I think we agree on the basic issues, Doug.

Now it is more the application/trustworthiness of "common sense" that has me interested. This issue strikes me a particularly straight-forward (as compared to many others that arise).

Reviewing the facts as I understand them:
1) It is a fact that the original inhabitants of North America, the Indians, had no cities, roads or farms.
2) It is a fact that the overall environmental conditions were virtually wholly "natural". Accordingly, there would be forests where it was prime for forests to be, grasslands where grasslands thrived, etc. All would have been in the 'usual' state of flux - established, starting, atrophing.
3) When Europeans arrived in numbers they didn't plant tress, they cut them down to use for shelter, fuel, farmland and lots of other stuff. Eventually there were cities, towns, roads, airports, military bases, etc. that required space causing the cutting of even more trees.
4) To get back to the tree population on arrival of the Europeans we would have to do one or a combination of:
-- replant trees in all of the areas where they had been formerly cut down;
-- plant trees in areas where trees previously weren't, to a number matching the prior population of trees.
We know that the first hasn't been done. The second is hardly likely, mainly because seedlings are generally planted where cutting has occurred but also because trees wouldn't have been planted in areas not that prime for trees. And if they were they probably haven't done well.

So, leaving semantical definitions of "tree" or "wood" aside and thinking in the traditional terms, how could there possibly be more trees now than there were when Europeans got here?

Of course I wouldn't ask if I didn't think it was possible that some germane fact is missing. Can you think what it is?
Cheers


>Jim,
>
>>Hmmmm, are we supposed to pick the one we "believe"???
>
>Well, you will anyways... <g>
>
>Actually, I found information that could be used by both 'sides' in this discussion and I wanted to include it.
>
>As far as my 'take' I think that there's a difference between 'old growth' (defined as > 200 years?) and newer growth. From the stats I read things started to turn around quite dramatically after 1952. Had the forests bneen lower in nombers of trees? Apparently so. Have we managed to reverse the decline? Apparently so. Are there more trees now? Apparently so.
>
>Should we do our best to manage the forest lands> Sure, you bet. Have we all done everything possible? Nope, no way. Are we doing better than other countries? I'd think so. Can we do better? Sure. Should we to the point of harming businesses? IMO, no. Where we have conflicts that are justifiable as opposed to politically driven 'earth first and at any cost' type agendas or 'business first at the expense of the environment' we should hammer out the best tradeoffs we are able to devise today.
>
>Candidly, the folks that I have seen that are the most irresponsible have been those who want to completely be rid of man. They will happily burn down a business for their cause. My father-in-law used to have a furrier in the office he now occupies and it was attacked by these nitwits and set on fire.
>
>
>>
>>Your second reference in the list says: "Before European colonization, the forest covered 46 percent of the land and was far more diverse than today. It now covers about 32 percent, and virtually none of the original trees (old-growth forests) remain."
>>
>>Now this isn't numbers of trees and it may be that the 32% remaining today is far more densly planted than the 46% was on colonization day.
>>
>>My view is rather simple, really. I grew up in Montreal and environs. On colonization day there was nary a city, town, village or farm in that whole area. It was basically all forest. Now, basically, the trees are limited to sugaring-off stands of maples. This for, at least 1000 sq.mi., probably much more.
>>Allow similarly for other major and more minor cities of north america and it follows that there is less area with trees planted than there was back when.
>>
>>I can't imagine companies having planted seedlings in areas that were never forested at one time or another. I generally see their activity as being in:
>>1) areas they have harvested;
>>2) areas they have purchased from farmers intending to return to forests.
>>In fact it is doubtful that any area that was not previously a forest could sustain a forest - it would have been one to start with.
>>
>>
>>>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.