Loss of U.S. Forests

Nemont

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
4,396
Location
Glasgow, Montana
I found this and thought what fun it would be debating this here on SI. This is simply a cut and paste job. I needed to take a few minutes off from the political battle here.
;)



MYTH # 3 — Are We Destroying Our Forests?

Lots of Americans feel bad when they see images of trees being cut down, because they've been told that America's running out of forestland.

Carl Ross, of the group, Save America's Forests, says we've cut way too much.

"The loss of natural forests in America is a crisis," he said. "And we will lose species forever, and they'll go extinct, if we don't take action now."

Other environmental groups run ads warning of the dire consequences.

But The U.S. Agriculture Department says America has 749 million acres of forestland. In 1920, we had 735 million acres of forest.

We have more forest now. How can that be? One reason is technology that allows us to grow five times more food per acre — so we need less farmland. Lots of what once was farmland has reverted to forest.

But Ross says we don't really have more forests. "We have more areas, in America, with trees on them, that's true. But we have less that are natural," he said.

He's right that many of the oldest trees have been cut down, and about 7 percent of America's forests have been planted by man, but that still means that 93 percent are natural.

Ross is also concerned that loss of old-growth forest is leading to a loss of biodiversity.

But while some species have decreased, the populations of many others animals have actually increased in the past 75 years.

Michael Shermer says many people believe America is destroying the forests because environment groups need to scare people to raise money.

"The fear is there," he said, "because, if your goal is to raise funds you have to scare people. You can't tell people things are getting better, and here's the data. You have to tell people things are worse."

The truth, however, is that today in the United States there are two acres of forestland for every single person, and America is growing more forest than it cuts.

Link

Nemont
 
But Ross says we don't really have more forests. "We have more areas, in America, with trees on them, that's true. But we have less that are natural,...."
Must be the plastic plants... :D :D :D
But while some species have decreased, the populations of many others animals have actually increased in the past 75 years.
I wonder how many of the increasing species have been game species?????
 
Tree farms would account for some of the increase (remember, a Xmas tree plantation isn't much good for hunting). Animal increases could be due to species like whitetail deer and turkeys, probably elk, too. As usual, there's a lot more to it than that article mentions.
 
Most of the increase has occured in the Southeast, where the cotton farms have been converted to pine plantations. If I'm not mistaken, a goodly portion of our timber/pulp come from there.
 
Originally posted by 1_pointer:
Most of the increase has occured in the Southeast, where the cotton farms have been converted to pine plantations. If I'm not mistaken, a goodly portion of our timber/pulp come from there.
Dont the major companies own their own lands and do very little timber related activities on public lands there?
 
Another thing thats pretty key to look at is just what qualifies as "forested" to the USDA.

For instance, juniper, mesquite, doug-fir, etc. that have encroached into grasslands because of fire suppression now qualify as "forest" lands.

Just because its "forest land" doesnt necessarily mean we have enough of certain forest types or that the "forest land" is healthy or beneficial to wildlife, or even has any commercial value.

The forest land of today is nothing like the forest land of 100-200 years ago....
 
I would have to disagree with the x-mas farm and hunting comment... Here in MD those are the places to be, I really can't think of a better place! The deer absolutely LOVE that thick stuff. The tree farmers are usully more than happy to let people in to shoot the deer, esp. the bucks. Those tree farms can hold a ton of deer think of it as a giant yard with 10 times the amount of feed than surounding hardwood forest, and plenty of cover and water. They're really havens...
 
I think it all depends on the type and age of the tree farm.
back peddle, back peddle, back peddle :D :D :D
Just because its "forest land" doesnt necessarily mean we have enough of certain forest types or that the "forest land" is healthy or beneficial to wildlife, or even has any commercial value.
Huh, :confused: and now it has to have commercial value to be a forest???
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But while some species have decreased, the populations of many others animals have actually increased in the past 75 years.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The forest land of today is nothing like the forest land of 100-200 years ago....
The forest land of 100 years ago was nothing like the forest land of 200 years ago......
 
Tree farms have trees of all ages maybe not the first couple years of inception but after that its heven... And you were talking about X-mas tree farms not trees of all types...

Even nuseries that have trees and shrubs of all kinds are still a great spot to hunt! The deer love it!

Look at all the timber land down south thats been taken care of for the last few decades... Selective harvesting and burning under brush... It has some of the countries best quail hunting. Their basically a glorified tree farm as well.

What are you basing your opinion on? Are you trying to corelate logging to tree farming and the impacts that logging has on hunting? I thought logging made areas better for hunting? Doesn't it open up areas for more grass/forage for the animals?
 
Bambi, I'm basing my opinion on the xmas tree farms I see in Idaho and the red pine tree farm my family has in Vermont. I hunt around some xmas tree farms in ID, but the deer and turkeys only pass thru them going somewhere else. They're fairly sterile. Our tree farm in VT is kinda the same way. Most of the trees are the same age, about 40-50 years old and there's very little underbrush.

No I wasn't trying to make any connection between logging and tree farming.
 
Thats interesting... I would think that the farms in VT would be much like they are here in MD. I wonder if the grossly over population of deer has anything to do with it? They've eaten themselves out of house and home here. I guess that would make sence that some of the only places left to go are the tree farms.
 
Ten bears, you and elkchsr are both in the same boat, with one oar in the water.

Ten beers said, "Huh, and now it has to have commercial value to be a forest???"

No, and I never said it did. However, when I see an article posted like the one in this thread, that you apparently didnt read, yeah I think is relevant. Its relevant because if the FS is going to set ASQ's on whats being grown, its nice to know how much of the "forest land" is producing merchantable tree volume.

So you dont get confused I'll explain it further. The article stated that we now have 749 million acres of forest land, in 1920 we had 735 million acres. I'm pretty sure that there is undoubtedly less board foot merchantable volume of timber now than there was in 1920. For several reasons, one is the definition of "forested lands", the USDA counts mesquite, juniper, gambel oak, and other encroachment species as "forested lands" (even though they rarely have commercial value). Ever tried cutting 2x4's out of a mesquite or a juniper? Another reason I'm sure theres less merchantable wood now is because of the high grading that happened in most of the West. The trees that were left from the selective harvest of the best trees left inferior genetics and suppressed trees, those would be the ones we're now harvesting. The forests today also have more stems per acre on average, which results in more diseases and natural form defects, which both decrease merchantability.

So, to use strictly the number of acres of forested lands to defend the amount of cutting we do today, is not only wrong, but irresponsible. Thats why the numbers in this article, while interesting, are not telling much of a story.
 
"Earth first we will log the other planets later". We need to worry more about beetles/bugs killing pine trees than logers cutting them down, I like the people on TV talking about managing the forest, how do you manage that many trees ? get real thats why all they do is talk about it. Im tired about hearing them say "we need to manage the forest". Also how is this possible with out getting out of the green truck. Only thing they manage is closed gates.
 
Nut- Very little row cropping of tree occurs on public land and most of it is private land.

BuckTrack- What do you propose to improve the situation??? Should we quit all management? Not sure what you're complaining about. :confused:
 
Gastro Gnome - Eat Better Wherever

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,590
Messages
2,026,230
Members
36,240
Latest member
Mscarl (she/they)
Back
Top