[theblackalchemist]

It's a study to see what takes place in your country more

[theblackalchemist]

Every one vote please !
While you are at it you are free to post your experiences in saving the earth here
TBA

[Turtle]

There is more forest in the US today than 100 years ago and we are planting more trees than we harvest.

PS Still looking for more data; this source says more than 70 years ago...

Originally Posted by tappi.org

Are we running out of trees in the U.S.?

No; in fact, there are more trees in the U.S. today than there were 70 years ago.

Paper University - All About Paper

This source says 80 years...

HPVA :: Hardwood Plywood and Veneer Association

[Jay-qu]

You know what, Im not sure I know there are big plantations, but everywhere around the urban areas only seem to be getting cleared without much replanting.

[Cedars]

Generally, I would have to say holding steady or slightly increasing.

But one has to keep this in mind with the HUGE deforestation that took place prior to the increases. And I would say a hundred acres of christmas trees doesnt quite make up a forest.

20 years before you can begin to call a pine planting a 'forest'

40 years before you can call it an oak forest.....

[Larv]

Originally Posted by theblackalchemist

There are four kinds of people in the world

1) those who don't know and think that they know are foolish - shun them

2) those who don't know and know that they don't know are simple - Teach them

3) those who know and don't know that that they know are asleep - Awaken them

4) those who know, and know that they know are intelligent - Follow them

...and then there is: 5) those who know that they know what they know is the only truth worth knowing are arrogant - expose them.

—Larv

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Cedars

Generally, I would have to say holding steady or slightly increasing.

But one has to keep this in mind with the HUGE deforestation that took place prior to the increases. And I would say a hundred acres of christmas trees doesnt quite make up a forest.

20 years before you can begin to call a pine planting a 'forest'

40 years before you can call it an oak forest.....

If I'm not mistaken, the figures I put up refer to the volume of wood in board feet, not the acreage coverage, or number of trees. There is a lot of forest farming going on beyond Xmas trees, including selected harvesting for pulp, lumber, & fencing for example. It doesn't take large trees for these products, and they are sustainable. Much of the best practice here in the PNW is found on private holdings, and I think the government has a lot to learn from them.

I realize there is wide variability among states, but on the whole the US is planting more trees right now than we harvest as I understand the figures.

PS Checked my links, and they are referring to acreage contrary to what I just said; however, when loggers scale trees, they do so by volume, i.e. the number of board feet and by this measure a smaller healthy stand contains more lumber than a larger area forest of unhealthy trees.

[freeztar]

A lot of trees are being planted in the US, but I wouldn't call it afforestation.
Monoculture does not produce a forest. It is spooky to go into one of these "forests" because all the trees are evenly spaced in rows and it is dead silent. These monoculture stands are known to not harbor wildlife (besides maybe some squirrels and crows here in the south).
So I think it's a misnomer to call such places forests, and in that sense, I don't believe there is a lot of afforestation going on.

Cutting down a 500 year old forest is not replaceable with a reseeding of Douglas Fir, especially if that reseeding is cut down in forty years.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by freeztar

A lot of trees are being planted in the US, but I wouldn't call it afforestation.
Monoculture does not produce a forest. It is spooky to go into one of these "forests" because all the trees are evenly spaced in rows and it is dead silent. These monoculture stands are known to not harbor wildlife (besides maybe some squirrels and crows here in the south).
So I think it's a misnomer to call such places forests, and in that sense, I don't believe there is a lot of afforestation going on.

Cutting down a 500 year old forest is not replaceable with a reseeding of Douglas Fir, especially if that reseeding is cut down in forty years.

In the kindest possible terms, poppycock! While x-mas tree farms may plant in rows, that is not how forest land is replanted here in the NW. Furthermore, of the 16% of land that is private forest in Oregon, there is a concerted effort to foster the natural diversity of tree species as this ameliorates loss of harvest/revenue in the event of a species specific pathogens/insects infestation.

I just watched a PBS special on NW forestry in Oregon and inspite of all the eco-freak dooms-day claims, the private owners look to me to be improving the forests.

OPB Pressroom: THE OREGON STORY Poses New Questions on Forest Gridlock

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Turtle

If I'm not mistaken, the figures I put up refer to the volume of wood in board feet, not the acreage coverage, or number of trees. There is a lot of forest farming going on beyond Xmas trees, including selected harvesting for pulp, lumber, & fencing for example. It doesn't take large trees for these products, and they are sustainable. Much of the best practice here in the PNW is found on private holdings, and I think the government has a lot to learn from them.

I realize there is wide variability among states, but on the whole the US is planting more trees right now than we harvest as I understand the figures.

PS Checked my links, and they are referring to acreage contrary to what I just said; however, when loggers scale trees, they do so by volume, i.e. the number of board feet and by this measure a smaller healthy stand contains more lumber than a larger area forest of unhealthy trees.

uh oh... I need to clarify...

I understood TBAs poll and question from a general ecologically healthy forest standpoint rather than a harvest for profit regard. I have a little DNR produced brochure states that "an unmanaged 40 acre aspen/birch stand typically might appeal to 15 species of mammal and 60-80 species of birds. If that same woodland were modified by harvest, openings or other habitat improvements, the greater variety of habitat types would increase the numbers and kinds of wildlife species."

The point I was trying to make was by planting 500 acres of one type of tree in an area (and this is region specific) you narrow the health of a forest. A natural forest has at least several types of trees, in varied growth stages, with a wide variety of plant life below. Our forest management practices are usually geared towards profitable harvest, and row after row of similar sized trees, planted in groupings that negate actual forest diversity in general.

And while people do plant trees around the borders of their property, or to shade certain parts of their yards, not alot of thought is given to the diversity on a wide scale plan. So you can technically have mile after mile of three or four tree types, rather than the 10 - 20 types of varied ages typically found in less than a mile of forest.

For example:
I have 5 acres of land. I have 4 types of conifer and 2 types of oak (varied ages) a small stand of aspen, a few cottonwoods, basswood, hickory, locust, plum, cherry, elm, box elder, and birch, that I can think of right now. The surrounding forests have a few additional types. 2 acres of this land is open grassland/forest edge type. I have tamarack and black spruce nearby, but my particular landscape doesnt support those types of tree. That is a diverse forest example and more along the lines of what I think of when I hear the term 'forest'.

It also contributes to my great backyard birding/wildlife watching