http://www.webwombat.com.au/motoring.../8_10_for2.htm

Go to this webpage to see photo and details.

Their data indicate significant
conversion of forest and woodlands over the last 30 years. That is a
lot
of hectares and a strong indicator of a global problem. The FIA
analysis
indicates a general loss of forest and woodland acerage in most
regions
of the US mostly due to conversion to other agricultural uses and
development for housing.


With respect CLEARCUT, you have no evidence beyond anecdotal and gut
feeling as to whether a depletion crises exists, there is no prominent
Gov org or NGO, or enviro movement which has any "proof" of a
depletion crises.
Everyone knows there are environmental practices that are unpalatable,
but as yet YOU have not offered proof of a crises. A greenpeace
spokesman's outrage at raw material extraction is understandable, but
it by itself or as a part of a combined voice doesn't equal proof of a
crises, only proof that unpleasant ecological practices are occuring
globally as we develop globally.



^^ In my experience there is precious little
aforestation - I rarely see housing developments, pastures, or
vineyards
revert to forest.

LOL, true initially, but i'm sure you can appreciate the practice of
creating established gardens and lining pavements with trees, which is
the most obvious symbol of an established suburb, so greenery does
increase eventually as the suburb ages{typically}.

^^If you want to set the level of resolution, variables measured, and
methodology - that would be fine by me, and we will let the data
speak.


LOL again, buddy, if you or anyone is going to announce that we have a
depletion crises as distinct from numerous unpleasant and locally
unsustainable acts of environmental destruction, then YOU "must" have
the criteria and the researched data at hand, you must be able to
quote it to whoever enquires, otherwise you are merely exaggerating an
unpleasant global occurance.
Someone mentioned to me that the forests would be gone by 2050 or
something, i went ahead and looked for both the criteria and data,
i've yet to find it, and even a specialist forestry NG has nothing
more than the usual tree hugging mantra.

Do you expect me to presumably modify my lifestyle and alter my voting
pattern based on a biased collective gut feeling, especially when i
think the criteria and data would exist, if it WAS more than a
worldwide unpleasant occurence, ie, the actual threat of depletion
within x amount of years.




I am not touting any hoax - I think on a global level conversion of
forest and woodland is significant. On a local level - particularily
in
developing countries - it can be devastating.

^In much of the US high grading forest stands is seriously
depleting
forest resources - even if the number of forest acres appears to be
relatively stable.

I not suggesting you're lying, i'm suggesting you have NO PROOF that
threat of depletion is on the cards, all you have is the desire to
express practices which bother you, the emphasis is on YOU to produce
evidence, otherwise call it what it is, "partial global ecological
devastation, which eventually recovers from conservation and
aforestation measures", you'll have to accept my definition until such
a time as you produce proof of the threat of depletion. In the absence
of any evidence, you can understand why i'll be voting as usual and
consuming as usual.



Laws and regulations are difficult to develop and enforce. In
California, which has a amazing set of forest regulation including
requirements for a Registered Professional Forester to develop Timber
Harvest Plans, high grading still occurs. Landowners with little
vision
or education want to maximize income while leaving some trees. Cut the
big ones and leave the little onesresulting in a degraded forest
stand.
Still it's "legal" - the land is "forested".

Ok its forested, are you a forestry expert?, that's why i came here,
looking to ask the hard questions and being ready to accept the
evidence, you've told me nothing i didn't already know or could have
assumed.
Your criticism of people wanting to maximize profit is baseless until
you provide evidence which isn't just anecdotal or local, people are
entitled to await a scientific study that has credibility and in plain
language says, "we will run out of forests by year 2050, and here's
our scientific proof", where is that evidence beyond your assertion or
anyone's assertion?




The solution is excellent forest management on public and private
forest
land. How do we achieve this? Damned if I know. Right now education of
landowners, both of private forest lands and public lands is one
option. Most landowners that I talk with, when educated about good
forest management, will seek out more information and manage their
lands
responsibly.

And ideally the truth should be included in any eductaional package,
and my education from here and google searches informs me that
collated hard evidence doesn't exist.

I'm going to buy the car and burn rubber, unless you can pull a rabit
out of a hat, i'll see you at the dragstrip,lol.



Any other suggestions?

Sure, a high octane Boss XR8.