more surges in Montana...

On Jul 9, 3:26*pm, jeff miller wrote:
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?

Not to be too flippant, but why do I care if farmland in the south
gets
converted to urban land?

I don't like urban sprawl, but it's not like it's wilderness being
lost.

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.

Going back to the original point in this, as long as it's just private
land
changing hands and the public land is being managed well, what's the
issue?
- Ken

wrote:
- 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?

Not to be too flippant, but why do I care if farmland in the south
gets
converted to urban land?

....and therein is the problem revealed.... no sense in discussing the
issue with you.

Going back to the original point in this, as long as it's just private
land
changing hands and the public land is being managed well, what's the
issue?
- Ken

yeah...again, i find it hard to believe you are that
narrow-minded...until now, i never suspected such. what happens when all
the "private" farmland and forests are gone to condos, parking lots,
etc? rainforests?? hell janik...why should you and i worry about
anything...won't be much change by the time we're dust... anyway, i'm
leaving this morning for a trip west...and working at the great mystery
again.

jeff

On Jul 10, 4:20*am, jeff miller wrote:
wrote:
* * *- 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?

Not to be too flippant, but why do I care if farmland in the south
gets
converted to urban land?

...and therein is the problem revealed.... no sense in discussing the
issue with you.

I'm being purposefully flippant. To be more honest, urban sprawl is
essentially a local problem. If you don't like your local urban
sprawl
then vote your local *******s out.

As someone who lives in an "Urban Growth Boundary", you might not
like the alternatives either. Primary problem is too many people
breeding
too many more people.


Going back to the original point in this, as long as it's just private
land
changing hands and the public land is being managed well, what's the
issue?
* *- Ken

yeah...again, i find it hard to believe you are that
narrow-minded...until now, i never suspected such. what happens when all
the "private" farmland and forests are gone to condos, parking lots,
etc? *rainforests?? *hell janik...why should you and i worry about
anything...won't be much change by the time we're dust... * anyway, i'm
leaving this morning for a trip west...and working at the great mystery
again.

I think I work with data too much. A 1.7% change over 40 years is
essentially
no change. I'm confident that the error bars in the data are larger
than that
change.
- Ken

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:18:11 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jul 10, 4:20*am, jeff miller wrote:
wrote:
* * *- 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?

Not to be too flippant, but why do I care if farmland in the south
gets
converted to urban land?

...and therein is the problem revealed.... no sense in discussing the
issue with you.

I'm being purposefully flippant. To be more honest, urban sprawl is
essentially a local problem. If you don't like your local urban
sprawl
then vote your local *******s out.

As someone who lives in an "Urban Growth Boundary", you might not
like the alternatives either. Primary problem is too many people
breeding
too many more people.


Going back to the original point in this, as long as it's just private
land
changing hands and the public land is being managed well, what's the
issue?
* *- Ken

yeah...again, i find it hard to believe you are that
narrow-minded...until now, i never suspected such. what happens when all
the "private" farmland and forests are gone to condos, parking lots,
etc? *rainforests?? *hell janik...why should you and i worry about
anything...won't be much change by the time we're dust... * anyway, i'm
leaving this morning for a trip west...and working at the great mystery
again.

I think I work with data too much. A 1.7% change over 40 years is
essentially
no change. I'm confident that the error bars in the data are larger
than that
change.
- Ken


The humorous thing about this whole thing is that it is not like Donald
Trump trying to cover all of Central Park with CLASSY!!!! skyscrapers
and concrete, but rather, it's like Tom Keller trying to buy Tavern on
the Green...and turning it into a restaurant...(and speaking of pearls
before swine...)

HTH,
R

" wrote

Not to be too flippant, but why do I care if farmland in the south
gets
converted to urban land?

I don't like urban sprawl, but it's not like it's wilderness being
lost.

well, a man who doesn't think that most of the countryside in pitt
county, nc isn't wilderness simply hasn't been to either wilderness or pitt
county.

wayno

On Jul 9, 4:21*pm, " wrote:
On Jul 9, 3:26*pm, jeff miller wrote:





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?

Not to be too flippant, but why do I care if farmland in the south
gets
converted to urban land?

I don't like urban sprawl, but it's not like it's wilderness being
lost.

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.

Going back to the original point in this, as long as it's just private
land
changing hands and the public land is being managed well, what's the
issue?
* *- Ken- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What if the farmland were in your part of Oregon? Do you care about
that? How about Sauve Island? Would it bother you if it were covered
with condos, Intell hives, Schlock-o-mats, and CarFarts?

Dave
Man does not live by bread alone.

On Jul 10, 12:37*pm, wrote:
On Jul 9, 4:21*pm, " wrote:



On Jul 9, 3:26*pm, jeff miller wrote:

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?

Not to be too flippant, but why do I care if farmland in the south
gets
converted to urban land?

I don't like urban sprawl, but it's not like it's wilderness being
lost.

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.

Going back to the original point in this, as long as it's just private
land
changing hands and the public land is being managed well, what's the
issue?
* *- Ken- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What if the farmland were in your part of Oregon? Do you care about
that? How about Sauve Island? Would it bother you if it were covered
with condos, Intell hives, Schlock-o-mats, and CarFarts?

Dave
Man does not live by bread alone.

Everywhere we live was once covered by forests,
prairies, etc. The building I'm working in and the
home I live in were both farms not that long ago.
Not too long before that they were both "wild".

It's private property. If we cared enough, we'd donate
all our money to the nature conservancy and/or
complain loud enough for our local city/county/state
government to pony up and buy it.

Where I live, we have an urban growth boundary,
specifically to limit the urban sprawl. Lots of complaint
about it. Dinky house lots, too close together, raises
house prices, causes congestion, etc.

If people actually cared, they could lobby for similar.
From what I can tell, most people elsewhere love their
local carfarts, walmarts, etc more than farmland.
- Ken