NNTP-Posting-Host: 211.26.1.25
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1042739440 20794 127.0.0.1 (16 Jan 2003 17:50:40 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Jan 2003 17:50:40 GMT
Path: text-east!binarykiller.newsgroups.com!propagator2-la!news-in-la.newsfeeds.com!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!c03.atl99!news.w ebusenet.com!telocity-west!DIRECTV!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!postnews1.go
ogle.com!not-for-mail
Xref: 127.0.0.1 alt.forestry:43151

"Joe Zorzin" wrote in message ...
wrote in message
om...

To the inital poster: the issue is not deforestation in the US - there
are MANY trees, although small. Try GOOGLE for the stats. IMO, the real
problem is the urbanization of the countryside and the voting base.

Thanks for your NON answer, and lack of proof.

We're all still waiting for you to prove what you're trying to prove, the
burden is on you.


Hey Joe, presumably you're a supporter of various environ"mental"
crises, including a possible depletion of forests within x amount of
years. I'm not, i've asked for some clearcut evidence to back up
"your" assertions or the assertions of the econuts. I've ventured onto
a specific forestry NG for that determination.

To me it's quite simple, if anyone rational asserts that forest
depletion is a possiblity within x amount of years, they must have
mathematical verification from reliable sources, in essence, something
along the lines of 1000 acres exist, 100 acres per yr used, but
replanted/replaced at x/acres per year, and this would be an aggregate
of the global scene, not merely the expression of annoynance that a
handful of countries were operating environmentally destructive
logging practices.




The facts are that we have plenty of forests left,

You may not be aware of this- but there is a difference between quality and
quantity.

I am aware of that, but you still have to provide "evidence" for your
assertions, i don't research your claims, you do, and having done so,
you relay that information in a concise manner, where have you done
this?




One proof of depletion is the ever continuing rise in price of good wood-
faster than the inflation rate- and NOT due to forests being locked up by
enviro-MENTAL-ists, but by the too fast destruction of old growth forests,
and the most common form of logging- HIGH GRADING- which removes the best
trees and leaves the junk.

Thanks for your economic theories, when do you provide "evidence",
evidence that the amount remaining is in jeopardy of depletion, which
would be a factor of use/per total and adding "afforestation" to give
a static amount of forest, or a minimally depleting rate as opposed to
a rate leading to cries management due to disgruntled greenies.





If we really managed forests correctly, we could lock up half the forests
and we'd produce more timber, better timber than we do now- resulting in
MORE jobs for retards like you. G. After all, where else is a guy like
you gonna git a job? G

JZ

I doubt you have ever been gainfully employed, but that aside, when
are "you" going to provide evidence of a forest cries instead of green
hysteria, i mean, are you telling us that you are fundamentally
opposed to my assertion that we don't have a stock problem nor a
depletion problem, and that "you" have NO evidence to discredit me,
and subsequently validate your psychological position of siding with
the environ"mental"ists?

Joe, i don't alter my habits one iota without proof beyond the
assertions of the long-term unemployed, i'm glad you've found a crises
to justify your bludging, but i'd prefer you actually did something
meaningful with your life.
This would include "you" being able to mathematically back your
assertions of a depletion crises, wouldn't you feel stupid if you
thoroughly investigated the problem and discovered you were being
played for a sucker?