Original Forest Cover 1620 USA

I'm just interested by what you think of that image. It doesn't include Alaska which apparantely still has a lot of remaining forests.

I hear they still log the remaining ancient forests over there. Man that's weird, enoughs been cut. So what do you think of deforestation? NZ is sad the extent of it, but what remains is a good amount and we're chopping very little. But for anyone who has enjoyed a forest you can't justify the clearing.

Anyway...

First of all welcome back! This is the first time I have seen you in a while anyway. I think cutting down all thoise trees is bullshit. Epecially when you do it for cows to roam and stuff, cuz their, umm.. bodily gas creates reen house gasses so that two birds with one stone. Most peoples respect for this earth is just shocking alot of the time.

Had to check my eyesight for a second or three there, having just seen an educated member lurking about the forum! Nice to see you're still popping in from time to time, Anton. PM me some time man, long time no speak.

I'm neither for it nor against it--but more leaning towards the latter side of that phrase; I haven't studied it enough, but do know enough to realise that deforestation isn't too healthy for the Earth.

Don't expect many more replies to your thread though.

Mick

In 1620 this country wasn't too far removed from the "hunting and gathering" stage in our development. We're bigger by a couple hundred million today...did you want to go back to that?

Let the discussion begin...

tony b.

It all depends, I guess, on how you look at progress. Some people view environmental preservation as progress, and some view industrial advancement as progress. From the mid 1800s and on, the United States has worked damn hard at becoming the strongest, fastest growing, and (economically) biggest country in the world. They've (we've) accomplished most every goal that was set out in this regard. The fact remains that the bigger part of our forests is now nonexistent, and it's just a matter of whether or not that's a reasonable sacrifice.

Maybe the bigger accomplishment would have been to find a balance of how to surge on economically and industrially, while preserving as much natural life as possible. But that's unfortunately not how it works; it's one or the other. It's a zero-sum game, all the way. If we concentrated on keeping the environment healthy, I wonder if any of us would know who Rockefeller, Carnegie, or Morgan were.

Ironically, the modern resources that now go into forest and wildlife preservation are the very fruits of the industrial revolution that put the environment in this position in the first place.

Anyway, all this to say; one's decision about the degree to which deforestation is good or bad is incumbent on the choice between preservation and industry. Like I said, in a zero-sum game, you can't have both.

As sad as I do find it all, especially looking at places where there is a motorway or a power plant and thinking man, once this was beautiful, but I accept that a reasonable amount of deforestation WAS needed to progress. But now? The Tongass forest in Alaska was saved by Greenpeace, it's one of Americas biggest forests and they were planning to cut down large portions for lumber mining, and simply clearing. It's got to a stage that we've muscled out all the animals to small pockets, killing off plenty of species, and yet we would still clear it? I mean look at the Amazon, the worlds most naturally biodiverse regions, yet it is still cleared for cattle. Nearly 45% of its original state is nearly gone. There's so much free land left in the area too for you to have your farms, it's strange.

I'm not saying it wasn't neccessary to clear most of the Eastern United States as has happened but need you cut any more? I have grown up around forests and tell you now they are the most beautiful, amazing places on the entire planet. Why would anyone want a planets wilderness gone? Not to mention the indigenous people in Amazon, Congo, Indonesia etc who have even been murdered even so the logging companies can keep logging. Anyway, if you need wood the world has plenty of plantations and plenty of room for plantations.

It's my opinion, but who here has enjoyed a forest (and believe me, North America has beautiful forests)?

'Zia, I don't think it's necessarily an either/or issue. In fact, I'd say there is significant evidence that some city planners saw it NOT as a necessary evil, but rather as a necessary GOOD. Daniel Burnham's plan for Chicago called for a series of boulevards linking together the parks in Chicago. For the most part, his plan has been realized with the direct benefit being a much lower population density and less overcrowding. The county (Cook County) oversees a Forest Preserve district which encompasses tens of thousands of acres of undeveloped forest land just in Cook County alone. These provide a much needed break in development, help the flow of traffic, provide a haven for indiginous wildlife, provide recreation space for the people in the area, prevent flooding by absorbing and holding rainfall and snowmelt...and I'm sure plenty more...

We simply don't appreciate the EXISTING benefit of this environmental preservation that we already take for granted.

Has the city and county done everything in their power to make the parks and forests safe for our benefit? Perhaps so that we utilize those resources more than we do? I would say that they are getting better...

Montgomery Ward was a major advocate or preserving the greenspace along Lake Michigan in Chicago. I can't imagine the entire lakefront built to the water's edge. Again, a prudent city planner saw the necessary good in environmental preservation.

...don't get me started on the waterways...

Some natural forces are at work in our forests as well. The chestnut blight and Dutch elm disease (thank the Europeans for both) have virtually eradicated both species from the North American continent. We can thank our Asian friends for the longhorn beetle. And the latest threat to the ash tree comes from another insect recently imported to our country. We can hold some of these in check by our diligence, however they have the potential to become more than we can handle.

A lot of that forest land is now utilized as renewable farm land providing seed and feed for current and future needs. I don't think anyone would disagree with that trade-off. I advocate planting/re-planting trees on farm land to serve as wind breaks. As the population grew, we needed places to live. I advocate negotiating greenspace, park land, and tree planting in any new housing developments. I do NOT support any law prhibiting a homeowner from cutting down trees on his private property.

We needed natural resources to drive the economic engine of industrial development. I strongly advocate the reclamation, restoration and reforestation of any type of mining operation. I advocate the reclamation and restoration of abandoned industrial property. On Chicago's southeast side, along Lake Michigan, is a couple hundred acres of property that once hosted US Steel's South Works. ("We're bigger than US Steel.") I advocate dedicating land along the lakefront for greenspace on that property. Any new development on that land should also have allowances for greenspace and park land.

A number of public interests are served by preserving greenspace and forests across our country.

tony b.

CUT DOWN ALL THE FORESTS!!!!

Since Lord of the Rings I haven't been able to get past a forest without freaking. Bloody goblins.

Balance. That's the key. On one side greed on the other side need. If there is money to be made by striking a balance, then some industrialists will capitalize on it.