Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Boreal forest is present in northern U.S. states including but not limited to VT, NH, ME, MI, NY, MN. It's more patchy down here than in Canada but it is present and significant ecologically.
Thanks for the maps. I know where the boreal forest is but some other people might not. I also know where boreal forest is in lower 48 because I've worked in some of it.
Your pal guidalomota is the one who brought up "northern" Canada. It was not mentioned in the original post, and it was not mentioned in the article linked by the OP. He brought it up.
I responded to him by saying there is indeed logging in northern Canada, which there is. I've been to northern Ontario (logging) northern Alberta (logging) northern British Columbia (logging), Yukon (logging) and even Northwest Territories (logging). The point of the article was that a lot of virgin pulp from Canada's boreal forests is being used to wipe American butts. That point stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite
I was born and raised in northern Canada and I've lived in Canada for over 7 decades so I think I've had enough time to become familiar enough with it.
I was talking about the boreal forest region in northern Canada, which is what the OP's article was referring to, except in the article they've got the locations confused.
The northern Canada boreal zone is the boreal taiga ecozone. It's all wetlands with no infrastructure, as I described in my previous post. No clear cutting possible. Do an internet search of images of aerial views of the northern boreal taiga wetlands and you'll see for yourself why there is no access to foresters and forestry practices. Okay?
However, there is also the southern Canada boreal ecozone and there IS forestry industry happening in the southern boreal regions because that's where most of Canada's populations are, there is more infrastructure, more roads and bridges and railroads and river traffic and greater ease of accessibility into the southern forests.
There is only one USA state that has boreal forest and that is Alaska. There are no others so I believe that you must be thinking of some other kinds of forests in USA south of the Canadian border. You can find on the maps here where all of North America's boreal and other classifications of forests are. Boreal Forest in North America
There is also some information there about the forestry industry and management in the boreal forests in the more accessiblesouthern parts of Canada where the bulk of boreal forestry industries takes place, but again, there is no clear cutting in the northern boreal taiga wetlands region.
Yes, there are roads that go to most of the larger populated towns in the north, but the further north one goes the less roads there are and people become reliant on helicopters, float planes and small boats for transportation of people and goods.
But trees can grow. Why dont they grow the particular tree on a farm, and leave the wild trees alone?
Do the trees have to grow all the way up? Or can they just be young sapplings before we cut down to make the paper? If can be young sapplings, then we can grow the trees in hydroponic buildings. That will make best use of space. You will have sapplings growing on top of each other. Should be enough to meet the demand.
But trees can grow. Why dont they grow the particular tree on a farm, and leave the wild trees alone?
Do the trees have to grow all the way up? Or can they just be young sapplings before we cut down to make the paper? If can be young sapplings, then we can grow the trees in hydroponic buildings. That will make best use of space. You will have sapplings growing on top of each other. Should be enough to meet the demand.
How many saplings do you think would fit in a full grown tree? Hundreds? You'd have to use many many times the land area to get the same amount of pulp out of saplings, even if the fiber is equally useful (which I don't know). And you wouldn't get half the biodiversity value of mature forests.
But its not that hard to make friendlier decisions for paper use. The article references an NRDC report which rates companies and their paper products according to the environmental friendliness of their practices. Not surprisingly, the lushest fluffiest softest TP is also the least environmentally friendly. But I've used some of the highly rated brands like Green Forest and they aren't bad, unless you require a velvety surface for all of your spills and butt wiping.
Boreal forest is present in northern U.S. states including but not limited to VT, NH, ME, MI, NY, MN. It's more patchy down here than in Canada but it is present and significant ecologically.
..The OP here claims Canada's virgin northern forests are being used for TP production. I find it hard to believe it's economically feasible to log remote areas and ship the raw product to mills for processing when there's so much "crop forest" in more geographically preferable areas to exploit. .
I don't know about the TP question, but can tell you that in the recent past economic feasibility has had nothing to do with logging in Alaska's remote Tongass National Forest, which happens to be America's largest temperate rain forest.
During the 1960's-90's construction of logging roads were paid for by USFS to the tunes of several million dollars, while the timber sales only garner tens of thousands. Essentially the operations have been a welfare program for loggers. Well, at least they're working right?
The OP's original article claimed that over 22 million acres of boreal forest had been clear cut for TP. It shows a picture of a boreal forest; but no before and after. I am not saying that it did not happen; but a picture is worth a thousand words. It also never explained why "virgin" forest is needed over trees raised in tree farms or replanted by the lumber companies. To me it would sound as if the tree farms would be better because they could deliver a consistent product - but what do I know?
All I know is, that with hemorrhoids, I like the soft stuff!
The OP's original article claimed that over 22 million acres of boreal forest had been clear cut for TP. It shows a picture of a boreal forest; but no before and after. I am not saying that it did not happen; but a picture is worth a thousand words. It also never explained why "virgin" forest is needed over trees raised in tree farms or replanted by the lumber companies. To me it would sound as if the tree farms would be better because they could deliver a consistent product - but what do I know?
All I know is, that with hemorrhoids, I like the soft stuff!
Go back and reread. You are conflating virgin pulp with virgin forest. Virgin pulp is unrecycled fibers.You don't need virgin forest to make virgin pulp, you just need wood. But much of Canada's boreal forest is virgin forest, and its being cut for your butt.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
