"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
writes:

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.

That picture is too big, Mike. Reforestation has been proceeding for
decades in some areas, like New England, where marginal farms have
reverted to woodlands

A rose is a rose is a rose- but not all forests are the same. The forests
have returned in New England, but most have been high graded several times.
And, those new forests don't have the biodiversity of ancient forests-
they're typcialy 50-80 years old. Few old forests and few young forests.
What this region needs is great forestry, with the small amount of old
growth remaining to be protected. Most public forest land in the region,
state and federal is poorly managed or not managed at all. The economic
potential of great forest management is in the tens of billions of dollars,
considering the "multiplier effect". Logging is common, forestry is rare.


. Canada, OTOH, was very slow to start a
reforestation program. Much of their boreal pine will take a century to
recover. In the Rockies, urban sprawl hasn't exactly deforested huge
tracts, but landscaped them. On the left coast, the shutdown of federal
lands has led to a rapid buildup of fuels that probably won't last long.

Other areas are not faring so well. Guatemala and Borneo will be
completely clear cut this decade. Except for a few reserves, the forests
of India are gone, converted to agriculture.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc