You are here

Home › Forums › Social, political and other ugly topics › Election 2008

Do the falling trees make a sound argument about the size of our forests?

Primary tabs

Is there more "forest land" today than any other time in our history? The facts to me seem that we have had to have lost some forest land.

What is counted as "forest land"?

Please comment. Is this even a question that should be answered?

Forums: 
Election 2008
  • Log in to post comments
  • 2604 reads
Thu, 2006-10-05 14:00 — conservinator

Would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.

Fri, 2006-10-06 22:55 — albert

Hello,

While it maybe a nice thing to think we have more trees now then ever before, does it really matter?

Is the thing we called the forest really ours?

If it is ours to use, how should we leave it to the next generation?

Uncle Albert from the song Wings

Sat, 2006-10-07 19:22 — longshadows

It is not true that we have more forests than any time in history.  However, we have more land classified as forests in the U.S. than anytime in the last century or so.  This is due to two facts:1.  Less productive agricultural lands have regrown back into forests.2.  Forest product utilization is so much greater that we can produce more products from less raw material than ever before.Urban sprawl is now the greatest threat to U.S. forests.  We approximately 3 million acres a year to development...yikes! 

Sun, 2006-10-08 07:27 — phecht

The CIA on the USA: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Geo

It really adds nothing to this forum thread. But I know we are building more so that has to take space. If we call a tax cut a duck, it is still a tax cut and a duck is still a duck.

 

combinatorics is counting. It looks harder then it sounds.

 

Pete

Tue, 2006-10-10 08:44 — conservinator

Nature's candy in my hand or can, or pie

Tue, 2006-10-10 08:49 — conservinator

Considering all things involved, which is more wasteful: Driving 3 miles to get to a Fedex-Kinkos, or driving 30 miles to get to a Fedex-Kinkos? You can't have it both ways.Consider another scenario: Only one person on a public transportation vehicle, or only one person in an Acura hatchback, when both travel the same distance. 

Tue, 2006-10-10 23:36 — albert

President Bush has lied to the American people so often I can't remember when he told the truth. Conservantor-Dog has a comfort spot in a fantasy that I will try to respect. Yet, please count how times he was wrong. I would call them lies, but to be polite I will say that he has been wrong.

Your comment about how far a fed ex is from your house, worries me greatly on several levels:

  1. You can do most Kinko's work over the Internet. Also, you can arrange to have them pick up packages as well. So, the distance of 3 miles or 30 miles doesn't matter.

  2. Have you tested yourself for mercury content? I haven't. But it is a major problem. Our glorious leader, Dear President Bush, has lied under his “Clean skies” legislation.

  3. As I recall you credited the 1990's expansion to the 1986 tax cut without accounting for the other tax increases in both the Reagan and WHB. We are spending 2 billion dollars a week on the war in Iraq. Call us a loser, but we can't continue down the road he has taken us.

  4. I do like peaches and when I see them, I want to shake the tree.

Thank you for contributing C-Dog. While I agree with you on more than our President, he hasn't called me lately.

Tue, 2006-10-10 23:46 — albert

FYI, 218K and counting. I may need to buy a new one. It would be great fun to buy a hybrid and taunt Rush L. He stated on a show once he would like to take his SUV and run over every hybrid he sees. In the words of the worst President the United States has EVER had, "Bring it on."

Wed, 2006-12-27 04:24 — conservinator

When did Clinton say "Bring it on?"

You should buy a hybrid. That way you will balance out the ecosystem for my impending Hummer purchase.

Sun, 2006-10-08 07:48 — phecht

Hello,

Just found this pdf report that on page 9, the highlights section has a graph that I think ends this silly debate.

In some way having more forests is used to show we are good stewarts of our land? Bravo! We need men like Hurbert Hoover Christine Todd Whitman again!

Sun, 2006-10-08 10:47 — longshadows

Are you suggesting that having less forests is a better measure of our land stewardship?  Did you also notice in the report that across all ownerships, growth exceeds harvest by 43% for hardwoods and 20% for softwoods.  Therefore, the facts state that we are gaining forested acreage and are growing more wood than we are harvesting.  And, why I asked, is this reason fuel for your cynicism?  By the way, Christie Todd Whitman ran the EPA and had little to nothing to say about U.S. forest policy - with the possible exception of policies regarding forested wetlands.I believe you started this "silly debate," of which you have very little knowledge.  Now, if you don't mind, I have to go out to cut some firewood and kill something in the woods.

Mon, 2006-10-09 22:48 — phecht

First, you maybe surprised that your are not the first person to wonder what I meant. You are not alone.

What I meant to say is the amount of forest is an indicator of health yes. But what about the amount of mecury in our fish? Mother Earth is complex. Even I am not sure why I brought up the Hoover thing. I do think CTW is OK. I was joking at the expense of her beauty?

I found that PDF and wanted to say, our current President, I am RINO on. This time it means "Respect In Name Only". I also happen to be a RINO as in "Republican In Name Only".

How we are screwing the forests is not the right question to ask. The Republicans framed that question so the answer fits their agenda.

You are correct again, the EPA was RUN IN NAME ONLY by the ex-govern of New Jersey. Every Federal Agency since Bush took office is run out of the White House compound. That anyone should be able to see.

The proper question to ask is how many states recommend we eat the fish we catch in-state?

0