U.S Forest Facts and Figures

[Nie Trink Wasser]

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.
Million hectares............

Reserved forest land has doubled since 1953 and now
stands at 7 percent of all forest land in the United States.
This reserved forest area includes State and Federal parks
and wilderness areas but does not include conservation
easements, areas protected by nongovernmental organizations,
and most urban and community parks and
reserves. Significant additions to Federal forest reserves
occurred after the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964.........

Total area of planted and natural forest in the
Eastern United States, 1997

Planted 10.4%
16.2 million
hectares

Natural 89.6%
139.2 million
hectares

----------

Total area of planted and natural forest in the
Western United States, 1997

Planted 3.6%
5.3 million
hectares

Natural 96.4%
141.6 million
hectares

---------

Average growing stock volume per acre on timber land
continues to rise across the United States. The rate of
increase has leveled off, partially due to recent increases
in mortality.................

Over the past 50 years, growth has generally exceeded
removals throughout the United States. While removal
levels have leveled off in recent years, there has been a
decided shift from public land in the West to private land
in the East. In 1996, softwood removals in the South
exceeded growth for the first time since 1952, when data
were first reported...............



http://fia.fs.fed.us/library/ForestFactsMetric.pdf (PDF !)

[Jon_in_london]

Interesting and of course contradicts the eco-nazis quite well.

But maybe this should be shemped to science forum?

[Tmy]

Is it the same trees being planted as cut down? I heard that the industry replaces these old growth trees with faster growing whatever they are called trees.

[Thumper]

Not only are forests replaced with monoculture tree farms, but the number of trees planted is irrelevant, as many of those trees never reach maturity for a variety of reasons, including maximum forest density.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tmy
Is it the same trees being planted as cut down? I heard that the industry replaces these old growth trees with faster growing whatever they are called trees.
They're called trash forests. They are mostly pine trees, which grow fast and are used for pulpwood. They are devastating to the ecology, not only because they are monoculture but also because pine needles are so acidic that very few plants can grow in the soil around them, thus limiting biodiversity. This in turn limits the fauna, since many of their food sources may be missing. Also, conifers produce much less oxygen than hardwood trees.

What "econazis" are upset about is about the cutting of old growth forests. These cannot regenerate quickly, and if they are replaced with monoculture tree farms, they may never be back again.

But I suppose one tree is just like another one, eh?

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Tricky

They're called trash forests. They are mostly pine trees, which grow fast and are used for pulpwood. They are devastating to the ecology, not only because they are monoculture but also because pine needles are so acidic that very few plants can grow in the soil around them, thus limiting biodiversity. This in turn limits the fauna, since many of their food sources may be missing. Also, conifers produce much less oxygen than hardwood trees.

What "econazis" are upset about is about the cutting of old growth forests. These cannot regenerate quickly, and if they are replaced with monoculture tree farms, they may never be back again.

But I suppose one tree is just like another one, eh?


actually, if you take a look at the chart labeled "Forest land by cover type in the Eastern United States, 1997" .... you will read that Oak-hickory and Maple-beech birch are far more plentiful.

but Im sure thats just a government cover-up.

[jj]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



actually, if you take a look at the chart labeled "Forest land by cover type in the Eastern United States, 1997" .... you will read that Oak-hickory and Maple-beech birch are far more plentiful.



That's what grows in the eastern part of the USA. Oak trees and Maple trees can be weeds, except where the blight that's adapted to Maples is making serious headway.

Birch and aspen, of course, grow even faster.

Of course, none of that mitigates the fact that large areas of the west (where evergreens grow better than they do in the east) are being monocultured. Some parts are being left to reforest naturally.

Do bear in mind that both monoculture and natural reforestation can result in drastically different results from what was cut, at least for thousands of years (10 generations of trees is the number I've heard bandied about, I haven't any solid support for it other than that it allows "initial conditions" to eventually wipe out.).

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by jj
[B]

That's what grows in the eastern part of the USA. Oak trees and Maple trees can be weeds, except where the blight that's adapted to Maples is making serious headway.




so you're saying that they're counting saplings as trees to get those numbers ?




Of course, none of that mitigates the fact that large areas of the west (where evergreens grow better than they do in the east) are being monocultured. Some parts are being left to reforest naturally.




I think it's smart they way that these western forests keep getting wiped out by forest fires every year. Really smart.

[schplurg]

A good article:

Save Our Forests With Good Science And Management (http://www.pushback.com/environment/forests/)

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by schplurg
A good article:

Save Our Forests With Good Science And Management (http://www.pushback.com/environment/forests/)



wow.

thanks for that.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/agexporter/1999/wood.html

Meanwhile, U.S. wood-product imports from Canada rose even more rapidly than exports, up 55 percent over the 1993-98 period to $9.7 billion. Vigorous U.S. economic growth, a 15-percent increase in the value of the U.S. dollar over the Canadian dollar, rapid growth in U.S. housing construction, and reduced U.S. softwood production in the West fed the strong U.S. import demand, especially for softwood lumber for new housing construction. Despite these factors, Canada’s share of U.S. wood imports remained at about 73 percent during the 1993-98 period.

[celter]

Industrial forestry isn't pretty, but we need it. Alternative building materials such as steel, concrete or even plastics are less energy efficient in their manufacture as well as disposal. Also, resource extraction of these alternatives is nearly always less environmentally friendly. It's worth noting too that alternative paper making materials such as hemp require a far greater land base than do forests. I spend much of my time in "monoculture" pine forests and without doubt they are home to a diverse mix of wildlife; true monoculture farms such as hemp farms, however, are not.

In British Columbia, when I log on crown lands I am required to replant blocks I cut with a species distribution similar to that which I have harvested, which often happens to be a single species. I understand that most industrial forestry in the US is on private lands and I don't know if replanting is regulated or done at the whim of the landholder. Either way, it only makes sense to plant species that have the best chance of thriving, and that happens to be what was there originally, monoculture or not. Many species do not grow well in mixed stands because they have unique shade or light tolerances and soil type preferences. Many pines for example grow naturally and grow best when pure.

There are many who are opposed to any level of forest management and who believe we simply should not be harvesting trees. I'm often accused of cutting irreplaceable old-growth when I'm working in 120 year old pine forests, this in spite of the fact that these are over-mature stands with plenty of dead dry wood just waiting for a lightening strike. These pine forests never get to much more than 100 to 140 years.

[jj]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser

so you're saying that they're counting saplings as trees to get those numbers ?


Is there a reason why you've chosen to illicitly create this straw man and suggest that I hold such a position?

Why don't you address the monoculture issues.

Somebody pointed out monoculture problems, your replied with a completely irrelevant (and I assume correct as originally stated) fact regarding eastern forests, which are not the large "managed forests" in the USA.

I replied to that, and you once again simply dodged the monoculture issue entirely, aind (it would appear willfully) created a false position to try to lay at my feet.

You're one step from troll now in my book.

Why the dodging?

Oh, and while I'm at it, what's with the James Watt approach to forest fires? You seem to be presuming a position on my part.

Please show me where I've opposed reasonable logging and forest management. (Hint, it will be a cold day in Phoenix in July before you can do that.)

Reasonable forest management does allow for both cleanup and logging. Clearcutting is just as bad as a forest fire, and causes many of the same problems.

[jj]

Originally posted by celter
In British Columbia, when I log on crown lands I am required to replant blocks I cut with a species distribution similar to that which I have harvested, which often happens to be a single species. I understand that most industrial forestry in the US is on private lands and I don't know if replanting is regulated or done at the whim of the landholder. Either way, it only makes sense to plant species that have the best chance of thriving, and that happens to be what was there originally, monoculture or not. Many species do not grow well in mixed stands because they have unique shade or light tolerances and soil type preferences. Many pines for example grow naturally and grow best when pure.

There are many who are opposed to any level of forest management and who believe we simply should not be harvesting trees. I'm often accused of cutting irreplaceable old-growth when I'm working in 120 year old pine forests, this in spite of the fact that these are over-mature stands with plenty of dead dry wood just waiting for a lightening strike. These pine forests never get to much more than 100 to 140 years.

Frankly, your position sounds entirely sane to me. What I don't see you doing is replacing species, putting in monoculture where it wasn't originally monoculture, and in general grossly altering the local ecology (other than by cutting down trees, but that's hard to avoid if you need to cut them down).

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Is there a reason why you've chosen to illicitly create this straw man and suggest that I hold such a position?

Why don't you address the monoculture issues.


Tricky suggested that old forests are being replaced only with monocultured pine and that is not true ( as I pointed out with the segment of the forestry document ).

please refer to celter's post as well.


Somebody pointed out monoculture problems, your replied with a completely irrelevant (and I assume correct as originally stated) fact regarding eastern forests, which are not the large "managed forests" in the USA.


someone pointed out ALLEGED monoculture problems. The fact I posted showed that eastern forests contain a wide variety of trees. If I'm not mistaken, the most managed forests are in the south....eastern forests.....correct ?

can you or Tricky provide any evidence that shows how these forests in the Wests are being replaced with a monoculture that was not originally there ?


I replied to that, and you once again simply dodged the monoculture issue entirely, aind (it would appear willfully) created a false position to try to lay at my feet.


I didnt dodge the issue. I pointed out some necessary facts that it seemed Tricky was overlooking.

You seem to have a crush on me lately. Your responses to my posts are becoming a bit (irrationally) heated. Do you want a hug ?



You're one step from troll now in my book.

Why the dodging?


it could be that you're so "smart" you arent able to hold a conversation or you're hiding behind your keyboard in the hopes of projecting an intelligent facade.

dodging ? :rolleyes:

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by jj
Oh, and while I'm at it, what's with the James Watt approach to forest fires? You seem to be presuming a position on my part.

Please show me where I've opposed reasonable logging and forest management. (Hint, it will be a cold day in Phoenix in July before you can do that.)


are you paraniod ?

Im just trying to have a conversation with you and you're becoming more and more defensive about what I say as if I'm accusing you of something.


Reasonable forest management does allow for both cleanup and logging. Clearcutting is just as bad as a forest fire, and causes many of the same problems. [/B]

are you sure that the forest management being used is accurately described as "clearcutting" ?

[jj]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


Tricky suggested that old forests are being replaced only with monocultured pine and that is not true ( as I pointed out with the segment of the forestry document ).

Yes, so you replied to my posting, not his, about his suggestions?

Am I missing something here? I don't think so.

someone pointed out ALLEGED monoculture problems. The fact I posted showed that eastern forests contain a wide variety of trees. If I'm not mistaken, the most managed forests are in the south....eastern forests.....correct ?

More land in the west, last I looked.

You seem to have a crush on me lately. Your responses to my posts are becoming a bit (irrationally) heated. Do you want a hug ?

An interesting assertion, but hardly born out by the facts. You've just exhibited outrageous behavior, try not to be astonished when somebody calls you on it.
[/B]

And you're dodging again. The monoculture issues (on both public and private land) are documented rather nicely. The problem, fortunately, is not ubiquitous.

So why don't you refute several-decades old work with some science, not a political action site?

Your agenda is showing.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by jj


And you're dodging again. The monoculture issues (on both public and private land) are documented rather nicely. The problem, fortunately, is not ubiquitous.



please show me this nicely documented evidence of the problem.
I posted information from the forestry document in order to have a discussion about the information there.

If you claim there is a problem, please bring some evidence to the discussion.




So why don't you refute several-decades old work with some science, not a political action site?

Your agenda is showing. [/B]




hilarious. I didnt even post the political action site.
your IQ is showing.

[jj]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


are you paraniod ?

No.
Are you an honest person?

Im just trying to have a conversation with you and you're becoming more and more defensive about what I say as if I'm accusing you of something.

No, you're trolling with deliberate intent to annoy. Why else would you create positions out of nothing, and lay them at the feet of people who haven't ever held them, if you were interested in a conversation?

are you sure that the forest management being used is accurately described as "clearcutting" ?

And another misrepresentation.
If you want to argue about that, find somebody who asserted it, and argue with them.

(And, by the way, I've walked past the road hedge in Glacier NP in the last year, and yes, those clearcut areas had fresh stumps last fall. Of course, that's not what I'm calling "forest management", nor am I saying that's what the word means, despite your illicit straw man.)

If you want to have a "conversation" try replying to what I'm saying, and stop making up positions that you can shoot at.

Your contempt for ethics is showing clearly now, troll.

[jj]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


please show me this nicely documented evidence of the problem.
I posted information from the forestry document in order to have a discussion about the information there.

Do your own homework.

If you claim there is a problem, please bring some evidence to the discussion.

Do you normally simply repeat what others say to you back at them? Is this your definition of a "conversation"?

hilarious. I didnt even post the political action site.

And I didnt' say you did. Once again, you are unable to read what others have written.

your IQ is showing.
You're being a jerk.

[jj]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


are you paraniod ?


I said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jj

That's what grows in the eastern part of the USA. Oak trees and Maple trees can be weeds, except where the blight that's adapted to Maples is making serious headway.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To which you irrelevantly, disputatiously and deceptively replied:

so you're saying that they're counting saplings as trees to get those numbers ?


You're simply deceptive, you are not engaging an argument, and your representations of my positions are dishonest.

Given your demonstrated behavior in this thread, I'd say that "paranioa"(sic) is a situational disease when dealing with you.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Yes, so you replied to my posting, not his, about his suggestions?

Am I missing something here? I don't think so.



If you havent noticed, genius, Tricky hasnt replied yet. You have.
Thus, Im having a conversation with you about it. Logic. Try it.



More land in the west, last I looked.



why don't you try "looking" at the forestry facts that are being discussed here.


An interesting assertion, but hardly born out by the facts. You've just exhibited outrageous behavior, try not to be astonished when somebody calls you on it.


"astonished" eh ?
"outrageous behavior" eh ?

maybe Im just having trouble seeing how "outrageous" Im being.
Can anyone else see my "outrageous" behavior ?

[celter]

Originally posted by jj


Reasonable forest management does allow for both cleanup and logging. Clearcutting is just as bad as a forest fire, and causes many of the same problems.

Hi jj,
Fires, like clearcuts are not always bad (unless you're a human who's just watched his timber license go up in smoke). Fires are a natural, and often beneficial part of the lifecycle of many forests; we don't like them for selfish reasons.
Many pines have serotinous cones, which means they wont germinate without fire. Many shade intolerant species only grow when a site has been cleared, either through fire, slides or clearcut harvesting. They need warmth and direct, unfiltered sunlight.
Clearcutting is a political hot potato, but its not always bad.
Also, there's a big difference between a 100 acre clearcut and shaving the side of a mountain.
Cheers

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
can you or Tricky provide any evidence that shows how these forests in the Wests are being replaced with a monoculture that was not originally there ?
Here's one link about Texas hardwood forests (http://www.texasep.org/cpft/txhrdwd.html). Sorry. Don't have time to go into depth. I'll try to catch up later.

[jj]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


If you havent noticed, genius, Tricky hasnt replied yet. You have.
Thus, Im having a conversation with you about it. Logic. Try it.

If you're having a conversation with me (and you aren't, you're simply being rude and deceptive) discuss my positions, not his.

Simple courtesy.

why don't you try "looking" at the forestry facts that are being discussed here.

Et tu?

"astonished" eh ?
"outrageous behavior" eh ?

maybe Im just having trouble seeing how "outrageous" Im being.
Can anyone else see my "outrageous" behavior ?

Appeal to the masses - Misleading Rhetoric 101

[jj]

Originally posted by celter


Hi jj,
Fires, like clearcuts are not always bad (unless you're a human who's just watched his timber license go up in smoke). Fires are a natural, and often beneficial part of the lifecycle of many forests; we don't like them for selfish reasons.


I don't think that my statement disagrees with yours.

I should have been more specific, though.

I was thinking of the kind of fire one gets after 100 years of total fire control, not a low-grade fire that takes out snags and clears brush, doesn't crown (much at least) and doesn't take out all the mature trees. The kind, in other words, that kills, rather than releases, the fire-adapted seeds.

Clearcuts I have doubts about. Aside from erosion, and chance of possible soil chemistry changes (well, the "Forest of Glen Orchy" in Scotland comes to mind here :( ) I have some doubts (no, I don't have a citation) regarding the replant stock and its genetic diversity.

[jj]

Originally posted by celter

Clearcutting is a political hot potato, but its not always bad.
Also, there's a big difference between a 100 acre clearcut and shaving the side of a mountain.
Cheers

Oh, obviously. A small "clearcut" leaves some erosion control, wind shelter, wild genetic material, etc. I'm thinking of the kind, indeed, where they have just stripped the side of a mountain. For some exhibitions of that, drive through Montana sometime. :(

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by jj


Appeal to the masses - Misleading Rhetoric 101


Im giving up on you. Maybe I've had a long day.....because you're coming from 60 different directions to simple questions Im asking.

could you at least define this statement for me ? That is all I asked in the first place.

"Oak trees and Maple trees can be weeds, except where the blight that's adapted to Maples is making serious headway."


the statement doesnt make sense to me.

[Bearguin]

Celter.

Couple of questions. Are lodgepole pines native to central BC? And by native I do mean going back hundreds of years before logging was big. Cause that's all I seem to see in my neck of the woods (someone please laugh at the pun).

And, aside from pulp, what are the new forests being planted going to be good for? The lodgepole just doesn't seem to grow large enough for much else. Seems hard to get a sheet of plywood out of them.

I'd like to see less focus on the logging and exporting and more focus on value-added processing. Sort of the keep the jobs home idea.

I've visited some old-growth Cedars in the Whislter area where the terrain made in uneconomical to log. Huge things that I do wish we had more of. I think some areas should be left unlogged if these beauties can remain.

[jj]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


"Oak trees and Maple trees can be weeds, except where the blight that's adapted to Maples is making serious headway."


the statement doesnt make sense to me.

It's a simple statement of fact. Norway, Silver and Swamp Maples, and Pin Oak, at least in NJ, are actually being controlled because they were overrunning everything else. A maple blight that is killing off some (not all, it seems even adjacent trees have substantially different sensitivity) Silver, Sugar, and rarely Norway maples is, however, combatting the spread of Maples.

I know that parts of PA are having the same problem. I moved out of there last fall, so I doubt that it's changed too much since then.

(We had two silver maples (old, established trees) that we managed to save by fertilizing the (*&&*( out of them, so that they grew some new cambium faster than the old was blocked, no idea how that will continue to work out.)

Frankly, speaking as someone who's lived in the east, I have no idea how you would AVOID having oak and maple trees. I don't dislike them, and I surely do believe that there is a great deal of forest covered in them, because I have no idea how you could avoid it.

Ditto birches and common beech, but to a lesser extent. Birches are usually colonizers and don't last. (I don't mean the wifty little ornamental ones that die in 10 years, either.) On the other hand, they spread in fields/grasslands almost as fast as the honey locusts...

[celter]

Originally posted by Gods Advocate
Celter.

Couple of questions. Are lodgepole pines native to central BC? And by native I do mean going back hundreds of years before logging was big. Cause that's all I seem to see in my neck of the woods (someone please laugh at the pun).

And, aside from pulp, what are the new forests being planted going to be good for? The lodgepole just doesn't seem to grow large enough for much else. Seems hard to get a sheet of plywood out of them.

I'd like to see less focus on the logging and exporting and more focus on value-added processing. Sort of the keep the jobs home idea.

I've visited some old-growth Cedars in the Whislter area where the terrain made in uneconomical to log. Huge things that I do wish we had more of. I think some areas should be left unlogged if these beauties can remain.

Yes, lodgepole pine is native to BC, - and plentiful.

New forests are not planted for pulp. All furnish for pulp comes from sawmill residues as well as dead trees taken when harvesting sawlogs.

Lodgepole pine grows in very dense stands and unless the stand is managed (thinned out) the trees may not get above 3 or 4 inches at the butt. Having said that, forest products companies that log are required to take everything down to a 4 inch top diameter. A log of that size will yield 1 or 2-2x4's if straight

I also would like to see more value added production. The problem has not been in adding value though, that's easy. The challenge is in adding margin. Its a very competitive, international business and we have trouble competing with sectors where the wages are a fraction of ours. One of the reasons we do so well with big mills producing commodities is that we've largely replace the $25/hr grunts with machinery.
Competitive advantage I guess.

[celter]

Originally posted by jj


Oh, obviously. A small "clearcut" leaves some erosion control, wind shelter, wild genetic material, etc. I'm thinking of the kind, indeed, where they have just stripped the side of a mountain. For some exhibitions of that, drive through Montana sometime. :(

No need to go to Montana, Unfortunately, I can just look out my window. Thankfully, we don't do things the way we used to.

Clearcutting is a complex issue and I think its best left to science to decide how and when it's used. Unfortunately, harvest method decisions are largely made by politicians on the basis of beliefs expressed by a largely uninformed public. Many groups opposed to logging have used clearcutting as an emotive issue to sway the public against forest product companies. Again I really feel that when clearcut size is capped (its 40 ha max where I am), it can be an appropriate strategy for managing certain stands, particularly when the species is known to be shade intolerant..

Here are a couple of links that suggest clearcutting isn't all bad. The second one is an essay by Greenpeace founder, Dr. Patrick Moore

http://www.clemson.edu/extfor/publications/fortp19/summary.htm
http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues/the_log.cfm?booknum=5&page=4
http://www.vdof.org/mgt/forest-mgt-prac.shtml

[jj]

Originally posted by celter
Clearcutting is a complex issue and I think its best left to science to decide how and when it's used. Unfortunately, harvest method decisions are largely made by politicians on the basis of beliefs expressed by a largely uninformed public. Many groups opposed to logging have used clearcutting as an emotive issue to sway the public against forest product companies. Again I really feel that when clearcut size is capped (its 40 ha max where I am), it can be an appropriate strategy for managing certain stands, particularly when the species is known to be shade intolerant...

Well, when you're talking to me, you're preaching to the choir on this one.

Let's say I find the hysteria generated by both some of the green types and some of the big businesses both scientifically and ethically bankrupt.

As usual, I'm a moderate in an extremist's world.

[WildCat]

I can't help but wonder what the dwellings inhabited by environmental extremists are made of? If there are any here please tell. Sod dugouts? Caves? Concrete domes?

I once got a girl mad at me because during a discussion of the environment I commented that a city dweller like myself (my apartment has 5 units on just under 2000 sq. ft of land) was much more of an enviromentalist than someone (like her ;) ) who lived in the hills of California on 6 acres of land. She just didn't get it, even when I asked her what if everyone got 6 acres of land for themselves? The Chicago metro area alone would have to be 65,000 sq. miles! That's 10,000 sq. miles more than is in the entire state. :rolleyes:

[JAR]

I believe State and National parks with forests try to keep them in existence.

[a_unique_person]

One of the major problems is not the US as such, it exists as part of the rest of the world. For example, the imports from Canada are up. Saying that just because the US is not destroying it's forests, or turning everything into monoculture, is not the same as saying that other forests in other countries are OK. For example, many asian and pacific countries are being subject to unsustainable forestry practices. The US imports a lot of timber from outside it's own borders.

And there is nothing wrong with using wood. However, much of it is used in wasteful ways, eg, wood chipping. At the same time that there is much debate over forest policy in Australia, many sawmills are closing down but exports of wood chips are rising.

[jj]

Originally posted by JAR
I believe State and National parks with forests try to keep them in existence.

Well, you'd better try some political action, then.

[rockoon]

Originally posted by jj


(We had two silver maples (old, established trees) that we managed to save by fertilizing the (*&&*( out of them, so that they grew some new cambium faster than the old was blocked, no idea how that will continue to work out.)


It sounds to me like you are fighting nature to enforce your precious diversity.

This is my big beef with the environmentalists. They oppose anything and everything until they want to mess with nature themselves. Then its no holds barred with some quaint justification catch term such as "diversity".

And dont even try to claim that humans created the "problem" - the "problem" was inevitable. We just changed the timing.

[jj]

Originally posted by rockoon


It sounds to me like you are fighting nature to enforce your precious diversity.

House value, appearance, then, you're saying didn't matter?

Your performance as a mind reader won't win any million dollar prizes.

This is my big beef with the environmentalists. They oppose anything and everything until they want to mess with nature themselves. Then its no holds barred with some quaint justification catch term such as "diversity".

Well, that's good. Why don't you take this crusade to the people who are doing this? What's more, what's this bit about "diversity"? Nice choice of a loaded word that usually gets used in affirmative action arguments.

In short, go beef at the people who you're upset at, and stop trying to unsuccessfully read my mind.

And dont even try to claim that humans created the "problem" - the "problem" was inevitable. We just changed the timing.
I see. Dutch Elm disease was "inevitable", then? Ditto chestnut blight, Japanese Beetles, ...

Of course, it was inevetable that the diseases arrived in force, and were dispersed much faster than nature usually spreads things.

How is that?

It's quite uncivil, not to say offensive, of you to pick me to crusade at somebody else about. If you're upset with somebody who's doing what you say, why don't you go crusade at them and leave me alone?

[rockoon]

Originally posted by jj


It's quite uncivil, not to say offensive, of you to pick me to crusade at somebody else about. If you're upset with somebody who's doing what you say, why don't you go crusade at them and leave me alone?

I didnt crusade. Its quite uncivil, not to say offensive, of you to make things up.


:D