http://www.webwombat.com.au/motoring.../8_10_for2.htm

Go to this webpage to see photo and details.

Their data indicate significant
conversion of forest and woodlands over the last 30 years. That is a
lot
of hectares and a strong indicator of a global problem. The FIA
analysis
indicates a general loss of forest and woodland acerage in most
regions
of the US mostly due to conversion to other agricultural uses and
development for housing.


With respect CLEARCUT, you have no evidence beyond anecdotal and gut
feeling as to whether a depletion crises exists, there is no prominent
Gov org or NGO, or enviro movement which has any "proof" of a
depletion crises.
Everyone knows there are environmental practices that are unpalatable,
but as yet YOU have not offered proof of a crises. A greenpeace
spokesman's outrage at raw material extraction is understandable, but
it by itself or as a part of a combined voice doesn't equal proof of a
crises, only proof that unpleasant ecological practices are occuring
globally as we develop globally.



^^ In my experience there is precious little
aforestation - I rarely see housing developments, pastures, or
vineyards
revert to forest.

LOL, true initially, but i'm sure you can appreciate the practice of
creating established gardens and lining pavements with trees, which is
the most obvious symbol of an established suburb, so greenery does
increase eventually as the suburb ages{typically}.

^^If you want to set the level of resolution, variables measured, and
methodology - that would be fine by me, and we will let the data
speak.


LOL again, buddy, if you or anyone is going to announce that we have a
depletion crises as distinct from numerous unpleasant and locally
unsustainable acts of environmental destruction, then YOU "must" have
the criteria and the researched data at hand, you must be able to
quote it to whoever enquires, otherwise you are merely exaggerating an
unpleasant global occurance.
Someone mentioned to me that the forests would be gone by 2050 or
something, i went ahead and looked for both the criteria and data,
i've yet to find it, and even a specialist forestry NG has nothing
more than the usual tree hugging mantra.

Do you expect me to presumably modify my lifestyle and alter my voting
pattern based on a biased collective gut feeling, especially when i
think the criteria and data would exist, if it WAS more than a
worldwide unpleasant occurence, ie, the actual threat of depletion
within x amount of years.




I am not touting any hoax - I think on a global level conversion of
forest and woodland is significant. On a local level - particularily
in
developing countries - it can be devastating.

^In much of the US high grading forest stands is seriously
depleting
forest resources - even if the number of forest acres appears to be
relatively stable.

I not suggesting you're lying, i'm suggesting you have NO PROOF that
threat of depletion is on the cards, all you have is the desire to
express practices which bother you, the emphasis is on YOU to produce
evidence, otherwise call it what it is, "partial global ecological
devastation, which eventually recovers from conservation and
aforestation measures", you'll have to accept my definition until such
a time as you produce proof of the threat of depletion. In the absence
of any evidence, you can understand why i'll be voting as usual and
consuming as usual.



Laws and regulations are difficult to develop and enforce. In
California, which has a amazing set of forest regulation including
requirements for a Registered Professional Forester to develop Timber
Harvest Plans, high grading still occurs. Landowners with little
vision
or education want to maximize income while leaving some trees. Cut the
big ones and leave the little onesresulting in a degraded forest
stand.
Still it's "legal" - the land is "forested".

Ok its forested, are you a forestry expert?, that's why i came here,
looking to ask the hard questions and being ready to accept the
evidence, you've told me nothing i didn't already know or could have
assumed.
Your criticism of people wanting to maximize profit is baseless until
you provide evidence which isn't just anecdotal or local, people are
entitled to await a scientific study that has credibility and in plain
language says, "we will run out of forests by year 2050, and here's
our scientific proof", where is that evidence beyond your assertion or
anyone's assertion?




The solution is excellent forest management on public and private
forest
land. How do we achieve this? Damned if I know. Right now education of
landowners, both of private forest lands and public lands is one
option. Most landowners that I talk with, when educated about good
forest management, will seek out more information and manage their
lands
responsibly.

And ideally the truth should be included in any eductaional package,
and my education from here and google searches informs me that
collated hard evidence doesn't exist.

I'm going to buy the car and burn rubber, unless you can pull a rabit
out of a hat, i'll see you at the dragstrip,lol.



Any other suggestions?

Sure, a high octane Boss XR8.

To start out...I accidentally emailed this to the original poster. I meant
to post it here. Duh, I'm a newbie. Guess I had to establish that right
off the bat...

Anyway, I just stumbled into this NG. Seems it should be fun...even if I'm
probably
only adding fuel to the fire... --Sunny

----

With respect CLEARCUT, you have no evidence beyond anecdotal and gut
feeling as to whether a depletion crises exists, there is no prominent
Gov org or NGO, or enviro movement which has any "proof" of a
depletion crises.


That's 'cause few countries really CARE that they're depleting their
resources. I suggest going to the library and picking up a book or
scientific journal that profiles Madagascar or the Amazon Rainforest. Don't
just focus on North America! We're doing pretty good, in comparison.


Everyone knows there are environmental practices that are unpalatable,
but as yet YOU have not offered proof of a crises. A greenpeace
spokesman's outrage at raw material extraction is understandable, but
it by itself or as a part of a combined voice doesn't equal proof of a
crises, only proof that unpleasant ecological practices are occuring
globally as we develop globally.


Never listen to Greenpeace spokespeople. They're crazy.

Stick to scientific sources. They at least study their material. (And
it looks to me like there are sciencey people here. You should actually
consider what they say. They know stuff.)

And what more do we need than proof of unpleasant ecological practices?
If we're practicing badly, it will END badly. The greater portion of the
world does not take care of their environments, and that presents a CRISIS.
As I said above - don't stick to the practices in North America. Look at
China! Look at Brazil! Look at Madagascar! Look at Russia! It's BAD, BAD
news for their environments - and they're doing little to stop it! As they
develop - and as technology develops more rapidly - it's only going to get
worse.


^^ In my experience there is precious little
aforestation - I rarely see housing developments, pastures, or
vineyards
revert to forest.

LOL, true initially, but i'm sure you can appreciate the practice of
creating established gardens and lining pavements with trees, which is
the most obvious symbol of an established suburb, so greenery does
increase eventually as the suburb ages{typically}.


The person to whom you're replying has the right of it - when forests
are cut down for development, they are rarely returned to their forest
ecology - and if they are, it takes YEARS for them to reach the quality at
which they were when they were cut down. But we never just use the land for
a little while, then give it back to the trees!

What you speak of is what is known as "urban forestry." However, it
does not represent real forest ecology. A treelined boulevard does not a
forest make. Sure, it helps the environment, but a woodpecker that needs an
old growth snag to nest in is NOT going to survive in a puny little alder
that's been planted along a boulevard. You cannot think in terms of merely
trees when you think of deforestation. You must think of their
inhabitants - if you are considering the environment at all.


^^If you want to set the level of resolution, variables measured, and
methodology - that would be fine by me, and we will let the data
speak.

LOL again, buddy, if you or anyone is going to announce that we have a
depletion crises as distinct from numerous unpleasant and locally
unsustainable acts of environmental destruction, then YOU "must" have
the criteria and the researched data at hand, you must be able to
quote it to whoever enquires, otherwise you are merely exaggerating an
unpleasant global occurance.


Golly - then show us mathematical evidence and research that YOU've
found or collected to back up your claim that deforestation is a hoax. Come
on, it's only fair!


Someone mentioned to me that the forests would be gone by 2050 or
something, i went ahead and looked for both the criteria and data,
i've yet to find it, and even a specialist forestry NG has nothing
more than the usual tree hugging mantra.


Speculation is not data. Listen to data, and take speculation with a
grain of salt. Do not use it to accuse people who have not made that
speculation. And I think I read everyone's posts on this topic, and no one
said that. They're all presenting a realistic viewpoint based on the data
they DO have. They will not satisfy you, because you do not wish to be
satisfied by people's educated comments.

And, dude - you're posting to a NEWSGROUP. They all enjoy their field,
and are concerned with their local environment, because it is their area of
expertise.

Go harass an ecology professor, or something...


Do you expect me to presumably modify my lifestyle and alter my voting
pattern based on a biased collective gut feeling, especially when i
think the criteria and data would exist, if it WAS more than a
worldwide unpleasant occurence, ie, the actual threat of depletion
within x amount of years.


Forestry practices have been in the process of changing since the 1970s.
Research regarding sustainability and various other harvesting issues is
just now coming to light. Take that into consideration, and read some
books, scientific journals, and credible websites for the information you
seek. Or consult a professor at a university that carries a global forestry
or ecology program.


I not suggesting you're lying, i'm suggesting you have NO PROOF that
threat of depletion is on the cards, all you have is the desire to
express practices which bother you, the emphasis is on YOU to produce
evidence, otherwise call it what it is, "partial global ecological
devastation, which eventually recovers from conservation and
aforestation measures", you'll have to accept my definition until such
a time as you produce proof of the threat of depletion. In the absence
of any evidence, you can understand why i'll be voting as usual and
consuming as usual.


WOW. In all my days in college, majoring in Environmental Science, my
professor would not have allowed me to use newsgroup postings as legitimate
source material for research papers or, more importantly, to formulate
educated opinions and life decisions - no matter who posted to them. It
sounds like you have a problem with the PEOPLE who post here, not the
material they wish to discuss. Not to disparage anyone who frequents this
NG - for they've made a valiant effort to placate your bellig...er,
dissatisfaction - but there are far more experts in the world than hang out
at this site. I reiterate: GO READ A BOOK.

Seriously - dude - you're posting to a newsgroup. You asked questions.
They answered. Do your own research and collect your own data if you're not
satisfied.


Ok its forested, are you a forestry expert?, that's why i came here,
looking to ask the hard questions and being ready to accept the
evidence, you've told me nothing i didn't already know or could have
assumed.


Good for you. You must be so proud.

I'd like to state, though, that your questions are not hard - and
certainly not philosophical. I bet you could find some published statistics
to answer your questions just as easily. Your local university library
probably has tons more satisfactory information in the form of scientific
journals - in which hard data has been collected over the course of years
and then published, with all the mathematical information included. They're
kind of hard to read, because they're saturated with science and numbers -
but don't let that stop you!

If you have trouble, the nice people at the desks could probably help
you look up what you seek.


Your criticism of people wanting to maximize profit is baseless until
you provide evidence which isn't just anecdotal or local, people are
entitled to await a scientific study that has credibility and in plain
language says, "we will run out of forests by year 2050, and here's
our scientific proof", where is that evidence beyond your assertion or
anyone's assertion?


You know - when your work is local, so is your knowledge. And you can
gauge an awful lot on anecdotal evidence - if you're willing to pay
attention to it. The general populace is not terribly different in their
treatment of their resources from place to place. You can only rely on the
local policies/laws to keep them in check, really - and sometimes even that
doesn't work very well.

And, I hate to break it to you, but commercialism runs the world - and,
unfortunately, that includes forestry practices (you should add "Bangladesh"
to your research on deforestation in other countries).

As for the forests being gone by 2050 - that's one person's statement,
and more likely than not made to get people's attention. If someone came up
to you and said, "Judging by the fact that you are human and male [making
guesses, here], you will probably die on or around the age of 74," would you
take their word for it? They base it on evidence - the average lifespan of
the human male is about 74 years.

But that's all it is, isn't it? An ASSERTION. It would be a FACT if
they had the data to back it up. Do you see them claiming it as fact? If
so, your next order of business would be to find out if it's a fact that
they're clairvoyant.

Really, you're wasting a lot of steam trying to force your views on
others when you merely "asked questions." You're looking at a tiny, tiny
fraction of the worlds population of foresters in this group, and foresters
make up a tiny, tiny fraction of the global populace. These people have
good things to say, based on their education and knowledge of their field -
and they're probably all North American [again, making guesses...]

Here is a slightly different scenerio to put your questioning in
perspective: A Washington State Salmon Fisheries expert could probably give
you a lot of evidence regarding the depletion of wild salmon due to loss of
spawning territory; but if you're looking for statistics for loss of fish
worldwide due to their inability to procreate in an optimal environment, you
just have to ask someone else - probably lots of someone elses! And you
just might have to read a book. Anyone who's had to write a scientific
paper to be graded by a critical hand knows this.

Umm...so, yeah. That's my $20.00.
--Sunny

"Sunbeam" wrote in message news:5j6W9.28586$hl1.2542@sccrnsc04...


I answered this in the "Deforestation is a Hoax" thread, message 26, i
hope you enjoy my response.