http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2007/01/11/national/a195640S26.DTL<b>Idaho Governor Calls for Gray Wolf Kill</b>

(01-11) 19:56 PST Boise, Idaho (AP) --

Idaho's governor said Thursday he will support public hunts to kill all but 100 of the state's gray wolves after the federal government strips them of protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter told The Associated Press that he wants hunters to kill about 550 gray wolves. That would leave about 100 wolves, or 10 packs, according to a population estimate by state wildlife officials.

The 100 surviving wolves would be the minimum before the animals could again be considered endangered.

"I'm prepared to bid for that first ticket to shoot a wolf myself," Otter said earlier Thursday during a rally of about 300 hunters.

Otter complained that wolves are rapidly killing elk and other animals essential to Idaho's multimillion-dollar hunting industry. The hunters, many wearing camouflage clothing and blaze-orange caps, applauded wildly during his comments.

Suzanne Stone, a spokeswoman for the advocacy group Defenders of Wildlife in Boise, said Otter's proposal would return wolves to the verge of eradication.

Wolves were reintroduced to the northern Rocky Mountains a decade ago after being hunted to near-extinction. More than 1,200 now live in the region.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plans to start removing federal protections from gray wolves in Montana and Idaho in the next few weeks.So, the wolves needed protection because they were killed nearly to the brink of extinction. But the minute the federal government declares their population is healthy, the Idahoans can't wait to bring them right back to the brink of being endangered.

And the reason? Despite their trucks, guns, and other hunting gear, the fat rednecks in camouflage are getting their asses kicked by the wolves when it comes to hunting.

And Fyyr wondered why I was so anti-hunting.

Yup, it's pretty disgusting.

Yup, it's pretty disgusting.

Every now and then I feel sad that humans have a permanently 'endangered species' status that can not even be striipped from them.

And then common sense reasserts itself and I start hoping again that we find means to leave this planet for good soon, before our general idiocy manages to do even more harm than it already has.

Where is that winning 1.000.000.000.000.000 dollar lottery ticket that I need to build my own private space station big enough to support an ecosystem or two?


Eri

Where is that winning 1.000.000.000.000.000 dollar lottery ticket that I need to build my own private space station big enough to support an ecosystem or two?


Eri

I'm working on it; but dang, I still need a lot of parts.

Yeah... this is sad.

The wolf is so reclusive that I've only seen about 5 wild wolves in my life, and I've lived and roamed through places with very healthy wolf populations.

And Fyyr wondered why I was so anti-hunting.

I can say, as a hunter, that that is wholey retarded.

But I like wolves.

I would like their number to get to a point where they could be taken at a sustainable level, even.

But decimating their population is just ****ing retarded, pro-hunting or anti-hunting.

But decimating their population is just ****ing retarded, pro-hunting or anti-hunting.The only people interested in decimating the population are hunters. There's no reason a non-hunter would want to kill a wolf, unless maybe he's a shepherd.

Gov. Butch himself, the voice of his hunter constituents, wants to be first in line to kill a wolf. The hunters applaud when he says that. They have no qualms about killing off an entire species, just so that they can entertain themselves.

This hunter mentality I have seen before, like the people who hang the stuffed heads on the wall. It is the same mentality that kills off many endangered species, which are stuffed or skinned and shipped to collectors.

Personally, I can't fathom why a secure man with a full belly would find entertainment in killing a defenseless animal by pressing a button. I can only imagine that that big, powerful gun is compensating for other aspects of that guy that, well, aren't.

The only people interested in decimating the population are hunters.

The only people in black gangs are blacks.

Therefore blacks, or being black, are bad?

Pretty intolerant, ignorant, close minded, and bigoted opinion you have there, Tuda.

defenseless

Obviously, you have never hunted.

If you think that prey animals have no defenses you know as little about biology as you do about hunting.

The only people in black gangs are blacks.

Therefore blacks, or being black, are bad?Eh? I didn't say all hunters want to decimate wolves, I said all people who want to decimate wolves are hunters. You want a Venn diagram?If you think that prey animals have no defenses you know as little about biology as you do about hunting.Well yes, they can run away. Or can they kill you as easily you can kill them, or stop your bullets?

And no, I have never hunted, so that's not a rhetorical question, necessarily.

Well yes, they can run away. Or can they kill you as easily you can kill them, or stop your bullets?

And no, I have never hunted, so that's not a rhetorical question, necessarily.

If you wanted to make hunting sporting, i.e. 50/50 odds of the animal or the hunter winning, you'd really have to work at it. Wolves and deer don't have the right offensive weaponry to seriously endanger a hunter's life.

Going grizzly bear hunting with only a pistol would probably do it.

Or just hunt polar bears with anything you like. They can shrug off anything less than a .30-06, and can run about 40mph. If you don't kill them with an initial CNS hit, you will madden them, and in that state, if they see you, they will definitely be coming after you. There's a video I saw somewhere, of a guy that was dropped near a polar bear via helicopter. It saw him land, charged him, and got within 100 ft of the guy before his somewhat shaky firing finally brought it down. Most higher caliber hunting rifles only hold 4 or 5 cartridges, and he fired 4 shots, so that was the closest I've seen an animal get to winning.

If you wanted to make hunting sporting, i.e. 50/50 odds of the animal or the hunter winning, you'd really have to work at it. Wolves and deer don't have the right offensive weaponry to seriously endanger a hunter's life.Wolves and deer would never attack humans anyway. Wolves are excellent hunters, but they try to get as far away from humans as they possibly can.Going grizzly bear hunting with only a pistol would probably do it.

Or just hunt polar bears with anything you like.I doubt Fyyr is hunting grizzly or polar bears. Grizzly bears are an endangered species, and their hunting in Alaska and Canada is restricted to ensure sustainability. The only reason it's even allowed is because of the economic value of bear skins to the aforementioned "collectors".

Polar bears are a threatened species, soon to be moved up to the endangered list on account of global warming. Not to mention, just getting to where they live is a challenge in and of itself.

Since you seem to be knowledgeable about hunting, maybe you could tell me why your typical deer or other hunting target isn't defenseless against a human with a gun. Or explain to me the entertainment value in pulling a trigger to cause a defenseless animal's death. Educate me.

Since you seem to be knowledgeable about hunting, maybe you could tell me why your typical deer or other hunting target isn't defenseless against a human with a gun. Or explain to me the entertainment value in pulling a trigger to cause a defenseless animal's death. Educate me.

Well, it's a challenge. Why do people climb sheer rock faces or cave dive?
It is very, very hard to sneak up on a deer if you and the deer are moving. It doesn't really matter if you use a bow and arrow or a .30-06, because both can be equally lethal, the bow just takes more training in order to perform the humane killing shot. And you have to be much closer. Which means the deer run away more.

And I'm sure you don't understand "humane killing shot", but trust me, all good hunters only want to ever shoot the deer so that there is no suffering, or minimal suffering to the animal.

The typical deer is not defenseless to thwart the hunter's ability to shoot it, because of its excellent ability to detect you using scent, hearing, and probably earth vibration to run off before you can take that "clean shot" which immediately kills the deer. Which is the only shot hunters should ever take. If you mean able to use force to defend itself against a gun, well, it really can't if the hunter is in his tree stand.

Now, I hear you saying, but the hunter uses camo, scent, and other tricks to mask his alieness in the forest, and in some cases, attract bucks by using doe scent, and that's not fair either.

Well, there are also time constraints for 99% of all hunters. Most have a 9-5, and family, and thus can maybe hunt Saturday mornings, once or twice a month, if they are really dedicated hunters. And deer season is not forever. So they always feel a little pressured to bring back something, and make their few trips count. So you could look upon those tactics as a way to acclerate the hunting process, so that a large majority of hunters might participate at least somewhat in the sport they love, and have something to show for their efforts.

If you went fishing and never caught anything, you would only fish for a time before you quit. As entertaining as any outdoor sports activity is, humans need some positive reinforcement from time to time to keep the activity going.

So what? I hear you say, they are killing defenseless deer for no good reason other than to see how many "points" it had!

My response would be that most hunters I know usually strip and render the deer down for ground venison, and are usually quite gracious with the meat they produce from a hunt. To them, a deer they personally tracked down (or ambushed from a tree stand ) tastes better than store bought meat.

To which I say, haven't you ever fished and fried up your catch? I have, and I can say, the fish I caught tastes better than one I'd buy out of a supermarket freezer.

I can't explain it. It is a real effect though, even though it's primarily a psychological one.

Maybe another part of it is too, that looking your meal in the eyes before you kill it is more respectful somehow to the animal in question, and physically handling it and dressing it down after it dies might be a part of that too.

We all eat meat, I bet, of some variety, but you don't appreciate and admire the life in the animals if you just watch them on TV. There's something about looking the critter in the eyes. Touching its soul? I don't know.. whatever it is, you wouldn't have that by lifting a Saran-wrapped slab of meat off the supermarket shelf. Not that hunters don't buy meat in supermarkets, or look down upon those that do (at least the good ones don't) , but something inside them wants to see and touch and feel and experience the animals they eat, not so visceral or grotesque as just blood and guts, otherwise, they'd be a meat market butcher if that's all they wanted.

I don't think I explained it very well, but there's my interpretation of hunting.

Well, it's a challenge. Why do people climb sheer rock faces or cave dive?Mountain climbing and such is a dangerous activity, no matter how safe you try to make it, and physically very demanding, so I can see why people consider it a challenge, and entertaining. Not to mention, unlike hunting, the only life you put in danger is your own.

Hunting doesn't require physical conditioning, you're at no risk (unless you're with the Vice President), and it's just a matter of time until you get a kill, so what's the challenge?It is very, very hard to sneak up on a deer if you and the deer are moving.Is that the whole thrill, just being able to sneak up on a prey animal? Then you might as well just use a paintball gun and claim your victory.As entertaining as any outdoor sports activity is, humans need some positive reinforcement from time to time to keep the activity going.This is what I'm really trying to understand. <b>What is</b> the positive reinforcement you get by killing something that presents no challenge to you. Do you feel good? Powerful? More manly? Closer to your god?To them, a deer they personally tracked down (or ambushed from a tree stand ) tastes better than store bought meat.I believe you, that a wild animal would have a better taste than one bred on a mega-farm. But is this all there is to it? A better meal?

I believe you, that a wild animal would have a better taste than one bred on a mega-farm. But is this all there is to it? A better meal?
I think he already stated a bunch of other reasons. Why'd you just pretend that was his only point?

If you're going to be a meat eater, might as well shoot it yourself as pick it up off the grocery store counter. I agree, it is a lot more honest. Most of us never have to make that connection between a living animal and the thing on our table. And better to take it from grass eaters than than critters fed corn that are really just highly subsidized, sickly meat sources, IMHO.

The only people interested in decimating the population are hunters.

Not sure about what it's like over the pond, but over here, the most vocal "kill those wolves!"-activists are (sheep) farmers.

I think I made a point up there about shepherds, too. But that's not exactly a major business over here, in wolf territory.

I think I made a point up there about shepherds, too. But that's not exactly a major business over here, in wolf territory.

Not sheperds, sheep farmers. Those that -own- the sheep the wolves feed on.

Children's tales aside, sheep farmers have many more dangerous predators to worry about. Wolf attacks are insignificant.

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/sgpl/sgpl-05-05-2000.txt Losses of Sheep and Lambs from Predators: Number of Head
and Total Value, United States, 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Number : % of Total : Total
Predator : of Head : Predators : Value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Number Percent 1,000 Dollars
:
Coyotes : 165,800 60.7 9,637
Dogs : 41,300 15.1 2,982
Mountain Lions, : 15,600 5.7 998
Cougars, or Pumas :
Bears : 7,800 2.9 555
Foxes : 8,100 3.0 400
Eagles : 10,700 3.9 522
Bobcats : 12,700 4.7 650
All Other Animals : 11,000 4.0 758
:
US : 273,000 100.0 16,502
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With numbers from back when the wolf population was close to zero, of course that's what you'll see. But as I said - things may be different over on your side of the pond, I just pointed out who were the most vocal ones over here.

(and in a country with no coyotes (not even ugly ones), cougars, lions or pumas the statistics may also look somewhat different)

Coyotes became a top predator when the wolf was removed from their territory. If you read many of the reports from Yellowstone and other outlying areas, they've reported a drastic drop in coyote populations since the wolf's return. Seeing as coyotes don't hunt in packs and are still capable of taking down a sheep solo, then imagining the carnage that a wolf pack can do over a short period of time isn't too hard.

By the way.... that's a mean a$$ eagle.

Obviously, you have never hunted.

If you think that prey animals have no defenses you know as little about biology as you do about hunting.

When bambi can pack a .306 springfield, I'll no longer consider them defenseless.

Yes, I know, a pissed off elk or caribou can **** a man up...and this is why its important to not only own a gun in parts of the US, but to carry both a rifle and a handgun with you when you venture out into the wilderness (not to mention critters such as mountain lions and bears)...but spending all day in a blind, luring animals to a nice clearing with fake scent and salt licks, just so you can plug it with your rifle and mount its rack, is pretty well disgusting.

About the only people who have a valid point for killing wolves, now that they are making a resurgence, are cattle farmers. Evidently wolves like cow as much as people.

That being said, however, the US government has a long standing, and in my opinion good, policy of recompensing ranchers for cattle lost to wolf predation.

Wolves are an important part of America and its identity. As much as I love my Irish Wolfhounds...I would hate for America to become like Ireland. We can afford to let the wolves have the run of their territory, for the time being at least.

However...though, there are definately times when the population of a species gets too large for their own sustainability. It evidently happens with some frequency with deer. In such situations, it is far better, in my opinion, to allow people to hunt the animals than to let them starve themselves. Especially if people can get some tastey meat out of it. Not that people eat wolves.

...but spending all day in a blind, luring animals to a nice clearing with fake scent and salt licks, just so you can plug it with your rifle and mount its rack, is pretty well disgusting.

I think so too.

I don't hunt that way.

Luring animals to a hunting site in California is illegal, btw.

How the hell do you hunt in California at all? I thought they outlawed all forms of violence?

Tell that to the street gangs!

If you're going to be a meat eater, might as well shoot it yourself as pick it up off the grocery store counter. I agree, it is a lot more honest. Most of us never have to make that connection between a living animal and the thing on our table. And better to take it from grass eaters than than critters fed corn that are really just highly subsidized, sickly meat sources, IMHO.
Exactly! I don't care at all for trophy hunting but I applaud the folks who hunt for food.

To the folks who consider hunting cruel, keep in mind that everything that lives will eventually die. Meeting your demise at the business end of a 30-06 is one hell of a lot prettier than being torn apart by opportunistic predators or freezing to death when you become old and infirm.

To the folks who consider hunting cruel, keep in mind that everything that lives will eventually die. Meeting your demise at the business end of a 30-06 is one hell of a lot prettier than being torn apart by opportunistic predators or freezing to death when you become old and infirm.You'd think differently if you were the prey. Or, is it OK if I hunt you, for entertainment?

Anthropomorphist empathy?

How quaint.

You'd think differently if you were the prey.
You'd think differently if you were freezing to death and being eaten alive by a predator too small to kill you quickly. Seriously, in the spectrum of ways to die in the wild, a bullet is one of the least cruel.

Or, is it OK if I hunt you, for entertainment?
Sure, Mr. Anti-Gun, what are you going to hunt me with, your car?

Seriously, in the spectrum of ways to die in the wild, a bullet is one of the least cruel.Just because there are crueler ways to die doesn't mean that what you're doing isn't also cruel.

You also can't justify killing on the grounds that the victim might die in some worse way in the future.

Ya you can.

Not you personally, but one can.

So I can shoot you now, to prevent your future lingering death from lung cancer?

Your verb was justify, not shoot.

Fine...tuda can justify...I'll shoot =D

You also can't justify killing on the grounds that the victim might die in some worse way in the future.
Hunger would be my justification. Knowing I'd saved Bambi from a far more savage death would only justify the benevolent smile on my face as I ate.

Actually, as I mentioned before, I agree with Klath on this one. I know with some frequency the deer population in various areas will become overlarge...too large to sustain itself. The ensuing famine, as it were, can often lead to devastating effects on the deer population for years to come, as hunger does not have a tag limit. Thus thinning the herd is the better choice.

Hunger would be my justification.I'm talking about recreational hunters (e.g., the Idahoans here), not subsistence hunters. The only subsistence hunters left in the United States that I'm aware of are a few of the native cultures, and they're rapidly disappearing.

If you're a recreational hunter, you have food alternatives, so hunger is not a valid justification.

I know with some frequency the deer population in various areas will become overlarge...too large to sustain itself. The ensuing famine, as it were, can often lead to devastating effects on the deer population for years to come, as hunger does not have a tag limit. Thus thinning the herd is the better choice.And the wolves are nature's solution to that problem. They hunt to survive, not to feel macho, and they balance the population naturally without human interference.

And the wolves are nature's solution to that problem. They hunt to survive, not to feel macho, and they balance the population naturally without human interference.

Don't mistake me...I'm speaking of hunting in general.

Americans have no reason to kill wolves, whatsoever, with the Goverment reimbursing ranchers for any wolf related stock loss.

Humans are nature's solution to the deer problem too.

Humans are nature's solution to the deer problem too.Humans cannot replace the wolves' function. Wolves help cull the sick and injured prey animals, ensuring the strength of the remaining animals. Wolves have a symbiotic relationship with other scavengers, such as birds, leaving carrion for them. Wolf hunting activity also affects other aspects of the ecosystem; for example, when they were killed off in Yellowstone, cottonwood trees nearly became extinct there because the elk could suddenly graze anywhere without fear.

Wolves were doing a fine job of maintaining a balanced prey animal population on their own, until humans invaded their territory and decimated the habitat and killed off the prey animals.

Although humans can kill prey animals too, they perform none of the other important ecological functions. On the contrary, they screw up the carefully balanced ecosystem by introducing rapid changes that don't allow other life to adapt. The result is a short period of entertainment leaving a damaged ecosystem that may never recover.

Leaving the hunting to the wolves, and maintaining a healthy wolf and prey animal population, not only helps the wolves, but it helps ourselves, by preserving the beauty and biodiversity our planet for future generations.

Don't mistake me...I'm speaking of hunting in general.Honestly, in how many cases are hunters actually doing prey animals a favor by thinning their numbers to a sustainable level to prevent their own starvation? And of those rare cases, in how many did the humans cause the trouble in the first place, by invading the habitat and screwing up the ecosystem?

That's certainly not what's going on in Idaho; it's all about entertainment and the all mighty dollar. They are killing the deer for sport, and feel no compunctions whatsoever at the prospect of killing off the wolves who are in the way of the entertainment industry. Disgusting, I think.

We have the opposite here in California.

Mountain lion hunting ban.

Now mountain lions are so numerous that they are eating people. Which is ok by me. Makes my mountain bike trips and hunting trips all the more exciting.

Nothing like setting up for some Fall gobbler, and knowing that a large predator could be stalking me equally. Adds to the entertainment value of hunting, as you say.

And no, in case I was unclear, I don't think they should be killing the wolves with those numbers. Maybe at ten times the number, but not now.

If you're a recreational hunter, you have food alternatives, so hunger is not a valid justification.
If you mean meat alternatives, so what? You're killing an animal either way. Whether you're shooting it yourself with a gun or buying it shrink-wrapped in plastic at the supermarket, you're just as guilty of killing it. To their credit, the folks who hunt haven't let the abstraction cloud their role in the process.

If you're going to eat meat then hunting is probably the healthiest way of obtaining it for both you and the planet. You don't contribute to factory farming, you get lots of exercise, you spend some time out in the woods with your friends, and you help to keep the prey population balanced.

Although humans can kill prey animals too, they perform none of the other important ecological functions.
Sure they do. As long as the prey populations are managed reasonably things are kept pretty well in balance.

Honestly, in how many cases are hunters actually doing prey animals a favor by thinning their numbers to a sustainable level to prevent their own starvation?
Always.

Sure they do. As long as the prey populations are managed reasonably things are kept pretty well in balance.There's more to ecology than just killing the animal and dragging it away. Read what I wrote.Always.Tell that to the Californian grizzly bears, ironically our state symbol. Or the numerous other species that have been hunted to extinction, or near extinction.

No, you're rarely doing any animal a favor.

I don't know if it is ironic.

The last grizzly bear in California was shot in 1922.

And was made the state animal in 1953.

And I doubt that the grizzlies in California were a distinct species of grizzly bear from say those in Montana or Canada.

Kind of like cities, we cut down all the trees then name the streets after them.

I don't know if it is ironic.

The last grizzly bear in California was shot in 1922.

And was made the state animal in 1953.

And I doubt that the grizzlies in California were a distinct species of grizzly bear from say those in Montana or Canada.

Heh, the wolverine hadn't been seen in Michigan in decades, until very recently.

Tuda do you live in a house? Do you use fossil fuels? By human kinds very nature we are damaging to ecosystems.

Btw I still agree with the OP, there is no real purpose to hunt the wolves back to the point of extinction. But talking about dmg to ecosystems... we'd have to stop being human to do that, though that doesnt mean we should go out of our way to do it at every turn either.

*look at my flip flop like a grounded fish* <flip flops="" like="" a="" grounded="" fish=""></flip>

Kind of like cities, we cut down all the trees then name the streets after them.

I don't know what cities you are talking about.

All the cities I know of, there is an abundance of new trees planted, far beyond what was growing in the region naturally.

Even SF hardly had any trees before Europeans can to the continent. It was called the Golden Gate because the grassy hills would turn yellow in Summer and Fall.

Elk Grove/Laguna, which is the fastest growing city in the country, let alone the State has strict laws regarding old growth oaks. Conserving them.

I don't know what cities you are talking about.Most cities in America. The area has to be cleared of native vegetation before you can build things. Then, maybe a few non-native species are planted afterwards, as a token gesture, or, if there are spectacular trees, there are conservation efforts to save the existing few.

San Francisco is a notable exception, because it was sand dunes and water. Generally, very dense cities will be an exception.

Most cities in America. The area has to be cleared of native vegetation before you can build things. Then, maybe a few non-native species are planted afterwards, as a token gesture, or, if there are spectacular trees, there are conservation efforts to save the existing few.

San Francisco is a notable exception, because it was sand dunes and water. Generally, very dense cities will be an exception.

If you drive through any suburb in California, you will see at least 2 trees in every front yard, and several in the back yard.

I don't know about most cities in America, but every city I have been in, besides those in Alaska, perhaps, have more trees now, than before white people came here. And Alaska is loosing all their trees because of a beetle(which was brought there).

You can't cut down any tree in Sacramento country, called Heritage Trees/Oaks, if they have a diameter over 6 inches.

Los Angeles was a wasteland before the dam projects, and water diversion projects at the turn of the last century.

Funny the game regulation manual in California back in 97, had a picture of the Marble Mountain Wilderness Area from 100 years back, and one at the present. There were double the trees today. I wish I could find that picture again.

Your notion that there are less trees now, than before your and my ancestors came here, is fallacious. And personally I like to have a Gingko tree or a Japanese Maple in my yard, even though it is not native.

I think the cities of which you are referring to, which may, may, be correct are in the exception, and extreme. People plant trees, people like trees.

Drive through Sacramento, City of Trees. There are definitely a hundred fold more trees there now, than 200 years ago.

I don't know what cities you are talking about.

All the cities I know of, there is an abundance of new trees planted, far beyond what was growing in the region naturally.

Even SF hardly had any trees before Europeans can to the continent. It was called the Golden Gate because the grassy hills would turn yellow in Summer and Fall.

Elk Grove/Laguna, which is the fastest growing city in the country, let alone the State has strict laws regarding old growth oaks. Conserving them.

Come out to the Midwest...we destroyed/destroy trees by the trainload for our subdivisions. and/or farming.

I'm not passing judgement...I mean, living and eating > happy little trees any day of the week, but don't delude yourself into thinking that we've done anything other than decimate the number of trees growing in our swath of the continent.

Honestly, in how many cases are hunters actually doing prey animals a favor by thinning their numbers to a sustainable level to prevent their own starvation?

Always.
There's more to ecology than just killing the animal and dragging it away. Read what I wrote.
Read what you wrote yourself. I was just teasing you for making an ambiguous and seemingly tautological statement.

Humans have always been a part of the food chain and to make them out as being something otherwise is bullsh1t. As long as prey populations are well managed, hunting is the healthiest way to obtain meat.

For the record, I'm supporting hunting prey animals for food, not trophy hunting or hunting merely for the sake of killing something.

Depredation killing is justifiable. It is not really hunting, though.

but don't delude yourself into thinking that we've done anything other than decimate the number of trees growing in our swath of the continent.

Even with all the trees that have been saved from natural forest fires, by active forest fire fighting, over the last 100 years or so, you still think that?

Who fought all the forest fires that were here on the continent, 400 years ago?

I suspect you do not fully appreciate the amount of lumber harvesting our nation has engaged in over the past century and a half.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oldgrowth3.jpg

<img src=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/Oldgrowth3.jpg>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation#United_StatesPrior to the arrival of European-Americans about one half of the United States land area was forest, about 400 million hectares (1 billion acres) in 1600. For the next 300 years land was cleared, mostly for agriculture at a rate that matched the rate of population growth. For every person added to the population, one to two hectares of land was cultivated. This trend continued until the 1920s when the amount of crop land stablized in spite of continued population growth. As abandoned farm land reverted to forest the amount of forest land increased from 1952 reaching a peak in 1963 of 308 million ha (762 million acres). Since 1963 there has been a steady decrease of forest area with the exception of some gains from 1997. Gains in forest land have resulted from conversions from crop land and pastures at a higher rate than loss of forest to development. Because the pace of development has increased an estimated 9.3 million ha (23 million acres) of forest land is projected be lost by 2050 [4]. Other qualitative issues have been identified such as the continued loss of old-growth forest[8], the increased fragmentation of forest lands, and the increased urbanization of forest land.[9].

Full report on deforestation as a result of urbanization (too long to quote): http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/fote/reports/fote-6-9-05.pdf

You are implying that trees do not grow back.

I am not talking about old trees, I am talking about NEW trees. That is what I said.

Of course all the old trees are dead. Duh.

You started the tree topic about trees(in general), not old trees.

You are implying that trees do not grow back.When there's a skyscraper or corn field in their place, of course they don't.I am not talking about old trees, I am talking about NEW trees.And I'm saying, what new trees? Look at the map. Look at the report I linked. Trees are consistently vanishing from this country, year by year, as a result of urbanization and agriculture.

A few new ones are planted in their place, but a tree-lined street is no replacement for a forest. Not only does it only have a tiny fraction of the trees that once stood there, and is populated with non-native species, but the fragmented nature of the planting can't replace the ecological function of a real forest.

The trees that are planted are mostly a vanity measure, to trick the residents into believing that they're not destroying the environment, when they really are.

Note that San Francisco and Sacramento are exceptions, because this area didn't have many forests to begin with. But for most of the United States, the trend holds.

Those maps are of old growth, or virgin forests(same thing).

And those maps take no account of trees per acre.

Density is higher now in wilderness and forested areas, than was ever possible naturally.

Every major lumber company has been planting 10 trees for every one they cut down for decades now.

Your maps are meaningless in this discussion, because they are attempting to show something different than what is really happening, and has happened.


Dude, just look at your "today map". Of California. When was the last time you were up in the Sierras or Cascades, and it looked like your map---treeless? Your map is wrong, if you think it shows where trees are or aren't.

I'm not going to quote the whole U.S. Forest Service report that I linked for you. I gave you the Cliff's Notes, forests are consistently vanishing, year by year, and that replacing a tree here and there is not the same thing as maintaining a forest. If you want the detailed answer, read the report.

And by the way, the map I linked shows virgin forests in the Sierra Nevada region, even today. Look again.

I am not talking about virgin forests.

You did not say that in the beginning.

This is just like you meaning marketing when you said diet.




I agree with you, there are no more virgin forests at all. They are all gone. You win.

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/995/forestqn3.jpg

Nebraska NEVER had trees.

Don't tell me that we cut them all down so ADM could grow corn on it.

It was grassland.


And natural old growth forests, before our ancestors came her, were not all that dense. Forest fires, natural fires, kept them from becoming so. Your links to 'hectares of x forest', whatever, doesn't take that into account, and you know it.

Many of those grey urban areas, even as small as they are, should be green, because there are more trees there now, by a hundred fold, than there were 300 years ago, for most of them. Now I am sure that Manhattan Island was a lush grove of virginal whatever, that city is an exception.

Las Vegas itself has more trees now that Manhattan Island ever had, and it's in the desert.

Nebraska NEVER had trees.Right. That's why there's a Nebraska National Forest (http://forestry.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/nebraska/) and why there exists a Nebraska Forest Service (http://www.nfs.unl.edu/). Because they have no forests.

Do you have any data sources for your opinions, or do you make them up as you go along?And natural old growth forests, before our ancestors came her, were not all that dense.The density of a forest does not necessarily determine its ecological benefit.

You seem to be operating from a misconception that it's all about counting the total number of trees, no matter where they are, what type they are, and what role they play in the ecosystem. That's not true.

You said, and I quote...

"Kind of like cities, we cut down all the trees then name the streets after them."

Implying that they are cut down, and the ground is paved over with asphalt, and no new trees are planted. Implying that there are less trees now, than there were 500 years ago.



Regarding the Nebraska National Forest. Did you even look at the map? I dunno, maybe the Indians burned all the Real Nebraska Forest down 1000 years ago, and grew grass on the grasslands to feed their buffalo, and what is left, that tiny itty bit up in the corner, was what they could not get to.

And no, I have no problem with California's efforts to cut down all the Eucalyptus trees.

I love them, they are beautiful.

But they have all got that weevil/worm parasite now, and need to be destroyed. I still have that weevil egg case droppings crud in my boxes in storage, from when I lived out on the ranch.

I am not talking about virgin forests.Are you suggesting that equivalent replacement forests grow in their place?

Outside my window I see Golden Gate Park (well, during the day), and although it has a million trees and is even bigger than New York's Central Park, it's hardly the ecological equivalent of a forest. It's completely artificial, with non-native trees, and many of the trees are in bad shape despite constant maintenance because they don't belong there in the first place. (It is naturally just sand dunes.) It doesn't support an ecology of its own, as a real forest would. It's just visual eye candy for city dwellers, artificially constructed and artificially maintained.

Implying that they are cut down, and the ground is paved over with asphalt, and no new trees are planted. Implying that there are less trees now, than there were 500 years ago.http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienceques2002/20030404.htmEven though satellite views of most places east of the Mississippi River would still show a pervasion of green, it's not as green as it was before the first Europeans arrived 400 years ago. In the mid 1950s, it was estimated by the National Geographic Society that forests covered approximately 3/4 of the original acreage present when the first European settlers arrived. A good deal of additional tree loss has occurred in just the last half century. For example, according to American Forests (a conservation organization), the forest cover in the Baltimore-Washington area decreased from 51% in 1973 to 39% in 1997. Although building and construction is somewhat higher in this region than across most of the eastern US, in nearly every urban and suburban area, there are far fewer trees now than just a score ago. Not only have trees been cut down to make room for housing developments and highways, but timbering, diseases (such as Dutch Elm disease) and acid rain have all taken their toll. In the U.S. today, perhaps only 60% of the land originally in forest 400 years ago is still forested.

Many jurisdictions, recognizing the benefits of trees to their communities, have been planting saplings at a faster pace than they've had to remove diseased and dying trees. Also, a number of companies that log timber stands are now planting seedlings at a pace far surpassing removal. Nonetheless, pint-sized little fellas can't possibly provide the same sort of environmental bonuses as their full-sized brethren. With the loss of a forest or even individual mature trees, there is an irretrievable loss of shade, for cooling and reduction of evapotranspiration; leaf litter and crown, for buffering both atmospheric and water pollution; and root and trunk system, for minimizing runoff and erosion. The sylvan cathedrals that greeted the first colonists may be long gone, but fortunately, there is now an awareness that a healthy and varied ecosystem is largely dependent upon the presence of mature, vigorous forests.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2002-04/1018741400.Bt.r.htmlBefore Columbus arrived in North America, there was basically one continuous forest in the Eastern United States west to beyond the Mississippi River. It was said that a squirrel could go branch to branch from the east coast to the Mississippi River without touching the ground. A biome map would be the same now as in Colonial times because it is based on climate. A biome map shows that half or more of the USA area consists of forest biomes, even though most of the trees have been cut down in many of those forest biomes. Notice that second behind forests in area are grasslands in the Central USA and third in area is desert in the Southwest.

Today, only remnants of the great eastern USA forests remain. Nonforested areas today include farm fields, buildings, home lawns, roads, golf courses, athletic fields, parking lots, cemetaries, etc. There has also been substantial deforestation in the western United States since Colonial times. Therefore, my educated guess it that there are fewer trees in the United States today than in Colonial times assuming that seedlings and small saplings are not included. Maybe a more better way to put it is that there is definitely much less
forested area today than in Colonial times.

Are you suggesting that equivalent replacement forests grow in their place?
What do you mean by equivalent? There were relatively few native trees here in the first place. Are you again implying that exogenous trees are inherently bad? Elms for instance, bad, not native, disease ridden, all need to be cut down. Eucalyptus, beautiful trees, not native, parasite ridden now, all need to be cut down. But the rest, I like them. I said that, back at the beginning of this topic.

Outside my window I see Golden Gate Park (well, during the day), and although it has a million trees and is even bigger than New York's Central Park, it's hardly the ecological equivalent of a forest. It's completely artificial, with non-native trees,
I love the Cypresses in San Francisco. You want to cut them all down? Go for it.

Now, I did have a friend back from University, who came from SF. Her parents/family house was in a section/neighborhood that had CC&Rs to have only Yuccas in the front and back yards for trees. THAT was offensive.

I would cut those down in a heartbeat.

Redwoods are beautiful, they are. But they are boring, after awhile.
Cottonwoods are messy.
Oaks are beautiful, but limited on species. California has, now, 10 fold more species of oaks growing than were here natively. And we are all made better because of it.

Dude, not even mentioning the millions of trees planted in peoples backyards, I have just thousands, a golf balls distance from me, in orchards. Cherries, almonds, walnuts. Apple trees by the thousands, just minutes from me, that make your Martinellis Sparkling Cider. Not native, thousands upon thousands of them.

All growing where very few oaks grew before. And not to mention that we have conserved in our area, GROVES of native Oaks. That outnumber exponentially what the farmers cut down a hundred years ago.

Your notion of a forest so dense as squirrels were leaping branch to branch is idiotic to absurd, that would have predicated unparalleled forest fires, to say the least, to which that would not exist.

Even golf courses have added more trees than nature ever intended naturally for most of where golf courses are built.

What do you mean by equivalent?I mean equivalent forests, not just random trees. There is a big difference between the two. A lot of random trees artificially placed together (e.g., Golden Gate Park) is not a forest. A forest supports its own special ecosystem, many random trees do not.

There's little doubt the actual number of trees in the United States today is less than it was 500 years ago, but the real problem isn't a head count of the trees, but their disconnection from the ecosystem.

There's little doubt the actual number of trees in the United States today is less than it was 500 years ago...

You doubt it.

I don't.

I am positive of the opposite, rather. Even intuitively, irrespective of Joni Mitchell songs, it is so.

In almost every major city, there are more trees than before people were there.
In every wilderness area, there are more trees because of forest fire fighting and prevention, and conservation.
In every national forest there are more trees because of forest fighting and prevention, and conservation.
On every strip of private forested land, there are 10 trees planted for every one felled. Same with public land, if it is logged.
On every strip of land which was cut down of trees for orchards, there are a thousand fold more trees.

Now, if I were stuck in the 60's Liberal mentality, and listened to Joni Mitchell or Joan Baez anymore, I would probably agree with you. But they were wrong then, as you are wrong now.

Go hunting with me next September, Tuda.

You can even just bring a camera.

I will show you, if you like.

I will show you how many trees there really are. And I will show you the subway systems that deer have to evade nimrods like myself.

500 hundred years ago there were no trees at all in Golden Gate park.

At all.

It was all just weeds and grass.

All of it. And a few windworn shrubs.

Every tree in San Francisco was planted there.

500 hundred years ago there were no trees at all in Golden Gate park.I said that. It was naturally sand dunes. And it's entirely artificial. And I explained why that is not the same as a forest.

Can you not comprehend the difference between a natural forest with its own ecosystem, and a bunch of random trees artificially planted in manicured soil?In almost every major city, there are more trees than before people were there.
In every wilderness area, there are more trees because of forest fire fighting and prevention, and conservation.
In every national forest there are more trees because of forest fighting and prevention, and conservation.
On every strip of private forested land, there are 10 trees planted for every one felled. Same with public land, if it is logged.
On every strip of land which was cut down of trees for orchards, there are a thousand fold more trees.Do you have any data to support this, or are you just making things up again, like the non-existent forests in Nebraska? Were you there 500 years ago, or something?

Not every city is like San Francisco or Sacramento, where there were no forests to begin with. Most of the forests were in the Eastern and Central United States, and I've shown you data about what has happened to them.