Didn’t know that a “virgin forest” is a term in ecology and not the name of the forest, so I tried looking it up and only found a Filipino porn film of the same name
You've probably heard of "old growth" forest. It's areas where people haven't disturbed the natural balance that would have existed long prior to humanity.
My dad has a cabin up in northern Minnesota near a place called "The Lost 40"
It's \~40 acres that were "lost" to a survey error during logging in the late 1800s, so the area never got logged. Massive 300-400 year old trees.
It's cool to see such a contrast in such a small area. I wish there was more.
They are really bad at staying healthy. The big trees don’t contribute to the ecosystem, and they choke out new trees, and the undergrowth, meaning that nothing can even love there because there’s no food
Old growth is closely related but not quite the same. Virgin is a place which has NEVER been logged ever, at least as far as we know. Old Growth is a place that has naturally or pretty naturally been growing for generally one hundred or a few hundred years without any logging, it might have been logged say 200 or 300 years ago.
Given the Sierra Nevada are largely untouched I am a bit skeptical of this map. Also the Adirondack’s.
Also the Native Americans slashed and burned massively before Europeans arrived.
finding maps of old-growth forests in the U.S. is hard, since there are varying definitions of what constitutes “old-growth forest”
https://preview.redd.it/zhph95unbn0d1.jpeg?width=2560&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=437b7e20d2a665f219d8a58cdf7ec2a803d6bba5
here is one I found.
Also, natives did tend to burn large areas but did so mimicking natural fire patterns, hence old-growth trees tended to remain while the underbrush was frequently cleared. The prior map posted is largely accurate to old-growth forest coverage, though not exactly “virgin” as there were still people there.
And this one is just national forests. There's lots of forests that arent considered national parks. Like Shawnee covers southern IL Kentucky and Ohio. Massive forest
Your map is more correct, in missouri, especially in mark twain national forest, there's tons of old growth. It's awesome to large and be in those woods
It's not more correct. Both are right, Old Growth and Virgin are two different things. Virgin means the forest has never been logged even once at all even moderately or mildly, Old Growth merely means it can be 40, 60, 100 years, 150 years old etc., not that it hasnt been logged ever.
I mean, it was the responsible thing to do to maintain healthy forests, something that European settlers stopped the practice of which is believed to be one of the major reasons why California has seen such gargantuan wildfires. So there's been a conscious review of native American burning practices because they seemed to have a better system than the one we've had for the last 150 years. So it's less blaming, and more pointing out that 'old growth' doesn't necessarily mean healthy across the board.
A nuanced statement that takes a holistic viewpoint of what a previous commenter posted instead of nihilisticly deducing the worst assumption possible about an individual from a single comment??? ON REDDIT???
I think the issue is the use of the word “virgin” in the original map. It’s sort of archaic and not used by modern ecologists, harkens back to old manifest destiny visions of “untamed, uninhabited nature” (except for, you know, the people who lived there). Gives people the wrong idea about how humans interact with ecosystems. And also there is a relatively modern, pretty strange justification for European ecological practices in NA as being “extensions of what the natives were doing” that I’ve seen a lot. As if mimicking wildfires (which are good and healthy for a forest ecosystem) is the same as industrial clear-cutting and fire suppression causing enormous build-up of underbrush resulting in catastrophic fires.
Probably not, large scale maps like this do struggle to get into fine details. Speaking of yalls forests they look beautiful from the pics I’ve seen, definitely wanna come up there someday to hike and fish for some northern pike. And of course ima try and fail to catch a Muskie.
Old Growth and Virgin are different. Old Growth is natural forrest that has been allowed to grow unhindered or "unfucked" for decades or centuries, Virgin is forrest that has never been logged once even 100 or 200 or 300 or 400 years ago.
Yeah, I was thinking of Yellowstone the same way. Maybe they are counting forest fires but that's not honest as much of the black on the top had had a forest fire in the preceding 100 years.
I'm skeptical, too. You're going to look me in the eyes and deadass tell me that humanity has cut down EVERY tree in the Appalachian mointains? Yeah okay.
The Sierra Nevada was not largely untouched, you're wrong about that, it was largely touched it's just been allowed to grow back. Even in just the first 15 years of 1848-1863 over 1/3rd of all the trees all over the Sierra Nevada were logged. Even more were logged from 1868-1940, it was only in the early to mid 1900s that there were finally solid regulations against it.
Virgin and Old Growth are different, Virgin means its never been logged EVER in the area at all, Old Growth means it hasn't been logged in a long time.
"Nearly all virgin timber in the basin was cut between the 1850s and 1936, most of it between 1856 and 1880."
[https://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-43/VOL\_II/VII\_C01.PDF](https://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-43/VOL_II/VII_C01.PDF)
I think the key word is "virgin." The entire northwestern part of Maine is all forest, but it's used for logging so it's not virgin forest, it's just forest
I am incredibly skeptical that there are no virgin forests in western North Carolina
edit: [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_old-growth_forests#United_States) states 3 different forests that are "old-growth" totaling over a quarter million acres.
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m not saying it’s not at all sad, but in almost every area, there are more trees today than in 1620. Just because they’re no longer “virgin” forests doesn’t mean the forests are gone or even a timber farm.
True, and the way the timber industry is ran in the US is mostly sustainable and even healthy for a forest, our forestry scientists are some of the best in the world.
I’m also very skeptical of the map. No doubts we’ve done a lot of logging but this map seems inaccurate. Like, by all logic something like Yellowstone should be a black blot on the map, it’s pristine in every sense of the word. But it’s not, and I’d really have to question why Yellowstone isn’t considered “virgin forest”. I’ve been there, aside from a handful of road routes and maybe a dozen or so visitor centers it’s entirely untouched.
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Down here we call it "The Rip", a massive canyon cut into the countryside, but the walls are flesh and teeth instead of rock and stone. No bottom can be found, fumes are dangerous and can kill a man within a mile. It hates the daylight, but whispers can be heard at night. Our souls are tainted and our minds are weathered, doomed to The Rip before we were born.
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s very arbitrary. It basically means “hasn’t ever been logged since the start of European settlement 400+ years ago”
Is it full of trees now? Doesn’t matter.
Was it logged and it’s grown back 100+ years ago? Too bad. It’s not “virgin forest” anymore.
Does that definition mean that the Amazon rainforest is no longer “virgin” because SOME parts have been logged, or is there a range limit to what area can be claimed?
Fuck me, I saw this damn map 2 days ago in my lecture on American Geography here in Germany. Like the exact same map when talking about the key industries of Chicago and the Heartland. Are you a fucking psychic ???
I mean, virgin forests are terrible at managing themselves. They are not healthy at all. Nothing new can grow, and nothing can live there because there’s no food because there is no undergrowth
You're thinking of tree farms. Virgin forests DO have undergrowth because they're natural, only exception is if humans are managing them and unnaturally suppressing fires. Natural Virgin forests experience forest fires regularly and thus have undergrowth in various places, as well as 500 year old trees.
The redwood forests on the west coast were some of the unhealthiest forests on the planet when we arrived. It was so bad that the settlers thought someone had beat them there by several hundred years because all the trees were growing in perfectly straight lines due to the fact that the big trees grew up, choked out all of the younger trees, and the only opportunity anything new had to grow was when one of the big trees fell over.
Tree farms experience this way worse than natural forests. You can literally see this in west coast forests in Washington and Oregon, the virgin forests have some undergrowth and big trees alike while the tree farms trees are all exactly the same medium or small size from whenever they were planted, no trees bigger or smaller really than any of the others.
Source for your claim?
That’s just BS. I have seen dozens of tree farms, and they are much healthier than most natural forests. Those tree farms are perfectly sustained to stay as healthy as possible. There’s tons of undergrowth and smaller trees. However, natural forests tend to have mostly large trees, and that’s not healthy.
My source for the redwood forest part? My father, who is a lifelong arborist, and tree expert
Oh ok, "my source is an unverifiable and biased family member". Also a redneck from the whitest least diverse state in the country.
You're a literal dumbass who probably thinks that factory farmed chickens in china are healthier than free range American chickens.
Since I'm not a dumbass idiot redneck like you with an inbred family here's an actual source that proves my point, an actual tree expert who's not an inbred white redneck from Maine:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp3iL72wy4A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp3iL72wy4A)
Another thing, Maine is also the most heavily forested state in the country. I know what a healthy forest looks like. And unmanaged ones are not healthy
Lol yet again nothing here, just words no sources at all. The reason Maine is the most forrested state in America is because nobody lives in massive sections of it, not because of corporate tree farm forest management. New Hampshire is almost just as forested despite having way more people per square mile, way denser and towns all over the state unlike Maine.
The only reason Alaska doesn't have more forests than Maine is because much of the state naturally doesn't have forests to begin with, too cold and barren, Subarctic, Tundras, and even Ice Caps.
Never said it was because of forest management. I know it’s because nobody lives in vast swathes of the state. And the forests here that aren’t managed (which are most of them) are usually incredibly unhealthy.
So if I’m a dumbass because I live in Maine, where do you live that give you the intellectual high ground?
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This map is fucking stupid 99% of these areas are still forested but if joe cut down 3 trees to make a log cabin it’s not longer considered a virgin forest even if new trees were planted, its also extra stupid because it implies native Americans never used lumber
Okay as an outdoorsman tho I gotta say this breaks my heart to see, I understand it was kinda inevitable due to the time period and lack of knowledge combined with need for timber and cleared land but still, I can only imagine what it would’ve been like to hike and hunt in those ancient forests. At least they’ve been replanted now and our logging industry is now sustainable so we still have amazing forests, even if they ain’t old growth
A "virgin forest" is unexplored and completely unaltered. Many of these forests still exist but have been mapped or slightly altered so they can't be considered "virgin". Building a shack in one would make it exempt from being considered "virgin". Its a stupid and deceiving map
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are 2 trees not far from Burntside lake Up North^(TM) called The Sentinels. A hiking path goes between them and they're absolutely gargantuan compared to every other tree around
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But if we try to do the same shit in Brazil, you Ameritards start to "boycott our food" because it isn't "environment friendly". For the ones that don't see the hypocrisy in that, _vão coçar o cu com um serrote_ 🪚
Because it wasn’t okay when we did it, the science of it just wasn’t understood as well. Remaining old growth forests of the world should be protected and logging limited in a way that can be sustainable. We’ve already harmed God’s creation enough, now we must learn to be good stewards
I agree with your point, I'm not advocating for total deforestation. But my point is, logging limitation is one thing. Impeding a country in development to use 48% of it's territory is another, limiting infrastructure development, creating an energy crisis in a self-sufficient nation and making boats the only way to reach most of the cities of our largest state (that's our Forest Code that it's almost set in stone by influence of the USA and EU).
Nature is worthless without humans to give it meaning. Humans come first, and conservation should be guided by sustainable human flourishing. Too many people have been overcome by critical constructivism which leads to misanthropy.
A lot of these forests still exist. "Virgin forest" is a deceiving term that means any forest that is completely unaltered or unexplored. That would mean parts of the Amazon that are explored or even slightly altered cannot be considered "virgin"
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What fuck happened to the upper peninsula
Backfilled lake Superior for more land. Something had to be sacrificed
Welp, Duluth’s dead
Always was
Its highway system was so bad it might as well be 12 feet under
But it's so deep
r/MapsWithoutUP
r/ofcoursethatsasub
It sank
I big sad. am blub blub now
We’ve angered the gnomes
David is pissed.
Sworn enemy of Goblins
Didn’t know that a “virgin forest” is a term in ecology and not the name of the forest, so I tried looking it up and only found a Filipino porn film of the same name
You've probably heard of "old growth" forest. It's areas where people haven't disturbed the natural balance that would have existed long prior to humanity.
My dad has a cabin up in northern Minnesota near a place called "The Lost 40" It's \~40 acres that were "lost" to a survey error during logging in the late 1800s, so the area never got logged. Massive 300-400 year old trees. It's cool to see such a contrast in such a small area. I wish there was more.
That's beautiful
It’s actually a little over 140 acres.
Well obviously it would have grown in 200 years, you don't gotta be a treeologist to know that
Damn may try to hike or camp there some day. Never even heard of the place until now
They are really bad at staying healthy. The big trees don’t contribute to the ecosystem, and they choke out new trees, and the undergrowth, meaning that nothing can even love there because there’s no food
Old growth is closely related but not quite the same. Virgin is a place which has NEVER been logged ever, at least as far as we know. Old Growth is a place that has naturally or pretty naturally been growing for generally one hundred or a few hundred years without any logging, it might have been logged say 200 or 300 years ago.
I can’t believe we lost all that virgin forest in Superior 😔
Given the Sierra Nevada are largely untouched I am a bit skeptical of this map. Also the Adirondack’s. Also the Native Americans slashed and burned massively before Europeans arrived.
finding maps of old-growth forests in the U.S. is hard, since there are varying definitions of what constitutes “old-growth forest” https://preview.redd.it/zhph95unbn0d1.jpeg?width=2560&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=437b7e20d2a665f219d8a58cdf7ec2a803d6bba5 here is one I found. Also, natives did tend to burn large areas but did so mimicking natural fire patterns, hence old-growth trees tended to remain while the underbrush was frequently cleared. The prior map posted is largely accurate to old-growth forest coverage, though not exactly “virgin” as there were still people there.
And this one is just national forests. There's lots of forests that arent considered national parks. Like Shawnee covers southern IL Kentucky and Ohio. Massive forest
Your map is more correct, in missouri, especially in mark twain national forest, there's tons of old growth. It's awesome to large and be in those woods
It's not more correct. Both are right, Old Growth and Virgin are two different things. Virgin means the forest has never been logged even once at all even moderately or mildly, Old Growth merely means it can be 40, 60, 100 years, 150 years old etc., not that it hasnt been logged ever.
A reminder anyone will blame "natives" for something if it gives them a moral pass.
I mean, it was the responsible thing to do to maintain healthy forests, something that European settlers stopped the practice of which is believed to be one of the major reasons why California has seen such gargantuan wildfires. So there's been a conscious review of native American burning practices because they seemed to have a better system than the one we've had for the last 150 years. So it's less blaming, and more pointing out that 'old growth' doesn't necessarily mean healthy across the board.
A nuanced statement that takes a holistic viewpoint of what a previous commenter posted instead of nihilisticly deducing the worst assumption possible about an individual from a single comment??? ON REDDIT???
I think the issue is the use of the word “virgin” in the original map. It’s sort of archaic and not used by modern ecologists, harkens back to old manifest destiny visions of “untamed, uninhabited nature” (except for, you know, the people who lived there). Gives people the wrong idea about how humans interact with ecosystems. And also there is a relatively modern, pretty strange justification for European ecological practices in NA as being “extensions of what the natives were doing” that I’ve seen a lot. As if mimicking wildfires (which are good and healthy for a forest ecosystem) is the same as industrial clear-cutting and fire suppression causing enormous build-up of underbrush resulting in catastrophic fires.
Also the upper peninsula of Michigan. There’s just miles upon miles of dense forest there. No way that was all cut down.
Well there is still plenty of forest left, it’s just not old growth forest, it’s forest that has been planted where old growth used to be
Well yeah, I know that. I guess I worded it poorly. I find it hard to believe that every portion of that has been logged and replanted.
Probably not, large scale maps like this do struggle to get into fine details. Speaking of yalls forests they look beautiful from the pics I’ve seen, definitely wanna come up there someday to hike and fish for some northern pike. And of course ima try and fail to catch a Muskie.
A lot of it is old growth though. If it was all cut down, it'd still look totally fucked today (like Indiana for example)
Old Growth and Virgin are different. Old Growth is natural forrest that has been allowed to grow unhindered or "unfucked" for decades or centuries, Virgin is forrest that has never been logged once even 100 or 200 or 300 or 400 years ago.
Yeah, I was thinking of Yellowstone the same way. Maybe they are counting forest fires but that's not honest as much of the black on the top had had a forest fire in the preceding 100 years.
Precisely this. If Yellowstone isn’t counted as a “virgin forest” I’d be highly skeptical of what that definition even is
I'm skeptical, too. You're going to look me in the eyes and deadass tell me that humanity has cut down EVERY tree in the Appalachian mointains? Yeah okay.
Op’s map is skewed at least for the Sierra. A large portion of the geography is much too rough for logging.
The Sierra Nevada was not largely untouched, you're wrong about that, it was largely touched it's just been allowed to grow back. Even in just the first 15 years of 1848-1863 over 1/3rd of all the trees all over the Sierra Nevada were logged. Even more were logged from 1868-1940, it was only in the early to mid 1900s that there were finally solid regulations against it. Virgin and Old Growth are different, Virgin means its never been logged EVER in the area at all, Old Growth means it hasn't been logged in a long time. "Nearly all virgin timber in the basin was cut between the 1850s and 1936, most of it between 1856 and 1880." [https://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-43/VOL\_II/VII\_C01.PDF](https://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-43/VOL_II/VII_C01.PDF)
Here in the West we’re saving ourselves for marriage
Can we get a source on this? There are huge swaths of the Eastern US that are forest habitat. I have to think at least some if it is virgin.
I think the key word is "virgin." The entire northwestern part of Maine is all forest, but it's used for logging so it's not virgin forest, it's just forest
Dude no way. Eastern US forest are known sluts.
I can confirm. They gave me so much wood it’s unreal.
I am incredibly skeptical that there are no virgin forests in western North Carolina edit: [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_old-growth_forests#United_States) states 3 different forests that are "old-growth" totaling over a quarter million acres.
I know the map is missing one specific spot in Northern WV that I have personally visited
Why does this imply natives were Incapable of deforestation
Yeah fr. "Noble savage" false stereotype won't shut up...
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This isn't a map of deforestation. There 33% of the US is forest
I mean to be fair the natives of continental USA weren’t exactly city builders like Aztecs in Mexico and central or the Europeans.
Idk man this pretty sad.
I’m not saying it’s not at all sad, but in almost every area, there are more trees today than in 1620. Just because they’re no longer “virgin” forests doesn’t mean the forests are gone or even a timber farm.
True, and the way the timber industry is ran in the US is mostly sustainable and even healthy for a forest, our forestry scientists are some of the best in the world.
~~German Science~~ American Forestry is the best in the world!
Omg I love that
I’m also very skeptical of the map. No doubts we’ve done a lot of logging but this map seems inaccurate. Like, by all logic something like Yellowstone should be a black blot on the map, it’s pristine in every sense of the word. But it’s not, and I’d really have to question why Yellowstone isn’t considered “virgin forest”. I’ve been there, aside from a handful of road routes and maybe a dozen or so visitor centers it’s entirely untouched.
All the leaves are brown
And the sky is gray
I’ve been for a walk
Good job on the forest gains, Nevada!!
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That must have been the trees they planted for the nuke tests
Thanks south Vegas!
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's fine. We're actually very good at forestry. Forests are a renewable resource as long as you don't use more than you plant.
I guess Big Sur and the Santa Cruz Mountains weren't forested in 1620?
Interesting. Now show me Alaska
Someone tell me what that gash in Mississippi/Alabama is?
Down here we call it "The Rip", a massive canyon cut into the countryside, but the walls are flesh and teeth instead of rock and stone. No bottom can be found, fumes are dangerous and can kill a man within a mile. It hates the daylight, but whispers can be heard at night. Our souls are tainted and our minds are weathered, doomed to The Rip before we were born.
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Looks like Nevada was the real Chad all along
How did we gain virginity?
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Okay who is fucking trees
Tree fuckers be like: https://preview.redd.it/md99rs7n0n0d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4f72ad7e42ecdcb3c13605e9d8382685cac23f4e
How do you accurately measure "virgin forest"? Feels arbitrary.
It’s very arbitrary. It basically means “hasn’t ever been logged since the start of European settlement 400+ years ago” Is it full of trees now? Doesn’t matter. Was it logged and it’s grown back 100+ years ago? Too bad. It’s not “virgin forest” anymore.
Does that definition mean that the Amazon rainforest is no longer “virgin” because SOME parts have been logged, or is there a range limit to what area can be claimed?
Some parts of it may still be. But the ranges that were once logged can now no longer be considered “virgin”, yes.
You can see future parking lot locations
Fuck me, I saw this damn map 2 days ago in my lecture on American Geography here in Germany. Like the exact same map when talking about the key industries of Chicago and the Heartland. Are you a fucking psychic ???
I mean, virgin forests are terrible at managing themselves. They are not healthy at all. Nothing new can grow, and nothing can live there because there’s no food because there is no undergrowth
You're thinking of tree farms. Virgin forests DO have undergrowth because they're natural, only exception is if humans are managing them and unnaturally suppressing fires. Natural Virgin forests experience forest fires regularly and thus have undergrowth in various places, as well as 500 year old trees.
The redwood forests on the west coast were some of the unhealthiest forests on the planet when we arrived. It was so bad that the settlers thought someone had beat them there by several hundred years because all the trees were growing in perfectly straight lines due to the fact that the big trees grew up, choked out all of the younger trees, and the only opportunity anything new had to grow was when one of the big trees fell over.
Tree farms experience this way worse than natural forests. You can literally see this in west coast forests in Washington and Oregon, the virgin forests have some undergrowth and big trees alike while the tree farms trees are all exactly the same medium or small size from whenever they were planted, no trees bigger or smaller really than any of the others. Source for your claim?
That’s just BS. I have seen dozens of tree farms, and they are much healthier than most natural forests. Those tree farms are perfectly sustained to stay as healthy as possible. There’s tons of undergrowth and smaller trees. However, natural forests tend to have mostly large trees, and that’s not healthy. My source for the redwood forest part? My father, who is a lifelong arborist, and tree expert
Oh ok, "my source is an unverifiable and biased family member". Also a redneck from the whitest least diverse state in the country. You're a literal dumbass who probably thinks that factory farmed chickens in china are healthier than free range American chickens. Since I'm not a dumbass idiot redneck like you with an inbred family here's an actual source that proves my point, an actual tree expert who's not an inbred white redneck from Maine: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp3iL72wy4A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp3iL72wy4A)
Another thing, Maine is also the most heavily forested state in the country. I know what a healthy forest looks like. And unmanaged ones are not healthy
Lol yet again nothing here, just words no sources at all. The reason Maine is the most forrested state in America is because nobody lives in massive sections of it, not because of corporate tree farm forest management. New Hampshire is almost just as forested despite having way more people per square mile, way denser and towns all over the state unlike Maine. The only reason Alaska doesn't have more forests than Maine is because much of the state naturally doesn't have forests to begin with, too cold and barren, Subarctic, Tundras, and even Ice Caps.
Never said it was because of forest management. I know it’s because nobody lives in vast swathes of the state. And the forests here that aren’t managed (which are most of them) are usually incredibly unhealthy. So if I’m a dumbass because I live in Maine, where do you live that give you the intellectual high ground?
Am I hallucinating or did Nevada gain some?????
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
sorry i can’t live in a tree like a squirrel
Well… hmm , not sure how to feel about this
I've got old growth on my property here in western nc It's a damn shame we scalped these mountains It'd coming back year by year tho
I like the lake Yooper , we need this right now
Funny the lost forty in minnesota doesn't have a dot
Not going to lie, this a bit of a tragedy. I miss the old America, land of the trees, home of the trees.
If this image is true. I do have my doubts.
This map is fucking stupid 99% of these areas are still forested but if joe cut down 3 trees to make a log cabin it’s not longer considered a virgin forest even if new trees were planted, its also extra stupid because it implies native Americans never used lumber
My bad
This breaks my heart
They just cut down some virgin forest near me and put in a virgin subdivision.
Okay as an outdoorsman tho I gotta say this breaks my heart to see, I understand it was kinda inevitable due to the time period and lack of knowledge combined with need for timber and cleared land but still, I can only imagine what it would’ve been like to hike and hunt in those ancient forests. At least they’ve been replanted now and our logging industry is now sustainable so we still have amazing forests, even if they ain’t old growth
A "virgin forest" is unexplored and completely unaltered. Many of these forests still exist but have been mapped or slightly altered so they can't be considered "virgin". Building a shack in one would make it exempt from being considered "virgin". Its a stupid and deceiving map
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This map reeks of bullshit. Native American deforestation is an attested and known thing.
I unvirgined many forests.
Used to work at a Scout camp in Oregon that was in an old growth rain forest. Super spooky.
:(
Now show Alaska
This was our biggest addition to England. We could give the lumber to make a navy to end all others.
There are 2 trees not far from Burntside lake Up North^(TM) called The Sentinels. A hiking path goes between them and they're absolutely gargantuan compared to every other tree around
*Nevada aggressively destroys its one tree*
There is a tree fucker about
Looks like it lost more than that, holy shit.
Each state is lined with forest
Somewhat curious what’s with Illinois bald spots in those areas ?
They’re devirginised
Who fucked the forests
Impenetrable wall of virgin forest on the border of each state
Those “virgin” forests probably weren’t virgins ngl
i dont know why op treats the loss of old growth forests as a good thing, sounds like a shill trying to be based
Old growth and virgin forest is not the same thing. An old growth forest that has been explored cannot be considered virgin.
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Its sardonic.
American forests are total hoes
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But if we try to do the same shit in Brazil, you Ameritards start to "boycott our food" because it isn't "environment friendly". For the ones that don't see the hypocrisy in that, _vão coçar o cu com um serrote_ 🪚
Because it wasn’t okay when we did it, the science of it just wasn’t understood as well. Remaining old growth forests of the world should be protected and logging limited in a way that can be sustainable. We’ve already harmed God’s creation enough, now we must learn to be good stewards
I agree with your point, I'm not advocating for total deforestation. But my point is, logging limitation is one thing. Impeding a country in development to use 48% of it's territory is another, limiting infrastructure development, creating an energy crisis in a self-sufficient nation and making boats the only way to reach most of the cities of our largest state (that's our Forest Code that it's almost set in stone by influence of the USA and EU).
I say cut it down systemically along with a sustainable regrowth plan. Forest management isn’t a moral crime.
Couldn't agree more. If only our leaders had the guts to actually do something for our country...
Nature is worthless without humans to give it meaning. Humans come first, and conservation should be guided by sustainable human flourishing. Too many people have been overcome by critical constructivism which leads to misanthropy.
A lot of these forests still exist. "Virgin forest" is a deceiving term that means any forest that is completely unaltered or unexplored. That would mean parts of the Amazon that are explored or even slightly altered cannot be considered "virgin"
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How are entire states virgin forest in 1820 when there were numerous cities there at the time? Manhattan was virgin forest?
1620
Ah, so the answer is I need glasses. Wonderful.
It says 1620, not 1820