more surges in Montana...

jeff miller wrote:

wrote:

On Jul 7, 4:33 pm, jeff miller wrote:

i'm afraid there are simply "too many rats
in the cage". farm land and forests have been disappearing at alarming
rates for a long time now.



Agree with the sentiment, just curious if you actually have any data
for the "farm land and forests" disappearing. At least in the United
States I'd be surprised if there was a significant loss of farm land.
I vaguely remember increased North American forests being listed as
a reason for increased global warming.

Just curious if you have any data for your statement.
- Ken




oops...

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:04:01 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:

wrote:
On Jul 7, 4:33 pm, jeff miller wrote:

i'm afraid there are simply "too many rats
in the cage". farm land and forests have been disappearing at alarming
rates for a long time now.

Um, according to the story, Plum Creek now owns 1.2 million acres in
Montana, with 280,000 acres already having been purchased by The Nature
Conservancy and other orgs and another 320,000 acres are secured via Fed
action...and the total number of acres sold to developers in the last 8
years? 3000. Plum Creek's plans for the next 8 years? To sell less
than that (granted, there's no guarantee they'll not sell more) But I'd
offer that there aren't really many developers with a spare 120 billion
(or even 12 billion) laying around to develop all 1.2 million acres, but
even if there were one (or Plum Creek simply attempted to pave every
inch of it), Montana would still have around 30 million acres of state
and Federal land (out of 90 million total acres in the state). IOW,
even if those land-raping *******s at Plum Creek sell another 3000 acres
over the next 8 years to greedy developers who it turn parcel it out in
200 acre tracts so dip**** yuppies can have 'net cams installed on them,
I suspect the 30 million acres of existing "public" land would probably
not become a barren wasteland because of the "developed" 3000.

IOW, look at ALL the facts rather than just the few that one side or the
other wants to promote.

HTH,
R




Agree with the sentiment, just curious if you actually have any data
for the "farm land and forests" disappearing. At least in the United
States I'd be surprised if there was a significant loss of farm land.
I vaguely remember increased North American forests being listed as
a reason for increased global warming.

Just curious if you have any data for your statement.
- Ken

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:20:46 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:

wrote:

On Jul 7, 4:33 pm, jeff miller wrote:

i'm afraid there are simply "too many rats
in the cage". farm land and forests have been disappearing at alarming
rates for a long time now.


Agree with the sentiment, just curious if you actually have any data
for the "farm land and forests" disappearing. At least in the United
States I'd be surprised if there was a significant loss of farm land.
I vaguely remember increased North American forests being listed as
a reason for increased global warming.

Just curious if you have any data for your statement.
- Ken

it's a commonly-known and undeniable statistic in nc (my place of
experience and knowledge)...and one i have witnessed in my years in
eastern nc... don't know how it is on the west coast (or are you in the
dakotas?). look at these which i quickly harvested from google...

http://www.edf.org/documents/3565_NCForestry.pdf

http://www.landfortomorrow.org/page193.html ("...The state DENR
estimates that development gobbles up 100,000 acres of working farms,
forests and gamelands every year. In last decade more than one million
acres of natural and rural areas have been developed. Sadly, North
Carolina now leads the country in farm loss.")

http://www.ncwildlifefederation.org/...telandsres.htm
(...WHEREAS, NC lost more than one million acres of forestland from
1990-2002, and continues to lose 100,000 acres of forests annually,
2,000 acres lost each week; ...WHEREAS, Agricultural land statewide
declined by nearly 55.7 thousand acres annually over the most recent
reporting period (1992-1997). Moreover prime cropland declined by an
even greater percentage, losing 33.7 thousand acres annually during the
same period. Farmland loss was greatest in urban or rapidly developing
counties where both Mecklenburg and Wake Counties averaged 21 percent
declines over the past five years, and Forsyth County averaged 10
percent declines. According to the American Farmland Trust, North
Carolina ranks fourth nationally in the loss of farmland; ...")

And the problem with that is, as far as the loss of ag land...? Ag land
is "developed" insofar as man having "repurposed" it to fit whatever
need he happened to have at the time.

TC,
R

wrote:

On Jul 7, 4:33 pm, jeff miller wrote:

i'm afraid there are simply "too many rats
in the cage". farm land and forests have been disappearing at alarming
rates for a long time now.


Agree with the sentiment, just curious if you actually have any data
for the "farm land and forests" disappearing. At least in the United
States I'd be surprised if there was a significant loss of farm land.
I vaguely remember increased North American forests being listed as
a reason for increased global warming.

Just curious if you have any data for your statement.
- Ken


sorry about the dakotas comment...got my vang-mu all warped...

here's another one...from society of american foresters...

"However, for the past 40 years the acreage of forest land in several
states has continued to decline, with forest lands near many urban
population centers, as well as recreational and retirement communities,
now being permanently converted to residential, commercial, and other
non-forest land uses. Nationwide forest inventory data now show that a
trend decrease in the nation's aggregate forest land area has occurred
since the 1960s. From a peak of 762 million acres in 1963, total US
forest land decreased by 13 million acres by 2002. While the area of
forest land in most states remained stable during that period, or in
some cases increased, several of the Southern states, as well as the
Pacific coast states, experienced a substantial reduction in forest land
area (Smith et al. 2004).

In the Southeastern United States, the states of Florida, Georgia, and
North Carolina, which experienced rapid population growth and urban
expansion, together incurred a net loss of approximately six million
acres of forest land between 1963 and 2002. Arkansas, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, and Texas have experienced an aggregate net loss of forest
land of approximately 12 million acres since 1963, a result of both
urban expansion and conversion of some forests to agricultural land. On
the Pacific coast, the reduction in forest land acreage in California,
Oregon, and Washington since the 1960s represents almost five million
acres (Smith et al. 2004). Data from the two most recent nationwide
forest inventory periods, 1997 and 2002, suggest that while forest land
acreage in most states remained stable, or in some cases increased, the
aggregate acreage of forestland nationwide has peaked and a trend
reduction in forest land area is now occurring in many states. One
recent study projects that the area of forestland in the United States
will decrease by 23 million acres by the year 2050 from the1997 level
(Alig et al. 2003)."

http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/po...tion-paper.pdf

wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:20:46 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:


wrote:


On Jul 7, 4:33 pm, jeff miller wrote:


i'm afraid there are simply "too many rats
in the cage". farm land and forests have been disappearing at alarming
rates for a long time now.


Agree with the sentiment, just curious if you actually have any data
for the "farm land and forests" disappearing. At least in the United
States I'd be surprised if there was a significant loss of farm land.
I vaguely remember increased North American forests being listed as
a reason for increased global warming.

Just curious if you have any data for your statement.
- Ken

it's a commonly-known and undeniable statistic in nc (my place of
experience and knowledge)...and one i have witnessed in my years in
eastern nc... don't know how it is on the west coast (or are you in the
dakotas?). look at these which i quickly harvested from google...

http://www.edf.org/documents/3565_NCForestry.pdf

http://www.landfortomorrow.org/page193.html ("...The state DENR
estimates that development gobbles up 100,000 acres of working farms,
forests and gamelands every year. In last decade more than one million
acres of natural and rural areas have been developed. Sadly, North
Carolina now leads the country in farm loss.")

http://www.ncwildlifefederation.org/...telandsres.htm
(...WHEREAS, NC lost more than one million acres of forestland from
1990-2002, and continues to lose 100,000 acres of forests annually,
2,000 acres lost each week; ...WHEREAS, Agricultural land statewide
declined by nearly 55.7 thousand acres annually over the most recent
reporting period (1992-1997). Moreover prime cropland declined by an
even greater percentage, losing 33.7 thousand acres annually during the
same period. Farmland loss was greatest in urban or rapidly developing
counties where both Mecklenburg and Wake Counties averaged 21 percent
declines over the past five years, and Forsyth County averaged 10
percent declines. According to the American Farmland Trust, North
Carolina ranks fourth nationally in the loss of farmland; ...")


And the problem with that is, as far as the loss of ag land...? Ag land
is "developed" insofar as man having "repurposed" it to fit whatever
need he happened to have at the time.

TC,
R

but, the needs here are primarily subdivisions, residential use, and
small commercial development...i.e., urbanization. no food crops...no
forest. "repurposing"??? ...jeez, that adorable. but the issue or
point being discussed was the loss of farm land that has a purpose in
supplying food for people, and the loss of forest lands. (of course,
some forests are converted to farm land...then urbanized. g) i reckon
there is no problem if you don't care about the loss, or like
"repurposing" more.

jeff

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:05:17 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:

wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:20:46 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:


wrote:


On Jul 7, 4:33 pm, jeff miller wrote:


i'm afraid there are simply "too many rats
in the cage". farm land and forests have been disappearing at alarming
rates for a long time now.


Agree with the sentiment, just curious if you actually have any data
for the "farm land and forests" disappearing. At least in the United
States I'd be surprised if there was a significant loss of farm land.
I vaguely remember increased North American forests being listed as
a reason for increased global warming.

Just curious if you have any data for your statement.
- Ken

it's a commonly-known and undeniable statistic in nc (my place of
experience and knowledge)...and one i have witnessed in my years in
eastern nc... don't know how it is on the west coast (or are you in the
dakotas?). look at these which i quickly harvested from google...

http://www.edf.org/documents/3565_NCForestry.pdf

http://www.landfortomorrow.org/page193.html ("...The state DENR
estimates that development gobbles up 100,000 acres of working farms,
forests and gamelands every year. In last decade more than one million
acres of natural and rural areas have been developed. Sadly, North
Carolina now leads the country in farm loss.")

http://www.ncwildlifefederation.org/...telandsres.htm
(...WHEREAS, NC lost more than one million acres of forestland from
1990-2002, and continues to lose 100,000 acres of forests annually,
2,000 acres lost each week; ...WHEREAS, Agricultural land statewide
declined by nearly 55.7 thousand acres annually over the most recent
reporting period (1992-1997). Moreover prime cropland declined by an
even greater percentage, losing 33.7 thousand acres annually during the
same period. Farmland loss was greatest in urban or rapidly developing
counties where both Mecklenburg and Wake Counties averaged 21 percent
declines over the past five years, and Forsyth County averaged 10
percent declines. According to the American Farmland Trust, North
Carolina ranks fourth nationally in the loss of farmland; ...")


And the problem with that is, as far as the loss of ag land...? Ag land
is "developed" insofar as man having "repurposed" it to fit whatever
need he happened to have at the time.

TC,
R

but, the needs here are primarily subdivisions, residential use, and
small commercial development...i.e., urbanization. no food crops...no
forest. "repurposing"??? ...jeez, that adorable. but the issue or
point being discussed was the loss of farm land that has a purpose in
supplying food for people, and the loss of forest lands. (of course,
some forests are converted to farm land...then urbanized. g) i reckon
there is no problem if you don't care about the loss, or like
"repurposing" more.

A couple of points to ponder: the amount of acreage it takes to produce
a given amount of _most_ crops has also lessened through modernization,
so less land is required to grow more food. Granted, there are
arguments against some of these techniques, such as "engineering" crops,
but some of these arguments are simply misinformed. Second, you might
wish to look, for example, for the "deforestation" rates in, say,
Raleigh-Durham or the five boroughs of NYC in the first 100 years of
their existence. From a pure ag management standpoint, there is no
point in having more land than is needed to grow the amount of crop the
market demands. And I'd suspect that at least some NC land that was
previously grew tobacco is no longer needed for that crop.

IAC, the mere statement that "farm land (or forest area) in this or that
state is decreasing" or some such is meaningless when it is out of
context, even if it is literally true. But let's assume that it is. Why
is a decrease from the 762 million forest acres in 1962, even if did
decrease by 13 million acres (interesting math, BTW- 6 + 12 + 5 = 13),
and that it further decreases another 23 million acres by 2050, in and
of itself, a bad thing?

TC,
R

jeff

On Jul 8, 4:42*pm, jeff miller wrote:
Nationwide forest inventory data now show that a
trend decrease in the nation's aggregate forest land area has occurred
since the 1960s. From a peak of 762 million acres in 1963, total US
forest land decreased by 13 million acres by 2002. While the area of
forest land in most states remained stable during that period, or in
some cases increased, several of the Southern states, as well as the
Pacific coast states, experienced a substantial reduction in forest land
area (Smith et al. 2004).

Just a reality check, isn't that a 1.7% reduction over 40 years?
Or 0.04% per year?

Based on some of your other links (I admit to not having time
to do much more than skim most of them) it appears that most
of the forest land loss has been privately owned land being
converted from forest to agricultural use.
- Ken

On Jul 8, 7:29*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:05:17 -0400, jeff miller





wrote:
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:20:46 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:

wrote:

On Jul 7, 4:33 pm, jeff miller wrote:

i'm afraid there are simply "too many rats
in the cage". farm land and forests have been disappearing at alarming
rates for a long time now. *

Agree with the sentiment, just curious if you actually have any data
for the "farm land and forests" disappearing. *At least in the United
States I'd be surprised if there was a significant loss of farm land.
I vaguely remember increased North American forests being listed as
a reason for increased global warming.

Just curious if you have any data for your statement.
* * - Ken

it's a commonly-known and undeniable statistic in nc (my place of
experience and knowledge)...and one i have witnessed in my years in
eastern nc... *don't know how it is on the west coast (or are you in the
dakotas?). *look at these which i quickly harvested from google...

http://www.edf.org/documents/3565_NCForestry.pdf

http://www.landfortomorrow.org/page193.html*("...The state DENR
estimates that development gobbles up 100,000 acres of working farms,
forests and gamelands every year. In last decade more than one million
acres of natural and rural areas have been developed. Sadly, North
Carolina now leads the country in farm loss.")

http://www.ncwildlifefederation.org/...telandsres.htm
(...WHEREAS, NC lost more than one million acres of forestland from
1990-2002, and continues to lose 100,000 acres of forests annually,
2,000 acres lost each week; ...WHEREAS, Agricultural land statewide
declined by nearly 55.7 thousand acres annually over the most recent
reporting period (1992-1997). *Moreover prime cropland declined by an
even greater percentage, losing 33.7 thousand acres annually during the
same period. Farmland loss was greatest in urban or rapidly developing
counties where both Mecklenburg and Wake Counties averaged 21 percent
declines over the past five years, and Forsyth *County averaged 10
percent declines. *According to the American Farmland Trust, North
Carolina ranks fourth nationally in the loss of farmland; ...")

And the problem with that is, as far as the loss of ag land...? *Ag land
is "developed" insofar as man having "repurposed" it to fit whatever
need he happened to have at the time. *

TC,
R

but, the needs here are primarily subdivisions, residential use, and
small commercial development...i.e., urbanization. *no food crops...no
forest. *"repurposing"??? ...jeez, that adorable. *but the issue or
point being discussed was the loss of farm land that has a purpose in
supplying food for people, and the loss of forest lands. (of course,
some forests are converted to farm land...then urbanized. g) *i reckon
there is no problem if you don't care about the loss, or like
"repurposing" more.

A couple of points to ponder: *the amount of acreage it takes to produce
a given amount of _most_ crops has also lessened through modernization,
so less land is required to grow more food. *Granted, there are
arguments against some of these techniques, such as "engineering" crops,
but some of these arguments are simply misinformed. *Second, you might
wish to look, for example, for the "deforestation" rates in, say,
Raleigh-Durham or the five boroughs of NYC in the first 100 years of
their existence. *From a pure ag management standpoint, there is no
point in having more land than is needed to grow the amount of crop the
market demands. *And I'd suspect that at least some NC land that was
previously grew tobacco is no longer needed for that crop.

IAC, the mere statement that "farm land (or forest area) in this or that
state is decreasing" or some such is meaningless when it is out of
context, even if it is literally true. *But let's assume that it is. Why
is a decrease from the 762 million forest acres in 1962, even if did
decrease by 13 million acres (interesting math, BTW- 6 + 12 + 5 = 13),
and that it further decreases another 23 million acres by 2050, in and
of itself, a bad thing? *

TC,
R





jeff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

While in agreement or neutral on much of what you say here, there is
another aspect to consider. That is the observable loss of closer in,
higher quality farm lands, ie land with superior soil fertility, sub
irrigation, easier slopes etc.. I have no figures but those are the
land losses that bother me most.

Dave

wrote:
On Jul 8, 4:42 pm, jeff miller wrote:

Nationwide forest inventory data now show that a
trend decrease in the nation's aggregate forest land area has occurred
since the 1960s. From a peak of 762 million acres in 1963, total US
forest land decreased by 13 million acres by 2002. While the area of
forest land in most states remained stable during that period, or in
some cases increased, several of the Southern states, as well as the
Pacific coast states, experienced a substantial reduction in forest land
area (Smith et al. 2004).


Just a reality check, isn't that a 1.7% reduction over 40 years?
Or 0.04% per year?

Based on some of your other links (I admit to not having time
to do much more than skim most of them) it appears that most
of the forest land loss has been privately owned land being
converted from forest to agricultural use.
- Ken



look closer at the number of acres being lost annually in agricultural
regions of the south...don't you think that is an awful lot? statistical
percentages aren't my game, but there is a huge amount of land involved
from my perspective. in nc, urban sprawl is the culprit. and, i agree,
it is the privately owned forests and farms being lost. the forest
service is doing a good job of reforestation and management in the nc
public lands, as are the nature conservancy groups, imo.

oddly enough, i read somewhere china has increased its forest lands...
but, i reckon planting 2 trees in haiti would be an increased forestry
too...g

jeff