This is where it gets technical. I looked over the material you
enclosed. What you fail to realize is that most of the lumber
harvesting and big clean outs happened in the 1800's. I lived in
Wisconsin for 12 years and the lumber industry died out in the early
1900's because they had gotten most of the good lumber.
We actually have more forested acres than we did in the early
1900's. However they are not virgin forests, they sometimes lack the
diversity that the old forests had, but we do have more acres of
tree's than we did in the early 1900's. (I think it was Teddy
Roosevelt who establish national parks which helped preserve and grow
forested acreage in the US.)
Is it the same amount of forested acreage that it was in the 1700's
No nothing is as it was back then.
This whole area gets technical and can revolve around statistics but
they do not give enough information. The Amazonian Rain Forest is
still classified as a Virgin Forest.
By the way your statistics on Military spending also is a technical
discussion. We spend more of our US budget on planned programs (I
cannot remember the technical name) such as Social security,
Medicare, Medicaid and other programs (WIC, Food Stamps, Welfare)
than anything else.
There is a portion of the military budget that goes toward soldiers,
optempo, equipment etc. etc. It is never as easy or as clean cut as
someone else would like to state it. By the way we have the lowest
number of foreign bases than we have had in the last 50 years! Plus
there is the Reserve troops, National Guard troops whose costs are
split between states and feds. The US Army actually has more
Reserve/Guard troops than active duty. Certain fields of expertise
are found predominately in the Guards/and certain ones within the
reserve. This was done after the last quadrennial review in the mid
90's That is why there are so many guard/reserve folks being called
to active duty today. (Civil Affairs, Medical etc.)
You can always quote whatever statistics you want, but unless you
know how those were gathered and then how they are being interpreted
they are just numbers.
Stewart
At 07:18 PM 1/11/2008, you wrote:
I have a question on this. How is "more forests" defined? Do we have
more forested area now then we did in the early 1900's or just more
areas defined as forests? Once again I'll post this link.
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/deforest.html
Think of a state, any state, and see how inhabitable areas
have been
designated and changed over the years. Again, interesting how stats
can muddy the waters of a discussion.
Jeff M
Rev. Stewart A. Marshall
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Prince of Peace
Ozark, AL SL 82
************************************************************************
* ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <==
* ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <==
* Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name
* Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST
* Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L
* New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress
* Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
************************************************************************
* List archive from 1/1/2000 is on the MARC http://marc.info/?l=computerguys-l
* List archive at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/
* RSS at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/maillist.xml
* Messages bearing the header "X-No-Archive: yes" will not be archived
************************************************************************
