“I think the statistic many in the anti environmental movement like to use is that there are more trees now then there were 100 years ago. This is a stupid point to make, considering:
A. Who do you think forced those trees to be replanted.
B. 100 years ago isn’t the beginning of history. There was huge deforestation in the early history of our country. So the original number of trees in America and globally has been MUCH higher that what it is now.
Still, the solution to issues of green house gasses (which is the topic that most often leads to the discussion of trees) will require more than just dropping a few seedlings into the soil.”
Fuzzy said,
April 22, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
You did NOT answer the question. Hmmmm? I wonder why…
jporchanian said,
April 22, 2008 @ 11:47 pm
Actually, I did answer the question.
“So the original number of trees in America and globally has been MUCH higher that what it is now.”
There are not more trees in the US than ever before. The number has made a comeback, but only the number. Keep in mind that the number of trees alone is not the only factor. A whole woodlot of monoculturally grown pine trees is far different than half the number of trees that are growing in an undisturbed wilderness of the same size as the woodlot.
Semperfi said,
January 29, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
I heard this statement in a speciaty hardwoods lumberyard the other day [that there are more trees in the US than 100years ago.] I don’t know what ‘Liberals’ have to do with anything, but, my family has been farming in Nebraska and Iowa since the 1820’s and I can tell you authoritatively that Iowa was 60%+ tree covered and is now nearly 90% under the till, throw in big sections of Illinois, most of Nebraska, the Dakotas, etc.& etc, plus the agressive growth of small towns superhighways, suburbs, airports, factories and major city blocks, not to mention mining, the deforestation of virgin hardwqoods and redwoods, disease, climate change and who knows what else and you COULDN’T have more trees than 100 years ago. Really, it’s this tendancy to lie or distort the truth that will take us down, not a bunch of ragheads who want to bomb air terminals. If you have an issue with ANYTHING I just said, you need to come clean and stop being a jerk.
dug said,
February 11, 2009 @ 11:43 pm
Mr. Semperfi says he can tell us “authoritatively that Iowa was 60%+ tree covered” prior to 1820’s. He also says he is displeased with the tendency to “lie or distort the truth” about these matters.
Well, Iowa State University Forrestry Extention scientist Paul Wray says that at the time of settlement Iowa was 12% to 20% forrested, and that it is now 6% forrested. I have seen lower estimates of the first figure. For SD and the other PLAINS states mentioned I have also seen lower figures. There are lots of academic sources that confirm Mr. Wray’s figures.
You know, Mr. Semperfi, they are called the plains states, not the forrested states, for good reason.
Actually, the claim is usually made that there are more trees in the US today than there were at the time the first Euro settlers arrived. More trees now than in the 1600’s. If you do the research you will find lots of supporting data.
You don’t like lies. Me either.
dug
Roger Burns said,
February 22, 2009 @ 11:36 pm
If there are more trees in the USA than there were 100 years ago, consider that the trees in Alaska (and other late joining western states) are counted now.
Also, the claim that there are more trees in the USA now than in 1600 falls apart when you remember that there were no trees in the US in 1600, since it didn’t exsist.