U.S Forest Facts and Figures

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Forest area has been relatively
stable since 1907. In 1997, 302 million hectares—
or 33 percent of the total land area of the United States—
was in forest land. Today’s forest land area amounts to
about 70 percent of the area that was forested in 1630.
Since 1630, about 120 million hectares of forest land
have been converted to other uses—mainly agricultural.
More than 75 percent of the net conversion to other uses
occurred in the 19th century.
Million hectares............

Reserved forest land has doubled since 1953 and now
stands at 7 percent of all forest land in the United States.
This reserved forest area includes State and Federal parks
and wilderness areas but does not include conservation
easements, areas protected by nongovernmental organizations,
and most urban and community parks and
reserves. Significant additions to Federal forest reserves
occurred after the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964.........

Total area of planted and natural forest in the
Eastern United States, 1997

Planted 10.4%
16.2 million
hectares

Natural 89.6%
139.2 million
hectares

----------

Total area of planted and natural forest in the
Western United States, 1997

Planted 3.6%
5.3 million
hectares

Natural 96.4%
141.6 million
hectares

---------

Average growing stock volume per acre on timber land
continues to rise across the United States. The rate of
increase has leveled off, partially due to recent increases
in mortality.................

Over the past 50 years, growth has generally exceeded
removals throughout the United States. While removal
levels have leveled off in recent years, there has been a
decided shift from public land in the West to private land
in the East. In 1996, softwood removals in the South
exceeded growth for the first time since 1952, when data
were first reported...............



http://fia.fs.fed.us/library/ForestFactsMetric.pdf (PDF !)

 

[Jon_in_london]

Interesting and of course contradicts the eco-nazis quite well.

But maybe this should be shemped to science forum?

 

[Tmy]

Is it the same trees being planted as cut down? I heard that the industry replaces these old growth trees with faster growing whatever they are called trees.

 

[Thumper]

Not only are forests replaced with monoculture tree farms, but the number of trees planted is irrelevant, as many of those trees never reach maturity for a variety of reasons, including maximum forest density.

 

[Tricky]

Is it the same trees being planted as cut down? I heard that the industry replaces these old growth trees with faster growing whatever they are called trees.

They're called trash forests. They are mostly pine trees, which grow fast and are used for pulpwood. They are devastating to the ecology, not only because they are monoculture but also because pine needles are so acidic that very few plants can grow in the soil around them, thus limiting biodiversity. This in turn limits the fauna, since many of their food sources may be missing. Also, conifers produce much less oxygen than hardwood trees.

What "econazis" are upset about is about the cutting of old growth forests. These cannot regenerate quickly, and if they are replaced with monoculture tree farms, they may never be back again.

But I suppose one tree is just like another one, eh?

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

They're called trash forests. They are mostly pine trees, which grow fast and are used for pulpwood. They are devastating to the ecology, not only because they are monoculture but also because pine needles are so acidic that very few plants can grow in the soil around them, thus limiting biodiversity. This in turn limits the fauna, since many of their food sources may be missing. Also, conifers produce much less oxygen than hardwood trees.

What "econazis" are upset about is about the cutting of old growth forests. These cannot regenerate quickly, and if they are replaced with monoculture tree farms, they may never be back again.

But I suppose one tree is just like another one, eh?

actually, if you take a look at the chart labeled "Forest land by cover type in the Eastern United States, 1997" .... you will read that Oak-hickory and Maple-beech birch are far more plentiful.

but Im sure thats just a government cover-up.

 

[jj]

actually, if you take a look at the chart labeled "Forest land by cover type in the Eastern United States, 1997" .... you will read that Oak-hickory and Maple-beech birch are far more plentiful.

That's what grows in the eastern part of the USA. Oak trees and Maple trees can be weeds, except where the blight that's adapted to Maples is making serious headway.

Birch and aspen, of course, grow even faster.

Of course, none of that mitigates the fact that large areas of the west (where evergreens grow better than they do in the east) are being monocultured. Some parts are being left to reforest naturally.

Do bear in mind that both monoculture and natural reforestation can result in drastically different results from what was cut, at least for thousands of years (10 generations of trees is the number I've heard bandied about, I haven't any solid support for it other than that it allows "initial conditions" to eventually wipe out.).

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

That's what grows in the eastern part of the USA. Oak trees and Maple trees can be weeds, except where the blight that's adapted to Maples is making serious headway.

so you're saying that they're counting saplings as trees to get those numbers ?

Of course, none of that mitigates the fact that large areas of the west (where evergreens grow better than they do in the east) are being monocultured. Some parts are being left to reforest naturally.

I think it's smart they way that these western forests keep getting wiped out by forest fires every year. Really smart.

 

[mgidm86]

A good article:

Save Our Forests With Good Science And Management

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

A good article:

Save Our Forests With Good Science And Management

wow.

thanks for that.

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/agexporter/1999/wood.html

Meanwhile, U.S. wood-product imports from Canada rose even more rapidly than exports, up 55 percent over the 1993-98 period to $9.7 billion. Vigorous U.S. economic growth, a 15-percent increase in the value of the U.S. dollar over the Canadian dollar, rapid growth in U.S. housing construction, and reduced U.S. softwood production in the West fed the strong U.S. import demand, especially for softwood lumber for new housing construction. Despite these factors, Canada’s share of U.S. wood imports remained at about 73 percent during the 1993-98 period.

 

[celter]

Industrial forestry isn't pretty, but we need it. Alternative building materials such as steel, concrete or even plastics are less energy efficient in their manufacture as well as disposal. Also, resource extraction of these alternatives is nearly always less environmentally friendly. It's worth noting too that alternative paper making materials such as hemp require a far greater land base than do forests. I spend much of my time in "monoculture" pine forests and without doubt they are home to a diverse mix of wildlife; true monoculture farms such as hemp farms, however, are not.

In British Columbia, when I log on crown lands I am required to replant blocks I cut with a species distribution similar to that which I have harvested, which often happens to be a single species. I understand that most industrial forestry in the US is on private lands and I don't know if replanting is regulated or done at the whim of the landholder. Either way, it only makes sense to plant species that have the best chance of thriving, and that happens to be what was there originally, monoculture or not. Many species do not grow well in mixed stands because they have unique shade or light tolerances and soil type preferences. Many pines for example grow naturally and grow best when pure.

There are many who are opposed to any level of forest management and who believe we simply should not be harvesting trees. I'm often accused of cutting irreplaceable old-growth when I'm working in 120 year old pine forests, this in spite of the fact that these are over-mature stands with plenty of dead dry wood just waiting for a lightening strike. These pine forests never get to much more than 100 to 140 years.

 

[jj]

so you're saying that they're counting saplings as trees to get those numbers ?

Is there a reason why you've chosen to illicitly create this straw man and suggest that I hold such a position?

Why don't you address the monoculture issues.

Somebody pointed out monoculture problems, your replied with a completely irrelevant (and I assume correct as originally stated) fact regarding eastern forests, which are not the large "managed forests" in the USA.

I replied to that, and you once again simply dodged the monoculture issue entirely, aind (it would appear willfully) created a false position to try to lay at my feet.

You're one step from troll now in my book.

Why the dodging?

Oh, and while I'm at it, what's with the James Watt approach to forest fires? You seem to be presuming a position on my part.

Please show me where I've opposed reasonable logging and forest management. (Hint, it will be a cold day in Phoenix in July before you can do that.)

Reasonable forest management does allow for both cleanup and logging. Clearcutting is just as bad as a forest fire, and causes many of the same problems.

 

[jj]

In British Columbia, when I log on crown lands I am required to replant blocks I cut with a species distribution similar to that which I have harvested, which often happens to be a single species. I understand that most industrial forestry in the US is on private lands and I don't know if replanting is regulated or done at the whim of the landholder. Either way, it only makes sense to plant species that have the best chance of thriving, and that happens to be what was there originally, monoculture or not. Many species do not grow well in mixed stands because they have unique shade or light tolerances and soil type preferences. Many pines for example grow naturally and grow best when pure.

There are many who are opposed to any level of forest management and who believe we simply should not be harvesting trees. I'm often accused of cutting irreplaceable old-growth when I'm working in 120 year old pine forests, this in spite of the fact that these are over-mature stands with plenty of dead dry wood just waiting for a lightening strike. These pine forests never get to much more than 100 to 140 years.

Frankly, your position sounds entirely sane to me. What I don't see you doing is replacing species, putting in monoculture where it wasn't originally monoculture, and in general grossly altering the local ecology (other than by cutting down trees, but that's hard to avoid if you need to cut them down).

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Is there a reason why you've chosen to illicitly create this straw man and suggest that I hold such a position?

Why don't you address the monoculture issues.

Tricky suggested that old forests are being replaced only with monocultured pine and that is not true ( as I pointed out with the segment of the forestry document ).

please refer to celter's post as well.

Somebody pointed out monoculture problems, your replied with a completely irrelevant (and I assume correct as originally stated) fact regarding eastern forests, which are not the large "managed forests" in the USA.

someone pointed out ALLEGED monoculture problems. The fact I posted showed that eastern forests contain a wide variety of trees. If I'm not mistaken, the most managed forests are in the south....eastern forests.....correct ?

can you or Tricky provide any evidence that shows how these forests in the Wests are being replaced with a monoculture that was not originally there ?

I replied to that, and you once again simply dodged the monoculture issue entirely, aind (it would appear willfully) created a false position to try to lay at my feet.

I didnt dodge the issue. I pointed out some necessary facts that it seemed Tricky was overlooking.

You seem to have a crush on me lately. Your responses to my posts are becoming a bit (irrationally) heated. Do you want a hug ?

You're one step from troll now in my book.

Why the dodging?

it could be that you're so "smart" you arent able to hold a conversation or you're hiding behind your keyboard in the hopes of projecting an intelligent facade.

dodging ?

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Oh, and while I'm at it, what's with the James Watt approach to forest fires? You seem to be presuming a position on my part.

Please show me where I've opposed reasonable logging and forest management. (Hint, it will be a cold day in Phoenix in July before you can do that.)

are you paraniod ?

Im just trying to have a conversation with you and you're becoming more and more defensive about what I say as if I'm accusing you of something.

Reasonable forest management does allow for both cleanup and logging. Clearcutting is just as bad as a forest fire, and causes many of the same problems. [/B]

are you sure that the forest management being used is accurately described as "clearcutting" ?

 

[jj]

Tricky suggested that old forests are being replaced only with monocultured pine and that is not true ( as I pointed out with the segment of the forestry document ).

Yes, so you replied to my posting, not his, about his suggestions?

Am I missing something here? I don't think so.

someone pointed out ALLEGED monoculture problems. The fact I posted showed that eastern forests contain a wide variety of trees. If I'm not mistaken, the most managed forests are in the south....eastern forests.....correct ?

More land in the west, last I looked.

You seem to have a crush on me lately. Your responses to my posts are becoming a bit (irrationally) heated. Do you want a hug ?

An interesting assertion, but hardly born out by the facts. You've just exhibited outrageous behavior, try not to be astonished when somebody calls you on it.
[/B]

And you're dodging again. The monoculture issues (on both public and private land) are documented rather nicely. The problem, fortunately, is not ubiquitous.

So why don't you refute several-decades old work with some science, not a political action site?

Your agenda is showing.

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

And you're dodging again. The monoculture issues (on both public and private land) are documented rather nicely. The problem, fortunately, is not ubiquitous.

please show me this nicely documented evidence of the problem.
I posted information from the forestry document in order to have a discussion about the information there.

If you claim there is a problem, please bring some evidence to the discussion.

So why don't you refute several-decades old work with some science, not a political action site?

Your agenda is showing. [/B]

hilarious. I didnt even post the political action site.
your IQ is showing.

 

[jj]

are you paraniod ?

No.
Are you an honest person?

Im just trying to have a conversation with you and you're becoming more and more defensive about what I say as if I'm accusing you of something.

No, you're trolling with deliberate intent to annoy. Why else would you create positions out of nothing, and lay them at the feet of people who haven't ever held them, if you were interested in a conversation?

are you sure that the forest management being used is accurately described as "clearcutting" ?

And another misrepresentation.
If you want to argue about that, find somebody who asserted it, and argue with them.

(And, by the way, I've walked past the road hedge in Glacier NP in the last year, and yes, those clearcut areas had fresh stumps last fall. Of course, that's not what I'm calling "forest management", nor am I saying that's what the word means, despite your illicit straw man.)

If you want to have a "conversation" try replying to what I'm saying, and stop making up positions that you can shoot at.

Your contempt for ethics is showing clearly now, troll.

 

[jj]

please show me this nicely documented evidence of the problem.
I posted information from the forestry document in order to have a discussion about the information there.

Do your own homework.

If you claim there is a problem, please bring some evidence to the discussion.

Do you normally simply repeat what others say to you back at them? Is this your definition of a "conversation"?

hilarious. I didnt even post the political action site.

And I didnt' say you did. Once again, you are unable to read what others have written.

your IQ is showing.

You're being a jerk.