>>2514037>Logging companies can't do shit without the approval of their regulators.Logging interests always manage to receive that approval, however. That is the primary function of forestry majors who are hired into governmental regulatory bodies: they're rubber-stamp men who slap the official seal of approval onto logging endeavors. With that seal of approval in place, logging interests are beyond reproach. The experts said we could log here, so fuck off, hippies!
>(lmao as if anyone is getting that rich on logging the scope of BC logging was ~$10B in 2020 )If there's hardly any money to be made logging, then it should be easy to quit logging entirely, eh?. Fact is, it's insanely profitable for a handful of individuals, they aren't going to stop until it's gone, old growth continues to be logged, and forestry rubber-stamp regulators continue to grant them the permission that they can then use to defend themselves from criticism of their logging practices.
>Point is usually these guys are on the side of the forest because of the sheer difficulty of the task at hand re: working around creeks and other site conditions.I fully understand the concept of forestry regulators minimizing/mitigating logging damage, but the fact is that it's an imperfect system at the very best. Permission to log tracts of forests has been granted to logging interests in decades past based on untested reforestation hypotheses; only decades later do we discover that those hypotheses haven't worked nearly as well as was originally claimed. By then, of course, the damage has been irreversibly done.
With all that being said, you should readily be able to see why I consider forestry graduates to be collaborators more so than effective mitigators. If they can't stop the fucking saws long enough to experiment and find out if their reforestation plans will actually work, they're simply holding a rubber stamp.
