Can California Forests Be Saved?🌲 | KQED Truly CA

[@kqedarts]

It's inspiring to see climbers hand-picking pine cones in an effort to rebuild California forests. So far, they've covered 200,000 of the 1.2 million acres that need to be replanted.

[@mkay1957]

They did not mention the fact that forests all over the western U.S. are horribly overgrown, due to 100+ years of fire suppression, plus halting logging in many areas.

[@fisheyelens876]

Logging is not done right, just like fire suppression is not done right now we are where we are because of way more reasons than both not done right things, if every person stops buying property and building homes in sensitive forested area's we could let fires do there thing, I digress, but I can ask who does the forest belong to? The blm or private land developers? People need to look at the most sensitive ecosystems, the way to do this is downloading google earth and seeing how many sensitive rivers and streams have houses and ranches every several thousand feet up into the the upper watershed of these waterways, this is why no one should drink water from any stream, the amount of cows blm lands support is astounding yet the prices of beef are another astounding anomaly that the industry gives us in every state in america. The price we pay for beef in America is calculated by the market value of export into other nations, this is stupid, who do we as a nation care about?

[@mkay1957]

@@fisheyelens876 150 years ago you would have been correct. But now, because forests all over the west are so overgrown, just letting fires burn leads to catastrophic fires that often sterilize the ground because they burn so hot. Forests now average 4-5 times as many trees as they did in pre Columbian times, which is why they burn so hot. What is funny is that the eco Nazis currently infesting the USFS don't want logging in many areas, but then they send in their own contract crews to cut down trees and brush, and burn it. California now has over a billion fire killed trees, and many in the USFS don't want trees salvaged for lumber, because of their regressive enviro mindset. As for cattle grazing, who cares? All animals whether domestic and wild crap in and near waterways. They also die in and near waterways. Citizens have a right to own private property, and if it is near a waterway, so be it.

[@Iquey]

Yeah I wished they would expand upon the fact that IF THEY Didn't replant, there would be sparser trees and more brush species... And honestly that might not totally be a bad thing. Too many trees close together is what leads to these mega fires jumping from tree to tree to mountain to mountain.

[@Sneeeekz1]

Yes to first part, logging part is debatable. Clear cutting isn’t much better than burning at high severity. We rly just need active management primarily for fuels, a lot of which is self sustaining if you sell SOME merchantable timber.

[@mkay1957]

@@Sneeeekz1 They don't clear cut entire mountainsides like they did decades ago. They will cut anywhere from 30-60 acres, leaving a few mature trees and a few younger trees and move on. The native Americans used to set fire to forests, brush land and grassland to clear out excess fuel, plus there were lightning fires. The forests are so overgrown that the fires we have now destroy everything and are so hot that they sterilize the ground. It can take years before anything can grow there.

[@cruzmclean5785]

Yeah Robert!

[@adrianrowland8082]

This week…on American Coners

[@kqedarts]

would watch that series tbh

[@sunnytheboxer.]

That’s my professor!

[@cidinhafortes8881]

Uau!!!!👏👏👏👏👏👏

[@marcosmizva3712]

🌲👏👏👏