[greatgoat420]

I don't live in CA, and I have no real knowledge of logging, could you explain more about the "greedy loggers" comment? I get that controlled burns are good, but is CA usually known for forests used for lumber? I thought most lumber was grown in the northern parts of America.

[zamfi]

Much of California’s forest was clear cut by the logging industry in the 1800s. The “old growth forests” are preserved and form a tiny fraction of what once was.

California is no longer as big a source of lumber as it once was.

[mistrial9]

greater than 66% of old growth forests in California were logged before WW II

[rsj_hn]

California is no longer a big source of lumber because it's near impossible to get lumber out of the forests. Not sure what 1800 has to do with anything -- 90% of the trees need to go, and they need to go now. If someone is willing to cut them down and haul them away, then we should let them do that. Hell, we should pay them to do it.

"According to the California Forestry Association, tree density in the Sierra Nevada is too high when compared with the region’s historical rates, creating an elevated fire hazard. It estimates there was an average of 40 trees per acre in the Sierras roughly 150 years ago but puts that number today at hundreds of trees per acre [...] The U.S. Forest Service estimates that California has 129 million dead trees, most in the central and southern Sierras. Insects and drought are to blame for the high numbers."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/03/california-timber-firms-mayb...

But California makes this incredibly costly and difficult to do, even on private land. You need to submit 500 pages of paperwork for each cut, and the state has been notorious in dragging its heels to approve these harvesting plans.

In terms of the fascination with "old growth", an old growth tree is just a tree of a certain diameter, and these tend to survive forest fires.

Really the problem in California is that a lot of people from the East Coast have moved here and decided that forests were some precious resource that needs to be preserved as in Maine, rather than the dangerous pest that trees are in arid climates.

They just never got the memo that California is not New England and the role played by trees in our ecosystem is very different. California needs trees like Australia needs rabbits.

And so now we have 130 million dead trees, ready to kill hundreds of people, cause billions in property damage, and destroy air quality in the state, just so people can preserve these unscientific romantic notions of "preserving forests", when our top public policy priority should be to reduce the amount of land covered by forests back to safe levels.

[zamfi]

You’re not wrong (though I’m not sure what 1800 has to do with anything...I was just pointing out, as you also do, that by 1900 the state’s forests were gone), but:

> Really the problem in California is that a lot of people from the East Coast have moved here and decided that forests were some precious resource that needs to be preserved

That seems pretty speculative. Doesn’t it seem more likely that people just don’t want the forests near them to burn, so that their houses don’t burn down either? And now, most of the state is “near” someone?

[Lammy]

> decided that forests were some precious resource that needs to be preserved

For some groups it's like a religious thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ancient_Order_of_Druids...

[rsj_hn]

In 1974 (when the eco movement was ascendant), California passed a series of laws regulating the cutting of trees - even on private land. You now need to file these 500 page "timber harvesting plans" (THPs), pay expensive fees, and wait a few years for approval. Although legally the state is obligated to approve all compliant THPs, practically speaking they can find flaws in the THPs, drag their feet on approval, and you may need to take the state to court. So yes, it's incredibly hard to harvest trees in California compared to other states, which is why the amount of trees harvested in California is much lower than in other states.

The wounded souls crying about greedy timber companies clear cutting forests in the 17th Century or whatnot are strangely silent about the Ohlone regularly burning down 10 million acres a year. Because the Ohlone realized that in the arid western U.S. (what used to be called "the great American desert"), trees were dangerous elements that needed to be suppressed.

[eigen]

> Although legally the state is obligated to approve all compliant THPs, practically speaking they can find flaws in the THPs, drag their feet on approval, and you may need to take the state to court.

this is for large-scale harvesting. I'm seeing <2 months from public comment close to THP approval, usually 2 weeks [1]. how long do you think is reasonable?

individual lot tree removal is a pretty straightforward form [2]. provide reason, site plan, maybe arborist report, etc.

[1] https://caltreesplans.resources.ca.gov/Caltrees/Report/ShowR...

[2] https://www.placer.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/40240/Tree-Per...

[jessaustin]

Before reading that link, I wouldn't have believed that a USA citizen might have to get permission from the county to cut a tree on her land.

[eigen]

to be fair, its only "to conduct any development activity or remove one or more protected trees, where such development activity or removal is not associated with a discretionary project, shall make application to the Planning Division for a Minor Tree Permit". so county approval needed if you are building a house or if you want to remove protected tree species (mostly oak, heritage, and riparian). so if you want to cut down that grey pine that drops all its needles every year, no permit needed.

[zbrozek]

That's pretty onerous, and permit fees often cost more than the work. I came from Kentucky and found it mind-blowing that there is so much red tape involved in basic land management in California. No wonder it doesn't get done.

[jessaustin]

When we create red tape, we often assuage our guilty consciences with the thought that "it's just an annoyance, and I'm happy to annoy other people if it means they'll do what I want them to do". On the contrary, the red tape that restricts tree cutting in California has killed hundreds of people and cost billions of dollars. Placer County is home to two national forests with "checkerboard" mixed private and public ownership and extensive public recreational use. There is no more important job for Placer County officials than removing these impediments to fire safety, and there's not a chance in hell they'll even consider the issue this year.

[mistrial9]

citations, please