Evan,

>>There are more trees in the ground now than when this country was founded
>
>Prove it.


http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/Research/grasslands4.htm
http://www.sciam.com/1998/0498issue/0498scicit4.html
http://bbs.annex.com/karl/science/environ.htm
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0897greenpeace.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/021093.html
http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/boise/timber/forhealth.html

http://www.tntech.edu/~mww/www/FAIR.html
Late 1770's ~ 850 million acres of trees
1952 ~ 664 million acres of trees
1987 ~ 731 million acres of trees

"According to the U.S. Forest Service, annual timber growth in the U.S. now exceeds harvest by 37 percent. Annual growth has exceeded harvest every year since 1952. In 1992, just 384,000 acres - six-tenths of 1 percent of the National Forest land open to harvesting - were actually harvested. As a result of growth steadily exceeding harvests, the number of wooded acres in the U.S. has grown 20 percent in the past twenty years. The average annual wooded growth in the U.S. today is an amazing three times what it was in 1920. In Vermont, for example, the area covered by forests has increased from 35 percent a hundred years ago to about 76 percent today." - Joseph Bast, Peter Hill and Richard Rue, Eco-Sanity: A Common Sense Guide to Environmentalism (Madison Books: 1994), p. 23." (Italics mine)

So.. Start in 1987 and multiply by a generous 5% where the U.S. Forest Service Service states 37% and you get 1447 acres. Let's multiply by an even more generous 2% (1.02) and we get 964 acres.

Do the math. Even with a modest growth rate you're ahead, all things considered...

For starters. I'll dig out more as I find time.

Evan, we all need to think these things through a little.

I will admit that we now do NOT have as much 'virgin' forest acerage as we did a couple hundred years ago but that sort of stands to reason, don't you think? < s >

I think that people forget that we've had a very agressive forest managemtn policy in place in the States for quite a number of years. As a matter of fact it was a Republican by the name of THeodore Roosevelt that started it all. Now, I don't think that all conservatives, Republicans, liberal or Deomcrats are 'pro-forest' but I also do not think that they are all 'anti' either. The facts indicate that by agressively managing resources we are ahead.

ALso.. Remember that during the early years of this nationa a LOT of trees were cut down. They didn't make many steel and concrete buildings back then. <g>

Should we be responsible with natural resources? Sure. Should we irresponsibly prohibit the crop management of forestry? No, no way.