When it comes to trees/forest, we are a LOT better off than we were back in that era, simply because we've abandonded a lot of subsistance farms, and let them regrow.
Indeed. From memory, the low point of forested acreage in the US was around 1900. Forest acreage has been expanding in the US for a long time.
And there are *far* *too* *many* deer. The problems caused by initially planting only one species of tree are minor compared to the damage too many deer cause over time. People don't like having Mountain Lions around so hunters are all we have to control the deer population, and the deer are winning.
You are entirely correct that hings have greatly improved if you use 1900 as the baseline. On the other hand it is instructive to read what people in the 1600s were saying. Settlers in many areas lamented about the great number of huge trees that would have to be removed to site a cabin.
The lumber we harvest today would be considered unsuitable for blocking back in the 40s. Used to be quarter-sawn, clear, heartwood, pine was cheap. Every lumberyard had planks of it two foot wide and twenty feet long. Now you pay extra for quarter-sawn and clear wood will cost you an arm and a leg. A clear quarter-sawn plank two-foot wide might as well be made of unobtainium.
Yes, there are more deer. Largely because the predator species are gone.
Previous Topic
Index
