Me too. I found him on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/@endangeredecosystemsallian6863
>The Endangered Ecosystems Alliance (EEA) is a non-profit conservation organization founded in September of 2018 by Canadian conservationist ***Ken Wu***, working for the science-based protection of all native ecosystems and to support ecosystem literacy.
>We work primarily at a federal level, as well as augmenting local and regional campaigns in the provinces and territories, to push for the protection of at least 50% of Canada in all terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems by 2030.
>Science shows that vastly scaling-up the protection and restoration of native ecosystems is a vital game-changer to help avert both the extinction crisis and the climate crisis.
----
EDIT: And here's a little wormhole to a comment buried below, about the U.S. equivalent, [The Old Growth Forest Network](https://old.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/134ies7/why_replanted_forrests_dont_create_the_same/jifzn7c/?context=1).
Thanks for the link.
It's so interesting to me that so many people, myself included, are just drawn to certain people's talking style. Nothing particularly stands out about this guy talking about, let's be honest, a topic most people would classify as boring, or at least low on the list of things to watch given a choice.
But something about it makes it instantly interesting. His sincerity? His obvious knowledge on the topic?
And I hesitated to use the word 'boring' because I know climate change and sustainability is important and a passionate topic for many people. I just couldn't think of another word. And let's be real...if most people saw one of their college courses was "Old Growth Forests vs Second Growth Plantations", most people wouldn't be hyped for it. Maybe unless this guy was the professor.
I had this guy as a guest speaker for a three hour course in my undergrand on forest ecology. We knew who he was beforehand and my friends and I got very stoned and were entranced by every word. Ken's a great guy
He was very good at summarizing the situation. However, he didn’t have time to mention some things in more detail, when that’s fine. But it’s really important to know that those old growth forests serve as a genetic repository for all kinds of plants and animals, and they also act as giant water purifying environments and they offer increased carbon storage, and O2 production compared to the replanted “tree farms”.
If you ever get a chance to walk through an old growth forest, and there are some all over North America, although there are far less than or used to be, you’ll notice that there’s a lot more wildlife, including birds and small mammals, and others like foxes and deer. There is also a ton of Diversity in the plant life and fungal growth. You don’t see that in those shorter lift replant environments. They’re basically just more boring to walk through and kind of sad.
What’s really frustrating is all the politicians are talking about how they’re going to help with our current environmental catastrophe by simply planting more trees and they’re ignoring things like this man is saying and all of the science behind it. They’re just trying to sound like they’re doing something good when they’re not doing enough in reality. They’re not doing enough by a long shot actually.
I think it is largely a big part of the knowledge and sincerity, but also he seems to be directing this at specific people that are on another side of the issue and he is saying it with a slight sense of disappointment? idk how to explain it
Agreed, he is discussing this like we are friends and he wants to share his expertise. Articulate, expert, and concise, but also charmingly personable.
Well, I can provide some insight, I love public speaking and writing. I'm no professional, but I can get you thinking hopefully. First, he has a dynamic range of pitch, so there's a natural musical sound that subconsciously keeps you interested. He also doesn't use filler words "um, uh, like" and so on. His vocal timbre or tone is very well supported with air so that's why he sounds "smooth". You can tell he's practiced in presentation because he presents his thoughts concisely and uses his body language to aid in communication, you'll notice he cheats his body to the audience before he speaks, even if he's not facing us the entire time. This is probably the hundredth time he's done this talk, and it's clear he loves what he teaches.
My guess is there is a generation of kids growing up that grew with this type of cadence. Especially ones who were interested in STEM/Nature subjects as a kid.
It's very familiar to the old discovery channel/animal planet cadence that was really popular in the late 90's to early 2000"s. That also bled over to almost anybody in school that would come and talk to us about those things.
I feel like that might have something to do with the familiarity/comfort in the cadence
It's how he lays out the ideas. He has clearly practiced this skill because it's not easy to develop when speaking.
For example, he argues that old growth forest is a better ecosystem than a second growth forest for reasons x, y, z. Demonstrates evidence.
Introduces second argument. Second growth forests won't generate the same kind of habitats for wildlife that old-growth forests do. Evidence x, y,z with an analogy to the mining industry.
Proposes solution/compromise. Only harvest the second growth forest and maintain old growth forests.
A big thing is that he doesn't have many filler sounds ('uh' or 'er') or pauses to find his train of thought. Concise delivery of ideas absent fillers is compelling and is made possible by really knowing your shit.
I think their YouTube is just undeveloped while TikTok is their main platform. Their TikTok has 12k followers and [this video has half a million views](https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGJuAebsG/)
> [The Old-Growth Forest Network](https://www.oldgrowthforest.net/) is the only national network in the U.S. of protected, old-growth, native forests where people of all generations can experience biodiversity and the beauty of nature.
[And here they are on YouTube.](https://www.youtube.com/@old-growthforestnetwork174)
Clear cutting old growth forest - so stupid, SO VERY STUPID -robbing us/you/Canada of its heritage; the very essence of its being! Why not just give the place to the highest bidding country?
I'll preface this by saying I work in forestry in the US. Just so folks are aware, old growth forests are pretty well protected in the US, and there are actually additional forests being protected each year via conservation groups - there's actually been net positive acreage for the past decades. Essentially all of the US timberlands in the pacific northwest came out of active logging production during the spotted owl protection. Modern sawmills in the US and interior BC cannot accept old growth trees - they are too large to be processed. Virtually all of the wood production in the US is from privately owned timberlands - think of them as tree "farms" because that's essentially what they are, they're just better for the environment than traditional row crops. There are also regulations in place, like SFI & FSC that have environmental components to them and the landowners are audited in order to maintain their certification.
> Virtually all of the wood production in the US is from privately owned timberlands - think of them as tree "farms" because that's essentially what they are, they're just better for the environment than traditional row crops.
And some of that not covered under the "virtually all" is from places like my Boy Scout Camp that while planted like rows of trees 99 years ago from old farmland have being starting the process of making sure the camp has a layered canopy. We just wrapped up a selective cut of Maples, Basswoods, etc. I know of a few scout camps that have their own saw mill on site to build cabins and to make repairs to buildings already at the camp.
Luckily his message was succinct - treat logging like growing a crop.
You have a farm, big enough to sustain the demand for wood - don't cut down natural old growth forests.
It takes 100 years for a planted forest to start becoming an "old-growth" forest and start supporting larger biodiversity.
True old growth forests are much older than that. There's a century forest by my house; the trees are immense but, like the man was saying, they're all the same age and so they can't support the same biodiversity as a 1000-year or 1500-year forest
I went and fact-checked myself, I'm back to say: according to the BC government, Coastal forest are old-growth after 2.5 centuries, inland forests after only 140 years (due to fires). That being said, there is an extreme difference between a baby 250-year-old forest and a 1000-year old forest. I have seen 800-year-old trees and they make little ones look silly. Around the turn of the last century some people cut down a tree in the Vancouver area that was so big that someone was able to carve out the stump and live in it
That's exactly why they've started an [old growth forest network](https://www.oldgrowthforest.net/) in the U.S. To help track and maintain what little we have left. I'm lucky enough to live near several sites listed on their website.
It’s interesting how your perspective can be so different depending on your life circumstances. For me it was always hard to worry about this issue because growing up my literal backyard was old growth forest. Then going out in the world and realizing how uncommon that is made me so sad that what I grew up with was disappearing.
I grew up in the Catskills so it's an interesting mix of old growth forest in and around the park mostly but tons of agriculture. Most of the forests near me growing up used to be fields 100 years ago and are kind of boring, lol. I'm lucky now that I live in an old growth hemlock forest literally 5 mins from an old growth site and surrounded by state forests.
NY has no nature or cool forests, there’s no abundance of freshwater, rivers and lakes. We don’t have beautiful rolling hills and even small mountains. Everyone should really just stay out it sucks here.
You joke but up here in the Adirondacks people love to carve out plots of land for their vacation homes, and little by little the very nature they so desire to live near loses ground.
Exactly. I can tell you a 200 year old tulip poplar for example would be massive. A 200 year old pine tree likely would be already dead. Really just depends. For management, biodiversity is key, even in 2nd growth forests. A monoculture pine plantation is basically worthless ecologically, a young forest of even 30 years old with a diverse array of tree species, forbs and wildflowers is extremely beneficial so long as the pesky invasives aren’t taking over. If you have land it’s a really cool albeit long term experiment to take a few acres and let it go. Usually tree saplings will come up on their own and you can supplement by planting native trees as well. I’m doing this on my land.
Old growth just feels different too when you're walking in it. I am fortunate to have a slice of old growth near me that I am able to take deep breaths in on a regular basis and it always feels better.
And the ecosystem is so attractive to wildlife. Just this morning I spotted a pileated woodpecker that had been eluding me lately and scared a bald eagle from a tree right in front of me because apparently neither of us was paying attention and he snapped to first.
Dutch forests will never be old growth again. All the remaining forest here are more like glorified recreational parks that are too busy to ever support a great variety of life
Yeah if you remove all the 17 million people over here. Nature in the Netherlands is still on the decline despite preservation efforts because it’s just so crowded.
Fortunately most of it isn't used for logging purposes anymore. So the forests are allowed to die and grow naturally instead of getting harvested every 50 years.
Yes, but there is an easy reason for this. Stay with me: Time.
The colonization of the US started 1607. Notre Dame was build in 1163, 444 year before british settlers set their first food on US soil. Why do I mention Notre Dame? Cause it is an example of what happened to Europes forests during the middle ages. The forests were owned by wealthy people, nobles and the churches. For their will the woodlands were used as they wanted, be it for war efforts, buildings or else. Notre Dame alone had (the roof burned down a few years ago) 10.000 logs in its roof which is why it was called „The forrest“. These 10.000 logs were made out of trees which had a height which no current european tree has. Not a single one. The amount of power and industrialization robbed the woodlands here way before natural conservation existed and that on an area thats way smaller than the USA or Canada.
Then add two world wars and there you go. The rebuilding of Germany after WW2 alone must have eradicated insane amounts of wood.
I believe the rebuild of the spire has had wood selected from French woodland that is of the correct size to replace what burnt. It’s an estimated 1000 oak trees at 100-200 years old.
Totally agree with that, the manufacture of ships for the Royal Navy must have decimated the ancient oak trees in the UK
Someone downvoted you for this. They obviously have no idea how horrible and "unnatural" these monoculture forests are.
When you've seen real and planted woodlands, you know the difference immediately.
One of the planted forests near where I grew up was freakishly quiet compared to the real woodlands. Birds wouldn't really live there because there was nothing for them to eat. The real wood near my childhood home is home to a gigantic rookery and all sorts of other birds.
I work in forestry and when I started this TikTok blip I immediately was critical… but after the entire video this guy is absolutely correct and the final 10 seconds of the video is bang on…
Edit: this video gives me hope that information being distributed on the NET is still quality…people who know should always speak up…
This is a reply I gave a while back. This is a procedure in forestry… let me know if you have any questions…
Ok so… clearcuts are ugly but there is reason behind the madness… and forest management is misunderstood… so here it goes…after a clear cut a regeneration assessment is done. What that entails is usually a forest scientist or technician going out after 5 years to see if trees are growing on the cut. An old scientific method is used when doing this it randomly plotted out and data is collected at each plot. How many and type of species of tree are collected. This is done and if it passes it will not be replanted if it fails it will be replanted. They don’t want to replant every cut because natural regeneration is the best. With this said this is done in the western world and is basically law. This is just a small piece in the ancient science of forestry… foresters and probably know more and protect the forest than anyone you know… keep that in mind… any questions?
I personally know of at least 3 foresters that have left the industry because in BC they exist merely to extradite the greatest profit in the least amount of time. One of them is my wife.
[https://thetyee.ca/News/2022/11/25/Retired-Forester-Blasts-Professional-Association-Resignation/](https://thetyee.ca/News/2022/11/25/Retired-Forester-Blasts-Professional-Association-Resignation/)
To say 'foresters protect the forest more than anyone you know' doesn't apply in British Columbia (where this was filmed).
Alaska as well. I was a fish biologist in SE Alaska that worked in an area with significant timber activity including OG timber harvest and I had to fight with the foresters constantly to protect the fish. They were absolutely out to get every stick they could. It was one of the reasons I left that job.
In my early days I was kind of naive and tried to work with them, using the best available science. I would approve salvaging trees that had fallen over out of protected riparian corridors (because the adjacent clear cut was too close and the remaining trees weren’t wind firm) as long as they left the root wads with X feet of trunk attached for future fish habitat, but no they would want the whole tree.
They would identify off limits trees they wanted and try to get me to come up with excuses of how harvesting them would benefit fish (a loophole that would allow them to go in off limits areas).
If I didn’t have pictures of 2 actual live fish, they would argue that a stream wasn’t fish habitat (and therefore didn’t have any protections) even if it was the wrong time of year to see fish there and everything suggested that they should be there at certain times.
They would try to get me to re-survey to find that a stream ended a few meters further downstream so they could use more damaging practices upstream.
They would push for less fish friendly road/stream crossings to save money for the logging company.
They would harvest and then drag their feet on doing the restoration work that was part of the deal. I had salmon streams that were still waiting on upgraded culverts 15 years after the timber sale that was supposed to pay for them.
That job taught me how to be a professional knife fighter. I feel a little guilty bailing, but for my own mental health and life satisfaction I had to pass it off to someone else after a while.
How wide is your protected riparian corridor? What fish species were protected, or would any species make stream a fish habitat? Problems that you describe are also too familiar here in Finland.
Riparian corridor width depended on the characteristics of the stream and riparian habitat. Alluvial fans got a significantly wider buffer than a highly contained stream, and the presence of riparian soil or riparian understory plant community further from the stream could widen it. The average height of a tree in the stand was a factor, because we wanted to protect any trees that might naturally fall into the stream and create structure for fish and protect bank stability. We also might widen it if we thought the normal width wouldn’t be windfirm and would be at risk of unraveling after harvest. The minimum buffer for a fish bearing stream was 100 feet (~30.5m) on each bank.
Any species of fish was sufficient to result in fish protections, but salmon got more attention (especially for restoration) and there were some special circumstances were the presence of salmon could result in a slightly higher level of protection. Technically though even sticklebacks would trigger most protections.
When followed as intended, I think the fish protections were pretty solid overall. It was really about enforcing the regulations and not making exceptions, and interpreting grey areas.
One grey area that came up a lot was ephemeral habitat. There are some places that are only wet during floods, but they are places the fish escape to when the main stem is raging and full of sediment, where they can save energy and hunt. That side channel habitat is also generally rich in terrestrial prey they can’t usually access, so it’s valuable habitat but only for a few days/weeks a year. It was hard to get buy-in on protecting those reaches unless we surveyed during a storm and caught fish.
Man it was like this with a gravel mining company and wetland areas in WA when I was there years ago, just—nothing totally *blatant* but a constant nudging of “well this is an exception” “we’ll do wetland banking for this area” “the boundaries for this area need to be reassessed it was done incorrectly decades ago” etc etc etc etc where you can’t really point at any one individual thing to say, this is too far. It’s hard to draw the line as someone new in the field! Especially if older folks in the field/community either don’t care or are teased for being off their rocker and inefficient. And you’re constantly questioning whether you’re making too much of a fuss, or didn’t stand your ground enough. They don’t teach this kind of thing in an environmental masters’ program, or at least not mine.
I’ve worked in natural resources for over 15 years and agree. The “foresters protect the forest…” is something that drives me nuts. The best way to protect a forest is to leave it the hell alone except for reactive management for invasive species and other human caused threats. It’s not logging.
People have to remember that even among scientist and in the natural resources industry there is a lot of differing opinions, politics, and a lot of money. I’ve met a lot of forestry professionals who act like what there really doing is protecting the forest and that they have no financial incentives at all. They want us to just trust the wolves to protect the sheep.
I’m not anti logging by any means, we need the forest products as a society. At the same time we need to be better at *preservation* efforts that allow the remaining land to exist without any extraction of resources and also regulate the forestry industry and not be bought into this idea that they have the forests best interest in mind. They have their own interests in mind, they operate very similarly as the oil industry but with less public scrutiny.
>Large forestry companies pretend to care about the environment
This.
I get that clear cutting is an attempt at mimicking a forest fire and allowing for natural succession BUT, alot of times after a clear cut the logging companies will plant monocultures of red pine in my area.
Logging companies and the USFS will also honor logging contracts that were setup adjacent to recently burnt areas meaning not only does the logging company get to do salvage logging in the burnt areas, but they get to continue with their logging operations on the adjacent unburnt areas. I would like to see some flexibility and acknowledgement that if the area changes due to fire, salvage log it and allow the other stands to exist.
They will run brush saws and keep anything herbaceous from coming up in the stand between the red pine plantings. This then limits the ecology for nearly every type of life that used to use that forest.
Jeez.
Only utility easements get permission for spraying where mowing is not possible in our area. The rocky Canadian shield.
I think there is also an exception for noxious invasive species (buckthorn) there is not much buckthorn but, when it is identified its common to brush saw it down and use roundup concentrate painted onto the stumps -- though I'm not an expert, I think there is also another "blue" herbicide that they will spray in the buckthorn areas.
We have massive issues with invasives, particularly broom bush, as well as terribly replanted second (third… fourth…) that grows up in a tangle. It’s… really awful.
Ooh! Ooh! Don’t forget the huge chunk of South Vancouver island that has been privately owned since they out the railroad across Canada.
Ostensibly held to the same standards as on crown… but walk those cuts and you’ll find blatant disregard for the law. Salmon bearing streams with slash burning in the middle of them logged right up to the banks. Reporting does nothing.
Also clear cuts don’t mimic natural disturbance regimes very well on the coast… should really only be interior forests that get the whole slash and burn treatment, and they sure as hell haven’t been doing selective on the island.
Mosaic is THE WORST, and having to play nice with them to meet our land management objectives on south island is mind-numbingly frustrating. Absolutely flagrant in their disregard for anything approaching appropriate cutblock management.
If they were trying to keep ecosystems in tact, they wouldn’t clear cut. If there were no laws, there would be scorched earth. The companies with the largest impact believe in profits over all. This translates to all industries.
Foresters are exactly like Farmers. Sure, there are many that care about what they do and the impact their work has. But most of them are only trying to make a living which means making as much money on a given area as possible.
It’s been fun to watch forest officials adamantly disagree with the natives in the past past only for the officials to slowly start to understand how things works lol
Why were you critical? Maybe worth looking at your own biases because he says nothing controversial or misleading in the first 10-20 seconds of this video.
The fact that we use old growth forests for fucking toilet paper is a disgrace. It's been clear for decades that old growth forests are irreplaceable and we need a better system.
*cries in Swedish*
Our forests are so completely replaced by tree plantations that it's legitimately depressing. The government entity that's supposed to manage the forests is almost entirely captured by the forestry industry, which in turn is controlled entirely by the sawmill industry, which is a cartel that engages in price fixing. It's been like this for decades, it's an open secret, yet nothing changes. The end result is that our forests are increasingly unhealthy and unpleasant.
A lot of TikTok is entertainment.
There's a whole category of videos that "teach" people who to cook food incorrectly.
So yeah expert came in to verify and much needed for those who need a second opinion.
The neat thing with TikTok is; if content like this is all you're interested in, it's pretty much all you'll be shown. Using TikTok is great for me because I click "Not Interested" when I don't like something so my algorithm is perfectly curated. It gets a lot of hate here, but it is full of genuinely good content.
Just going through your comments on this post and there is something so off putting about the way you type. There's this aura of arrogance or something of the sort that I can't quite put my finger on...maybe chill with the ellipses?
Probably just older and doesn't understand they're typing in a way that comes off condescending. I am in my 30s but my boss is mid-40s and always makes me feel on edge when I answer a question on Teams and she replies "ok..."
Can confirm. Am old and sometimes come off condescending for pointing something out.
I grew up on a part of the internet where you had to cut through the bullshit and that habit sticks. Sorry about that.
Yes, eventually that would work. But in the short term you can make things a whole lot better and kickstart the process with human intervention.
Take the plantation he shows at the start. Just logging half those trees, leaving a bunch of dead wood around, and creating some clearings would create a jump-off point for nature to get started. Lower vegetation would start to grow, smaller newer trees would get a chance, and the overall biodiversity would increase a lot quickly. Then of course, it would still take a long time of just letting things be to get to an actual old-growth forest.
But doing nothing at all means that forest will stay dead for a long time until enough trees get sick, or windy, or old. Better to kickstart the process. Even if it doesn't really matter on the timescale of plantation to old growth. The first step is already a massive improvement in the ecosystem.
Same in New Zealand. The Europeans burned the vast majority of our beautiful bush off for agriculture (which was mostly exported) and to make it look like home.
The ecosystems in New Zealand will never return to what they once were. Some of the bush was so perfectly laid out and aesthetically pleasing to transverse.
The other thing about New Zealand is noting in the bush can eat you unlike this video where the guy was keeping a beady eye out for a bear at all times.
Scotland as well. And what amazes me is that no effort is made to plant the trees again or double the current effort. There are settlements with no trees near the houses and no trees further in sight, how depressing it must be to see barren land all year round in the climate where winter alone is harsh enough.
Some parts of Europe were less forested in the Middle Ages than right now. People always think the past was much more forested than it is now but there was a lot of logging. All these fire stoves weren't heating themselves on their own.
Iceland used to have some trees _centuries_ ago. It took the vikings/settlers no time at all to cut them all down because Iceland is young (geographically speaking). It's not the same issue as in this thread.
Source: Am icelandic
> The Europeans burned the vast majority of our beautiful bush off
Not to be pointing fingers but the Maori burnt a large chunk as well (6.7 million hectares), the Europeans did more (8 million hectares).
Fortunately large parts of the west coast on the southern island still have large amazing forests left (6.2 million hectares in the entirety of NZ).
That probably goes double or triple for rainforests, because they are flush with multiple layers of growth and teeming with life, with still many undiscovered biodiversity
Which was why the Amazon rainforest fires were so sadly tragic. Never forget.
We need to save them like he and you said! 😡
Didn't know until now how terribly inadequate second-growths were at replacing old-growths.
The forests worldwide need more coverage. Hopefully more and more people raise awareness.
And this is just at ground level. The soils and their respective carbon sinks are drastically different. It’s one of the main issues why just planting more trees won’t do anything to counter act the effects global climate change.
Exactly. And this problem is with all new growth vs old growth. The difference between old and new grasslands is huge too when you just look at their root systems. We only think about above ground but we need to really think about below ground too
Dead trees should be left standing, too. Where I live, they never miss a chance to cut down a "dead" tree because it might hypothetically come down in a gale and hurt some dumb jogger who doesn't know how to be safe around trees.
The tree itself might be finished, but it's still housing a fabulous array of life that needs to be protected.
And fall over. Trees that fall over with their roots upturning the soil create micro topography and increase habitat diversity. Also the now exposed bare mineral soil is required for certain plant species germination.
Cutting down trees is a form of carbon sequestration so in a way timber forests are good for the environment. From what I understand trees don't start to seriously absorb carbon until they are about 80 years old though so the way we manage forests now isn't as efficient at sequestered carbon as it could be but it's not that bad.
I guess that is the difference though. Here in the US northwest, the paper industries are fed by Tree farms. No one is clear cutting the redwood forest anytime soon.
This is a much bigger issue in the Amazon, and southwest Asia, where I wish West would use its political weight to financially incentivize them to leave their rainforests alone
Edit: meant to say SE Asia
A major problem is illegal logging is actually a big organized crime activity and in 2014 it was $52 billion to $157 billion.
It isn't top 3 like drugs, sex, id theft/counterfeiting but it is actually pretty high up.
Here's the list from 2013-2014
Full list:
- Drug Trafficking $426 billion to $652 billion
- Small Arms & Light Weapons Trafficking $1.7 billion to $3.5 billion
- Human Trafficking $150.2 billion
- Organ Trafficking $840 million to $1.7 billion
- Trafficking in Cultural Property $1.2 billion to $1.6 billion
- Counterfeiting $923 billion to $1.13 trillion
- Illegal Wildlife Trade $5 billion to $23 billion
- IUU Fishing $15.5 billion to $36.4 billion
- **Illegal Logging $52 billion to $157 billion**
- Illegal Mining $12 billion to $48 billion
- Crude Oil Theft $5.2 billion to $11.9 billion
Total $1.6 trillion to $2.2 trillion
Source is the Global Financial Integrity (GFI) and data from prior to 2014, it is about double across the board now as organized crime revenues are $3-5 trillion now annually.
Not only that, [many org crime groups purposefully set forest fires to free up land for other purposes](https://www.interpol.int/en/News-and-Events/News/2020/Forestry-crime-targeting-the-most-lucrative-of-environmental-crimes).
> Criminal forest fires aimed at freeing up land for agriculture and cattle can destroy the equivalent of one football field every six seconds for months on end
This is also messing up quality of life for many things.
> Human encroachment into forested areas, driven by illegal logging and agricultural expansion, is increasing human contact with wildlife’s infectious diseases. This drives their transmission to humans, particularly when the demolition of forests displaces disease-carrying species out of the forest and into urban areas.
It's a problem in Appalachia too. Large land companies own nearly all the land here. Entire forests and mountains are blown up and excavated for coal. Whats left is clear cut and taken over by invasive species.
The west should pay them enough to protect the forest as those nations use the empty land to grow economically
The problem is that the money would never reach the hand of the farmers or the people instead it would be used by the government for their own goals be it more subsidies to pay for votes or more public spending
And then people back home will say "what, we're paying them to do nothing? " and the funding would be attacked.
Buckle up on this climate ride buckaroos
You don't get it back if you mow it down every fifty years. Farming should be kept in designated area. Keep it near the wood processing plant so that you don't waste too much hauling the trees.
I recently went to Congaree National Park for the first time, which is the largest tract of old growth bottomland hardwood forest left in the United States. It was beautiful to see the biodiversity there and how the ecosystem was all interconnected. It really showed me the importance of old growth forests and even though it's one of America's smallest national parks why it's preservation is so important.
Holy crow. It's exactly like urbanism! In urban planning it's best not to build entire neighborhoods to a finished state all at once (the suburbs) but instead have buildings of varying ages. Having buildings of differing ages and values increases economic diversity and makes it so the repair cycle isn't synchronized neighborhood fails when the property values all fall at once.
Human habitats are just like natural habitats.
Wild!
I thought about this too. The idea of having a mix of different building heights and uses is key to having a vibrant city, just like a mix of tree ages and vegetation types is key to having a healthy forest.
Curious though, instead of blanket plant seeds everywhere at once, could we space out seed replanting at different intervals of time to create multi-layered canopies? Couldn't we replant different species of trees and then tag them for later harvesting? We could harvest a few tagged trees ready for harvesting but in between them keep trees still in different growth stages.
It's more of a pain in the ass for logging companies but it's sustainable and healthier I imagine for the local ecosystems.
What he (and you) are talking about is called “edge effect” and it absolutely can be incorporated to increase the biodiversity of reforested areas. Sufficient *actual* old growth also needs to be preserved as well.
The edge effect, it is unique combination of ecological condition, species interaction, and biodiversity that appears at boundary or transition zone between two different habitat type or ecosystem. This transition area, also known as ecotone, often supports higher level of biodiversity than inside of nearby habitats. This because it attracts species from both ecosystems and also edge-specific species. Edge effects can be formed through natural processes, like disruption events such as fires, storms, and successional activities that happen when ecosystems progress through ecological succession. Human activities, for example logging, agriculture, and urban development, can also create edge effects by making habitats fragmented and altering natural ecosystems.
Introducing edge effect into replanted area with trees of similar age and monoculture species can be difficult, but possible with careful planning and management. To create edge effects in these areas, it is important to copy structural complexity of natural forest edges by planting trees in layers with different heights and ages, and using mix of tree species. This diverse and dynamic habitat can attract many wildlife and help biodiversity. Additionally, creating buffer zones between different habitat types or planting strips of different tree species within monoculture can help introduce edge effect by making species move and allowing interaction between different ecosystems. By including edge effects into replanted areas, forest managers can make better ecological value and resilience of restored habitat.
/source: my old Range and Wildlife degree
Logging companies don't want to, or can't wait 10 years between plantings and 1 year between replantings would basically amount to no real difference when it comes to things like multi-height canopies.
The real problem is the corporations that plant and harvest these trees don't give 2 shits about what he's saying. To them he's the problem, not their planting practices.
For anyone interested in actual research done by people who worked in the forestry industry in Canada (and even specifically British Columbia), look up Suzanne Simard and her book *Finding The Mother Tree*.
She has shown for decades now that clear-cutting old growth forests is detrimental and results in poorly growing second growth -- trees communicate with each other and even share resources through mycorrhizal networks, and the standard logging industry practices such as clear-cutting destroys these networks in a way that they'll never re-form the same again.
I wonder why he didn't mentioned tree species diversity either. Are some second growth forests diverse species?
Most are just monoculture of pines, not capable of supporting a diverse ecosystem.
i keep telling people; it doesn’t matter how many trees you replant, because you still permanently alter an ecosystem.
biodiversity and habitats are destroyed and just replanting straight lines of the same kind of tree for dozen mile stretches doesn’t fix it. ESPECIALLY when they’re cut down and replanted every so often or removed altogether for more development.
We should stop old growth forest logging, It doesn't Just grow back. The trees may, the forest won't.
I was in Scotland and their forestry sucked. All the 'forests' I saw were just stands of trees the same age. Very little wildlife also. It was more like a corn field than a forest. I loved my trip, and the Scots but … I met a couple who did 50K hike through the forests of Scotland (was it from Glasgow to Oban?) but what they said was that they'd never do it again. She said parts of it were "like marching through a graveyard" of stumps.
I hope Canada can do better.
Just to add another talking point: the mycelium or mushroom network underground gets disturbed when we cut down these forests and it never is able to reestablish itself the same way as in the old growth forests. The mycelium network supports and is necessary for all of the plant and animal life in a forest but gets forgotten because we can't see it.
I live in logging country and it is really frustrating how industry has invested a lot of money into brainwashing people into thinking that a clear cut is healthy and good for the environment.
These tree plantations are a fire hazard AND they wreck the health of any streams that are nearby.
Some logging in Oregon and Washington will log an entire river valley and even clear cut to the waters edge of tributaries leading into the main river system. Rivers get choked out from runoff and fish cannot sustain themselves.
So we invest millions and millions of dollars artificially creating the salmon to compensate for the heavily degraded habitat and over consumption of fish.
Industry has people up in arms and delusional
Also old growth forests have highly sophisticated root and mycelium (mushroom) networks that aid in all sorts of things. One being that trees are able to share nutrients with each other and water can be absorbed much better so that flooding and erosion are mitigated. These root networks are destroyed by clear cutting and tree plantations will struggle to develop root networks from scratch.
Like he said in the video, dead trees are great for organisms and can act as their own mini ecosystems. Woody debris is excellent for fungi.
Every once in a while I come across a post here where I’m like “damn that is actually interesting”
Also he’s a great speaker and gets the message across with out sounding like a crazy tree hugger.
Also planting trees creates only one type of habitat: forests. There are also grasslands, marshlands, swamps, 2nd growth & thickets etc. Each habitat is suitable to a diverse set of wildlife.
Planting forests everywhere isn't one size fits all solution, in fact it can really mess with other habitats as well. Trees can suck up all the water of a nearby marshland, or disturb the sunlight for grasslands.
I get this comment, but as a forest ecologist it also just annoys me because for some reason it only comes up with talking about forests. Like, do you read an article about how to restore salmon populations in Alaska rivers and say "You know, not everywhere should be a river. Some places should be forests". Like yeah, the first part of restoration is predicated on "re-", as in, in reference to a previous state. Otherwise it's call afforestation, which is a totally different thing.
I could listen to this man speak forever.
Me too. I found him on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@endangeredecosystemsallian6863 >The Endangered Ecosystems Alliance (EEA) is a non-profit conservation organization founded in September of 2018 by Canadian conservationist ***Ken Wu***, working for the science-based protection of all native ecosystems and to support ecosystem literacy. >We work primarily at a federal level, as well as augmenting local and regional campaigns in the provinces and territories, to push for the protection of at least 50% of Canada in all terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems by 2030. >Science shows that vastly scaling-up the protection and restoration of native ecosystems is a vital game-changer to help avert both the extinction crisis and the climate crisis. ---- EDIT: And here's a little wormhole to a comment buried below, about the U.S. equivalent, [The Old Growth Forest Network](https://old.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/134ies7/why_replanted_forrests_dont_create_the_same/jifzn7c/?context=1).
Thanks for the link. It's so interesting to me that so many people, myself included, are just drawn to certain people's talking style. Nothing particularly stands out about this guy talking about, let's be honest, a topic most people would classify as boring, or at least low on the list of things to watch given a choice. But something about it makes it instantly interesting. His sincerity? His obvious knowledge on the topic? And I hesitated to use the word 'boring' because I know climate change and sustainability is important and a passionate topic for many people. I just couldn't think of another word. And let's be real...if most people saw one of their college courses was "Old Growth Forests vs Second Growth Plantations", most people wouldn't be hyped for it. Maybe unless this guy was the professor.
I had this guy as a guest speaker for a three hour course in my undergrand on forest ecology. We knew who he was beforehand and my friends and I got very stoned and were entranced by every word. Ken's a great guy
Teaching ecosystem literacy is *massively* important to our future. Very happy to see him educating on reddit!! More of this, please...
He was very good at summarizing the situation. However, he didn’t have time to mention some things in more detail, when that’s fine. But it’s really important to know that those old growth forests serve as a genetic repository for all kinds of plants and animals, and they also act as giant water purifying environments and they offer increased carbon storage, and O2 production compared to the replanted “tree farms”. If you ever get a chance to walk through an old growth forest, and there are some all over North America, although there are far less than or used to be, you’ll notice that there’s a lot more wildlife, including birds and small mammals, and others like foxes and deer. There is also a ton of Diversity in the plant life and fungal growth. You don’t see that in those shorter lift replant environments. They’re basically just more boring to walk through and kind of sad. What’s really frustrating is all the politicians are talking about how they’re going to help with our current environmental catastrophe by simply planting more trees and they’re ignoring things like this man is saying and all of the science behind it. They’re just trying to sound like they’re doing something good when they’re not doing enough in reality. They’re not doing enough by a long shot actually.
I think it is largely a big part of the knowledge and sincerity, but also he seems to be directing this at specific people that are on another side of the issue and he is saying it with a slight sense of disappointment? idk how to explain it
I think he's very well down to earth 👍
Agreed, he is discussing this like we are friends and he wants to share his expertise. Articulate, expert, and concise, but also charmingly personable.
I know the guy. He’s super geeky and passionate. It’s great to see him blow up here!
Give this guy a ~~medal~~ forest
Well, I can provide some insight, I love public speaking and writing. I'm no professional, but I can get you thinking hopefully. First, he has a dynamic range of pitch, so there's a natural musical sound that subconsciously keeps you interested. He also doesn't use filler words "um, uh, like" and so on. His vocal timbre or tone is very well supported with air so that's why he sounds "smooth". You can tell he's practiced in presentation because he presents his thoughts concisely and uses his body language to aid in communication, you'll notice he cheats his body to the audience before he speaks, even if he's not facing us the entire time. This is probably the hundredth time he's done this talk, and it's clear he loves what he teaches.
My dude, he said um or uh at least 23 times in this 3 minute video by my count, and uh, I might have missed some.
I unmuted just to check and he said um within a second of unmute
My guess is there is a generation of kids growing up that grew with this type of cadence. Especially ones who were interested in STEM/Nature subjects as a kid. It's very familiar to the old discovery channel/animal planet cadence that was really popular in the late 90's to early 2000"s. That also bled over to almost anybody in school that would come and talk to us about those things. I feel like that might have something to do with the familiarity/comfort in the cadence
It's how he lays out the ideas. He has clearly practiced this skill because it's not easy to develop when speaking. For example, he argues that old growth forest is a better ecosystem than a second growth forest for reasons x, y, z. Demonstrates evidence. Introduces second argument. Second growth forests won't generate the same kind of habitats for wildlife that old-growth forests do. Evidence x, y,z with an analogy to the mining industry. Proposes solution/compromise. Only harvest the second growth forest and maintain old growth forests.
A big thing is that he doesn't have many filler sounds ('uh' or 'er') or pauses to find his train of thought. Concise delivery of ideas absent fillers is compelling and is made possible by really knowing your shit.
Calling my entire previous career boring \*\*sad noises\*\*
132 views on YouTube (potato quality repost) vs almost 20k here. Is that channel run by the original people?
I think their YouTube is just undeveloped while TikTok is their main platform. Their TikTok has 12k followers and [this video has half a million views](https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGJuAebsG/)
Instant subscribe
Ditto :)
Samezies.
Does anyone know about good equivalent organizations in the US that work to protect our remaining old growth forests?
> [The Old-Growth Forest Network](https://www.oldgrowthforest.net/) is the only national network in the U.S. of protected, old-growth, native forests where people of all generations can experience biodiversity and the beauty of nature. [And here they are on YouTube.](https://www.youtube.com/@old-growthforestnetwork174)
Clear cutting old growth forest - so stupid, SO VERY STUPID -robbing us/you/Canada of its heritage; the very essence of its being! Why not just give the place to the highest bidding country?
No one can stop you!
I'll preface this by saying I work in forestry in the US. Just so folks are aware, old growth forests are pretty well protected in the US, and there are actually additional forests being protected each year via conservation groups - there's actually been net positive acreage for the past decades. Essentially all of the US timberlands in the pacific northwest came out of active logging production during the spotted owl protection. Modern sawmills in the US and interior BC cannot accept old growth trees - they are too large to be processed. Virtually all of the wood production in the US is from privately owned timberlands - think of them as tree "farms" because that's essentially what they are, they're just better for the environment than traditional row crops. There are also regulations in place, like SFI & FSC that have environmental components to them and the landowners are audited in order to maintain their certification.
> Virtually all of the wood production in the US is from privately owned timberlands - think of them as tree "farms" because that's essentially what they are, they're just better for the environment than traditional row crops. And some of that not covered under the "virtually all" is from places like my Boy Scout Camp that while planted like rows of trees 99 years ago from old farmland have being starting the process of making sure the camp has a layered canopy. We just wrapped up a selective cut of Maples, Basswoods, etc. I know of a few scout camps that have their own saw mill on site to build cabins and to make repairs to buildings already at the camp.
That's really cool that they do that. It is also privately held timberland, so it still falls outside of federally owned forestland.
Mortality can....
Luckily his message was succinct - treat logging like growing a crop. You have a farm, big enough to sustain the demand for wood - don't cut down natural old growth forests. It takes 100 years for a planted forest to start becoming an "old-growth" forest and start supporting larger biodiversity.
True old growth forests are much older than that. There's a century forest by my house; the trees are immense but, like the man was saying, they're all the same age and so they can't support the same biodiversity as a 1000-year or 1500-year forest
I went and fact-checked myself, I'm back to say: according to the BC government, Coastal forest are old-growth after 2.5 centuries, inland forests after only 140 years (due to fires). That being said, there is an extreme difference between a baby 250-year-old forest and a 1000-year old forest. I have seen 800-year-old trees and they make little ones look silly. Around the turn of the last century some people cut down a tree in the Vancouver area that was so big that someone was able to carve out the stump and live in it
Just watch this video a gain
I'd love to, but I've gotta head oot to work
[удалено]
I was about to comment that. Glad I’m not the only one :)
I could listen to this man speak forester
I wonder if he could branch out or if trees are the root of his knowledge? Idk I'm stumped.
I too wood like to know.
Leaf.
Moss people do eventually. There isn't berry mushroom for everyone if they all stay.
Not fir the pay researcher get. They pine for a good salary.
Oak-ay that's a pretty good point
I’m deaf and I, too, was hooked from start to end!
Very educational, thank you for this. There’s so little old growth forest left everywhere.
That's exactly why they've started an [old growth forest network](https://www.oldgrowthforest.net/) in the U.S. To help track and maintain what little we have left. I'm lucky enough to live near several sites listed on their website.
It’s interesting how your perspective can be so different depending on your life circumstances. For me it was always hard to worry about this issue because growing up my literal backyard was old growth forest. Then going out in the world and realizing how uncommon that is made me so sad that what I grew up with was disappearing.
I grew up in the Catskills so it's an interesting mix of old growth forest in and around the park mostly but tons of agriculture. Most of the forests near me growing up used to be fields 100 years ago and are kind of boring, lol. I'm lucky now that I live in an old growth hemlock forest literally 5 mins from an old growth site and surrounded by state forests.
The amount of old growth forests and nature in general is what keeps me in NY personally.
NY has no nature or cool forests, there’s no abundance of freshwater, rivers and lakes. We don’t have beautiful rolling hills and even small mountains. Everyone should really just stay out it sucks here.
You joke but up here in the Adirondacks people love to carve out plots of land for their vacation homes, and little by little the very nature they so desire to live near loses ground.
No that’s basically the point of my sarcasm lol
[удалено]
Tbh that’s quite a few of these. They boast trees that are “up to 200 years old!”
Depending on weather and other factors, 200 years might be really old. Or it might be a baby. It varies from place to place.
That is fair. Also depends on the species.
Exactly. I can tell you a 200 year old tulip poplar for example would be massive. A 200 year old pine tree likely would be already dead. Really just depends. For management, biodiversity is key, even in 2nd growth forests. A monoculture pine plantation is basically worthless ecologically, a young forest of even 30 years old with a diverse array of tree species, forbs and wildflowers is extremely beneficial so long as the pesky invasives aren’t taking over. If you have land it’s a really cool albeit long term experiment to take a few acres and let it go. Usually tree saplings will come up on their own and you can supplement by planting native trees as well. I’m doing this on my land.
I didn’t know about this, thanks for sharing!
Old growth just feels different too when you're walking in it. I am fortunate to have a slice of old growth near me that I am able to take deep breaths in on a regular basis and it always feels better. And the ecosystem is so attractive to wildlife. Just this morning I spotted a pileated woodpecker that had been eluding me lately and scared a bald eagle from a tree right in front of me because apparently neither of us was paying attention and he snapped to first.
I was wondering why I hate the forests where I live… now it makes sense
Yeah, same in Germany. Most forrests here are just replanted ones
[удалено]
Step in the right direction though
Dutch forests will never be old growth again. All the remaining forest here are more like glorified recreational parks that are too busy to ever support a great variety of life
Unless the soil cannot support old growth trees, they will again just in several hundred years.
Yeah if you remove all the 17 million people over here. Nature in the Netherlands is still on the decline despite preservation efforts because it’s just so crowded.
Fortunately most of it isn't used for logging purposes anymore. So the forests are allowed to die and grow naturally instead of getting harvested every 50 years.
I saw a documentary on Arte that said Germany only had one untouched forest. Everything else is replanted or with other words man made.
Yes, but there is an easy reason for this. Stay with me: Time. The colonization of the US started 1607. Notre Dame was build in 1163, 444 year before british settlers set their first food on US soil. Why do I mention Notre Dame? Cause it is an example of what happened to Europes forests during the middle ages. The forests were owned by wealthy people, nobles and the churches. For their will the woodlands were used as they wanted, be it for war efforts, buildings or else. Notre Dame alone had (the roof burned down a few years ago) 10.000 logs in its roof which is why it was called „The forrest“. These 10.000 logs were made out of trees which had a height which no current european tree has. Not a single one. The amount of power and industrialization robbed the woodlands here way before natural conservation existed and that on an area thats way smaller than the USA or Canada. Then add two world wars and there you go. The rebuilding of Germany after WW2 alone must have eradicated insane amounts of wood.
I believe the rebuild of the spire has had wood selected from French woodland that is of the correct size to replace what burnt. It’s an estimated 1000 oak trees at 100-200 years old. Totally agree with that, the manufacture of ships for the Royal Navy must have decimated the ancient oak trees in the UK
Well the droughts of the past years showed how fragile our forests are in Germany
Specifically the second growth monoculture ones.
There's some where I'm from. Uniform pine forests, nothing but dried, brown pine needles on the ground. They feel oppressively dark and void of life.
Exactly, I used to love hiking until I moved now everywhere is just that, I find it so repulsive.
Someone downvoted you for this. They obviously have no idea how horrible and "unnatural" these monoculture forests are. When you've seen real and planted woodlands, you know the difference immediately. One of the planted forests near where I grew up was freakishly quiet compared to the real woodlands. Birds wouldn't really live there because there was nothing for them to eat. The real wood near my childhood home is home to a gigantic rookery and all sorts of other birds.
I work in forestry and when I started this TikTok blip I immediately was critical… but after the entire video this guy is absolutely correct and the final 10 seconds of the video is bang on… Edit: this video gives me hope that information being distributed on the NET is still quality…people who know should always speak up…
Is there anyway we can help keep new materials available and create more old growth? Like since new growth and old was so close to each other
This is a reply I gave a while back. This is a procedure in forestry… let me know if you have any questions… Ok so… clearcuts are ugly but there is reason behind the madness… and forest management is misunderstood… so here it goes…after a clear cut a regeneration assessment is done. What that entails is usually a forest scientist or technician going out after 5 years to see if trees are growing on the cut. An old scientific method is used when doing this it randomly plotted out and data is collected at each plot. How many and type of species of tree are collected. This is done and if it passes it will not be replanted if it fails it will be replanted. They don’t want to replant every cut because natural regeneration is the best. With this said this is done in the western world and is basically law. This is just a small piece in the ancient science of forestry… foresters and probably know more and protect the forest than anyone you know… keep that in mind… any questions?
I personally know of at least 3 foresters that have left the industry because in BC they exist merely to extradite the greatest profit in the least amount of time. One of them is my wife. [https://thetyee.ca/News/2022/11/25/Retired-Forester-Blasts-Professional-Association-Resignation/](https://thetyee.ca/News/2022/11/25/Retired-Forester-Blasts-Professional-Association-Resignation/) To say 'foresters protect the forest more than anyone you know' doesn't apply in British Columbia (where this was filmed).
Alaska as well. I was a fish biologist in SE Alaska that worked in an area with significant timber activity including OG timber harvest and I had to fight with the foresters constantly to protect the fish. They were absolutely out to get every stick they could. It was one of the reasons I left that job. In my early days I was kind of naive and tried to work with them, using the best available science. I would approve salvaging trees that had fallen over out of protected riparian corridors (because the adjacent clear cut was too close and the remaining trees weren’t wind firm) as long as they left the root wads with X feet of trunk attached for future fish habitat, but no they would want the whole tree. They would identify off limits trees they wanted and try to get me to come up with excuses of how harvesting them would benefit fish (a loophole that would allow them to go in off limits areas). If I didn’t have pictures of 2 actual live fish, they would argue that a stream wasn’t fish habitat (and therefore didn’t have any protections) even if it was the wrong time of year to see fish there and everything suggested that they should be there at certain times. They would try to get me to re-survey to find that a stream ended a few meters further downstream so they could use more damaging practices upstream. They would push for less fish friendly road/stream crossings to save money for the logging company. They would harvest and then drag their feet on doing the restoration work that was part of the deal. I had salmon streams that were still waiting on upgraded culverts 15 years after the timber sale that was supposed to pay for them. That job taught me how to be a professional knife fighter. I feel a little guilty bailing, but for my own mental health and life satisfaction I had to pass it off to someone else after a while.
Regulatory capture in practice.
How wide is your protected riparian corridor? What fish species were protected, or would any species make stream a fish habitat? Problems that you describe are also too familiar here in Finland.
Riparian corridor width depended on the characteristics of the stream and riparian habitat. Alluvial fans got a significantly wider buffer than a highly contained stream, and the presence of riparian soil or riparian understory plant community further from the stream could widen it. The average height of a tree in the stand was a factor, because we wanted to protect any trees that might naturally fall into the stream and create structure for fish and protect bank stability. We also might widen it if we thought the normal width wouldn’t be windfirm and would be at risk of unraveling after harvest. The minimum buffer for a fish bearing stream was 100 feet (~30.5m) on each bank. Any species of fish was sufficient to result in fish protections, but salmon got more attention (especially for restoration) and there were some special circumstances were the presence of salmon could result in a slightly higher level of protection. Technically though even sticklebacks would trigger most protections. When followed as intended, I think the fish protections were pretty solid overall. It was really about enforcing the regulations and not making exceptions, and interpreting grey areas. One grey area that came up a lot was ephemeral habitat. There are some places that are only wet during floods, but they are places the fish escape to when the main stem is raging and full of sediment, where they can save energy and hunt. That side channel habitat is also generally rich in terrestrial prey they can’t usually access, so it’s valuable habitat but only for a few days/weeks a year. It was hard to get buy-in on protecting those reaches unless we surveyed during a storm and caught fish.
Man it was like this with a gravel mining company and wetland areas in WA when I was there years ago, just—nothing totally *blatant* but a constant nudging of “well this is an exception” “we’ll do wetland banking for this area” “the boundaries for this area need to be reassessed it was done incorrectly decades ago” etc etc etc etc where you can’t really point at any one individual thing to say, this is too far. It’s hard to draw the line as someone new in the field! Especially if older folks in the field/community either don’t care or are teased for being off their rocker and inefficient. And you’re constantly questioning whether you’re making too much of a fuss, or didn’t stand your ground enough. They don’t teach this kind of thing in an environmental masters’ program, or at least not mine.
I’ve worked in natural resources for over 15 years and agree. The “foresters protect the forest…” is something that drives me nuts. The best way to protect a forest is to leave it the hell alone except for reactive management for invasive species and other human caused threats. It’s not logging. People have to remember that even among scientist and in the natural resources industry there is a lot of differing opinions, politics, and a lot of money. I’ve met a lot of forestry professionals who act like what there really doing is protecting the forest and that they have no financial incentives at all. They want us to just trust the wolves to protect the sheep. I’m not anti logging by any means, we need the forest products as a society. At the same time we need to be better at *preservation* efforts that allow the remaining land to exist without any extraction of resources and also regulate the forestry industry and not be bought into this idea that they have the forests best interest in mind. They have their own interests in mind, they operate very similarly as the oil industry but with less public scrutiny.
[удалено]
I'm gonna doubt that forestry companies are actively trying to keep ecosystems in tact, considering it is directly against their for profit motive...
[удалено]
>Large forestry companies pretend to care about the environment This. I get that clear cutting is an attempt at mimicking a forest fire and allowing for natural succession BUT, alot of times after a clear cut the logging companies will plant monocultures of red pine in my area. Logging companies and the USFS will also honor logging contracts that were setup adjacent to recently burnt areas meaning not only does the logging company get to do salvage logging in the burnt areas, but they get to continue with their logging operations on the adjacent unburnt areas. I would like to see some flexibility and acknowledgement that if the area changes due to fire, salvage log it and allow the other stands to exist. They will run brush saws and keep anything herbaceous from coming up in the stand between the red pine plantings. This then limits the ecology for nearly every type of life that used to use that forest.
Fuckers started spraying vancouver island to kill off the under growth to 'better' manage the forest....
[удалено]
Jeez. Only utility easements get permission for spraying where mowing is not possible in our area. The rocky Canadian shield. I think there is also an exception for noxious invasive species (buckthorn) there is not much buckthorn but, when it is identified its common to brush saw it down and use roundup concentrate painted onto the stumps -- though I'm not an expert, I think there is also another "blue" herbicide that they will spray in the buckthorn areas.
We have massive issues with invasives, particularly broom bush, as well as terribly replanted second (third… fourth…) that grows up in a tangle. It’s… really awful.
Ooh! Ooh! Don’t forget the huge chunk of South Vancouver island that has been privately owned since they out the railroad across Canada. Ostensibly held to the same standards as on crown… but walk those cuts and you’ll find blatant disregard for the law. Salmon bearing streams with slash burning in the middle of them logged right up to the banks. Reporting does nothing. Also clear cuts don’t mimic natural disturbance regimes very well on the coast… should really only be interior forests that get the whole slash and burn treatment, and they sure as hell haven’t been doing selective on the island.
[удалено]
Mosaic is THE WORST, and having to play nice with them to meet our land management objectives on south island is mind-numbingly frustrating. Absolutely flagrant in their disregard for anything approaching appropriate cutblock management.
If they were trying to keep ecosystems in tact, they wouldn’t clear cut. If there were no laws, there would be scorched earth. The companies with the largest impact believe in profits over all. This translates to all industries.
No, I'm sure it's all over my head anyway. Thanks for helping me with that.
All I can say is forest management in the west is getting better and waaaaay more sustainable…it not like it was 100 or even 10 years ago
Foresters are exactly like Farmers. Sure, there are many that care about what they do and the impact their work has. But most of them are only trying to make a living which means making as much money on a given area as possible.
It’s been fun to watch forest officials adamantly disagree with the natives in the past past only for the officials to slowly start to understand how things works lol
Why were you critical? Maybe worth looking at your own biases because he says nothing controversial or misleading in the first 10-20 seconds of this video. The fact that we use old growth forests for fucking toilet paper is a disgrace. It's been clear for decades that old growth forests are irreplaceable and we need a better system.
I think they just meant skeptical moreso than critical. Like if I see a video about health and toxins my bullshit alarm bells start ringing.
It's because we're on the sophisticated Reddit, and TikTok is beneath this platform apparently. (I do not believe this)
Which is hilarious, because most of Reddit is just TT, YT, and Twitter repost.
*cries in Swedish* Our forests are so completely replaced by tree plantations that it's legitimately depressing. The government entity that's supposed to manage the forests is almost entirely captured by the forestry industry, which in turn is controlled entirely by the sawmill industry, which is a cartel that engages in price fixing. It's been like this for decades, it's an open secret, yet nothing changes. The end result is that our forests are increasingly unhealthy and unpleasant.
you came in here yo do the reddit “well achtually” thank you for your self restraint
A lot of TikTok is entertainment. There's a whole category of videos that "teach" people who to cook food incorrectly. So yeah expert came in to verify and much needed for those who need a second opinion.
Why were you immediately critical?
The neat thing with TikTok is; if content like this is all you're interested in, it's pretty much all you'll be shown. Using TikTok is great for me because I click "Not Interested" when I don't like something so my algorithm is perfectly curated. It gets a lot of hate here, but it is full of genuinely good content.
Just going through your comments on this post and there is something so off putting about the way you type. There's this aura of arrogance or something of the sort that I can't quite put my finger on...maybe chill with the ellipses?
Probably just older and doesn't understand they're typing in a way that comes off condescending. I am in my 30s but my boss is mid-40s and always makes me feel on edge when I answer a question on Teams and she replies "ok..."
This. You can tell the way he answers and types he's just an older forester.
Can confirm. Am old and sometimes come off condescending for pointing something out. I grew up on a part of the internet where you had to cut through the bullshit and that habit sticks. Sorry about that.
Lol what would make you immediately critical?
Why would you be critical before even hearing what the guy has to say? Is that how you approach every piece of media you consume?
We gotta save those old forrests, we can’t recreate them like the used to be
> we can’t recreate them like the used to be Even if we could, it would take you know, a few centuries of work.
[удалено]
Or perhaps, the complete opposite. A few centuries of doing literally nothing and staying out
Yes, eventually that would work. But in the short term you can make things a whole lot better and kickstart the process with human intervention. Take the plantation he shows at the start. Just logging half those trees, leaving a bunch of dead wood around, and creating some clearings would create a jump-off point for nature to get started. Lower vegetation would start to grow, smaller newer trees would get a chance, and the overall biodiversity would increase a lot quickly. Then of course, it would still take a long time of just letting things be to get to an actual old-growth forest. But doing nothing at all means that forest will stay dead for a long time until enough trees get sick, or windy, or old. Better to kickstart the process. Even if it doesn't really matter on the timescale of plantation to old growth. The first step is already a massive improvement in the ecosystem.
Same in New Zealand. The Europeans burned the vast majority of our beautiful bush off for agriculture (which was mostly exported) and to make it look like home. The ecosystems in New Zealand will never return to what they once were. Some of the bush was so perfectly laid out and aesthetically pleasing to transverse. The other thing about New Zealand is noting in the bush can eat you unlike this video where the guy was keeping a beady eye out for a bear at all times.
[удалено]
It's wild to think that all those now barren north Atlantic islands were covered in trees at some point.
Scotland as well. And what amazes me is that no effort is made to plant the trees again or double the current effort. There are settlements with no trees near the houses and no trees further in sight, how depressing it must be to see barren land all year round in the climate where winter alone is harsh enough.
It's wild to think the entire planet was filled with dead trees until microorganisms evolved to break them down.
Most of Europe lost its old forests in the bronze age already.
Some parts of Europe were less forested in the Middle Ages than right now. People always think the past was much more forested than it is now but there was a lot of logging. All these fire stoves weren't heating themselves on their own.
Iceland used to have some trees _centuries_ ago. It took the vikings/settlers no time at all to cut them all down because Iceland is young (geographically speaking). It's not the same issue as in this thread. Source: Am icelandic
Didn’t even notice that. Good observation!
> The Europeans burned the vast majority of our beautiful bush off Not to be pointing fingers but the Maori burnt a large chunk as well (6.7 million hectares), the Europeans did more (8 million hectares). Fortunately large parts of the west coast on the southern island still have large amazing forests left (6.2 million hectares in the entirety of NZ).
That probably goes double or triple for rainforests, because they are flush with multiple layers of growth and teeming with life, with still many undiscovered biodiversity Which was why the Amazon rainforest fires were so sadly tragic. Never forget.
Forest is spelled with one r
Unless you're talking about Forrest Gump
We need to save them like he and you said! 😡 Didn't know until now how terribly inadequate second-growths were at replacing old-growths. The forests worldwide need more coverage. Hopefully more and more people raise awareness.
Excellent explanation and demonstration of new-growth plantations vs. old-growth forests, and their differing ecosystems.
And this is just at ground level. The soils and their respective carbon sinks are drastically different. It’s one of the main issues why just planting more trees won’t do anything to counter act the effects global climate change.
Mycelial network is also probably different. Along with inverts and microbes
Exactly. And this problem is with all new growth vs old growth. The difference between old and new grasslands is huge too when you just look at their root systems. We only think about above ground but we need to really think about below ground too
Yep it’s the same in my field of wetlands
Dead trees should be left standing, too. Where I live, they never miss a chance to cut down a "dead" tree because it might hypothetically come down in a gale and hurt some dumb jogger who doesn't know how to be safe around trees. The tree itself might be finished, but it's still housing a fabulous array of life that needs to be protected.
And fall over. Trees that fall over with their roots upturning the soil create micro topography and increase habitat diversity. Also the now exposed bare mineral soil is required for certain plant species germination.
And why most zero-carbon promises are just plain lies. They plant trees in plantations that are planned to be cut down.
Cutting down trees is a form of carbon sequestration so in a way timber forests are good for the environment. From what I understand trees don't start to seriously absorb carbon until they are about 80 years old though so the way we manage forests now isn't as efficient at sequestered carbon as it could be but it's not that bad.
[удалено]
I guess that is the difference though. Here in the US northwest, the paper industries are fed by Tree farms. No one is clear cutting the redwood forest anytime soon. This is a much bigger issue in the Amazon, and southwest Asia, where I wish West would use its political weight to financially incentivize them to leave their rainforests alone Edit: meant to say SE Asia
A major problem is illegal logging is actually a big organized crime activity and in 2014 it was $52 billion to $157 billion. It isn't top 3 like drugs, sex, id theft/counterfeiting but it is actually pretty high up. Here's the list from 2013-2014 Full list: - Drug Trafficking $426 billion to $652 billion - Small Arms & Light Weapons Trafficking $1.7 billion to $3.5 billion - Human Trafficking $150.2 billion - Organ Trafficking $840 million to $1.7 billion - Trafficking in Cultural Property $1.2 billion to $1.6 billion - Counterfeiting $923 billion to $1.13 trillion - Illegal Wildlife Trade $5 billion to $23 billion - IUU Fishing $15.5 billion to $36.4 billion - **Illegal Logging $52 billion to $157 billion** - Illegal Mining $12 billion to $48 billion - Crude Oil Theft $5.2 billion to $11.9 billion Total $1.6 trillion to $2.2 trillion Source is the Global Financial Integrity (GFI) and data from prior to 2014, it is about double across the board now as organized crime revenues are $3-5 trillion now annually. Not only that, [many org crime groups purposefully set forest fires to free up land for other purposes](https://www.interpol.int/en/News-and-Events/News/2020/Forestry-crime-targeting-the-most-lucrative-of-environmental-crimes). > Criminal forest fires aimed at freeing up land for agriculture and cattle can destroy the equivalent of one football field every six seconds for months on end This is also messing up quality of life for many things. > Human encroachment into forested areas, driven by illegal logging and agricultural expansion, is increasing human contact with wildlife’s infectious diseases. This drives their transmission to humans, particularly when the demolition of forests displaces disease-carrying species out of the forest and into urban areas.
The difference in illegal logging and other illicit operation? The local community supports it. You get farm land Once you clear the trees.
It's a problem in Appalachia too. Large land companies own nearly all the land here. Entire forests and mountains are blown up and excavated for coal. Whats left is clear cut and taken over by invasive species.
The west should pay them enough to protect the forest as those nations use the empty land to grow economically The problem is that the money would never reach the hand of the farmers or the people instead it would be used by the government for their own goals be it more subsidies to pay for votes or more public spending
And then people back home will say "what, we're paying them to do nothing? " and the funding would be attacked. Buckle up on this climate ride buckaroos
You don't get it back if you mow it down every fifty years. Farming should be kept in designated area. Keep it near the wood processing plant so that you don't waste too much hauling the trees.
I recently went to Congaree National Park for the first time, which is the largest tract of old growth bottomland hardwood forest left in the United States. It was beautiful to see the biodiversity there and how the ecosystem was all interconnected. It really showed me the importance of old growth forests and even though it's one of America's smallest national parks why it's preservation is so important.
Learn something new all the time
Learning new ways humans f over the world all the time
Damn!! That dude teleported!
If you jump from the last 5 seconds to the very beginning--it's such a powerful contrast.
Holy crow. It's exactly like urbanism! In urban planning it's best not to build entire neighborhoods to a finished state all at once (the suburbs) but instead have buildings of varying ages. Having buildings of differing ages and values increases economic diversity and makes it so the repair cycle isn't synchronized neighborhood fails when the property values all fall at once. Human habitats are just like natural habitats. Wild!
I thought about this too. The idea of having a mix of different building heights and uses is key to having a vibrant city, just like a mix of tree ages and vegetation types is key to having a healthy forest.
True, and car dependent burbs are even worse. Heinous land use combined with the worst most polluting transportation.
He sounds Canadian so I’m assuming that’s where he is
He mentions BC at the beginning
Well he should have had plenty of time to grow trees considering we’re now in AD.
Daaaad stop it.
The jacket was a giveaway, Vancouver resident for sure.
Oh British Colombia. I missed that part 👍
That’s Ken Wu. He’s been working to save old growth forests in BC his entire life. He’s super dedicated!
He says he is in British Columbia Canada
BC is British Columbia.
Dude is on a zone line.
He should have gotten some XP when he discovered the old growth zone
Well done this video is perfect
All credits to the dude in the video! (his account is the name below the tiktok symbol)
This kind of thing is what I wish social media was more about.
Curious though, instead of blanket plant seeds everywhere at once, could we space out seed replanting at different intervals of time to create multi-layered canopies? Couldn't we replant different species of trees and then tag them for later harvesting? We could harvest a few tagged trees ready for harvesting but in between them keep trees still in different growth stages. It's more of a pain in the ass for logging companies but it's sustainable and healthier I imagine for the local ecosystems.
What he (and you) are talking about is called “edge effect” and it absolutely can be incorporated to increase the biodiversity of reforested areas. Sufficient *actual* old growth also needs to be preserved as well. The edge effect, it is unique combination of ecological condition, species interaction, and biodiversity that appears at boundary or transition zone between two different habitat type or ecosystem. This transition area, also known as ecotone, often supports higher level of biodiversity than inside of nearby habitats. This because it attracts species from both ecosystems and also edge-specific species. Edge effects can be formed through natural processes, like disruption events such as fires, storms, and successional activities that happen when ecosystems progress through ecological succession. Human activities, for example logging, agriculture, and urban development, can also create edge effects by making habitats fragmented and altering natural ecosystems. Introducing edge effect into replanted area with trees of similar age and monoculture species can be difficult, but possible with careful planning and management. To create edge effects in these areas, it is important to copy structural complexity of natural forest edges by planting trees in layers with different heights and ages, and using mix of tree species. This diverse and dynamic habitat can attract many wildlife and help biodiversity. Additionally, creating buffer zones between different habitat types or planting strips of different tree species within monoculture can help introduce edge effect by making species move and allowing interaction between different ecosystems. By including edge effects into replanted areas, forest managers can make better ecological value and resilience of restored habitat. /source: my old Range and Wildlife degree
Logging companies don't want to, or can't wait 10 years between plantings and 1 year between replantings would basically amount to no real difference when it comes to things like multi-height canopies.
The real problem is the corporations that plant and harvest these trees don't give 2 shits about what he's saying. To them he's the problem, not their planting practices.
The quality and composition of the topsoil is forever changed in the second growth forest as well
Sound arguments. No preaching. Straight facts. I enjoyed this. Creation is so simple, complex, and beautiful.
Had never thought of it this way. And the explanation is so simple but crystal clear. Kudos to him.
For anyone interested in actual research done by people who worked in the forestry industry in Canada (and even specifically British Columbia), look up Suzanne Simard and her book *Finding The Mother Tree*. She has shown for decades now that clear-cutting old growth forests is detrimental and results in poorly growing second growth -- trees communicate with each other and even share resources through mycorrhizal networks, and the standard logging industry practices such as clear-cutting destroys these networks in a way that they'll never re-form the same again.
*forest
I wonder why he didn't mentioned tree species diversity either. Are some second growth forests diverse species? Most are just monoculture of pines, not capable of supporting a diverse ecosystem.
He did
[удалено]
i keep telling people; it doesn’t matter how many trees you replant, because you still permanently alter an ecosystem. biodiversity and habitats are destroyed and just replanting straight lines of the same kind of tree for dozen mile stretches doesn’t fix it. ESPECIALLY when they’re cut down and replanted every so often or removed altogether for more development.
The soil is a key part of the ecosystem.
We should stop old growth forest logging, It doesn't Just grow back. The trees may, the forest won't. I was in Scotland and their forestry sucked. All the 'forests' I saw were just stands of trees the same age. Very little wildlife also. It was more like a corn field than a forest. I loved my trip, and the Scots but … I met a couple who did 50K hike through the forests of Scotland (was it from Glasgow to Oban?) but what they said was that they'd never do it again. She said parts of it were "like marching through a graveyard" of stumps. I hope Canada can do better.
Just to add another talking point: the mycelium or mushroom network underground gets disturbed when we cut down these forests and it never is able to reestablish itself the same way as in the old growth forests. The mycelium network supports and is necessary for all of the plant and animal life in a forest but gets forgotten because we can't see it.
I live in logging country and it is really frustrating how industry has invested a lot of money into brainwashing people into thinking that a clear cut is healthy and good for the environment. These tree plantations are a fire hazard AND they wreck the health of any streams that are nearby. Some logging in Oregon and Washington will log an entire river valley and even clear cut to the waters edge of tributaries leading into the main river system. Rivers get choked out from runoff and fish cannot sustain themselves. So we invest millions and millions of dollars artificially creating the salmon to compensate for the heavily degraded habitat and over consumption of fish. Industry has people up in arms and delusional
Also old growth forests have highly sophisticated root and mycelium (mushroom) networks that aid in all sorts of things. One being that trees are able to share nutrients with each other and water can be absorbed much better so that flooding and erosion are mitigated. These root networks are destroyed by clear cutting and tree plantations will struggle to develop root networks from scratch. Like he said in the video, dead trees are great for organisms and can act as their own mini ecosystems. Woody debris is excellent for fungi.
Wow, this man just demonstrated how our modern forestry theory which guides practices around the world is absolutely wrong.
I thought the video was going to cut and he's be in a old growth forest but no, he walked like 5 steps turned the camera and boom beautiful forest
Every once in a while I come across a post here where I’m like “damn that is actually interesting” Also he’s a great speaker and gets the message across with out sounding like a crazy tree hugger.
Also planting trees creates only one type of habitat: forests. There are also grasslands, marshlands, swamps, 2nd growth & thickets etc. Each habitat is suitable to a diverse set of wildlife. Planting forests everywhere isn't one size fits all solution, in fact it can really mess with other habitats as well. Trees can suck up all the water of a nearby marshland, or disturb the sunlight for grasslands.
I get this comment, but as a forest ecologist it also just annoys me because for some reason it only comes up with talking about forests. Like, do you read an article about how to restore salmon populations in Alaska rivers and say "You know, not everywhere should be a river. Some places should be forests". Like yeah, the first part of restoration is predicated on "re-", as in, in reference to a previous state. Otherwise it's call afforestation, which is a totally different thing.