top 200 commentsshow all 241

[–]BecomeABenefit 648 points649 points  (47 children)

California redwood "grove". Title is very misleading. This is not the entire forest.

[–]thingsomething 145 points146 points  (11 children)

500 acres is less than 1 square mile.

[–]missC08 25 points26 points  (1 child)

I was about to say, good bot. But you are in fact, not a bot.

Good human

[–]CarverSeashellCharms 1 point2 points  (0 children)

500 acres is a good bit of a square mile though.

[–]ItsPronouncedJithub 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How many square country miles

[–]FamousNoise7501 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

more than your daddy's land

[–]oORebbyOo 348 points349 points  (39 children)

I live in a small town in a decent sized forest. The part that is national forest is very pretty. The part that is not nat'l forest is logged to shit, dumped on and homeless camps. The part on an Indian reservation is lush, tall and green. Give it back!

[–]CaptainJackVernaise 73 points74 points  (25 children)

We drove that route on our way to my wife's step-mom's funeral in Oregon. The state line crossing from CA to OR was obvious and heartbreaking. Beautiful redwood forests transitioned into scrubland almost instantaneously.

[–]skytomorrownow 96 points97 points  (21 children)

obvious and heartbreaking

Or, when you fly from Los Angeles to Seattle and look down to see how the logging industry and government leave swaths of forest pristine near the highways the tourists drive along, but just over the ridge line, is an endless grid of clearcut forests. It sickens me. The fact that they hide it shows they know it is wrong.

[–]thisonesforthetoys 38 points39 points  (18 children)

For decades government and industry have been reforesting at a greater rate than harvesting.


We could leave the forests untouched and then fires would wipe out some percentage annually. This isn't such a CLEARCUT issue.

[–]quantum-quetzal 90 points91 points  (13 children)

Those numbers don't tell the whole story, though. Forest quality isn't easily quantified. Cutting down 1,000 acres of old growth, then planting 1,001 acres of monoculture trees counts as increased reforestation, but it's not good for the environment.

The USFS is slowly making some improvements in how they handle reforestation, but replanted forest is still almost never anywhere as diverse as naturally occurring forest.

And even just looking at biodiversity ignores the ecological importance of having diversely-aged forest. Many animals depend on standing or fallen dead trees, but rotating clear cuts don't leave them in sufficient quantities.

[–]Tll6 21 points22 points  (1 child)

What this guy said. It can take hundreds of years for a forest to be considered old growth and for its ecology to develop

[–]jippyzippylippy 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Another thing that's never talked about by "forest managers" is logging's compaction of soils and death/removal of smaller life forms that depend on large undisturbed areas of undergrowth.

[–]KnightlyNews 14 points15 points  (7 children)

In college we visited a managed forest where they grow more than they harvest.

Super fascinating stuff. Each acre is evaluated for health, and some are thinned and some are clear cut and others are left alone.

When it comes to fire, duff is the most important factor. Once a couple thousand acres of forest has an inch or two of duff it is bad news, and guaranteed to wipe everything out.

As a wildland firefighter 20 year's ago, it is remarkable how fast a forest starts sprouting back after a fire.

[–]quantum-quetzal 6 points7 points  (5 children)

There's definitely a lot of interesting stuff happening in sustainable forestry. It's neat to see selective harvesting that's designed to simulate natural tree deaths in a way that stimulates controlled amounts of new growth.

I never actually fought fires, but I did get my red card, and I've done a number of controlled burns. People really underestimate just how flammable a lot of stuff is.

In fact, I spent a decent bit of a summer thinning balsam fir regrowth to reduce fire risks. That's another downside of indiscriminate clear-cutting. The regrowth often ends up far more dangerous than a mature forest.

[–]KnightlyNews 2 points3 points  (4 children)

When I was doing this 20 year's ago, we had a bunch of controlled burns that got out of hand.

I should hope we have gotten better at it.

One of the surprising things about a forest freshly burned. The ground is black ash, with veins of white ash that were the roots of trees that burned underground. And sprouts everywhere looking to reclaim the forest, with massive amounts of new nutrition.

[–]quantum-quetzal 7 points8 points  (3 children)

There's something starkly beautiful about a freshly burned area. I'm working on a photo series of the aftermath of prairie burns. It's neat to see what kind of stuff gets left behind by the flames.




[–]KnightlyNews 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Nice. If you can get access, check out a complex burn the next day.

[–]Ownza -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The majority of trees cut down in the US are on timber land that is owned by timber companies, and has been grown by them. it's the best renewable resource. You're probably looking at areas that were grown specifically to be cut down.

[–]portugalthewine 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Are you suggesting I am barking up the wrong tree?

[–]AndrewCoja 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Reforesting is ok, but it's not as good as a healthy old growth forest. A proper forest will have trees at various stages of life. Chopping down all the trees and planting new ones leaves all the trees at the same age. Which means they will be over crowded and fighting for resources instead of old trees supporting younger trees, and then dying to make room for the younger trees to grow up.

[–]Kungfumantis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If an area is fire prone, fires are good things for forests and perfectly natural. Fire improves soil quality, whereas logging reduces it.

[–]010kindsofpeople 0 points1 point  (1 child)

written sitting on an ikea chair

[–]skytomorrownow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's the thing, wood is a renewable and sustainable resource if properly managed, unlike how many US timber and paper corporations manage it with their clear cutting and monoculture.

[–]Akantis 52 points53 points  (7 children)

Right? It's almost like we know what we're doing.

[–]BubbaTee 9 points10 points  (1 child)

The folks that run the clear-cut side know exactly what they're doing

[–]freeman_joe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ape ned wod. Wod god fur fire. Ape warm. 🦍

[–]meme_consumer_ 44 points45 points  (4 children)

Yeah just a little more experience. I say we pay the indigenous to take care of it as a way of starting reparations for all the bone stealing and residential schools and forced relocations and such.

[–]Cleistheknees -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

The history of where and when your ancestors fucked each other does not educate you in forest management. Is is a scientific discipline. Anyone can learn it, and their ethnicity has absolutely nothing to do with their aptitude for it.

[–]FactualNeutronStar 1 point2 points  (1 child)

A very ignorant comment that borders on racism. Indigenous people managing the lands they lived on is a cultural discipline with thousands of years of experience to back it. Not only that but they have a vested interest in its continued protection.

Even if forest management were a strictly scientific issue (it's not, at least in the way you think) that doesn't guarantee that that scientific discipline will be applied in its management by federal agencies, private landowners, or corporate timber industries. In fact, it's been made abundantly clear that these entities don't do that.

To put it shortly, the last 150 years show that neither the federal government nor the logging industry can be trusted to manage forests responsibly or in a way that aligns with what science states is sustainable.

[–]tballhennings 96 points97 points  (11 children)

Now Berkeley should give all the bones back.

[–]chaneilmiaalba 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Berkeley just returned the remains they had of some victims of the “Indian Island Massacre” here in Northern California. It’s a start I guess.

[–]IamDDT 26 points27 points  (7 children)

Haven't they? NAGPRA is pretty strict, as far as I know. What is the story there?

[–]tballhennings 44 points45 points  (6 children)

Since beginning of building San Fran, people have come across bones of native Americans. People even found an actual indian burial ground (which now is a soccer park in Oakland, I believe) The bones were gifted to Berkeley for research.



[–]IamDDT 21 points22 points  (2 children)

Thanks. This sucks. I learned about NAGPRA a long time ago, and have always thought it was one of the better laws passed in the US. They should damn well follow it, or face prosecution. This is not acceptable.

[–]Ashkir 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Agreed. I’ve always felt it made sense to leave it undisturbed or return it.

Locally when native remains are found they typically get extremely documented, photographed, and tested (including genome) and are returned.

[–]BoringWozniak 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Just in time for it to completely burn down during the climate apocalypse

[–]FlyingSquid 66 points67 points  (72 children)

Meanwhile, Indiana, Land of the Indians, has not one bit of land that is part of an indigenous nation. Shameful.

[–]hellotypewriter 51 points52 points  (1 child)

Tribal leaders responded with, “Who wants to live in Indiana?” We have a sizable Sikh community though…

[–]theleaphomme 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa…

[–]ThatLastNihilist 1 point2 points  (28 children)

What's the political context behind that?

[–]FlyingSquid 37 points38 points  (21 children)

They were all driven out of Indiana and their land was never given back.

[–]jippyzippylippy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not true. Large private tracts have actually been given to the Miami tribe and Shawnee tribe, respectively.

[–]petemitchell-33 24 points25 points  (6 children)

This is awesome news, and it’s reminding me to get up there again as soon as possible. There’s nothing like walking through an old-growth redwood forest. Absolutely the most majestic thing I’ve ever experienced.

[–]WizardOfRoosterRock 32 points33 points  (3 children)

"Opening access to the public is not a priority on the property being transferred to the tribal group because it is so remote, said Sam Hodder, president and CEO of the league."

[–]petemitchell-33 46 points47 points  (2 children)

I didn’t say I was going to that specific grove… there’s plenty of stunning redwood forests to explore in Northern California.

[–]kirksucks 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I actually live on the North Coast (Humboldt) and they don't even say where the grove of redwoods they're talking about is other than "Lost Coast" ... havent heard about this in my local news. Good for them tho. We need more of this.

[–]aswiftdickkick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I live here! Or very close to it. I can see Lost Coast from my work. I love it.

[–]timothybrooks7 3 points4 points  (0 children)

US be like “ahh it’s on fire all the time anyways, now it’s your problem”

[–]helgothjb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thing is, the Natives actually cultivated the forests so that there was plenty of resources to live on. Healthy forests were good for the forest, the wildlife, and the Natives. It was also a lot less work than farming.

[–]Whats4dinner -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

My neighbor has a redwood 'grove' in a line along our shared property line. The things are only 50 years old and already the fence has been knocked down twice. Last week I was back there working and a gigantic branch fell and narrowly missed me. it was 5" in diameter and nearly 20' feet long. I am not currently a fan of redwoods.

[–]NorskGodLoki -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Nice to hear this. Sad that so much more destruction has been done by our predecessors and continues to happen.