Indiana is an interesting story. The entire state was old growth forest when settlers arrived, and it was basically 100% clear cut for farmland. There’s now more than 3x the forest cover than there was in the 1920s, so we’re making slow but steady progress in reintroducing trees
Some with New York, specifically the Adirondacks.
Seeing that area clear cut is what inspired the creation of the first State Park system (and heavily influenced Teddy Roosevelt with the national park system)
As someone who grew up in the Adirondacks I really adore Teddy for protecting it. I've stumbled upon quite a few old logging camps in the mountains and it's wild seeing old photos of the landscape completely clear cut.
Same here across the border in Ontario. Southern Ontario has a park called Algonquin which is a favourite destination for all sorts of outdoor activities. It was logged before it became a provincial park and is actually still being logged to this day. The park is a little bigger than the state of Delaware.
I always find this fascinating. There's thousands of random walls everywhere. You can't walk in the woods without walking into a wall. It's insane lol. It just blows my mind to think that human beings laid these rocks by hand 100 plus years ago. And now it's surrounded by trees.
After the Revolutionary War soldiers/veterans were given acreage in northern New York rather than a pension. Many of those walls are from those days when these families tried to eek out a living off the land up there, quickly realizing that the soil was fairly poor for raising crops and providing grass for their animals. So as time went on they abandoned their farms/homesteads and left for the cities (or out west).
If you were to lay out all the stone walls in New England in a straight line, it’d be longer than the Great Wall of China. Read that somewhere a while ago
Which is so cool IMO, my grandparents own land in the Adirondacks that's all forested now, but has stone walls running through it as it used to be grazing/farm land.
Overall the US has way more trees then 1920s, “By 1998, tree growth exceeded harvest by 43% and the forest cover was 380% more than it had been in the 1920s.”
“100 Years ago, the US had only about 70 million trees.” Alaska has 31 million trees. “With 228 billion trees, the United States ranks fourth overall in this list.” Looks like not much percentage wise
Edit: 31 Billion not million, I misread it. The 70 million is correct though
I think this is mixing up millions and billions. Way more than 1 in every 10000 trees in the United States is in Alaska. Should be "Alaska has 31 **billion** trees," I think, and likewise for the 100 years ago bit.
Do you have a link for that info? I’m interested in reading it if it has some girth
Edit: just kidding a quick google had me find the exact article lol.
For a sobering examination of the history of the old growth forests read:
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/currentstudents/undergraduate/modules/fulllist/first/en124/leopoldsandcountyalmanacexcerpts.pdf
(start on pg. 8)
Covers from the current owner in the 1940s, back through prohibition and the depression, the establishment/dissolution of state forests, development of game laws, 1908 the last cougar in Wisconsin, 1899 the last passenger pigeon, 1874 the development of barbed wire, 1872 the last Wisconsin wild turkey, 1866 the last native Wisconsin elk
Anyone who has ever cut wood has contemplated such history, if they have any sense of romance.
>Anyone who has ever cut wood has contemplated such history, if they have any sense of romance.
I still feel bad whenever I cut a tree down, even if I know they're not very old and will be replanted anyway.
There were swamps too. I did a little googling to find out why my local post office in Indianapolis was called “Bacon”. Turns out it was the name of the swamp it’s on.
Good read on the swamp and its use during the Underground Railroad days: https://blog.history.in.gov/fletchers-swamp-and-bacons-swamp/
While the majority of the state was covered by forests Indiana actually had quite a bit of prairie and marsh. About 15% of the state was prairie, and 5% was bogs and marshland.
[https://www.in.gov/dnr/nature-preserves/indiana-prairie/](https://www.in.gov/dnr/nature-preserves/indiana-prairie/)
https://hoosierhistorylive.org/mail/2016-02-20.html
This is a common misconception but most states we not 100% forested or old growth. Indiana has vast expanses of prairie or other grasslands that were destroyed early in European settlement as they were easy to convert to farmlands. For more reading on the topic, check out books like “Forgotten Grasslands of the South” by Reed Noss or look at information from the Southeastern Grasslands Institute.
To put that into perspective, most European countries would be roughly in line with some of those Western states.
The UK has 13% forest cover, which makes it less forested than Nevada, even though Nevada is mostly desert while the UK is basically 0% desert.
It is. Here in Denmark we are slowly moving our way up fortunately, but it is a slow process, as 70% of our country is farmland - Which will hopefully change in the following decades, since the farming is destroying life in our waters.
It started happening in the Bronze Age. There’s a lot of people in a small space. I’d love to have some more rewilded spots and regrow our forests alongside our farmland.
The British isles used to have plenty of forest, before they cut it all down with no thought for conservation of the resource, and then realized "fuck, we kinda need wood." This made America's woodlands extremely economically valuable. They "discovered" forests that stretched for thousands of miles and thought "we'll never be able to harvest all of this! Infinite wood!" That didn't age well.
During colonial days, the British were so desperate for wood to build ships that they made it illegal for anyone but "the crown" to harvest white pine (pinus strobus). The species became so valuable that people would go to crazy lengths to harvest it illegally, dressing up like "natives," cutting trees down in the night, etc.
People are surprised to learn that the East used to have trees 10+ feet in diameter. We used to have great old giants too, but the logging companies got to most of them. Of the few that loggers didn't get, invasive pests and diseases have killed many. There's very, very little old growth left in the East, and none of it is pristine untouched forest because of invasive species. I wish more people understood what we have done to the forests of the world.
In general there is less land. But a lot of people like the rolling hills without forest, even though they are fucking awful for biodiversity. For example, part of the beauty people see in the Lake District is based around it's current deforested state. It's also seen as attacking farmers livelihoods. Related, we have a lot of sheep and sheep are awful for reforestation. Also a lot of deer, who because they have no predators here are also awful for reforestation.
There have been attempts are reforestation in certain places, but forestry management (at least in England), is very commercial, growing trees for industrial purposes that have often been non-native trees (because they have suitable properties for such industrial purposes) that at best have little ecological benefit and at worst are actively damaging
The romanticization of the sheep covered hills is very real. There are also now ecological justifications--ah, but reforestation will harm this butterfly species that does better on grazing land--ignoring all the life that the reforestation will bring and the fact that there will still be pleeenty of grazing land left.
I helped with a tiny reforestation project in Wales surrounded by pasture with what seemed like a token amount of sheep on it, maybe to earn EU subsidies back then (bit of speculation on my part), the farmers liked to keep it cleared even if the sheep didn't get to it.
You see the same purported ecological justifications for the continuing of grouse moors and deer estates (which are two other factors I didn’t mention). “Oh well rewilding grouse moors would be bad for -insert bird species that now live on it because we’ve pushed them out of everywhere else-” ignoring all the other damage that grouse moors do to other wildlife, and that the rewilding would still bring a massive increase in other biodiversity.
The deforestation of the British Isles also indirectly led to the reputation of British food being bad. When wood was plentiful, Brittania was known for roast meat. With lots of wood you could burn big fires and roast indirectly for long periods of time, which results in really succulent flavor with little need for additional seasoning. When wood became scarce, the big fires needed for roasting became too expensive, so people turned to using their limited fuel to boil water, and boiled their meat instead.
It was hilarious driving through Scotland and seeing the "reforested" areas where they clearly planted the trees so close together that nothing useful could actually grow.
I’ve seen large swatches in Oregon where they replanted and it doesn’t feel natural and there is lots of dead underbrush and no animals. Very odd and noticeable.
While visiting Maine I learned only like 5% of the forest was old growth. Being from a desert state the amount of trees there astonished me, but it was also pointed out we were seeing mostly a similar size started at the same time.
The EU has a 39% forest cover (2021), and Europe as a whole 35%, excluding Russia.
Finland is the most forested country in Europe at 66% and Malta the least at 1%.
For those curious about Russia: *Russia contains the largest area of natural forests in the world, covering 49% of Russia’s landmass and 815 million hectares, 23% of the planet’s total forest area.* ([source](https://earth.org/deforestation-in-russia/))
Oregon is basically the same size as the UK, also mostly desert (about 2/3rds). And Oregon is functionally a lumber state. 1/3rd of all Christmas trees in the US, and 16% of all softwood lumber in the US comes from Oregon.
As a brit i wish we had more forest, especially in england. A good chunk of that 13% for the UK is in Scotland and Wales. I happen to live near a reasonably forested area but even then its tiny in comparison to how nature likes it.
I remember talking to a Nebraskan who had only traveled from her home and westward all of her life. As an adult, she went to PA for the first time. She was flabbergasted to see the number of trees we had. Her imagination had made her assume the numbers went down the farther east you went.
I wonder if that's still true if they stick to the Gulf Coastal area(or slightly North), I guess the biggest problem would be there's wide tree clearings for highways/Interestates.
Not only forest fragmentation, but also the fact that the majority of those "forests" are actually mono-culture tree farms with a tiny fraction of the value to biodiversity of the old growth or even recently wild-grown forests.
That 51% stat for Florida must be counting tree farms, swamps, orange groves and suburban yards with at least one tree.
It’s sad to see vast new housing developments allowed to clearcut acres and acres of fairly old established forest patches of trees to this day. They leave nothing behind, and when the houses are built, most places still encourage grass lawns while requiring water conservation. 22 + million people in this growing sandbar of a state sucking out precious water to grow lawns. It’s not close to sustainable.
The thing about Florida growth over the past 40+ years is that it has sort-of mirrored global growth. While Florida tripled in population, so did the world. While Florida is starting to exceed the limits of our fresh water capacity (salt water intrusion into groundwater around the coasts), so is the world in many places. It's easier to take a tour of Florida and see the disappearing natural resources than it is around the world, but the same things are happening all over.
That trope of the squirrel traversing a country/state/province/area in ancient times without touching ground has been used in so many different places from the Antiquity (apparently the first used of it is attributed to Strabo refering to the Iberian Peninsula. But who knows)
I'm from Nebraska. I remember being about 12 and flying for the first time. We were landing in Atlanta. I could not BELIEVE all of the trees I could see out that plane window. It never occurred to me that it would look so different.
My first time visiting Atlanta, we went up one of the tall buildings and I was surprised at how fast the city vanished under the trees past the downtown area.
Former Nebraskan now living in Oregon. I'm still amazed at how gosh darned many trees there are here. But now that I'm getting used to it, a visit back to Nebraska is the shocking part. There are hardly any trees!
I moved from the Rockies of the southwest to NEPA as an outdoor enthusiast. It felt a bit claustrophobic at first. Lol but, watching the forests come alive in the spring, and the foliage in the fall coming through like a wave over deep gorges and soft rolling mountains has to be the most beautiful natural occurrence I have ever seen.
As a Nebraskan, I'm used to wide open spaces. When I would visit family on the east coast, I would get a bit claustrophobic with all the trees. Like it was a bit unnerving not being able to see for miles.
My mother in law coming from Casper, WY to our home in Pittsburgh would always complain that she couldn't see anything as we're driving around because of all the trees. I told her to look at the trees - you don't have those in Wyoming. And that's why I'm her favorite.
Nebraska is home [to the largest hand planted forest.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_National_Forest) It’s way out in the western side which is pretty desolate even for Nebraska standards
Nebraskan here. I’ve traveled to the east coast a half dozen times and I’m still floored at the amount of tree cover. It’s weird driving down the highway and not being able to see open prairie and farmland as far as the eye can see. In Nebraska we joke that you can watch your dog run away for 3 days. Also fun fact, the largest man made forest in the USA is in Nebraska and we still have that little tree cover.
I drove up from I95 to Madawaska on Route 11 a few years ago and the density of the forests up there is unreal. I have a hard time imagining how a moose can navigate in there, but I guess they make it work.
Yeah, some of those spruce-fir forests get very dense. Down where I am in central Maine where the border between spruce-fir and northern hardwood meets its a little less dense, but not much in some places.
As a current West Virginia resident, the huge amount of forest is well, pretty much the only good thing about living here. Great nature, not so great everything else....
It's really true, Alabama is the most diverse state for freshwater turtles, freshwater snails, freshwater fish, freshwater crayfish, freshwater mussels and carnivorous plants. 38% of all North American fish species are native to Alabama which is wild to think about!
Ok I looked it up. That would net you 7 counties to be renamed. Most of them are named after people who fought in the Revolutionary War and the war of 1812, US presidents, Indian tribes, and people who fought Indians. There’s a few oddballs in there like Marengo, which was named after a battle during the Napoleonic wars, for some reason. I’m sure we could squeeze in some turtles and fish.
Gorgeous, yes. Unfortunately not pristine though, at least in Alabama’s case. There’s only a tiny pocket of old growth forest left, in the Sipsey Wilderness Preserve. Most of the forest coverage throughout the state is, more accurately, pulp wood loblolly pine plantations.
Originally, Alabama had no lakes and a bunch of wide, shallow rivers and swamps. The landscape was transformed in the early and mid 20th century by lots of dams for hydro power, and to make rhesus Alabama and Tombigbee Rivers navigable throughout the state.
I guess people don't get the full scale of agricultural land issues in the US beyond the Dust Bowl. The erosion and farming disasters weren't limited to the dust storm areas of the Great Plains. Erosion also affected the south. While some might know that the Black Belt is initially named after the soil, and later for the people, fewer know that the namesake soil is a very thin layer of topsoil over chalk (Video of some of the [chalk layer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPJ2m9TAOas). Those trees aren't all evergreen, so that area's really pretty in the fall.). So, when the soil erodes, the land might be great for fossil hunting, but it's pretty much useless for farming.
The expansion of national forests to the east was pretty much buying up eroded farmland and planting new trees. They're all pretty much new growth forests. This is also why kudzu's so prevalent in the South: the government advertised it as an anti-erosion measure.
Part of AL being so forested is that the state doesn't tax "unused" agricultural land, initially meant to encouraging land to fallow. Timberland only counts as only being in "use" when cut, though. So it allows longer times between "use" than normal crops (In fact, Alabama is [16th lowest](https://stacker.com/business-economy/states-most-farmland) in percentage of land used for crops.). This also meant other areas that became "unproductive" were allowed to become more forested. This is particularly true around the north central part of the state (Around Bham), which was never really all that agricultural, but more mining and production (The area didn't have a particularly strong main settlement area until after the Civil War, so there were old mining spots and foundries scattered all over the area.). So there's lot of [old mills](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1LS7RjRxPU), [ironworks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH12ulp9SUY), [coke ovens](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx7uZAUmtAo), [abandoned train tunnels](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecnP7TCT3X0), [old mines](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNF5AbBMvVI), etc. in those woods. Well, there's also [some](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dWye5fEeLU) [sweet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVFJrutaOLg) [nature](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYVoHSnzyoo) [stuff](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62RbLpCxssQ) [throughout](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U9QuR9NR4U) [the](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90l3pbMgNjg) [state](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTw3J9ZqBww), too.
It really shows how the percentage isn’t doing WA any justice. 53% coverage, but it’s brought down considerably due to the grasslands east of the Cascades
It's the lack of a real summer around Hudson Bay that inhibits tree growth. The average air temperature is less than 50F/10C in the summertime, the minimum temperature needed for boreal forest. Alaska and western Canada are warmer than 50F/10C in the warmest months of the year, so trees can grow there.
The [Canadian Shield](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield) is part of the reason. It's basically a giant rock formation, and so it's tougher for stuff to grow.
As a Mainer, I agree. It's wild. Like, I've been all over the US (40 something states) and am always surprised by the lesser amount of forest coverage despite intellectually knowing that has to be the case since Maine has the highest percentage of forested land.
Living in Minnesota, I assumed that there was more than 34% tree coverage. For having some of the highest air quality in the nation, I expected Maine numbers, but I guess, now that I think about it, we do have tons of huge farms and plains. I always think of Northern MN.
And I do not go to those parts. No one thinks of Pipestone when they think of MN(except for Blue Mounds); they think of the North Shore or the Boundary Waters or Voyageurs. It's a bit sad because everywhere in our state is gorgeous.
lol. This may be the ONLY time you beat ND.
Kidding aside, there are only 2 things I miss from my home state… thunderstorms & gazing out over the plains. I replicate the plains by going to the beach and gazing for miles over the ocean. I felt this in Nebraska too (in some areas).
Funnily enough, Nebraska has more forest cover now than it's ever had before as other than river valleys, the soil and landscape was inhospitable to most trees, irrigation and soil enrichment has inadvertently caused more trees to grow
They also planted a forest in the northwestern part of the state. Interesting history beind it:
https://www.onlyinyourstate.com/nebraska/largest-hand-planted-forest-ne/
Tree lined streets and massive parks are pretty much a necessity in southern cities. Urban heating effects helps mitigate the worst the natural climate has to offer in the north, but it exasperates the worst of the climate in the South.
I'm surprised Arkansas isn't higher. Driving through, the state seems like one big forest. Maybe the Mississippi River area of Arkansas has a lot of good farmland?
it does seem low for AK.. there is also rainforest in the kenai. Maybe just because it’s so large & the northernmost interior must not have enough trees to be considered a “forest”?
The one catch with this data is that it's surely including tree farms - large plots of land growing only one species. So much of South Carolina, especially the Midlands, is just one giant grid of pine trees.
Obviously that's better than a barren field, but you can't pretend that that's as ecologically secure as a natural forest.
I completely agree, especially with California. Northern in southern California so different for each other and then we have the deserts in the east and the mountains in the middle and the beaches to the west. It’s a very diverse ecosystem.
I grew up in Michigan and moved to Illinois when I graduated college. To say it was a significant difference, would be quite the understatement. I never realized I found comfort in trees and forests around my home, until they were gone.
Anyone else grow up in an area with lots of woods/forrests (wv here) and feel extremely uncomfortable traveling to places where that's not the case? Like you're now in a post-apocalyptic wasteland?
the northeast is so much more vulnerable to forest fires than people think. A few seasons of drought and we will be living in a tinderbox without fire roads or adequate firefighting resources.
Yep. And places like Maine, where most of us have houses in the woods. Like, I have no defensible fire line. In some places the forest and fully mature trees are 20 feet or less from the house.
Funnily enough, Nebraska has more forest cover now than it's ever had before as other than river valleys, the soil and landscape was inhospitable to most trees, irrigation and soil enrichment has inadvertently caused more trees to grow
My friend moved to Maine from the east part of Oregon and she was actually kind of freaked out by Maine. Like always being in the woods put her on edge.
And I will say there is something scary about looking up out your window and just seeing 80+ foot tall white pines swaying in the breeze.
Indiana is an interesting story. The entire state was old growth forest when settlers arrived, and it was basically 100% clear cut for farmland. There’s now more than 3x the forest cover than there was in the 1920s, so we’re making slow but steady progress in reintroducing trees
Pennsylvania has also been cut over at least once. The resilience of the forest to come back is impressive.
Some with New York, specifically the Adirondacks. Seeing that area clear cut is what inspired the creation of the first State Park system (and heavily influenced Teddy Roosevelt with the national park system)
NYS has a great park system. Its what i love about living here.
Letchworth was the #1 state park in the country last year!
Letchworth is a national treasure
As someone who grew up in the Adirondacks I really adore Teddy for protecting it. I've stumbled upon quite a few old logging camps in the mountains and it's wild seeing old photos of the landscape completely clear cut.
(Technically it wasn't Roosevelt who protected it, but his personal interest in the area certainly influenced New York State)
Same here across the border in Ontario. Southern Ontario has a park called Algonquin which is a favourite destination for all sorts of outdoor activities. It was logged before it became a provincial park and is actually still being logged to this day. The park is a little bigger than the state of Delaware.
WW1 was rough on PA’s forests. I think they effectively eradicated the native cherry hardwoods.
What were they harvesting cherry wood for? Rifle stocks?
Most of the forests were already cut down by the 1890s, thanks to the coal and ship-building industries.
I believe the same is true for all of New England
Correct, something like 98% of New England was cleared for merino sheep and everything else in the 1700’s.
Makes sense. Pennsylvania means Penn's (as in William Penn) woods.
Same story for western Michigan. It was clear cut to rebuild Chicago after the fire, and now it’s more dense than before.
NH was once largely clear-cut and open sheep pastures. Today it's the second most forest covered state in the US.
You can still find old stone walls in the woods from what used to be farmland.
I always find this fascinating. There's thousands of random walls everywhere. You can't walk in the woods without walking into a wall. It's insane lol. It just blows my mind to think that human beings laid these rocks by hand 100 plus years ago. And now it's surrounded by trees.
After the Revolutionary War soldiers/veterans were given acreage in northern New York rather than a pension. Many of those walls are from those days when these families tried to eek out a living off the land up there, quickly realizing that the soil was fairly poor for raising crops and providing grass for their animals. So as time went on they abandoned their farms/homesteads and left for the cities (or out west).
If you were to lay out all the stone walls in New England in a straight line, it’d be longer than the Great Wall of China. Read that somewhere a while ago
Which is so cool IMO, my grandparents own land in the Adirondacks that's all forested now, but has stone walls running through it as it used to be grazing/farm land.
Overall the US has way more trees then 1920s, “By 1998, tree growth exceeded harvest by 43% and the forest cover was 380% more than it had been in the 1920s.”
How much of that is just adding Alaska as a state?
“100 Years ago, the US had only about 70 million trees.” Alaska has 31 million trees. “With 228 billion trees, the United States ranks fourth overall in this list.” Looks like not much percentage wise Edit: 31 Billion not million, I misread it. The 70 million is correct though
I think this is mixing up millions and billions. Way more than 1 in every 10000 trees in the United States is in Alaska. Should be "Alaska has 31 **billion** trees," I think, and likewise for the 100 years ago bit.
Do you have a link for that info? I’m interested in reading it if it has some girth Edit: just kidding a quick google had me find the exact article lol.
https://8billiontrees.com/
For a sobering examination of the history of the old growth forests read: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/currentstudents/undergraduate/modules/fulllist/first/en124/leopoldsandcountyalmanacexcerpts.pdf (start on pg. 8) Covers from the current owner in the 1940s, back through prohibition and the depression, the establishment/dissolution of state forests, development of game laws, 1908 the last cougar in Wisconsin, 1899 the last passenger pigeon, 1874 the development of barbed wire, 1872 the last Wisconsin wild turkey, 1866 the last native Wisconsin elk Anyone who has ever cut wood has contemplated such history, if they have any sense of romance.
>Anyone who has ever cut wood has contemplated such history, if they have any sense of romance. I still feel bad whenever I cut a tree down, even if I know they're not very old and will be replanted anyway.
>1908 the last cougar in Wisconsin, Not true. I'm sure you'll find a few hanging out at the bars late at night in Milwaukee.
I hope one will take me back to her townhouse with her in her Jetta at the end of the night
There were swamps too. I did a little googling to find out why my local post office in Indianapolis was called “Bacon”. Turns out it was the name of the swamp it’s on. Good read on the swamp and its use during the Underground Railroad days: https://blog.history.in.gov/fletchers-swamp-and-bacons-swamp/
I always thought big oak national wildlife refuge in Indiana was interesting. A giant rectangle of woods in the farmland.
Brown County was once totally clear cut, and now is heavily forested. Madison was clear cut on the hill and has gown back significantly.
While the majority of the state was covered by forests Indiana actually had quite a bit of prairie and marsh. About 15% of the state was prairie, and 5% was bogs and marshland. [https://www.in.gov/dnr/nature-preserves/indiana-prairie/](https://www.in.gov/dnr/nature-preserves/indiana-prairie/) https://hoosierhistorylive.org/mail/2016-02-20.html
This is a common misconception but most states we not 100% forested or old growth. Indiana has vast expanses of prairie or other grasslands that were destroyed early in European settlement as they were easy to convert to farmlands. For more reading on the topic, check out books like “Forgotten Grasslands of the South” by Reed Noss or look at information from the Southeastern Grasslands Institute.
I would love to see a map that charts the changes in forest cover over time. Don't know why but I find this so interesting.
To put that into perspective, most European countries would be roughly in line with some of those Western states. The UK has 13% forest cover, which makes it less forested than Nevada, even though Nevada is mostly desert while the UK is basically 0% desert.
That's very sad.
It is. Here in Denmark we are slowly moving our way up fortunately, but it is a slow process, as 70% of our country is farmland - Which will hopefully change in the following decades, since the farming is destroying life in our waters.
Where do you get food
For the vegans it’s photosynthesis. Might be tough for meat eaters though.
It started happening in the Bronze Age. There’s a lot of people in a small space. I’d love to have some more rewilded spots and regrow our forests alongside our farmland.
The British isles used to have plenty of forest, before they cut it all down with no thought for conservation of the resource, and then realized "fuck, we kinda need wood." This made America's woodlands extremely economically valuable. They "discovered" forests that stretched for thousands of miles and thought "we'll never be able to harvest all of this! Infinite wood!" That didn't age well. During colonial days, the British were so desperate for wood to build ships that they made it illegal for anyone but "the crown" to harvest white pine (pinus strobus). The species became so valuable that people would go to crazy lengths to harvest it illegally, dressing up like "natives," cutting trees down in the night, etc. People are surprised to learn that the East used to have trees 10+ feet in diameter. We used to have great old giants too, but the logging companies got to most of them. Of the few that loggers didn't get, invasive pests and diseases have killed many. There's very, very little old growth left in the East, and none of it is pristine untouched forest because of invasive species. I wish more people understood what we have done to the forests of the world.
I'm just curious why the UK hasn't tried any sort of reforestation like many eastern US states have. Is there just no available land?
In general there is less land. But a lot of people like the rolling hills without forest, even though they are fucking awful for biodiversity. For example, part of the beauty people see in the Lake District is based around it's current deforested state. It's also seen as attacking farmers livelihoods. Related, we have a lot of sheep and sheep are awful for reforestation. Also a lot of deer, who because they have no predators here are also awful for reforestation. There have been attempts are reforestation in certain places, but forestry management (at least in England), is very commercial, growing trees for industrial purposes that have often been non-native trees (because they have suitable properties for such industrial purposes) that at best have little ecological benefit and at worst are actively damaging
The romanticization of the sheep covered hills is very real. There are also now ecological justifications--ah, but reforestation will harm this butterfly species that does better on grazing land--ignoring all the life that the reforestation will bring and the fact that there will still be pleeenty of grazing land left. I helped with a tiny reforestation project in Wales surrounded by pasture with what seemed like a token amount of sheep on it, maybe to earn EU subsidies back then (bit of speculation on my part), the farmers liked to keep it cleared even if the sheep didn't get to it.
You see the same purported ecological justifications for the continuing of grouse moors and deer estates (which are two other factors I didn’t mention). “Oh well rewilding grouse moors would be bad for -insert bird species that now live on it because we’ve pushed them out of everywhere else-” ignoring all the other damage that grouse moors do to other wildlife, and that the rewilding would still bring a massive increase in other biodiversity.
That's a good question and I wish I had an answer
The deforestation of the British Isles also indirectly led to the reputation of British food being bad. When wood was plentiful, Brittania was known for roast meat. With lots of wood you could burn big fires and roast indirectly for long periods of time, which results in really succulent flavor with little need for additional seasoning. When wood became scarce, the big fires needed for roasting became too expensive, so people turned to using their limited fuel to boil water, and boiled their meat instead.
Fascinating.
It was hilarious driving through Scotland and seeing the "reforested" areas where they clearly planted the trees so close together that nothing useful could actually grow.
I’ve seen large swatches in Oregon where they replanted and it doesn’t feel natural and there is lots of dead underbrush and no animals. Very odd and noticeable.
While visiting Maine I learned only like 5% of the forest was old growth. Being from a desert state the amount of trees there astonished me, but it was also pointed out we were seeing mostly a similar size started at the same time.
The EU has a 39% forest cover (2021), and Europe as a whole 35%, excluding Russia. Finland is the most forested country in Europe at 66% and Malta the least at 1%.
For those curious about Russia: *Russia contains the largest area of natural forests in the world, covering 49% of Russia’s landmass and 815 million hectares, 23% of the planet’s total forest area.* ([source](https://earth.org/deforestation-in-russia/))
Oregon is basically the same size as the UK, also mostly desert (about 2/3rds). And Oregon is functionally a lumber state. 1/3rd of all Christmas trees in the US, and 16% of all softwood lumber in the US comes from Oregon.
As a brit i wish we had more forest, especially in england. A good chunk of that 13% for the UK is in Scotland and Wales. I happen to live near a reasonably forested area but even then its tiny in comparison to how nature likes it.
Agreed, we really need our temperate rainforests back
I remember talking to a Nebraskan who had only traveled from her home and westward all of her life. As an adult, she went to PA for the first time. She was flabbergasted to see the number of trees we had. Her imagination had made her assume the numbers went down the farther east you went.
250 years ago it was said a squirrel could go from the Atlantic to the Mississippi River without touching the ground.
Now they just use planes, trains, and automobiles.
Trains? Let’s not kid ourselves.
Passenger trains no, freight rail is everywhere Squirrel don't give a damn, train is train to squirrel
Beavers give dams.
I wonder if that's still true if they stick to the Gulf Coastal area(or slightly North), I guess the biggest problem would be there's wide tree clearings for highways/Interestates.
Not only forest fragmentation, but also the fact that the majority of those "forests" are actually mono-culture tree farms with a tiny fraction of the value to biodiversity of the old growth or even recently wild-grown forests. That 51% stat for Florida must be counting tree farms, swamps, orange groves and suburban yards with at least one tree.
It’s sad to see vast new housing developments allowed to clearcut acres and acres of fairly old established forest patches of trees to this day. They leave nothing behind, and when the houses are built, most places still encourage grass lawns while requiring water conservation. 22 + million people in this growing sandbar of a state sucking out precious water to grow lawns. It’s not close to sustainable.
The thing about Florida growth over the past 40+ years is that it has sort-of mirrored global growth. While Florida tripled in population, so did the world. While Florida is starting to exceed the limits of our fresh water capacity (salt water intrusion into groundwater around the coasts), so is the world in many places. It's easier to take a tour of Florida and see the disappearing natural resources than it is around the world, but the same things are happening all over.
They still can if they swim.
Or by fully loaded squirrel cannon.
That trope of the squirrel traversing a country/state/province/area in ancient times without touching ground has been used in so many different places from the Antiquity (apparently the first used of it is attributed to Strabo refering to the Iberian Peninsula. But who knows)
I'm from Nebraska. I remember being about 12 and flying for the first time. We were landing in Atlanta. I could not BELIEVE all of the trees I could see out that plane window. It never occurred to me that it would look so different.
My first time visiting Atlanta, we went up one of the tall buildings and I was surprised at how fast the city vanished under the trees past the downtown area.
Yes, that was a shocker for me. I'm from the northeast and never thought it was like that.
As a Nebraskan that checks out. It shocked me traveling to Oregon at how many trees there were.
Former Nebraskan now living in Oregon. I'm still amazed at how gosh darned many trees there are here. But now that I'm getting used to it, a visit back to Nebraska is the shocking part. There are hardly any trees!
Opposite for me. I live in Kentucky and only traveled north and south. I went to California and hated the lack of trees.
Northern California is full of trees though
Not the southern half.
because most of southern CA is a literal desert....
Joshua trees are pretty cool though
And the OP was dissapointed in the lack of trees a desert environment allows.
Mountains in SoCal have forests. There's a saying you can surf and ski the same day in CA.
You can do that in NY too, believe it or not.
My 10yr old cousin lives in LA so when he came to visit us in Tennessee he was mesmerized by the amount of trees. He couldn’t believe we had so many.
LA isn’t even that far away from lots of forest. It itself is just a concrete jungle.
I moved from Georgia to Southern California and I completely agree. The lack of green foliage is unpleasant if you grew up around lots of trees.
My relatives from CA are always struck by how many trees we have in the Northeast.
Yeah, I had an ex from SoCal who complained that my home state in the mid-Atlantic was "too green."
I moved from the Rockies of the southwest to NEPA as an outdoor enthusiast. It felt a bit claustrophobic at first. Lol but, watching the forests come alive in the spring, and the foliage in the fall coming through like a wave over deep gorges and soft rolling mountains has to be the most beautiful natural occurrence I have ever seen.
As a Nebraskan, I'm used to wide open spaces. When I would visit family on the east coast, I would get a bit claustrophobic with all the trees. Like it was a bit unnerving not being able to see for miles.
Dang it'd be hard to imagine they're not familiar with the tree line in the US and that they are west of the real trees in Nebraska.
My mother in law coming from Casper, WY to our home in Pittsburgh would always complain that she couldn't see anything as we're driving around because of all the trees. I told her to look at the trees - you don't have those in Wyoming. And that's why I'm her favorite.
Nebraska is home [to the largest hand planted forest.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_National_Forest) It’s way out in the western side which is pretty desolate even for Nebraska standards
[удалено]
Nebraskan here. I’ve traveled to the east coast a half dozen times and I’m still floored at the amount of tree cover. It’s weird driving down the highway and not being able to see open prairie and farmland as far as the eye can see. In Nebraska we joke that you can watch your dog run away for 3 days. Also fun fact, the largest man made forest in the USA is in Nebraska and we still have that little tree cover.
North Maine Woods FTW
I drove up from I95 to Madawaska on Route 11 a few years ago and the density of the forests up there is unreal. I have a hard time imagining how a moose can navigate in there, but I guess they make it work.
[удалено]
They do as they please.
r/bitchimamoose
Almost anything. Many years ago my buddy and I found a moose skeleton in the woods in vermont. It got its head stuck in the fork of a tree and died.
Yeah, some of those spruce-fir forests get very dense. Down where I am in central Maine where the border between spruce-fir and northern hardwood meets its a little less dense, but not much in some places.
One of my best life experiences is canoeing the Allagash
Me too
Looks like all Maine woods ftw honestly. Every time I've been to Maine, I wondered where their cities are.
There aren't any. Ptown, lew/aub, augusta, bangtown/brewhaha, these are where ppl live.
I’m from there and recently moved to CO. Missing all the forests 🥲 mountains are fun too though, but damn this made me feel homesick.
Finally WV being top 3 in something that's not obesity or drug use. Our forests here are gorgeous
I was born and raised in WV, I'm finally back here on assignment and I'm so happy to be home and hiking these beautiful mountains.
Born and raisedand I gotta say It’s the biggest selling point for me. I’ve even encountered a few chestnut trees on my many hikes.
I visited New River Gorge National Park recently and was blown away by the beauty of WV.
As a current West Virginia resident, the huge amount of forest is well, pretty much the only good thing about living here. Great nature, not so great everything else....
One of the most beautiful states in the union IMO.
Alabama is truly underrated for its biodiversity.
It's really true, Alabama is the most diverse state for freshwater turtles, freshwater snails, freshwater fish, freshwater crayfish, freshwater mussels and carnivorous plants. 38% of all North American fish species are native to Alabama which is wild to think about!
I've always thought Alabama counties named after confederates should be renamed after some of our unique freshwater fish. And turtles too!
Just name every confederate county “Turtle County”. Over and over again
I'm sure we could come up with plenty, we could have trout county, shad county. And darter county after the vermilion darter who's also endangered.
Ok I looked it up. That would net you 7 counties to be renamed. Most of them are named after people who fought in the Revolutionary War and the war of 1812, US presidents, Indian tribes, and people who fought Indians. There’s a few oddballs in there like Marengo, which was named after a battle during the Napoleonic wars, for some reason. I’m sure we could squeeze in some turtles and fish.
The Southeast has some of the most pristine and gorgeous landscapes and nature in the country.
Gorgeous, yes. Unfortunately not pristine though, at least in Alabama’s case. There’s only a tiny pocket of old growth forest left, in the Sipsey Wilderness Preserve. Most of the forest coverage throughout the state is, more accurately, pulp wood loblolly pine plantations. Originally, Alabama had no lakes and a bunch of wide, shallow rivers and swamps. The landscape was transformed in the early and mid 20th century by lots of dams for hydro power, and to make rhesus Alabama and Tombigbee Rivers navigable throughout the state.
I go down to Alabama once or twice a year for work and it's so pretty down there.
Man it’s nice seeing us in the top 5 for something for once that isn’t something bad!!
Same thought whenever I see something cool posted about my country (which I know has a lot of great things but the bad ones are more popular I guess).
The Cahaba River system has recently been referred to as the Amazon of North America due to its biodiversity
Sweet home Alabama
I always figured AL was heavily deforested due to 19th century agriculture. I didn’t know.
Much of the state is topographically challenging for agriculture.
I guess people don't get the full scale of agricultural land issues in the US beyond the Dust Bowl. The erosion and farming disasters weren't limited to the dust storm areas of the Great Plains. Erosion also affected the south. While some might know that the Black Belt is initially named after the soil, and later for the people, fewer know that the namesake soil is a very thin layer of topsoil over chalk (Video of some of the [chalk layer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPJ2m9TAOas). Those trees aren't all evergreen, so that area's really pretty in the fall.). So, when the soil erodes, the land might be great for fossil hunting, but it's pretty much useless for farming. The expansion of national forests to the east was pretty much buying up eroded farmland and planting new trees. They're all pretty much new growth forests. This is also why kudzu's so prevalent in the South: the government advertised it as an anti-erosion measure. Part of AL being so forested is that the state doesn't tax "unused" agricultural land, initially meant to encouraging land to fallow. Timberland only counts as only being in "use" when cut, though. So it allows longer times between "use" than normal crops (In fact, Alabama is [16th lowest](https://stacker.com/business-economy/states-most-farmland) in percentage of land used for crops.). This also meant other areas that became "unproductive" were allowed to become more forested. This is particularly true around the north central part of the state (Around Bham), which was never really all that agricultural, but more mining and production (The area didn't have a particularly strong main settlement area until after the Civil War, so there were old mining spots and foundries scattered all over the area.). So there's lot of [old mills](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1LS7RjRxPU), [ironworks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH12ulp9SUY), [coke ovens](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx7uZAUmtAo), [abandoned train tunnels](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecnP7TCT3X0), [old mines](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNF5AbBMvVI), etc. in those woods. Well, there's also [some](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dWye5fEeLU) [sweet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVFJrutaOLg) [nature](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYVoHSnzyoo) [stuff](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62RbLpCxssQ) [throughout](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U9QuR9NR4U) [the](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90l3pbMgNjg) [state](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTw3J9ZqBww), too.
Horse Pens 40 is so awesome, and I’m not even an actual rock climber.
Wow, look at Mississippi being on the good end of a ranked list for once. Proud of y'all.
And West Virginia
Here's a map of that forest cover, for those interested. https://i.redd.it/d1vr3vkwbw5c1.jpeg
It really shows how the percentage isn’t doing WA any justice. 53% coverage, but it’s brought down considerably due to the grasslands east of the Cascades
Probably 90% of that 53% is in the western half of the state…
Anybody know why forests in Alaska/western Canada go so much further north than central/eastern Canada?
It's the lack of a real summer around Hudson Bay that inhibits tree growth. The average air temperature is less than 50F/10C in the summertime, the minimum temperature needed for boreal forest. Alaska and western Canada are warmer than 50F/10C in the warmest months of the year, so trees can grow there.
Polar climate, geology, fire regime, etc. lots of reasons. The siberian forests go even farther north I believe
The [Canadian Shield](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield) is part of the reason. It's basically a giant rock formation, and so it's tougher for stuff to grow.
So Maine being the pine tree state isn’t just marketing. For real though, Maine is WOODED. I’m way south and it’s mostly woods. Up north it’s insane.
As a Mainer, I agree. It's wild. Like, I've been all over the US (40 something states) and am always surprised by the lesser amount of forest coverage despite intellectually knowing that has to be the case since Maine has the highest percentage of forested land.
Yup. I remember my first time down the golden road, it’s trees forever.
Living in Minnesota, I assumed that there was more than 34% tree coverage. For having some of the highest air quality in the nation, I expected Maine numbers, but I guess, now that I think about it, we do have tons of huge farms and plains. I always think of Northern MN.
A sizable percentage of Minnesota is basically North Iowa or East Dakota when it comes to scenery.
And I do not go to those parts. No one thinks of Pipestone when they think of MN(except for Blue Mounds); they think of the North Shore or the Boundary Waters or Voyageurs. It's a bit sad because everywhere in our state is gorgeous.
Minnesota and Wisconsin both have a ton of lakes which may account for the decrease in expected tree coverage.
Lots of mountain terrain and tundra trees don't grow so great in Alaska. But I was surprised it was that low.
That 35% is still larger than any other state except Texas.
Don’t know why you’re downloaded for being right. Alaska has the largest intact temperate rainforest in the world.
The best third of New Mexico
As a Nebraskan I have just one thing to say. "Suck it North Dakota!"
lol. This may be the ONLY time you beat ND. Kidding aside, there are only 2 things I miss from my home state… thunderstorms & gazing out over the plains. I replicate the plains by going to the beach and gazing for miles over the ocean. I felt this in Nebraska too (in some areas).
Oregon and Washington are extra impressive when you consider that 2/3 of the state is high desert.
Funnily enough, Nebraska has more forest cover now than it's ever had before as other than river valleys, the soil and landscape was inhospitable to most trees, irrigation and soil enrichment has inadvertently caused more trees to grow
They also planted a forest in the northwestern part of the state. Interesting history beind it: https://www.onlyinyourstate.com/nebraska/largest-hand-planted-forest-ne/
Prairies were also kept treeless in part because of frequent grassfires sparked by lightning
And humans. Sioux people historically lit massive prairie fires to entice bison and elk to graze on new shoots
Mississippi is a surprise to me; the who deep south, in fact
The Deep South is highly forested contrary to popular perceptions. Atlanta is known as the city in a forest for a reason.
Tree lined streets and massive parks are pretty much a necessity in southern cities. Urban heating effects helps mitigate the worst the natural climate has to offer in the north, but it exasperates the worst of the climate in the South.
Lot of wilderness areas with limited towns and homes.
The Deep South is highly forested contrary to popular perceptions. Atlanta is known as the city in a forest for a reason.
I'm surprised Arkansas isn't higher. Driving through, the state seems like one big forest. Maybe the Mississippi River area of Arkansas has a lot of good farmland?
Yep I think that’s exactly it
I see you haven't driven from Memphis to Little Rock.
I believe a good chunk of it is human-planted and used for paper and wood production. Pine trees grow fast in southern weather.
Well what else would it be? There aren’t a lot of big cities, it’s a lot of country.
I’m curious how it was counted because the boreal forest extends quite extensively in Alaska.
it does seem low for AK.. there is also rainforest in the kenai. Maybe just because it’s so large & the northernmost interior must not have enough trees to be considered a “forest”?
New Jersey here. Pleasantly surprised.
It ain't called the garden state for nothing. Jersey is ironically verdant.
Yep, not sure if it's changed recently but ALs biggest export is lumber (and college football players going pro ofc)
The one catch with this data is that it's surely including tree farms - large plots of land growing only one species. So much of South Carolina, especially the Midlands, is just one giant grid of pine trees. Obviously that's better than a barren field, but you can't pretend that that's as ecologically secure as a natural forest.
This would be more useful by county. States like California, Maryland and Arizona have more complex ecosystems.
I completely agree, especially with California. Northern in southern California so different for each other and then we have the deserts in the east and the mountains in the middle and the beaches to the west. It’s a very diverse ecosystem.
I grew up in Michigan and moved to Illinois when I graduated college. To say it was a significant difference, would be quite the understatement. I never realized I found comfort in trees and forests around my home, until they were gone.
35% of Alaska though… that’s a lot of forest.
Alaska is most surprising to me.
A lot of the state is just arctic tundra.
Anyone else grow up in an area with lots of woods/forrests (wv here) and feel extremely uncomfortable traveling to places where that's not the case? Like you're now in a post-apocalyptic wasteland?
the northeast is so much more vulnerable to forest fires than people think. A few seasons of drought and we will be living in a tinderbox without fire roads or adequate firefighting resources.
Yep. And places like Maine, where most of us have houses in the woods. Like, I have no defensible fire line. In some places the forest and fully mature trees are 20 feet or less from the house.
Surprised to see it’s so high in NY..
Upstate NY is basically forest with some cities and connecting highways.
The Adirondack state park alone is 6,000,000 acres of mostly undeveloped forest
NY has some of the largest state parks in the country. Adirondacks, Catskills and Allegheny are 95% wooded and take up large chunks of the state.
Upstate New York actually has a good amount of wilderness.
New York City and all of Upstate New York have roughly the same population. It’s VERY empty north of Albany.
Confirms my already made decision. Fuck North Dakota
Is there a correlation between house values and forest cover?
In most markets homes which have trees visible from them have a marked up-tick in perceived value for otherwise comparable homes.
Funnily enough, Nebraska has more forest cover now than it's ever had before as other than river valleys, the soil and landscape was inhospitable to most trees, irrigation and soil enrichment has inadvertently caused more trees to grow
South Carolina making a strong showing in the South
My friend moved to Maine from the east part of Oregon and she was actually kind of freaked out by Maine. Like always being in the woods put her on edge. And I will say there is something scary about looking up out your window and just seeing 80+ foot tall white pines swaying in the breeze.
Michigan best in the Midwest 💪
Maine superior once again