wrote in message . com...
(Scott Murphy) wrote in message . com...
wrote in message . com...
Where is Government research indicating a risk of depletion?
I can't find any answers to my simple questions, it must be a hoax by the Greenie.
Simple questions.
1, how much forests left?
2, how many acres per year used?
3, how many acres per year replaced?

Well, I don't know about the U.S., but here are some Canadian stats for you:


True!!!, your ignorance is Global isn't it, don't you think you owe it
to yourself to investigate this purported crises, anyone touting an
environmental cries needs to convince people beyond their screams of
desperation, you do this by providing "evidence" of the problem,
telling me that there is environmental destruction is a mere
platitude, "you" need to provide evidence that you aren't wasting your
life being unemployed.

Where is the reliable "evidence" of a threat of depletion, rather than
evidence of ongoing environmental practices "you" are uncomfortable
with?


Buddy, you need to stay away from the coffee pot after 4 o'clock in
the afternoon. I made no statements with regard to deforestation; I
was simply answering your "simple questions" in a Canadian context. I
merely provided you with nine numbers you were interested in. I gave
no interpretation of them. Simple questions. Simple answers. Relax.





note: 1 hectare(ha)=2.5 acres

Total land: 921.5 million ha
Total forest: 417.6 million ha (67% softwood, 18% mixedwood, 15% hardwood)
Commercial Forest: 234.5 million ha
Managed Forest: 119 million ha
National Parks: 24.5 million ha
Provincial Parks: 32.3 million ha
Harvested Forest: 1 million ha
Area defoliated by insects (1999): 6.3 million ha
Area burned (2001): 629 836 ha

Bravissimo!!!, now where is the Global statistics from a reliable
source?, these stats would be unequivocal as to a "depletion" crises,
not just a global tale of environmental destruction you're
ideologically opposed to.
Do you understand the difference between the threat of depletion and
widespread usage?, until you provide evidence as to the difference,
you've been played like a puppet by your enviromasters.

Stop putting words in peoples mouths. You seem to be the only one
that is pushing this global depletion crisis theory around this NG. I
went to university for five years to earn a bachelors degree in forest
management. I am quite capable of drawing up long-term strategic and
shorter-term operational management plans for mulit-national timber
corporations that have been accused, rightly or wrongly, of some nasty
things. I think that disqualifies me as a "greenie".

You sound as if you are as extreme in your thoughts as the greenies
you disagree with. People like you make it difficult for groups to
sit down and have meaningful debates and conversations. You say that
with proof of this crisis, you would become a believer. I don't think
that's the case. When one's values and viewpoints are something they
believe strongly in, there is no room for compromise; there is no room
for re-evaluating the conclusions they have come to hold.

I don't believe you came here looking for proof of a crisis; you came
here hoping to find no proof of a crisis. If you really wanted proof,
you'd go find it (or not find it) yourself, like any normal
scientifically-minded person motivated by such a question would. Not
wanting a hypothesis to be true is no reason to avoid proving it true.
Happy hunting.

Scott

Clear Cut wrote in message ...
In article ,
wrote:

Clear Cut wrote in message
...
If you are interested in US statistics, spend some quality time with:


For a world wide perspective, explore the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. You can generate your own tables
from thier database:

http://apps.fao.org/


LOL, sorry, "you're" the one who has fallen for the depletion crisis.
To rationally decide there is a "depletion" problem, one must have
mathematically determined so, to not mathematically produce this
evidence means you've just listened to someones end of the world
scenario, and bought into it irrationally.

A more detailed analysis translates as "more unactionable information,
for which the provider of such information benefits finacially", sorry
son, but i pay for goods and sevices that i consider worthy of my
expenditure.



FAO is ONE source of information. 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. In my experience there is precious little
aforestation - I rarely see housing developments, pastures, or vineyards
revert to forest.
Another significant source of forest depletion is seldom considered,
but profound: highways. The state of Oregon by itself has enough
highways and logging roads to go around the world 3 times. USFS is
closing off many of these roads, and given time, it is possible that
at least some will be reclaimed as forest lands. But worldwide, the
opposite is true.

BTW, the original post does not address the facts described by J.
Russell Smith in the 1930's. Smith stated, in part that forestry as
currently practiced (then) in the United States (and many other
countries as well) is "First the saw, then the plow, then move on when
the soil is gone."

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

--
Joe Zorzin
"Clear Cut" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Joe Zorzin" wrote:

"Clear Cut" wrote in message
...
If you are interested in US statistics, spend some quality time with:

http://fia.fs.fed.us/

The Forest Inventory and Analysis program of the Forest Service has
been
in continuous operation since 1930 with a mission to "make and keep
current a comprehensive inventory and analysis of the present and
prospective conditions of and requirements for the renewable resources
of the forest and rangelands of the United States."

And it's been proven to be next to worthless, at least for the
Northeast, by
Karl Davies, consultant from Mass.- since their inventory methods don't
measure tree height, nor tree grade. See www.daviesand.com.

Joe,

When used inappropriatlely - yes FIA is beyond worthless - it is
actually harmful. Karl makes the point that the FIA is inappropiate as
the Continuous Forest Inventory system for the managment for
Massachusetts forest. I agree. To be usesed in this manner, it would
have to have a much larger sample size, more variables (like grade)
measured on each plot, and a higher level of quality assurance. That
would cost a good chunk of change.

FIA does provide a comparison between inventory periods at a resolution
that is regional in scope. That is what it is designed to do.

But, that very same research could have and should have been done better-
by, as Karl says, measuring heights and grades- with little extra effort and
cost. Karl's slam of the FIA system is much deeper than even this, but I
don't remember all the details. If he happens to see this thread, perhaps
he'll elaborate.

And, as you say, it's not meant to be the CFI system for Mass. or the
Northeast- however, too many people make referances to FIA as if it were the
definitive answer as to volumes and growth.

But, look at the description of the purpose of FIA as you offered above,
"make and keep current a comprehensive inventory and analysis of the present
and prospective conditions of and requirements for the renewable resources
of the forest and rangelands of the United States.". That's a HUGE claim.
Perhaps, unless they're going to do it right- they should avoid words like
"comprehensive".




The original poster asked a very broad question and FIA is the best
(only?) tool we have available to answer that broad question at this
time.

These data are not perfect. I am convinced there are errors in the data
- a data set this large has to have them. The contractors are trained,
tested, and subject to a quality assurance program. I have neither the
time nor resouces to check if the contractors met their obligation in
Massachusetts.


By the way, we here in the usenet forestry groups tend to think it's
preferable if people give their true names and what they do for a living-
that way, when they give strong opinons on important subjects- we know who
we're talking to, and what their perspective is. Hiding behind cute names
doesn't add weight to one's comments. I'm always accused of ranting and
raving, but at least I stand up and say who and what I am.



--
Due to SPAM filtering, please add NOSPAM
to email subject to improve your chances
of an actual reply.

"Daniel B. Wheeler" wrote in message
om...
Clear Cut wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

Clear Cut wrote in message
...
If you are interested in US statistics, spend some quality time
with:


For a world wide perspective, explore the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. You can generate your own tables
from thier database:

http://apps.fao.org/


LOL, sorry, "you're" the one who has fallen for the depletion crisis.
To rationally decide there is a "depletion" problem, one must have
mathematically determined so, to not mathematically produce this
evidence means you've just listened to someones end of the world
scenario, and bought into it irrationally.

A more detailed analysis translates as "more unactionable information,
for which the provider of such information benefits finacially", sorry
son, but i pay for goods and sevices that i consider worthy of my
expenditure.



FAO is ONE source of information. 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. In my experience there is precious little
aforestation - I rarely see housing developments, pastures, or vineyards
revert to forest.
Another significant source of forest depletion is seldom considered,
but profound: highways. The state of Oregon by itself has enough
highways and logging roads to go around the world 3 times. USFS is
closing off many of these roads, and given time, it is possible that
at least some will be reclaimed as forest lands. But worldwide, the
opposite is true.

BTW, the original post does not address the facts described by J.
Russell Smith in the 1930's. Smith stated, in part that forestry as
currently practiced (then) in the United States (and many other
countries as well) is "First the saw, then the plow, then move on when
the soil is gone."


Right, nobody in the logging industry wants to admit the severity of the
problem of high grading- which is far worse than clearcutting. I LOVE
LOGGING- so that's not an issue with me, but I want to see it done right-
and, the vast majority of logging in the Northeast is done without a
forester actually practicing forestry as described in forestry schools-
leave trees not financially mature- develop stands well suited to a site- do
thinings of poor quality trees first, etc.- all standard stuff, all too rare
in the Northeast. And if you want visual proof, go to my web site on high
grading at http://www.forestmeister.com/high-grading/. That was a forest,
which I had written a mgt. plan on- owned by a huge family. One member of
which didn't like me on a personal basis, the rest did. So, he forced the
family into hiring another forester, who did not follow the plan which
called for an "improvement cut"- instead he pillaged the place. Later that
guy confronted me and try to intimidate me- I don't intimidate easily- he
blaimed on the owner, as all forest rapists do- "landowner rights" but I
finally got him to admit that he f****** up. I had already done several
harvests for that family and those stands are terrific shape ready to be
done again- the one he did is wasted for 75 years. The owners never "made me
do it" as they made him do it. Yuh, if you really argue with forests
rapists, they'll always finally admit they toasted the place, then blame the
owner. In 30 years, I've never had any owner "make me do it". Maybe the
devil made them do it. G




Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

(Scott Murphy) wrote in message . com...


Where is the reliable "evidence" of a threat of depletion, rather than
evidence of ongoing environmental practices "you" are uncomfortable
with?


Buddy, you need to stay away from the coffee pot after 4 o'clock in
the afternoon. I made no statements with regard to deforestation; I
was simply answering your "simple questions" in a Canadian context. I
merely provided you with nine numbers you were interested in. I gave
no interpretation of them. Simple questions. Simple answers. Relax.

I'm one of the most rational people you'll ever meet, believe it or
not, and i don't consume junk food.
Your response further enforces my tentative belief that there is no
depletion crises, or at least none that can be scientifically
evaluated, and this fundamentally means that some appalling ecological
practices are occuring, but as grotesque as it may sound, these
practices are sustainable, they are sustained by conservation and
aforestation.
You would agree that anyone who was offering a depletion crises must
produce figures similar to yours, but covering the entire globe. Those
figures don't exist.







Do you understand the difference between the threat of depletion and
widespread usage?, until you provide evidence as to the difference,
you've been played like a puppet by your enviromasters.

Stop putting words in peoples mouths. You seem to be the only one
that is pushing this global depletion crisis theory around this NG.

I've enlisted the help of experts, "YOU", and your answers certainly
don't back any crises.




You sound as if you are as extreme in your thoughts as the greenies
you disagree with. People like you make it difficult for groups to
sit down and have meaningful debates and conversations. You say that
with proof of this crisis, you would become a believer. I don't think
that's the case. When one's values and viewpoints are something they
believe strongly in, there is no room for compromise; there is no room
for re-evaluating the conclusions they have come to hold.


LOL, perhaps you should have supplemented your 5yr foliage course with
some basic psychology, the term you're looking for is "projection",
its a bad habit, i hope you're not an addict.

I don't believe you came here looking for proof of a crisis; you came
here hoping to find no proof of a crisis.

Of course i came here hoping there was no crises, i may be demanding,
but i'm not insane.



If you really wanted proof,
you'd go find it (or not find it) yourself,
like any normal

Normality and i have little in common, and as a independent thinker
who understands the difference between original thinking and accurate
recounting, i anticipated endless amounts of recounting, and that's
what i've been given, which is ok, but there is no crises relating to
deforestation.

scientifically-minded person motivated by such a question would. Not
wanting a hypothesis to be true is no reason to avoid proving it true.

I don't reproduce experiments and statistical analysis, i review the
conclusions of experiments and statistical analysis, and my reviewing
has led me to the conclusion that deforestation as a threat of
depletion is a hoax.

Keep on planting Sir, there's profit waiting.

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. 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

wrote in message . com...
(Scott Murphy) wrote in message . com...


I've enlisted the help of experts, "YOU", and your answers certainly
don't back any crises.



My answers had nothing to do with supporting or denying a crisis of
any kind. I just answered your questions for you... how much forest
is there, and how much of it was harvested in a given year. The focus
of my education wasn't on global crises, so I'm not an expert in that
area. Sounds like you're just looking for numbers though... you need
a bean counter, not a forestry "expert".

As far as where I stand on the issue, well, I've never even really
considered it.

S.

In article ,
writes:

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".

Market forces have pretty much mandated this style of management. There
is a $100 to $150/M penalty for delivering a log over 24", so it is not
feasible to grow large trees any more. Your choice is either clear cut
plantations on short rotation or selective cutting of any tree that gets
to 24" DBH.

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

In article ,
writes:

Another significant source of forest depletion is seldom considered,
but profound: highways. The state of Oregon by itself has enough
highways and logging roads to go around the world 3 times.

That is hardly significant. It only amounts to about 80,000 acres, out
of many millions of acres of forest. Many of the highways are in areas
that were never forested in the first place, and never will be.

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

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

Another significant source of forest depletion is seldom considered,
but profound: highways. The state of Oregon by itself has enough
highways and logging roads to go around the world 3 times.

That is hardly significant. It only amounts to about 80,000 acres, out
of many millions of acres of forest. Many of the highways are in areas
that were never forested in the first place, and never will be.

The vast majority of roads in the PNW were in timber or to timber (and
in many cases through timber). If you look are roads in Eastern Oregon
in say the Alvord Desert, there are few and seldom visited.

Road-building continues to increase. It does not remain stagnant, nor
do the road beds, in almost all instances, ever reforest.

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

Just stumbled into this NG. Seems it should be fun...even if I'm
probably
only adding fuel to the fire... --"Sunny")



That's 'cause few countries really CARE that they're depleting
their
resources. I suggest going to the library and picking up a book or
scientific journal that profiles Madagascar or the Amazon Rainforest.
Don't
just focus on North America! We're doing pretty good, in comparison.

SUNNY, you strike me as a defensive teenager, but i'm prepared to give
you the benefit of the doubt for now.
I'm looking for someone to provide proof of a depletion crises, i
already know appalling practices occur, but, unless anyone can produce
proof, these appalling practices are obviously being effectively
countered by conservation and aforestation.
Also, whilst sad, if the Amazon is depleted, it will obviously be
countered elsewhere by aforestation, otherwise "proof" of global
depletion could be produced, there is no proof, therefore there is no
threat of depletion, just angry tree lovers{mainly unemployed and
emotionally unstable}.




^^ Never listen to Greenpeace spokespeople. They're crazy.

Sorry, way too stereotypical, save your teenage bluster for someone of
much lower intelligence and much higher gullibility.


^^ Stick to scientific sources. They at least study their material.
(And
it looks to me like there are sciencey people here. You should
actually
consider what they say. They know stuff.)

I've considered what they've said, and it has backed my intitial
feeling that a depletion crises within 20-50 is a hoax, and because of
the counter measures, it will be a perpetual hoax designed to increase
the profit margins of environmental groups.

^^^And what more do we need than proof of unpleasant ecological
practices?
If we're practicing badly, it will END badly. The greater portion of
the
world does not take care of their environments, and that presents a
CRISIS.

Please present scientific "evidence", not just your testosterone
induced assertions, unpleasent worldwide practices are "obviously"
being countered, your lack of proof of a depletion crises confirms
this.


^^^As I said above - don't stick to the practices in North America.
Look at
China! Look at Brazil! Look at Madagascar! Look at Russia! It's
BAD, BAD
news for their environments - and they're doing little to stop it! As
they
develop - and as technology develops more rapidly - it's only going to
get
worse.

It may get worse in "those" area's, but obviously the global effect is
being countered, just provide proof that it's not.


^^ What you speak of is what is known as "urban forestry." However,
it
does not represent real forest ecology.

So what, explain the necessity of native forests beyond carbon sinks
and oxygen respiration.


^^ A treelined boulevard does not a
forest make. Sure, it helps the environment, but a woodpecker that
needs an
old growth snag to nest in is NOT going to survive in a puny little
alder
that's been planted along a boulevard. You cannot think in terms of
merely
trees when you think of deforestation. You must think of their
inhabitants - if you are considering the environment at all.


I don't want wildlife hurt or killed anymore than you do, but our
global societies function depends on utilizing raw materials, and like
it or not, that means death to x amount of wildlife per year.


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.


^^Golly - then show us mathematical evidence and research that YOU've
found or collected to back up your claim that deforestation is a hoax.
Come
on, it's only fair!

My teenage friend, i've looked at various eco-sites and done google
searches, and cannot find "any" evidence of a depletion crises, i can
find plenty of evidence of poor environmental practices, but these
localized problems are being countered globally by aforestation,
otherwise you'd have proof of depletion beyond your personalized
assertation.


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.


^^Speculation is not data. Listen to data, and take speculation with
a
grain of salt. Do not use it to accuse people who have not made that
speculation.

Exactly, data, empirical evidence, collated by respected authorities
counts as information.

^^And I think I read everyone's posts on this topic, and no one
said that. They're all presenting a realistic viewpoint based on the
data
they DO have. They will not satisfy you, because you do not wish to
be
satisfied by people's educated comments.

The topic was "The deforestation hoax", i've assumed that i'd get
either yay or nay, i've got opinions, all of them worthless as to
answering my question of the truth of a depletion crises.
"Educated comments" by uninformed or unarmed people, experts or not,
is meaningless noise as to my question, the only meaningful
information is the collated data that reveals a deforestation crises,
that data has yet to surface, and i don't think it will.

^^And, dude - you're posting to a NEWSGROUP. They all enjoy their
field,
and are concerned with their local environment, because it is their
area of
expertise.
Go harass an ecology professor, or something...

Go listen to a Britney Spears CD/DVD.




^^Forestry practices have been in the process of changing since the
1970s.
Research regarding sustainability and various other harvesting issues
is
just now coming to light. Take that into consideration, and read some
books, scientific journals, and credible websites for the information
you
seek. Or consult a professor at a university that carries a global
forestry
or ecology program.


Don't be ridiculous, what do you think Greenpeace or WWF are doing in
their spare time, LOL, if evidence existed, GP and the WWF would have
it on display on their websites, they don't display it as it doesn't
exist.



^^ WOW. In all my days in college, majoring in Environmental Science,
my
professor would not have allowed me to use newsgroup postings as
legitimate
source material for research papers or, more importantly, to formulate
educated opinions and life decisions - no matter who posted to them.

WOW back at ya, let me make it clear to you that if evidence of a
depletion crises existed, someone on a specialist NG would have it or
could direct me to it, this evidence would be collated and
interpretated, i wouldn't be doing the job of 100's of people.



^^It
sounds like you have a problem with the PEOPLE who post here, not the
material they wish to discuss. Not to disparage anyone who frequents
this
NG - for they've made a valiant effort to placate your bellig...er,
dissatisfaction - but there are far more experts in the world than
hang out
at this site. I reiterate: GO READ A BOOK.

I've read more books in the last 2 yrs than you've read in your
teenage life.

Seriously - dude - you're posting to a newsgroup. You asked
questions.
They answered. Do your own research and collect your own data if
you're not
satisfied.

THE DATA DOESN'T EXIST FOOL, IF IT DID, GREENPEACE OR WWF WOULD
DISPLAY IT ON THEIR WEBSITE.


^^ I'd like to state, though, that your questions are not hard - and
certainly not philosophical.

Becareful my scientific friend, you won't be the first over confindent
fool who i educate.

I bet you could find some published statistics
to answer your questions just as easily. Your local university
library
probably has tons more satisfactory information in the form of
scientific
journals - in which hard data has been collected over the course of
years
and then published, with all the mathematical information included.
They're
kind of hard to read, because they're saturated with science and
numbers -
but don't let that stop you!

THE DATA DOESN'T EXIST FOOL, IF IT DID, GREENPEACE OR WWF WOULD
DISPLAY IT ON THEIR WEBSITE.






And, I hate to break it to you, but commercialism runs the world -

I hate to break it to you that atheism including superficial religion
runs the world, commercialism is the practical application of the
underlying mentality of the world's current masters.


Really, you're wasting a lot of steam trying to force your views
on
others when you merely "asked questions."


LOL, grow up son.

^^ Here is a slightly different scenerio to put your questioning in
perspective: A Washington State Salmon Fisheries expert could
probably give
you a lot of evidence regarding the depletion of wild salmon due to
loss of
spawning territory; but if you're looking for statistics for loss of
fish
worldwide due to their inability to procreate in an optimal
environment, you
just have to ask someone else - probably lots of someone elses! And
you
just might have to read a book. Anyone who's had to write a
scientific
paper to be graded by a critical hand knows this.

Fool, anyone who can think independently would know that if evidence
existed it would have been offered to the world.



Umm...so, yeah. That's my $20.00.
--Sunny

It was all crap, but you'll grow out of it.

Cheers.

Kabana.

"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

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

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".

Market forces have pretty much mandated this style of management. There
is a $100 to $150/M penalty for delivering a log over 24", so it is not
feasible to grow large trees any more. Your choice is either clear cut
plantations on short rotation or selective cutting of any tree that gets
to 24" DBH.

It's crazy that the industry which once loved nothing but giant trees, now
won't take trees over 24". Perhaps if the forest owners cooperated and
agreed to grow large trees of very fine quality, the industry would take
them and pay good money for them.

Industry has always dominated "forest policy" when forest policy should be
dominated by an alliance of forest owners, foresters concerned about
biodiversity and good economics, and environmentalists. Industry has been
in the driver's seat thanks to disinformation- and the result is that North
America's forests are greatly depleted. The usual lame comeback that there
are more acres of forests than 100 years ago doesn't hold much water.




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

Joe Zorzin wrote:
"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



I agree - we each speak to the areas we know. Urban sprawl creates
something like a savannah forest plus lots of impermeable surface.

I don't have global stats and outside of the UN and scattered forestry
profs, I doubt anyone does. kabana might have some fun in the SAF
discussion group.

As to the state of commercial forestry in the PNW - the truth is it's
practiced only on large private and state ownerships at present.
Ownerships under 80 acres and federal forests are not managed in any
coherant manner. If anyone knows of a significant ownership following
Guild guidelines, speak up! (I do know of one - the army base at Ft. Lewis)

Still, there is NO SHORTAGE of trees while there is already a shortage
of high quality timber. Commercial forests are on short rotation, with
intensive silvicultural treatment to keep them in production. These
same tree farms now have large buffers on most streams and unstable
slopes. That's where the age and species diversity will exist in the
future. You win some, you lose some.

That's 'cause few countries really CARE that they're depleting
their
resources. I suggest going to the library and picking up a book or
scientific journal that profiles Madagascar or the Amazon Rainforest.
Don't
just focus on North America! We're doing pretty good, in comparison.

SUNNY, you strike me as a defensive teenager, but i'm prepared to give
you the benefit of the doubt for now.


That's kind of you. But I'm an educated adult with a college degree
under my belt. I know how to look up data and do research. The comments I
have made are based on the education I have received, textbooks I have
studied, scientific papers and lab reports that I have written, and
scientific journal articles that I have read. The other people's comments
in this newsgroup are based on their life experiences and education they
have received.


I'm looking for someone to provide proof of a depletion crises, i
already know appalling practices occur, but, unless anyone can produce
proof, these appalling practices are obviously being effectively
countered by conservation and aforestation.


*Obviously.* So, have YOU seen proof that they ARE being effectively
countered? I haven't. Why don't you share what you've found so you can
enlighten the rest of us?
Here's some of what I know: Rare forests in Madagascar are giving way
to cattle and rice farming - which is NOT native to that island, but was
brought over from Africa with settlers - and that is creating massive
erosion and sink hole damage that CANNOT BE REPAIRED. The Amazon Rainforest
is giving way to government subsidized cattle farming. There are NO
nutrients in that soil - it's all bound up in the forest itself - so the
soil will only last a couple years, and then the farmers have to abandon
that land, because the soil is used up. It CANNOT BE REPAIRED. When a city
is built on an ancient forest, that forest is NOT COMING BACK. And there
are not many cultures who even care about this problem. They do not
practice reforesation - OR afforestation. Some try conservation, but only
when they notice they're about to lose everything.


Also, whilst sad, if the Amazon is depleted, it will obviously be
countered elsewhere by aforestation, otherwise "proof" of global
depletion could be produced, there is no proof, therefore there is no
threat of depletion, just angry tree lovers{mainly unemployed and
emotionally unstable}.


See my comment above.
You cannot replace rare and diverse ecology in one part of the world
with some newly planted trees in another part of the world. It doesn't
work. That's a cop out.


^^ Never listen to Greenpeace spokespeople. They're crazy.

Sorry, way too stereotypical, save your teenage bluster for someone of
much lower intelligence and much higher gullibility.


Heheheh.... That's funny. I was actually making a point, albeit in a
stereotypical way. Greenpeace is HARDLY the resource you should use when
looking up environmental statistics. They try hard, it's true, but there
are far more uneducated activists possessing greater impulsiveness than
logic in that group. Perhaps you should try holding up the Greenpeace
people to a more credible scientific source to better understand my comment.


^^ Stick to scientific sources. They at least study their material.
(And
it looks to me like there are sciencey people here. You should
actually
consider what they say. They know stuff.)

I've considered what they've said, and it has backed my intitial
feeling that a depletion crises within 20-50 is a hoax, and because of
the counter measures, it will be a perpetual hoax designed to increase
the profit margins of environmental groups.


Well, goodness, you should have come right out and said, "I believe that
the assertion that we will lose all our trees by the year 2050 [or is it
within 20-50 years? - you're not being consistent, here] is a hoax. What do
you think?" It would certainly have been better than asking three simple
questions that could be answered by looking up numbers in a journal of
science - and then jumping all over everyone because they don't want to do
your numbers research for you. They have lives and jobs.


^^^And what more do we need than proof of unpleasant ecological
practices?
If we're practicing badly, it will END badly. The greater portion of
the
world does not take care of their environments, and that presents a
CRISIS.

Please present scientific "evidence", not just your testosterone
induced assertions, unpleasent worldwide practices are "obviously"
being countered, your lack of proof of a depletion crises confirms
this.


Firstly, I'm female. Are you? I had to assume that you were male to
give an example, so I guess it's only fair that you assumed, too...
Actually, my - or anyone else's - lack of proving something general does
NOT confirm proof of another general situation. That is the worst kind of
conclusion you can come to. Just because you can't get someone to say that
global deforestation is a problem, it doesn't mean that you've just proven
that there are practices being implemented that counter global
deforestation. This is not a one-sided issue that can be disproven with
proof to the contrary (which you don't even have, anyway). It just means
you, as an individual, need to look harder for the proof you want/need on
both sides.
The people in this NG ARE doing things to counter deforestation, but
they have their limits: Their local governments, commercial and private
landowners, their own industry, etc. Other scientists have been looking at
the global problem, and they're published somewhere else.


^^^As I said above - don't stick to the practices in North America.
Look at
China! Look at Brazil! Look at Madagascar! Look at Russia! It's
BAD, BAD
news for their environments - and they're doing little to stop it! As
they
develop - and as technology develops more rapidly - it's only going to
get
worse.

It may get worse in "those" area's, but obviously the global effect is
being countered, just provide proof that it's not.


You keep saying "obviously." You must have some proof in front of you
so that you can SAY obviously. Because nothing you have gleaned in this
newsgroup can allow you that assumption.
Do you realize that Russia and China pretty much make up the continent
of Asia? India is so overpopulated, they hardly have room for trees
anymore. Bangladesh cut down all their trees to invite in American
industry. Brazil is the largest country in South America. Forests don't
make up much of Australia, Africa, or the Middle East - or Europe, anymore
(the Black Forest in Germany [I think] is a tiny remnant of what it was, and
it's dying due to acid rain). Antarctica and Greenland are frozen. The
percentage of forests to total land on Earth is not a large percentage! And
the percentage of land to water is ALSO not a large percentage. So if you
compare the percentage of forests to the total surface of Earth, it's going
to be a very small number. North America still has much of its forests, but
they're getting smaller by the year - so you can't hold them responsible for
re- or afforestation to combat a global crisis.


^^ What you speak of is what is known as "urban forestry." However,
it
does not represent real forest ecology.

So what, explain the necessity of native forests beyond carbon sinks
and oxygen respiration.


*Biodiversity, for one - there are many animals that cannot survive in
anything but a native old growth forest or rainforest. And a bunch of trees
of the same species replanted together (or a small group of animals that
have had to interbreed for years just to survive) can be wiped out by one
species-specific pathogen. It takes years to reach the level of diversity a
forest needs to survive that kind of thing.
*Medicine - rainforests are very important to modern medicine. And the yew
tree, which is most often found in untouched evergreen forests, produces a
seed that is effective in fighting breast cancer.
*Recreation - ecotourism could bring in a lot of money for governments, if
they would just see the benefits of it.
*Reduction of pest animals - deer, coyote, bear, and cougar have become
pests to urban society, because they are running out of places to live. So
they've adapted to urban areas, living off our gardens and garbage. Believe
it or not, deer run the highest risk for man in warmer climates, because
they spread the ticks that carry Lyme Disease.
*Reduction of pest plants - once land has become exposed after being covered
by a canopy for decades or centuries, it is wide open to invasive weeds that
sap all the nutrients from the soil. As a result, replanting a forest can
be an impossible task for several years.
*Stream health - erosion is only one problem (clogging up streams with
sediment or allowing wastes and fertilizers from farming to wash into the
water), then the water warms up (killing off native species who need rivers
to be cool, and allowing in nonnatives that eat the natives or the food that
natives need to survive).
*Soil health - many trees actually "fix" the soil by nitrating it properly,
and filter out pollutants before they can hit the water table. Without the
trees, the soil can "die" or be washed away, and pollutants find a quick
path to the groundwater, which we use for drinking water.
*Cooling of the environment - along with oxygen respiration comes
transpiration, which adds water vapor to the air. One or two large trees
can cool an area by at least 10 degrees, if you factor in the shade, as
well. When a large area of forest has been destroyed - especially if it is
a rainforest or a cloudforest - the environment can warm up considerably.
Those are just a few of the benefits of a native forest. You can find
more in books on the subject.


^^ A treelined boulevard does not a
forest make. Sure, it helps the environment, but a woodpecker that
needs an
old growth snag to nest in is NOT going to survive in a puny little
alder
that's been planted along a boulevard. You cannot think in terms of
merely
trees when you think of deforestation. You must think of their
inhabitants - if you are considering the environment at all.

I don't want wildlife hurt or killed anymore than you do, but our
global societies function depends on utilizing raw materials, and like
it or not, that means death to x amount of wildlife per year.


NOT if it's done correctly. Which is what people in this newsgroup have
been trying to tell you. Look up the numbers yourself, and listen to what
people have to say in regards to proper forestry procedures for maximum
harvest and minimum damage.


^^Golly - then show us mathematical evidence and research that YOU've
found or collected to back up your claim that deforestation is a hoax.
Come
on, it's only fair!

My teenage friend, i've looked at various eco-sites and done google
searches, and cannot find "any" evidence of a depletion crises, i can
find plenty of evidence of poor environmental practices, but these
localized problems are being countered globally by aforestation,
otherwise you'd have proof of depletion beyond your personalized
assertation.


So...you expect the internet to have all the research you need to make
these conclusions? Then there is no hope for you.
A scientist collecting data for a published paper would be laughed out
of his profession if he used the internet as a primary resource for his
work. Even a college professor working on his Masters or Doctorate would be
disqualified for such lazy and unprofessional research tactics. I would
have failed all my classes if I had used eco-sites and google exclusively
for research.
Just because it's on the internet does NOT make it true. And just
because it's NOT on the internet doesn't mean it's nonexistent.
And, just so you know, local problems have to be dealt with LOCALLY.
You cannot counteract a problem in one part of the world with something in
another part. Planting trees in Canada will not solve the loss of the
Amazon Rainforest, just as cracking down on crime in New York will not
reduce the crime rate in Spain.. Conserving a small forest in Europe will
not solve the erosion problems and loss of rare forest species in
Madagascar, just as zero population growth in Norway won't solve the
overpopulation problem in China.
It. Does. Not. Work.


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.

^^Speculation is not data. Listen to data, and take speculation with
a
grain of salt. Do not use it to accuse people who have not made that
speculation.

Exactly, data, empirical evidence, collated by respected authorities
counts as information.


Well, you've got the right idea, but you're applying it improperly. You
use eco-sites and Greenpeace as your resources. I think you need to take a
new look at the term "respected authorities."
Oh, and the people in this NG might be authorities - in their respective
fields. They might know more about a wider topic than what they handle
every day, but that's because they've looked up someone else's research on
the topic. No one here got where they are by researching Greenpeace.


^^And I think I read everyone's posts on this topic, and no one
said that. They're all presenting a realistic viewpoint based on the
data
they DO have. They will not satisfy you, because you do not wish to
be
satisfied by people's educated comments.

The topic was "The deforestation hoax", i've assumed that i'd get
either yay or nay, i've got opinions, all of them worthless as to
answering my question of the truth of a depletion crises.


The SUBJECT was "Deforestation Hoax". The topic was answering your
three questions. Someone DID answer your questions, in a Canadian context.
They live in Canada. That is their area of expertise.
Oh, and you just aren't going to have any luck looking up government
research, unless it's in the form of the vital statistics for a certain
country.


"Educated comments" by uninformed or unarmed people, experts or not,
is meaningless noise as to my question, the only meaningful
information is the collated data that reveals a deforestation crises,
that data has yet to surface, and i don't think it will.


Sorry if no single person here possesses all the collective data and
research of every scientist in every forestry field ever researched. At
some point, people have to assume personal responsibility on your part to
find the information you need if you are not satisfied with what you find
from a handful of people in a discussion group.
The data will surface, or already has surfaced - but you're looking in
the wrong places. If you want hard data on a global scale, you HAVE to
consult sources that have done global research and published it in a
scientific format. Usually, those publications are on paper, to reduce
plagiarism.


^^And, dude - you're posting to a NEWSGROUP. They all enjoy their
field,
and are concerned with their local environment, because it is their
area of
expertise.
Go harass an ecology professor, or something...

Go listen to a Britney Spears CD/DVD.


Ugh, I hate Britney Spears' music. Trashy, naive, fake - couldn't sing
her way out of a wet paper bag. I have a Vocal Music minor. Proper vocal
performance and musical complexity is very important to me. So that rules
out most popular music.
Nice try, though.


^^Forestry practices have been in the process of changing since the
1970s.
Research regarding sustainability and various other harvesting issues
is
just now coming to light. Take that into consideration, and read some
books, scientific journals, and credible websites for the information
you
seek. Or consult a professor at a university that carries a global
forestry
or ecology program.

Don't be ridiculous, what do you think Greenpeace or WWF are doing in
their spare time, LOL, if evidence existed, GP and the WWF would have
it on display on their websites, they don't display it as it doesn't
exist.


What are Greenpeace and WWF doing in their spare time? Probably making
up statistics to back their claims so they can look like legitimate
scientists. THEY ARE NOT FORESTRY EXPERTS. Greenpeace would exaggerate the
data and WWF would only present the data surrounding their current
endangered interest.
Actually, the WWF is not so bad - when it comes to conserving animals.
However, they DO have their activists. They are more focused on saving the
ANIMALS, rather than the animals' environments. They collect money,
primarily - and, even though they're a non-profit group, they have to pay
their employees somehow. I think a lot of their conservation plans are lost
amidst their fundraising efforts.
As for displaying data on their respective websites: They don't display
the data you are looking for, because they have not done the research it
takes to find it. You are severely limiting yourself and your worldview by
taking those two eco-groups' information as gospel. They are not
authorities. They are not experts. They are ACTIVISTS.


^^ WOW. In all my days in college, majoring in Environmental Science,
my
professor would not have allowed me to use newsgroup postings as
legitimate
source material for research papers or, more importantly, to formulate
educated opinions and life decisions - no matter who posted to them.

WOW back at ya, let me make it clear to you that if evidence of a
depletion crises existed, someone on a specialist NG would have it or
could direct me to it, this evidence would be collated and
interpretated, i wouldn't be doing the job of 100's of people.


Then let me direct you: GO TO A LIBRARY AND LOOK IT UP IN A SCIENTIFIC
JOURNAL. The scientists have already done the work for you. It's YOUR job
to look it up!
It is not any other person's job but YOUR OWN to do the research you
seek. You just want someone else to look it up for you. That's lazy and
inconsiderate. This is a discussion group, not a search engine.


^^It
sounds like you have a problem with the PEOPLE who post here, not the
material they wish to discuss. Not to disparage anyone who frequents
this
NG - for they've made a valiant effort to placate your bellig...er,
dissatisfaction - but there are far more experts in the world than
hang out
at this site. I reiterate: GO READ A BOOK.

I've read more books in the last 2 yrs than you've read in your
teenage life.


I don't know, I read a LOT before and during my teenage years. And
many, many more since then.
Maybe from now on you should look for books that answer your questions.


Seriously - dude - you're posting to a newsgroup. You asked
questions.
They answered. Do your own research and collect your own data if
you're not
satisfied.

THE DATA DOESN'T EXIST FOOL, IF IT DID, GREENPEACE OR WWF WOULD
DISPLAY IT ON THEIR WEBSITE.


The only fool here is the one who believes Greenpeace and WWF are the
last word on global environmental problems.


^^ I'd like to state, though, that your questions are not hard - and
certainly not philosophical.

Becareful my scientific friend, you won't be the first over confindent
fool who i educate.


I think education is a matter of perspective, now. I perceive that you
are not educating yourself, and do not wish to in the proper manner.
Therefore, I do believe you cannot educate me in any degree that would meet
or exceed the education I have already received from my time and studies in
college.
And, truly, your answers were in no way philosophical. You're asking
for numbers. Philosophy doesn't deal in numbers - it deals with concepts.
Nothing you've asked is conceptual.
I've taken another look at your original post. Here are some simple
answers to your simple questions:
*Don't believe government research. It is skewed towards economics, and
not environmental concern. University or agency research done by scientists
who are concerned by environmental degredation is what you should look at.
*Your three questions, because I do not wish to look up and crunch the
numbers FOR you, are best answered by consulting a journal of science or
vital statistics for individual countries, and then doing the math yourself.
You must look in the right places to find what you seek. If you don't
find it, keep looking. Don't write anything off as a hoax until you have
DEFINITIVELY PROVEN your assumption (which, despite what you think or say,
you have NOT done yet).


I bet you could find some published statistics
to answer your questions just as easily. Your local university
library
probably has tons more satisfactory information in the form of
scientific
journals - in which hard data has been collected over the course of
years
and then published, with all the mathematical information included.
They're
kind of hard to read, because they're saturated with science and
numbers -
but don't let that stop you!

THE DATA DOESN'T EXIST FOOL, IF IT DID, GREENPEACE OR WWF WOULD
DISPLAY IT ON THEIR WEBSITE.


This is an extremely narrow-minded approach to research. An insult to
professionals everywhere.


And, I hate to break it to you, but commercialism runs the world -

I hate to break it to you that atheism including superficial religion
runs the world, commercialism is the practical application of the
underlying mentality of the world's current masters.


Heh, well THAT came out of left field! There's really no logical reply
to that statement.


Really, you're wasting a lot of steam trying to force your views
on
others when you merely "asked questions."

LOL, grow up son.


This also makes me laugh. I made a statement in a mature fashion,
and you replied with a most immature statement telling me to be more mature.
Classic! Are you sure you're not a teenager?


^^ Here is a slightly different scenerio to put your questioning in
perspective: A Washington State Salmon Fisheries expert could
probably give
you a lot of evidence regarding the depletion of wild salmon due to
loss of
spawning territory; but if you're looking for statistics for loss of
fish
worldwide due to their inability to procreate in an optimal
environment, you
just have to ask someone else - probably lots of someone elses! And
you
just might have to read a book. Anyone who's had to write a
scientific
paper to be graded by a critical hand knows this.

Fool, anyone who can think independently would know that if evidence
existed it would have been offered to the world.


Anyone who can think independantly of the internet knows it already has.
In the form of books and journals. Compiled by real scientists after years
of study. Printed on paper. Stocked in libraries.


Umm...so, yeah. That's my $20.00.
--Sunny

It was all crap, but you'll grow out of it.


I hope I never do, because then I would be like you - an uninformed,
belligerant soul who is too lazy to do his/her own research, so he/she takes
it out on people who worked for their knowledge and are making a living out
of it.
If this issue was truly a concern for you, you would take the time to
find the information through legitimate sources. But since you vacillate
between insulting "angry treehuggers" and holding up Greenpeace as your
ultimate source of information, I have a feeling you are merely confused,
and only seek to argue instead of learning to find answers to your
questions.
"Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day; teach a man to fish, and
he'll never go hungry again." No one has given you the answers you seek,
because no one here has done that particular research or has memorized it if
they ever came across it - and they don't wish to do it for you, because
they have lives and jobs. They have, however, given you the means to find
your answers. But you do not wish to use that means, and thereby remain
uninformed.
Aesop would have had a hayday with you...
--Sunny