|
|
|
|
|
by s5fs
2607 days ago
|
|
I grew up on the Oregon coast and many of my classmate's fathers were loggers. In the early 90s we saw the struggling timber industry nearly decimated due to environmental laws aimed to protect the spotted owl. Tens of thousands of jobs were lost, mostly in rural communities, and attempts to help retrain these workers were a failure. Some of these communities were able to rebuild their economy around eco-tourism but most have fallen into poverty and are still struggling. As you can imagine, many people negatively affected by these laws feel strongly against them. The idea that a politician several states away can pass laws preventing you from using your land the way you intend simply doesn't sit well with many people. Spotted owl numbers are continuing to decline, but now the blame is being placed on a different type of owl pushing out the spotted owl. |
|
That's about 0.6 of the original coverage % per year. Assuming the historical rate, if not restricted, that's five years to clear out the remaining old growth redwood.
Modern logging methods become ever more efficient, which means that without legal restrictions we could log out all old-growth redwoods in less than five years.
What rural communities are coming up against is not fundamentally a legal restriction, but a resource limit. It just so happens that this resource restriction is being reflected in legal restrictions before we loose all of our old-growth forests.
No matter what happens those jobs are going to disappear. They are either going to go away in our lifetimes, and there will be old growth redwoods, or they will go away a few years later and there will be no old growth redwoods.
That's the reality.
If we want to keep those jobs alive and still keep redwoods then we have one option: outlaw power tools while limiting the number of loggers.