Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Holyoldmackinaw1 t1_iysm59r wrote

Vermont’s public lands barely harvest as is, they harvest well below the amount of growth each year. Not to mention the fact that there is essentially no old growth forest in Vermont at all…

63

somedudevt t1_iyspxt0 wrote

Yeah anyone who looks at a picture of the state in 1870 knows this. It’s actually crazy to think that the state was fully clear cut in that era. But we sure had a lot of sheep!

32

taylordobbs t1_iyt2imz wrote

Camel's Hump was bald with a hotel on it. The folks who come to Vermont and say development is ruining places like that are missing the fact that development has already ruined places like that and we took them back. Development isn't evil; poorly planned development is harmful.

32

VeterinarianFast9440 t1_iyufa3e wrote

"Essentionally none" isn't none, so why not protect what is left?

−9

Holyoldmackinaw1 t1_iyvk7ue wrote

It already is protected… about .002% of the GMNF is old growth. 700 or so acres out of 400,000 total acres.

5