Leaderboard

It's probably easiest to just paste what my public comment was, so see below. Maybe (hopefully) I'm overreacting? But I think what takes me aback is the apparent scale of the operation, lack of clarity of what areas are being impacted exactly, lack of clarity that this will actually work (is this an experiment on a huge scale? Or is there evidence that this restores long term forest health? Is this even about long term forest health?). Happy to hear your perspective on this. Thank you for the opportunity for commenting on this project. While I am no expert in forestry and forest management, I am a deeply concerned citizen who cherishes our forests and the MBS in particular. I know enough to understand the theoretical need to thin our young forests that were devastated by clear cutting and then overplanted. I have also always thought of forest thinning as a potentially good sustainable option for forestry, and I know there are examples of such forestry around the world. That said, there are many reasons that this project causes concern for me, and why, despite the above, I can't support this project with the information provided in the EAS. 1. The proposal appears to be for "the entirety" of the MBS forest land that meet certain criteria then goes on to say that the intensity of thinning will depend on the location, but no information on specifics is given. What parts of MBS are more intensely thinned? What parts less? What portions of MBS meet this criteria? Will portions bordering designated Wilderness Areas received less intensive treatment as a buffer zone? 2. The proposal seems to suggest that this will thin the forests to 35% coverage. What is the basis for this percentage? Is it scientifically validated as something that will increase the health of the forest? Or is it what is economically viable for the logging companies to make profits while having to practice the more labor intensive thinning vs. clear cutting? 3. One reason for thinning is to reduce potential for wildfire intensity and spread long term. The EAS seems to suggest the the risk for wildfire in thinned areas would increase after thinning due to the dead debris left behind. This seems counterproductive. Shouldn't the logging companies be required to clean up the sites appropriately? 4. The EAS says there will be temporary new roads for logging. How many? What density? Furthermore, from my perspective, the word temporary is misleading: roads cleared for logging are temporary on the scale of decades. The EAS seemed to allude to methods to replant logging roads to aesthetically beautify and hide them. Will this be required of the logging companies immediately after they conclude their work? 5. What evidence is there that this method of thinning, including laying down "temporary" roads, will actually help long term forest health? What evidence that human intervention on this scale can produce healthier forests long term compared to nature taking its course? While I'm sure these techniques have been used elsewhere, have the been used on the scale of the entirety of the MBS? This seems to me like an experiment on a vast scale. 6. What is the long term commitment to protecting the forest to ensure this thinning project benefits the regrowth of a healthy robust forest long term so they may return to a mature old growth forest state? Or, given that the EAS states only areas zoned for commercial timber harvest, is this a project to improve the tree health only to be cut down in the relatively near future? 7. What is the plan to ensure wildlife security? While I accept that thinning is preferred to clear cutting for less overall impact, the EAS gives an example image that clearly shows devastation of the understory immediately after the thinning. This proposal then seems to imply they will devastate the entirety of the MBS undergrowth habitat in the qualified zones in the span 30 years. Without understanding what portions of the MBS will be affected and where the affected wildlife will go, how much of land is affected, etc.

I just had someone offer to buy this site. I didn’t get as far as how much or anything like that but it was a real approach to buy it. By someone who runs online communities in other spaces. I thanked him, his approach was genuine and I think it’s possible his group could run this community in a thoughtful way. But I turned it down. This site is not for sale. At least not by me. When a site is bought and sold the community becomes a product. There is then a need for the community to turn a profit somehow. i have a different vision, of making this site a nonprofit organization that benefits our community and those adjacent to it. That gives an option online for people to connect and share where we are not the product and are not being mined for our data or to be fed directly into the AI machine. But I can’t do this on my own. So if you or don’t you know is interested in helping please reach out. I’ll share more of my vision here but I’ll also listen, particularly to active members of the community. This is not mine, this ours.