IDAHO'S MAGRUDER CORRIDER TRAIL AND PLENTIFUL IDAHO FORESTS
Posted on 03/11/2012 7:40:44 AM PDT by Jeff Head
I saw Lorax yesterday with five of my grankids, ages 10 down to 5.
It was a fun kids movie, but clearly slanted towards environmentalism and particularly with an anti-business and anti-lumber company...really, and anti-capitalism bias.
On the way home it provided teaching moments. I asked the kids how many of them did not like lumber companies that cut down and harvest trees and why. All of them said they did not like them because they are "stealing our air," hurting animals, and destroying their places to live.
I pointed to the Boise Mountains which we could see from the windows of my Pickup Truck, which they love to drive in...crew cab, 4x4 with a big V-8, and said,
"You see all that dark green on the mountains as far as you can see...that's forests. Almost all lumber companies do not cut down "all" the forests. In fact, they plant more than they cut. We have more forests in the US now than they did 300 years ago in Colonial America."
I then asked..."Who likes wooden playground swings, see saws, etc., pencils, your furniture, your houses?" They all said they did. I asked them to start looking for things made of wood as we drove...they saw fences, signs, roofs, paper, carts, trailers, etc., etc. I told them that all of that was made from wood by companies who, yes make a profit because those people have jobs...but who also try and make the forests better, and bigger in the process.
After a good ten minutes of them pointing out all of these thigns, I then asked, "Who likes lumber companies now, and why?"
At that point they all said they did because they are really making more forest which makes more air, and trying to protect the forests even if they do cut down some of the trees and all of the neat things we have in society because those companies are working in the forests.
This is a long explanation...but it was a good teaching moment for grandpa and I thought I should share.
AMEIRCA AT THE CROSSROADS OF HISTORY.
Good for you! You are a great teacher!
You're right on that. I'm getting so damn old. The areas I'm talking about were clear cut in the late 1890s /early 1900s, and they are in large part still bare to this day.
There's hundreds of acres of land trust nearby with 4th generation (I think) plant. These trees are 15/20 foot high. My property, and most of the immediate area has 3rd generation growth average 100ft and up. There's even a few of the old growth trees still standing nearby. Point is, they DID start to replant, and my hunch is it was the result of public pressure. A great resource on this subject are local Tree outfits. I have them out periodically to tend to the tall pines near the house. Most of these guys are descendants of those old leatherneck loggers, and truly look the part.
Actually, according to the following report, which in part is based on a 2000 artcile and a 1998 article in the Journal of Forestry, that is not the case.
Though the actual area of land populated by Forests had leveled off as of those dates and remained relatively static the 15 years before (which in the last 15 years has improved and is slowly actually growing - and this is talking about official forest areas and does not include the literally tens of million of acres of trees in urban areas that are not part of "forestry" per sey), timber inventory had risen 30% since 1952 alone, and it says directly that there are more trees now in America than there were in the late 1800s with regard to the timber industry.
The reason is because of three factors. 1) Our ability to get more trees out of every hectacre of land than before, 2) Our ability to increase the growth rate of trees (so we have more trees growing in each area that grow to maturity faster), and 3) The fact that we (meaning private, commercial and governmental) are managing the forests better...though the governmentaal part can be argured since Clinton because they have let the underbrush grow up without management (even the Indians managed this part) and have increased the negative impact of wild fires.
So, though our polulation and use of wood products are growing, the amount of land dedicated and in reserve is relatively static but improving, and the amount of wood and number of trees is increasing. Again, not including all of those trees in the urban areas. For example, Boise, Idaho is called the "City of Trees" because so many millions of trees are planted along the green belts, in people's yards, in small home orchards, in parks, etc. which are not a part of production or reserve...and in area that had no such tree growth in prior centuries.
Did it contribute to any imperfection in your cousins' affections toward your person?
≤}B^)
Here, you missed this part....
“At the national level though, it’s pretty obvious that that trend is the reverse.”
And in an effort to help you untwist your pink lacy drawers, no one is promoting the elimination of farm land.
Your grandkids have a mighty fine grandpa. If I could find stand-ins for my kids half as good, I’d be thrilled.
One cousin has started asking questions rather than making declarations.
Great topic for spin. We get to count trees planted in vacant city lots, trees planted in area’s that had been clear cut a century earlier. On and on.
Bottom line. Is the total number of trees higher now than EVER before in the US? Maybe. Is there more forested lands in the US now than EVER before, please.....
Your response? "That's good."
I wasn't commenting on trends 'at the national level'.
A voice from Sierra Club past, in stark contrast to what now passes for the Sierra Club.
The comment I made to my grandkids was that there were more trees in America now. I knew what I was talking about and why.
Others changed the discussion...talking about total acrage and implying that my grandkids might think I was untruthful, or didn’t know what I was taling about...I believe that was in fact fom you.
What I told my grandkids is correct...and I stand by it to them and on this thread.
The fact is, we do not need as much forested land to produce the same and more trees. Our population is well over 300 million and the entire contenent is occupied by an advanced, technological society...which was not the case (of course) back then.
BTW, those trees in Boise are not on land that was clear cut. Outside of right along the river itself, there were no trees around Boise , it was arid foothills and range grass, like it is to this day away from the city. Now there are millions fo trees where there were none before (or at least, very few). The same can be sad of virtually any town or city in the valleys of the intermountain west and on the great plains.
As I said, millions of acres...perhapse tens of milions given the whole. So, as I also stated, the acreage itself is on th increase...but not for production or production reserve. We are increasing that without the need for more land.
“many here seem to think it is ok to overharvest and not replace trees ...”
False - I read every post and not one thought it was OK to overharvest. Most mentioned that trees are renewable and mentioned replanting.
..”farmland is disappearing at an alarming rate...”
Same thing in upstate New York. Vast acres of former fields are back to woods. I don’t know if this is good or bad in the big picture, but I do know that nature had no problem reforesting herself within 1 to 3 generations. The lorax is hype - I read it to my older daughters who are now in their early 20’s shen they were little and by the time the third one was old enough to be read to I realized it wsa propaganda and pitched it.
great post thank you
And, once again, you most admirably fulfil your responsibilities as a man, this time as grandfather.
This is what 'the measure of a man' is, not what kind of car he drives, what work he performs, nor any other thing like that.
The measure of a man is in how he fulfils his responsibilities as husband, father, grandfather, and citizen...
the infowarrior
Kinda contradicts the whole 'there's more tree's now' position. How could there be such a large population without some net loss of forested land to live on and produce food for that population.
From a Dept. of Agriculture study..."Following 2 centuries of decline, the area of forest land has stabilized. Today, the United States has about the same forest area as in 1920"
Look, it's ok. My Grandpa told some whoppers too. I still loved him, and I'm sure your grandkids love you just as much.
It is estimated that—at the beginning of European settlement— in 1630 the area of forest land that would become the United States was 423 million hectares or about 46 percent of the total land area. By 1907, the area of forest land had declined to an estimated 307 million hectares or 34 percent of the total land area. 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.Also, between 1953 and 1997, volume of forest per hectare in the North has almost doubled, and in the South increased by about 80%.
Give me the exact quotes and post numbers for those that want all trees cut down because it capitalism.
“.....ok, now we are talking about “underbrush”..... good lord.....”
Underbrush is anything other than mature trees. When the Indians burned out the underbrush the fire removed saplings that would have grown into dense forest. The forest the colonists encountered was open enough to allow the colonists to ride their horses through it at will. They left paintings of what the forest looked like to them as well as their written descriptions.
By the time of the Civil War many eastern farms in tobacco country had been abandoned due to depletion of the soil. These abandoned farms became dense wilderness growth much different than what the colonists encountered.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.