to "cut down tree bad, because tree good". Sure, clearcutting oldgrowth is bad, but that is quite uncommon in western countries...excluding BC.
The general public tends to not see forests as a renewable resource.
Now obviously there is some bad practice. BC in particular. But more often than not it is good, especially with the standards and science we have now.
Selective harvest of a 60-80 year old stand of cedar, fir and hemlock. Also cutting a bunch of alders that are hazardous/in the way. There are quite a few 10-20yr old cedars that we are leaving behind, as well as a bunch of cedars that are over 8ft DBH.
We have a faller mod of 2 guys (me and my partner), then using a shovel to get most of the logs to the landing. I've also got a yarder that we are using for the steepest part of the unit (about 150% slope)
TheMoostafianSelective harvest of a 60-80 year old stand of cedar, fir and hemlock. Also cutting a bunch of alders that are hazardous/in the way. There are quite a few 10-20yr old cedars that we are leaving behind, as well as a bunch of cedars that are over 8ft DBH.
We have a faller mod of 2 guys (me and my partner), then using a shovel to get most of the logs to the landing. I've also got a yarder that we are using for the steepest part of the unit (about 150% slope)
Do you guys have a target basal area or tpa for your selective cuts?
Also I love the term selective cut. Not all selective cuts are highgrading but all highgrading is selective cut
hunterS.dolansonIf america wants to preserve the environment why do they ban the most environmentally friendly hybrids from germany from being imported?
If trans women are men, then why do they give me a boner?
LonelyDo you guys have a target basal area or tpa for your selective cuts?
Also I love the term selective cut. Not all selective cuts are highgrading but all highgrading is selective cut
Normally we would. What we are logging right now is just a homeowner who wanted to cut 8 acres of her land below her house. In/out trees are at her discretion, for the most part. We definitely aren't highgrading; all of the oldest, biggest and nicest lumber is actually staying untouched. Not that I wouldn't cut those trees, but I'm always happy to leave 100+ yr old trees standing.
hunterS.dolansonIf america wants to preserve the environment why do they ban the most environmentally friendly hybrids from germany from being imported?
Because the people who make that decision are absolutely not giving a shit about the environment. You think most decision makers in America do? Not yet unfortunately.
Sorry it just went un noticed , retirement has left me extremely busy staying in bed…being bored and staying in bed
anyway… I was talking about the irresponsible companies that harvest without sustainable practices such as re planting, those that aquire “illegal” timber to create cheap black market shit, these things have negative effects from the eco system to the economy, I have no problem with fire prevention or any legally obtained timber
TheMoostafianWhy?
daannnnieelI don't think you're getting an answer to this one my guy.
-Trees gain most of their mass from the carbon they absorb. When they are cut down and used in buildings or furniture or other products, they act as carbon batteries. The carbon that they absorbed is not released. Making the carbon positive in terms of sequestration.
-Concrete and steel on the other hand require a huge carbon footprint in comparison to be fabricated/smelted/created. Resulting in net negative sequestration.
-Even if woody material is burned for energy, it is generally carbon neutral. If that tree absorbed 1 ton of carbon over its life, the 1 ton of carbon it releases does not change the amount of carbon originally in the biosphere, unlike natural gas or oil, which comes from outside of the biosphere deep within the earth.
-At least in most lands managed by the state/private companies in the states, more trees are planted than are cut in a harvest, or the harvest is designed to increase forest health
-The largest issues with deforestation come from agriculture and development. Harvesting trees for building materials, paper, furniture, etc. is actually pretty dang good for the environment. If we're really concerned about climate change, we should start building more wooden skyscrapers
In my opinion climate change and carbon footprint is a pretty distant secondary consideration when it comes to the impact of deforestation. You can’t effectively replace an ecosystem with a tree farm. And honestly it’s not even the Weyerhaeusers and logging industry that I even have a problem with because to your point at least they are replanting- when you decimate a forest and build 50 square miles of townhomes and pave the whole thing there is no coming back from that. Look at salmon runs in the PNW they are pathetic because road runoff and proprietary chemicals used in brake pads and tire rubber are definitively linked to prespawn mortality.
ReturnToMonkeyBecause the people who make that decision are absolutely not giving a shit about the environment. You think most decision makers in America do? Not yet unfortunately.
The epa and american car companies are in bed with eachother and have been for a long time.
for example the prius was to my knowledge a sort of joint venture with toyota and the united states.
and that piece of shit gets 45-50 mpg at best.
meanwhile ever since the 80s in europe you could get a reliable little diesel like a vw golf that got 80-90 mpg.
and if you want to let vw play its hand against the toyota prius, vw make diesel electric hybrids (toyota prius is a gas electric hybrid) and the vw diesel hybrids can get around 200 fucking mpg.
if america allowed volkswagon and bmw and mb to import all their models to america it would eviscerate the american automobile business.
so the epa helps the american auto business by installing asshole anti-diesel regulations that prevent companies like vw from outcompeting ford and gm etc with their awesome diesel cars.
this is why a bunch of vw engineers got fed up with the persecutorial emissions regulations the epa made to impair the capabilities of vw diesel imports and they decided to troll the epa with an emissions hack that would allow the diesel vws to “know” when they were being emission tested and adjust their performance rate.
so america just looks like a bunch of little bitches to punish the germans for this hack when first blood was the epa putting unfair regulations on the vw diesel imports.
if the epa had treated vw fairly from the beginning then there would have been no need/desire for the vw engineers to hack the epa emissions tests.
the epa basically pissed in vws pocket then told them it was raining.
how can you blame the vw engineers for wanting to troll the epa. Maybe there will be a movie made about it.
hunterS.dolansonThe epa and american car companies are in bed with eachother and have been for a long time.
for example the prius was to my knowledge a sort of joint venture with toyota and the united states.
and that piece of shit gets 45-50 mpg at best.
meanwhile ever since the 80s in europe you could get a reliable little diesel like a vw golf that got 80-90 mpg.
and if you want to let vw play its hand against the toyota prius, vw make diesel electric hybrids (toyota prius is a gas electric hybrid) and the vw diesel hybrids can get around 200 fucking mpg.
if america allowed volkswagon and bmw and mb to import all their models to america it would eviscerate the american automobile business.
so the epa helps the american auto business by installing asshole anti-diesel regulations that prevent companies like vw from outcompeting ford and gm etc with their awesome diesel cars.
this is why a bunch of vw engineers got fed up with the persecutorial emissions regulations the epa made to impair the capabilities of vw diesel imports and they decided to troll the epa with an emissions hack that would allow the diesel vws to “know” when they were being emission tested and adjust their performance rate.
so america just looks like a bunch of little bitches to punish the germans for this hack when first blood was the epa putting unfair regulations on the vw diesel imports.
if the epa had treated vw fairly from the beginning then there would have been no need/desire for the vw engineers to hack the epa emissions tests.
the epa basically pissed in vws pocket then told them it was raining.
how can you blame the vw engineers for wanting to troll the epa. Maybe there will be a movie made about it.
This sounds like an overly complicated conspiracy theory that probably has some basis in truth but 80-90 mpg from the 80s. I want to see some solid sources on that. It sounds more like a single experiment set up just right to prove that performance isn't impossible but turned out to be unrealistic to achieve in real world/far too expensive to mass produce. Otherwise, 40 years later that would've survived government supression. I do think the future of automobiles lays entirely in biofuel and electricity, so companies better continue to seriously invest in thorough research down those avenues.
skiermanOh look, a NS mod trying to be "edgy" but failing horrendously because they're a bunch of uncreative, unfunny boot lickers.
Oh look, skierman talking about something he knows nothing about. Skierman is horrendously uncreative because he is a contrarian that hate's the environment.
Oh look more fart like threads from skierman stinking up the forums, too bad you don’t blow away in the wind ya miserable, bitter and sad ol man
you should put this energy into finding the burial plot for you and your cousin
skiermanOh look, a NS mod trying to be "edgy" but failing horrendously because they're a bunch of uncreative, unfunny boot lickers.
CaseyIn my opinion climate change and carbon footprint is a pretty distant secondary consideration when it comes to the impact of deforestation. You can’t effectively replace an ecosystem with a tree farm. And honestly it’s not even the Weyerhaeusers and logging industry that I even have a problem with because to your point at least they are replanting- when you decimate a forest and build 50 square miles of townhomes and pave the whole thing there is no coming back from that. Look at salmon runs in the PNW they are pathetic because road runoff and proprietary chemicals used in brake pads and tire rubber are definitively linked to prespawn mortality.
Yeah, thought I was pretty clear about development and fragmentation being pretty large issues with that, and not something I would consider sustainable. Urban/ag sprawl causes huge problems for all portions of the environment. Just look at the fox river and green bay.
It's definitely a wicked problem, and runs in a similar vein to climate change. Most output is coming from countries that are still developing, in a similar way to how some of the largest areas being deforestated are in developing/3rd world countries. But many of them don't have a choice. They have to use that land for agriculture to feed a growing population, but at the same time that deforestation causes ecological problems that will limit their ability to improve and expand and also has a global impact. So do we say that these countries can't continue to develop? How do you get around it? We have the money, time, and infrastructure to be sustainable. Many of these smaller/less developed countries do not.
We've tried different solutions, like providing different types of crops to these countries. EG. golden rice. A lot of them are cool, and most of them also come with some really shitty societal and ecological side effects.
As far as run off goes, that's definetly a problem. Although most western harvest practices are getting more and more sustainable. I've designed harvests. The amount of hoops you have to jump through is insane, but I think that is a good thing. Everything has to be considered. Soil compaction, run off grade, nutrient cycling, freeze rating, erosion ratings, harvest times, growth periods, windthrow, canopy openings, habitat etc. etc. etc. The final harvest report for the 80 acre I was doing was nearly 100 pages long with projections and modeling for almost every aspect. Now, that's not to say that everyone does everything right all of the time. There is still a lot of shitty practice out there, but I think that at least in the states, in the aggregate, it's sustainable.
cutting down old growth forests is always gonna be wack to me. That being said, logging has to be done, so it might as well be done in sustainable ways, which I think most reasonable people would be ok with
I was gonna post this in my stoke thread because I am fucking stoked about this but it seems also relevant here. I just bought a winch made in 1944 that used to be mounted on big navy ships. I'm gonna use it as a yarder to pull small trees up steep slopes. Check this fucker out.
TheMoostafianI was gonna post this in my stoke thread because I am fucking stoked about this but it seems also relevant here. I just bought a winch made in 1944 that used to be mounted on big navy ships. I'm gonna use it as a yarder to pull small trees up steep slopes. Check this fucker out.
Your a logger or mason or both? My best bud is a brick layer and has a saw mill I’ve worked at just to help and learn bc I think it’s cool and used to do a lot of residential and commercial tree work and line work, if I was younger I’d ask ya for a job, being retired is boring.
TheMoostafianI was gonna post this in my stoke thread because I am fucking stoked about this but it seems also relevant here. I just bought a winch made in 1944 that used to be mounted on big navy ships. I'm gonna use it as a yarder to pull small trees up steep slopes. Check this fucker out.
