Hacker News Reader

Comment by jointpdf | Hacker News Reader

The best option might be to get in touch with your local university forestry extension, for example: https://forestry.wsu.edu/

Another resource would be your local USDA office. The NRCS should be available to provide free site-specific technical assistance (e.g. for soil regeneration and conservation planning). There are also zillions of loan/grant/easement/conservation payment programs that the USDA runs: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/prog...

View on HN

Beware that the USDA will typically not provide good advice if you aren't planning on using land for resources like harvesting lumber/crops/animal husbandry.

If you want to restore a local ecosystem you'll need to reach out to another organization, probably an NGO, to figure out how to proceed in a reasonable manner. The biggest group that would probably help would be the Nature Conservancy.

I'll second talking to a local nonprofit over the USDA or USFS. At least in the PNW, these agencies are focused on extracting value from the land and their replantings are tightly-packed monocultures designed to be harvested again. They have about as much in common with a forest as a golf course has with a prairie.

All the stories I hear add up to the USDA basically being pound-for-pound the worst federal agency. (DoD is bad, but so much bigger, and has redeeming bits like DARPA. I don't know of any redeeming bits in USDA off hand.)

I was going to add that consulting a nonprofit (like the Nature Conservancy) would be a good idea as well. But why either or? If I were undertaking a project as large as reforesting several hundred acres of land, I’d want to consult as many sources as possible. USDA has field offices in almost every county, not to mention loan (including easy-to-qualify-for microloans of <$50K) and payment programs to help with capital and expenses.

Genuine question—are “tightly-packed monocultures” that are recurrently harvested optimal (from a carbon removal perspective) under some conditions? Similarly, if you inherit a mature forest, is it optimal to harvest some portion of it so that new trees can absorb carbon?

Certainly! After rereading my comment I can see how it comes off as unduly harsh on the aforementioned federal agencies.

However given the context of the article and the question of replanting a clearcut in the PNW, I'm guessing the intent is to create a forest with a sustainable and vibrant ecosystem. That intent puts it at odds of the forestry practices that favors harvesting trees for economic value.

There's certainly a need for timber in modern society, but the way that's achieved doesn't create a forest or an environment that fosters a well-balanced ecological system.

So, NRCS is a division of the USDA focused heavily on conservation. I know this from experience because we have some of our land in a conservation program through NRCS, and they’re super knowledgeable about native ecosystems.

I'm curious as to why you decided to look into purchasing a clearcut in order to better understand if this is popular amongst a demographic such as tech workers with growing wealth--is there a market for this specifically in consulting forestry with a tech focus. Check out the Society of American Foresters if you want to pay for a forest management plan. Or as noted try the local forestry extension and the Forest Service's State and Private Forestry contacts.

https://www.eforester.org/Main/Certification_Education/Certi...

https://www.forestry.oregonstate.edu/forestry-and-natural-re...

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/communityforests/?cid=fsbd...

Because the ratio of land to cost was better. And because right now Weyerhaueser owns a ton of timberland up here but won't part with it until after they've harvested it.

In my mind, returning some land to natural forest and placing a small spot to go camping or hiking through it would be an incredible gift to future generations.

This is something I have in mind for the future as well, although it’s a little ways off financially. I wonder if there are organizations that coordinate these sorts of things, aiming for contiguous areas for example.

There are, but I think they typically serve as clearinghouses that acquire land and then hand it to the federal government. I think it's less common to find individuals buying up plots to conserve them.

+1 to the NRCS route. We went through them for our oak woodland and upland prairie restoration projects, and they have been really great to work with. They care a lot about the environment and have a lot of knowledge.

Thanks, great resources!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com