Pardon me for shouting, but once again you show your ignorance, Tiger Paw. It's TOTAL growth I'm talking about, NOT individual tree growth (which is even more startling, by the way, in its superiority to the growth of old growth trees.)
You are correct, in that tree rings are much wider and somewhat softer in young growth trees than they are in old growth. That means the wood can't be put to the same uses that old growth wood can. However, you are DEAD WRONG about that making them more susceptible to insects and disease. In fact, THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE. Managed forests are MUCH MORE resistant to bark beetles than are unmanaged ones.
Plantings can be any mix of tree species that you want. I always prescribed at least two species in every plantation I was responsible for.
As for being in danger of being overrun by forests before Clinton "saved" us, once again you are dead wrong. In managed forests and in the U. S. as a whole, growth exceeded harvests by a wide margin for many years. That will cease to be the case as soon as the full deleterious effects of Clinton's disastrous forest policies are operating. Far from "saving" us, Clinton instituted policies that LAID WASTE to ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF FORESTRY. If you were a forestry professional, which from the state of your knowledge I can easily tell you are not, you too would be LIVID at Clinton's policies. IT DOES NOT FEEL GOOD TO HAVE ALL THE BENEFITS OF YOUR ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL CAREER GO TO COMPLETE WASTE. That's what happened to me, thanks to the ignorance of Clinton's policies and that of his supporters. |
