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?

Why don't you show your intelligence and answer those questions yourself. In
order to prove whatever it is you're trying to prove, but too humble to
express. G

--
Joe Zorzin

wrote in message
om...
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?

"Joe Zorzin" wrote in message
...
Why don't you show your intelligence and answer those questions yourself.
In
order to prove whatever it is you're trying to prove, but too humble to
express. G

Ma Boy! Your back and in form! Hibernation over for the year?

Don Staples wrote:
"Joe Zorzin" wrote in message
...

Why don't you show your intelligence and answer those questions yourself.

In

order to prove whatever it is you're trying to prove, but too humble to
express. G

Ma Boy! Your back and in form! Hibernation over for the year?


Hey Joe, (high five!)
Is it finally too cold to paint trees? Or did switching to Lookout
Express crash your computer?

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.

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:

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

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.
The facts are that we have plenty of forests left, otherwise the
promoters of depletion would quickly prove it. They haven't, they
can't and they won't as it's a propaganda spin designed to legitimize
various environ"mental" groups.

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."

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/

They say that between 1964 to 1994 there was a net loss of 376,560,000
Hectares of forest and woodlands. 1994 ws the last year that I could
quickly find statistics for. That's 12,552,000 Ha per year

Land Use
Forests And Woodland*(1000Ha)
Year 1994
AGG_COUNTRIES 8,344,870
(Aggregate of all countries)

Year 1964
AGG_COUNTRIES 8,721,430

If you would like a more detailed analysis, I would be happy to supply
one at my regular consulting rates.

I think that you will find the picture changes dramatically depending on
where you look.

In article ,
wrote:

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?

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

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.

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.

otherwise the
promoters of depletion would quickly prove it. They haven't, they
can't and they won't as it's a propaganda spin designed to legitimize
various environ"mental" groups.

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.

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

"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.




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/

They say that between 1964 to 1994 there was a net loss of 376,560,000
Hectares of forest and woodlands. 1994 ws the last year that I could
quickly find statistics for. That's 12,552,000 Ha per year

Land Use
Forests And Woodland (1000Ha)
Year 1994
AGG_COUNTRIES 8,344,870
(Aggregate of all countries)

Year 1964
AGG_COUNTRIES 8,721,430

If you would like a more detailed analysis, I would be happy to supply
one at my regular consulting rates.

I think that you will find the picture changes dramatically depending on
where you look.

In article ,
wrote:

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?

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

wrote:
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.
The facts are that we have plenty of forests left, otherwise the
promoters of depletion would quickly prove it. They haven't, they
can't and they won't as it's a propaganda spin designed to legitimize
various environ"mental" groups.

There are few things as pointless as doing another's homework for them
or answering global questions from regional points of view. I doubt if
any of the regulars here are familiar with the state of forests in OZ.
You could probably bring in something interesting on that. Now if
you're smart, you'll fine tune your question and remember that this is a
discussion group, not a library.

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?

(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?



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.

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.





They say that between 1964 to 1994 there was a net loss of 376,560,000
Hectares of forest and woodlands. 1994 ws the last year that I could
quickly find statistics for. That's 12,552,000 Ha per year

Land Use
Forests And Woodland*(1000Ha)
Year 1994
AGG_COUNTRIES 8,344,870
(Aggregate of all countries)

Year 1964
AGG_COUNTRIES 8,721,430

If you would like a more detailed analysis, I would be happy to supply
one at my regular consulting rates.


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.




I think that you will find the picture changes dramatically depending on
where you look.




Doesn't this suggest that the deforestation crisis is a hoax, we all
know forests are being harvested, we want to know if there is a
depletion threat. You seem to be suggesting that your professional
research will not yield any truth, can you see why i'm skeptical, i
don't doubt that environmental destruction and devastation are both
occuring, but that is being tempered by conservation and aforestation.

I've made the assumption that you're touting the hoax, if you're not,
and are an advocate of conservation and aforestation, excuse my
indulgence.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.


I think that you will find the picture changes dramatically depending on
where you look.

Doesn't this suggest that the deforestation crisis is a hoax, we all
know forests are being harvested, we want to know if there is a
depletion threat. You seem to be suggesting that your professional
research will not yield any truth, can you see why i'm skeptical, i
don't doubt that environmental destruction and devastation are both
occuring, but that is being tempered by conservation and aforestation.

I've made the assumption that you're touting the hoax, if you're not,
and are an advocate of conservation and aforestation, excuse my
indulgence.

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.

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".

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.



Any other suggestions?

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