My palaeolithic computer won't show them . . . what's happening?

Resin

First one is old film footage complied into a montage of loggers cutting down old growth Giant Sequoias. And the second video is loggers cutting down a 13' diameter Coastal Redwood 7 months back. I can't believe that crap is still legal...

Come on Wade, we need redwood decks and such! Also, don't you remember when our dear former president Ronny Reagan declared trees to be the source of much of our air pollution? So this is really all for the better.

+oM

So glad those guys are so proud to cut down a Redwood, I hope they stretch out that paycheck for a couple of weeks...

Ouch. That made me sick a little. And made me resent the people hacking down a tree that size. A human lifetime would be a blink of an eye to a tree like that.

But it doesn't make sense to blame the guys with saws. They're not doing it on their free time for the heck of it. They're doing it because they need a job and their employer will pay them to chop down something we're happy to buy.

It's a travesty don't get me wrong. But we all have a little blame. Every time we turn down our air conidtioning , use toilet paper, build a nice deck in our backyard or even read a newspaper we're asking something of the world.

I feel like a crazy person saying this, but there are just too many people and too much indifference. Recycle all you want, take short showers, buy a hybrid car. We're polishing brass on the titanic. We'll kill anything of value left in the natural world. I'm going to try and see things now and take pictures. This ship is sinking fast....makes me not want to have kids. But then someone else will.....

And if there is no natural world left for humanity then there is no future for humanity. Maybe the only thing that can save us is for there to be less of us.

Sorry for the crazy tirade...

Think global, act local.

"...We're polishing brass on the titanic..."

I prefer to think of it as learning to use a lifeboat.

As I have said before, plant more trees...we're going to need them.

tj

Ack, my mistake! Both videos are of Coastal Redwoods.

Charles, I agree but there are much better suited species for logging like Pseudotsuga menziesii. In the second video, it's apparent the area had been logged before judging by the size of the other trees. Perhaps someone in the past had the foresight to leave the giant.. IMO, cutting that tree was motivated by pure greed.

As far as logger's jobs go, they're no different than the rest of us when "things happen". I was layed off from Boeing for years after 9/11 but had another trade to fall back on.

Tom, did Reagan really say that?? His speech writer must have called in sick that day!lol

Cutting down a healthy tree is a sin, a terrible blow to the planet, especially anything old-growth. People are no longer planting and nurturing trees, and the climate has become too harsh to grow seedlings in the wild like was possible before.

There is severe water shortage all over the globe. Natural resources are quickly being ravaged and depleted. Humanimals are a pest, a swarming multiplying out-of-control plague upon the earth. They were supposed to have intelligence but have completely misused their gifts and the planet and are rapidly destroying their habitat and barrelling to self-extinction.

Trees are the lungs of the earth, the breath of life, the air regulators, the pull for rain, the majestic bearers of fruit, nuts, shade, oxygen, life.

Oxygenated air is the #1 necessity for life, then water. Both are being destroyed and depleted from earth at an alarming rate.

Man has gone too far. Only by a sudden and dramatic change of consciousness and priorities could he save the planet now. He has stripped himself of any future.

I have spent my life doing only good and praying and meditating in earnest so I can graduate out of this disastrous planet and never ever have to come back here. Being on planet earth is watching hell in the making while the non-thinking non-caring inhabitants feverishly selfishly work on destroying themselves and everything around them.

Just fly in a plane over large portions of the earth and look down upon the wholesale destruction and razing of the natural world. Idiots. Doom is not far off. What will be the final straw? Will Nature or maniacs send a virus to wipe out the humanimal pestilence or will wars over resources tip the final balance and fry the planet?

Y'al get a grip. Someone owns those trees. As owners they are entitled to cut them down, agree that it may not be the wisest of decisions. Trees are a renewable resource. As I understand it, one company owns most of the old growth redwood currently in private hands and plans to cut them all down. Thankfully the National and State parks are protecting quite a few, but very soon those will be the only old growth Redwoods left. Thankfully in the US we have publically protected forests.
In addition, most of the big timber companies aggressively replant trees and are managing their own forests.

The lumbering going on in other countries is far worse. Currently Burma is madly cutting all their old teakwood trees and selling them to Japanese and Chinese buyers. Corrupt government officials take bribes and look the other way. Little or no replanting is being done. These buyers are then taking the teak logs and sinking them in bays for use or resale years later. (the wood keeps quite well when totally submerged). Their logging industry is booming, but one day it will collapse as they are logging much faster than it regrows.

It is mankind who failed to get a grip soon enough. It does not matter who owns what parcel of land -- greed and stupidity have overtaken and the planet is being destroyed. Trees are no longer the renewable resource they once were because the climate has changed and conditions are no longer favorable for growth. Certainly the centuries of undisturbed wilderness which allowed these older-growth trees, which are being felled all over the planet, is OVER. These giants will not be seen again until mankind has been exterminated for several centuries.

So a few ignorant selfish blind arrogant persons gain $$$ money $$$ temporarily at the cost of the survival of the entire planet. Great karma there. Already huge expanses of earth are greenless, desert wastelands of dull brown dust, and there are huge cities where millions upon millions live in squalor without adequate food, sanitation or water, and no sight of anything green.

I believe man is entitled to free will and self-determination. It is just so sad that mankind chose to not use his incredible gifts and instead destroyed his ample blessings and his earth nest habitat. The only way out from being trapped in this hellhole and cycle of misery is to raise one's vibration, not make the same mass mistakes, do only good, attune oneself intensely to Christ and pray for liberation and earn by own's life record and God's Grace a graduation out of planet earth, never to return.

Pity those who are doomed to be here or come back here. It's only getting worse! This is one of the most remedial, awful, primitive and miserable of all physical existences and locations, because of man's misuse of his gifts here.

Just imagine what it could have been like if everybody concentrated on creating good, beauty, abundance, kindness, creativity, music art architecture sculpture gardens farms sharing love consideration learning all to maximize the wondrous beauty God originally gave to earth dwellers. We had the power and intelligence but let base lowest animal instincts take over our minds and souls and mankind blew it totally.

One can see this so clearly from a plane or satellite pictures -- the earth is being ground into desert, the life stripped from its surface hourly, the riches under the ground mined and forced out viciously. These resources are NOT being replenished and the earth cannot recover in time to feed clothe and house exponentially multiplying pestilence man.

Nature or man will exterminate man to almost-extinction level on planet earth -- the question is which will do man in first?

cascadians,
Cutting down a healthy tree is not a sin. It is a decision. As one who grew up on a farm with about 300 acres in woods, I'm well acquainted with trees. The natural order of things is for the tree DNA to instruct them to overproduce. The result is that hundreds to thousands of seedlings are produced. Always way too many for a given area. Most of them will be dead before age 20. Those that remain are usually too close together and compete with each other and other tree varieties for food, water, sunlight, etc. The larger they grow, the farther apart they have to be to survive and to thrive. This means that as time goes on more and more have to die. It is a wise use of resources to thin forest out, that is select the weaker trees for removal as timber. This allows those left to continue to grow. Clear cutting small sections of land,
another method of logging, has the benefit of opening up land for meadows, etc. which are beneficial for wildlife in certain areas. Both of these practices can also help in control of wildfires.
I have just returned from visiting Sequoia National Park and there are thousands of baby conifers all over the place. There are young trees growing here and there in those forests. Except for the effect of smog, the forest seem fairly healthy there. Both India and Thailand have land reclamation projects going on where the villagers replant trees. Israel has pioneered some rather ingenious methods to allow trees to thrive in marginal to desert areas and has a fairly strong program to replant trees. I've seen American timber companies change policies on timber cutting in the south for the benefit of wildlife.
There are lots of positive developments going on in the way of forestry. It is a shame that those big old redwoods are going to be cut, but it is not the end of the planet. We are blessed that thousands of old growth trees are protected in our parks. Let's do our part to insure that those stay protected, and that younger ones are growing to take their place among the giants. It is heartening to see that redwood trees are being replanted in forests on private land and that people are planting redwoods all over Calif. as ornamentals.

Global warming is a problem. I am a timberland owner with about 300 acres. Most of this is in high quality hardwoods used for the production of furniture. A good part of this is wild black cherry, and a good part of this is veneer quality.

Once my trees mature, the forest is basically "carbon neutral," meaning that no more carbon is being taken out of the air than is being put in. But if I cut down some of my trees, the carbon becomes "sequestered," and because the wood goes into high quality furniture, it is sequestered for a very long time. In the meantime new trees begin to grow and take carbon out of the air.

I do all this while providing high quality watershed, a habitat for wildlife, and beauty for anyone who wants to walk in the woods and see large beautiful trees.

So I reject the idea that cutting down any tree is a sin.

But I will agree that cutting down exceptionally large old redwoods is not right. I have been a member of "Save-the-Redwoods League" for many, many years--perhaps 35 years. I have given a presentation for the local chapter of the Sierra Club about Save-the-Redwoods League and their valuable work and years ago lobbied for the Redwood National Park.

Here is what I want all of you to do who love redwoods and want them preserved. Join the Save-the-Redwoods League and join at the highest possible level and make as large an extra contribution as you can every year. You get a beautiful buletin periodically with wonderful picutres and reports on progress on various projects. And if you can make a rather large contribution, you can have a redwood grove named in your honor.

Here is the info. address: 114 Sansome Street, Suite 1200, San Francisco, CA 94104. Phone: (415) 362-3252. www.savetheredwoods.org.

OK folks--do your part!!

--Spruce

"I have been a member of "Save-the-Redwoods League" for many, many years--perhaps 35 years"

Congratulations!

Though that's still only about a thirtieth of the likely age of the tree that's just been cut down.

Old growth takes thousands of years to replace. Once cut, it will likely never return. Which is why it is a sin to cut it.

Resin

One way or another old growth logging will have to stop, either they run out of trees or leave them. Might as well stop now.

"Global warming is a problem."

Gotta disagree with you there, boss.

Don't buy into the Al Gore hyperbole. A .7F increase over the last 100 years is relatively miniscule and highly debatable whether or not it's caused by man.

I haven't made up my mind on this issue but there are a few facts that are not in dispute:

The earth has gone back and forth from cool and warm periods, long before man invented SUV's.

Some scientists in the 1970's were predicting a new ice age. Time magazine even did a cover story.

The Kyoto Treaty was so anti-American that NOT ONE Senator voted to ratify it. Think about that: Not even one Democrat voted for it.

Other facts ARE in dispute, but are worth mentioning for others to comment on:

I have read that the polar ice on Mars is melting despite the lack of Escalades there. If this is true, global warming is almost certainly a sun driven phenomena... as it has been for millions and millions of years.

I have read that volcanoes produce far more carbon emissions than all of mankind.

And relevant for all of us tree lovers: Would an increase in CO2 be good for tree growth?

Lastly, I don't buy cypress mulch because I don't want to contribute to the demand on these trees. But on the supply side, I am planning on planting a small plantation of them as an investment for my descendants. Will it be a sin fifty years from now when the trees are harvested?

And according to the link below, Reagan was right!

Here is a link that might be useful: Reagan was right? trees do pollute!

People can argue about what actual global warming there is and what the cause actually is ... what seems to get lost is that there are real issues irregardless. Issues of deforestation, habitat loss and major habitat changes in water and forest habitats, issues of resources such as water, plant, energy, mineral resources for human use, issues of pollution. These issues are not going away whatever people think of Gore's "worst case scenerio" spectacle.

Some say that metropolitan areas have become warmer because of the removal of so many larger trees in which the trees had a buffering effect, a buffering effect in many types of regions.

Cascadians... "I have spent my life doing only good and praying and meditating in earnest..."

... is a bald-faced lie as you couple this assertion with the statement that cutting down a healthy tree is a sin, and Resin, you too with your statement to that effect:

By discussing the issue in these terms you are doing anything but good; you are are creating and escalating hysteria that will polarize the issue, lead people to mutually demonize each other, and cause violence and bullying of various sorts and without question some deaths.

Cascadians, if you can't come to terms with being part of the human race, the least you can do is ensure you don't make existence in it any more miserable for those of us who plan to make the best of what we are. Don't use terminology like "sin" which brings out the worst in the worst of us. Your sanctimonious smugness about the beneficence of your own existence is seriously deluded. If your words cause someone else to use violence, you may be coming back here to be answerable for it after all!

It is likely that every single one of us is sitting on a spot that once housed a large tree. In fact, each of our spots might have housed several large trees in succession, as the lifetime of trees themselves is insignifant in the global sense and mother nature eventually does sacrifice them all; a tree is a blink compared to a mountain. It is the height of egotism to pronounce a tree significant because it can outlive a human by several times. Is an ant more significant because it outlives a bacterium?

It is also likely that very few of us, if any, would have the balls required to fell either of those trees as those men did on those two videos. We're pretty brave, to be sitting at our computers denouncing them.

Environmental hysteria is hurting people, and if you are fanning its flames, you should hold yourself accountable for violence done in its name. Besides being big business that is creating a whole new class of economic and political oppression, environmental self-righteousness is being wielded as a weapon for territorial conquest and genocide. Have you heard that the use of biofuels will eventually cause a conflict between the people of the world who need fuel and the people of the world who need food? Guess who will win?

It is possible to love trees and regret the loss of large ones and even act to protect large ones that still exist without fanning the flames of hatred.

KarinL

LOL. There were so many half baked crazy things about that last message I can only pick out a few of the most absurd

How about this non-sequitor

"It is the height of egotism to pronounce a tree significant because it can outlive a human by several times"

Only if a tree says it right? A human would be egotistic by thinking he or she is very significant realtive to something or someone else, not by being humbled by a tree a few millenia old.

RE:very few of us, if any, would have the balls required to fell either of those trees as those men did on those two videos. We're pretty brave, to be sitting at our computers denouncing them.

For the record i didn't denounce them. And as for not having the 'balls' to do it - they're just some bubbas with chainsaws. It's not like they're hunting a bear with a knife. The tree is pretty much a sitting duck. They're skilled enough to avoid having a tree fall on them. Good for them. I'm sure I could pick up this valuable job skill in 30 minutes or so.

And finally this gem: "environmental self-righteousness is being wielded as a weapon for territorial conquest and genocide."

Ok, so now we know you're a crazy person. Man, is your place in Canada close a sour gas well or something. When those sirens go off you need to head inside.

I glad I am just a simple person and love conifers. Enough of this BS.

Have we forgot this is a conifer forum. Let's get back to the basics.

Dave

Redwood can sprout from stumps and root crowns anytime of the year, one of the few conifers to do so. Many of those cut trees will resprout, so for many its not death.

But it is death to the whole complex forest ecosystem - a lot of the species won't survive the cutting out of the trees and the resulting change from cool, shady forest to harsh sun and drought. The biodiversity of the replacement forest is drastically reduced.

Resin

Yes, in only a thousand years or so it will possible to once again admire the stump sprouts of a tree that was standing there for us alive right now to admire.

Peattie wrote in Natural History of Western Trees that planting for timber had removed the need to cut any additional old growth by 1957. Since then huge tracts have been cut down, with only tiny percentages now remaining. You don't have to go to the tropics to see recently liquidated old growth ecosystems.

At the risk of seeming to be pushing too hard, let me again say--if you are concerned about preserving the redwoods--and once in a while something else related--join the Save-the-Redwoods League (info posted earlier). Put your money where your mouth is, please.

This is arguably the finest environmental organization in the world. Little talk, all action! Very, very high percentage of funds collected actually goes to buying redwood land. They not only work with all kinds of donors/organizations to collect funds to save new redwood groves, but the work to ensure that lands already "protected" are really protected from encroaching outside threats. A lot of their work is to protect watersheds where floods caused by misuse of adjacent and upstream land can destroy redwood groves "saved" many years ago.

--Spruce

>>>>>>>>> the earth is being ground into desert, the life stripped from its surface hourly, the riches under the ground mined and forced out viciously. These resources are NOT being replenished and the earth cannot recover I offer this for a little perspective:

Julian Lincoln Simon, the Cato Institute economist, famously challenged environmentalist Paul Ehrlich in 1980 to wager a bet over what the price of metals would be a decade later. Ehrlich selected a basket of five metals that he thought would rise in price with increasing scarcity and depletion.

However, Simon won the bet, with ALL FIVE metals dropping in price over the ten years.

Ehrlich, the environmentalist, selected the five metals himself, and at the time of the bet called it an "astonishing offer" that he was accepting "before other greedy people jump in."

In the case of each of the five metals, better technology allowed for either more efficient use of existing resources, or replacement of those resources with something more abundant and less expensive, which is the point of Simon's theories, which challenge the notion of a pending Malthusian catastrophe

Ok, I'm getting in on this a bit late, but I have to chime in... I think talk about global warming and logging and CO2 are all missing the point here. Of course many trees were cut down for each of us to maintain our lifestyles, and I think we can all agree, regardless of the global warming debate, that more trees = better. I'm not going to say that all logging is a sin or that we should clear cut the world. The problem with these videos is the tree they chose. I cringe to see the videos simply for the age and rarity of those trees! I love history, and it pains me to see something so rare, which will never be in that spot again for over a thousand years, destroyed in hours. It is like melting ancient greek coins and jewelry to make a car part...it's absurd! If you want redwood, cut down young trees which were planted to be logged. It doesn't make sense to me why someone would take something rare, historic, monumental and valuable (the tree), and turn it into something simply valuable (the wood).

I know a lot of people on this board will not like this butÂ.

First, I did not look at the clips and no doubt I could never cut down a beautiful ancient tree of any kind for a what is probably not relatively speaking a lot of $$$ (especially to the wealthy owner). I personally think it is disgusting. However, I have to back the property rights of the owner to do what he wishes with his property. Look, some of the wealthiest people in the world are environmentalists. Al Gore or (insert name of any left wing US senator or Hollywood actor, producer or director) could get together with a few friends and purchase these lands, protect them and do what they want with them. Perhaps it may cost them a couple thousand sq ft out of their 20,000 sq ft mansions or a few feet on their stretch limos or private jets, but everyone needs to sacrifice, right? I would prefer that the people wanting to protect the land and trees would spend more time raising money to purchase the land they want and less lobbying the government to legislate for what they want. Good Lord, does the government have to be involved in every aspect of our lives.

Where exactly does a property owner have what you suggest as an absolute right to do whatever he/she likes with his/her own property? Certainly not in these United States, where there are laws prohibiting such things as dumping toxics into streams that impact downstream users; or zoning laws that restrict uses of property; or laws permitting use of eminent domain in blighted areas that can be upgraded. The right to use private property as desired without restriction is a figment of the imagination and a desired goal of those who enthrone greed as freedom. So far they have only succeeded at achieving that goal in dictatorships.

"Where exactly does a property owner have what you suggest as an absolute right to do whatever he/she likes with his/her own property? Certainly not in these United States"

Exactly my point. Our property rights (as protected by the Constitution) have unfortunately vanished. It is evident by the reaction of many on this board. Cutting down a tree is far different than pouring toxins in a stream. Surely you can see that. What if the property owner dislikes redwoods wants to cut the tree, let it rot (no profit motive) and plans to plant his favorite trees (say tan oaks or big leaf maples) instead. Should that be legislated as illegal as well?....

"So far they have only succeeded at achieving that goal in dictatorships."

I disagree again. Usually one of the first things that a dictator (socialist and communist) will do is take away property rights and right to bear arms. Usually in the name of "the common good"

I would rather see the greed of millions of people or groups of people looking out for and competing for their own best interest than an all powerful government looking out for the interests of a few (themselves and their wealthy donors). If we have to lose an occasional tree because of some idiot, it is a price we pay for freedom. Long story short it seems that it would be so much more efficient for concerned people to pool their money and go offer these knuckle heads some money to sell the land. They could turn it into a park and charge small fees to care for it. Instead they throw millions down the rat hole, cesspool of Washington lobbyists (talk about greed) just to hope to have a little influence.