I don't imagine that Jerry or Sam care, but when people are talking about 4% of the original forest left, they aren't talking about giant tree-less areas, they genuinely mean the original forest, those specific trees.
I'm not very familiar with forest ecosystems in the eastern part of the US, but here on the west coast, individual forest segments last hundreds of years. We have many spots in Oregon where the natural fire regime goes 400 years or more without a major fire. 200 year old trees are really different than 20 year old trees. The whole ecosystem around them is really different. The history of logging in the pacific northwest is that we've cut down a whole lot of several hundred year old trees and replaced them with trees that get cut every 50 years. That's starting to change in the last decade or so but when they say that there is only 4% of the original forest left, that's what they mean. The forest isn't just the trees and there are very few spots left that have an ecosystem defined by an intact community defined by our big, old trees and all the plants and animals that depend on it. The ones that are left, however, are truly inspiring., Judah On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Jerry Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > > "Ooops. More forest now than in 1920?" > > That's just the tip of the iceberg. That video is so full of lies, > deception, misused stats, and so on that it should be criminal to show it. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:361589 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
