Quote:
Originally Posted by kuser:)
In USA, 96% of forests are gone. The problem is, that people don't know it because they were born after that happened: they only see the world from their current perspective, and they think it's not as bad as others say.
|
A couple of 'rules of thumb' of remember when you are trying to engage in debate, politics in particular-
1- always check your sources. Dont use some random video from the net to make or backup a point.
2- be aware that you need to be _exact_ with your wording.
96% of forests cut down in the U.S? Nope. 96% of 'old growth' forests cut down? At least possible....
BTW, in this post I will use 'old growth forest' not 'virgin forest'. The definition of 'virgin, 'old growth', etc. are something that people play with, depending on location and the politics around forests, etc..
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsfine
I also understand how that 96% stat was arrived at. It was made up with no supporting data, just like 92.38% of other statistics on the internet. If it had been in the ballpark of reality, then I might have considered the possibility that it was some distorted misinterpretation of actual data. But 96% is too far from reality.
|
There IS 'supporting data'. Not from some orgainisation that you can automatically demonise as 'leftist' either. The Minnesota Department Of Natural Resources-
Quote:
|
Minnesota's forest covers just over half the land it did 150 years ago. Old-growth forest has declined much more-by 96%.
|
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/forests_t.../survival.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsfine
You could mean we cut down far more than 96% of some really dense and important (per acre) forests, while leaving less important forests. But where do you imagine that happened. You could consider the red wood forests of California more important per acre, but FAR less than 96% of those were cut down.
|
Sure about that?
Quote:
|
It is estimated that more than 95% of the original old-growth redwood forest has been cut down for timber
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoia_sempervirens
Yes, a wiki link, but its froma book ("Kelly, D. and G. Braasch. 1988. Secrets of the old growth forest"). I think I've got a copy around here somewhere, I'm sure I read it years ago.
Its more than possible to trash that book, but its more than possible to trash all sorts of statistics......some of which you have used to reinforce you political position. There is the out and out ill informed stuff yuo ahve posted as well (and I would say 'lie' but I dont think you know you were speading cow-dough)
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsfine
In the 1850s, Massachusetts had ZERO forests.
|
Wrong.
Quote:
|
The hemlock-northern hardwood forest within the Cold River Virgin Forest is considered a climax association and the only virgin stand in New England. As the steep topography prohibits logging, hemlocks and sugar maples exceed 400 years in age and average three feet in diameter.
|
http://www.nature.nps.gov/nnl/site.cfm?Site=CORI-MA
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsfine
You could mean the regrown post farm use forests are inferior to the pre farm use forests. But there is no evidence they are inferior at all, plus post farm use forests are mainly a Massachusetts thing and Massachusetts isn't big enough to matter in the national total of forests.
|
You might be a fine economist (debatable, but I cant be bothered from everything I've seen on this thread) but you sure arent a foresty worker...
Old growth forests are superior to second-growth (and third growth) forests in several key areas. No matter if its 'post farm use', just left after forestry operations, or even if the area is replanted (in most cases). .
Old growth forests
in general have-
Increased biodiversity.
Larger biomass.
Higher potential for cabon absorbtion.
More possible habitats for animals.
There is also the bad effects from harvesting-
Errosion increases.
Soil fertility decreases.
Plus the way that harvesting is done tends to remove the most valuable trees, leaving 'weed' tree species. Which then reproduce more quickly than the valuable trees.
I've seen this myself where I used to live. It was clear-cut in the late 1800s/early 1900s. The species that now dominates that area is the 'apple box', which has farily useless timber, replacing ghost gums, antarctic beech and other species with excellent timber.
Dont forget the games with statistics and forestry- cut down some mixed hardwood/softwood old growth forest. Replace everything with monoculture softwood or hardwood. You now have none of the advantages of a mixed tree old growth forest, with the disadvantages of all monocultures. Disease problems in particular.
Statistically, it still counts as a forested area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsfine
The US has not been steadily losing forest for hundreds of years to get from the giant primeval forest (that never existed) to the current continuous run of parking lots from Boston to DC (that takes a carefully chosen route and a few exceptions to really claim).
|
Strawman? Sure, the U.S. wasnt covered 100% with forest in the recent (geological) time. The plains, for example, wouldnt have had much more than scrub, and has probably been nothing but grassland for thousands of years, minimum. However, huge areas of the US were forested, pretty much everything east of the Mississippi river would have been forest. A squirrel would have been able to get from modern Florida to Newfoundland without touching the ground. Apart from natural barriers like rivers, hunger, predation and possibly even age.
If that doesnt count as a 'giant primeval forest' what does?
I'll let everyone get back to Democrat/Republican Tweedledum/Tweedledee now.
