Did you know that 217 million trees were planted in the prairies of the USA?

Question

People are always posting about deforestation. Do you realize that there are now much more than the 217 million that were planted back in the 30's. A one hundred mile wide strip of the USA was planted from North Dakota to Texas. My family owns land in this strip. Over Thanksgiving, I was looking at old ariel photos that were taken back in 1950 and comparing to the present. These forests have doubled in size since then. New trees have sprouted all around the old ones. You can see it in the photos.

http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2007am/techprogram/P33604.HTM

Here are some pictures that I took this month while hunting.
Most of these trees were not there prior to 1930.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21086690@N05/

Griz & EarthFirst, these forests are not replanted. There was mostly just prairie grass. They started out as a few species of trees, but the animals have contributed to planting. As these trees grew, wildlife used them for habitat and carried seeds and nuts from the native species into the planted areas. The new areas contain most of the native species now and wildlife are very abundant.

Answer 1

no way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 2

The fact that the prairies of the central United States have become in many areas "urban forests" and in other areas - such as the ones you mentioned - trees have been planted where trees never were before, is lost on many people. Another thing that doesn't get too much attention, is the fact that these "artificial forests" have made it possible for species to migrate from one area to another. One such species is the "Barred Owl", which originated in (if I remember correctly) the southeastern United States. The Barred Owl has migrated via the artificial forests to the Pacific Northwest, where it is now forcing the Spotted Owl out of the forests. The question being asked now, is whether or not they should shoot the Barred Owls in the Pacific Northwest to "save the Spotted Owls"...

When I was a kid, bird books identified the "Red Shafted Flicker" and the "Yellow Shafted Flicker" - with the Red Shafted Flicker's range being in the western U.S., and the Yellow Shafted Flicker's range in the eastern U.S. Now? Bird books refer to both species as the "Common Flicker"...

Sure, logging cuts down trees. However, responsible logging companies either do not clear-cut areas, instead opting to use "selective logging practices" and only removing a certain percentage of the trees in any given area, or they will clear-cut an area, and then replant new trees to replace the ones they cut down & removed.

Another thing that's particularly annoying, is after a fire rages through a forested area, environmentalists won't allow logging companies to harvest the dead trees - which in many cases, the trunks of those trees are only scorched on the outside and the heartwood is perfectly usable... Nope. The radical environmentalists would rather those trees just stand there until they finally rot enough to fall over...

People, RESPONSIBLE USE of natural resources is the key. Yes, practice conservation. Yes, develop alternative energy sources. Yes, recycle where possible. But it doesn't do anyone any good to lock away natural resources such as timber in the United States, so that we have to import lumber from Canada, China, and other countries...

Answer 3

It's not that great a thing. Mass re-plantings of tree's to try and make up for the negative affects of deforestation is almost never done right. People never return the area to the same amount of bio-diversity it had before people arrived. They tend to plant maybe one or two species of tree's , when the area used to have dozens. Man can never imitate mother nature.

Answer 4

Yes. And we should note that environmentalist killed off 4 billion American Chestnut Trees because the consensus guessed wrong.

We should spend more in resources to bring this species back from the brink of extinction instead of p*ssing away money on "global warming"

But these followers are clueless. They still think that nothing is being done to protect the environment even though it's a multi billion dollar business.

Answer 5

Yes. The US is actually an environmental leader in many ways, because we're rich. There are many more trees in the US now than there were in 1900, although some forest ecologies (there's more to it than just trees) have been damaged.

The problem is that, worldwide, there is a trend toward deforestation (even counting the US positives in), particularly in the vital rain forests.

Answer 6

Actually, the US, Europe, China and India are all increasing their forest surface.

The problem is with Brazil, Congo, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc.

Answer 7

Wow that is is intresting and thx for the facts

Answer 8

when they talk about deforestation I think they are talking more about places like Africa and the rainforests. so you should still recycle

Answer 9

I thought the US was one giant strip mall...

Seriously, great point.

Answer 10

Hey man thanks for the info! This will concern some people that SOME people care about recycling. if you dont recycle and blah blah blah you will destroy these forests again! so do it! recycle.

Answer 11

Wow! An 80 year old monocultural forest replacing old growth arborial forest that had much higher biodiversity, I wanna piece of that, NOT!