Magazine article American Forests

Letters

Magazine article American Forests

Letters

Article excerpt

FORESTRY FROM A TO ZZZZZ

editor: I question your assertion that the majority of AMERICAN FORESTS members in the past worked in the forests and that today most are less connected to the land. I have always lived in the city-and I am a long-time member. But I am also a small landowner and thus reflective of the fact that the majority of American woodland is owned by small landowners.

The "board and staff" may find satisfaction in your present approach, but frankly, the worst thing about American Forests for this urbanite is that I'm bored silly hearing the same things over and over. Not only do I miss "forestry from A to Z," as Warren Demetrick put it (Forest Forum, Summer 1998), but I miss the stories about forest-related topics from those who clearly love forests.

The passion for trees is gone from American Forests, replaced by a bland environmental consciousness and exhortations to plant more trees. I feel certain that if you did a proper survey, you would find that many more than just Warren Demetrick and I feel the same.

Malcolm H. Churchill Washington, DC

editor: I agree with Warren Demetrick's letter (Summer 1998). Your content has changed so radically as to border on uselessness. Much of the content is touting AMERICAN FORESTS programs, such as Global ReLeaf-a good program but it should not be such a dominant element in your content.

I long for the days when American Forests was the best all-round source of information on environmental matters, including soil, land, water, recreation, as well as forests.

Henry A. Raup Mount Desert, Maine

editor's note: We hear you. You'll be happy to know that you will be seeing more of that balance in future issues. Look for shorter stories, more graphics, and more general interest and newsy items. We want American Forests to be the magazine people think about when they think about trees. . let us know how we're doing.

BIG TREES, BIG CONTROVERSIES

editor: As I browsed through the 19981999 National Register of Big Trees, I noticed there are seemingly no entries for the cedars. Did I miss them somewhere, or did somebody goof?

Dan Peterson Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin

From the Big Tree Coordinator: There are no true cedars considered native or naturalized in the United States. It is our policy to list species alphabetically by common name, and in previous Registers we incorrectly listed several species under the heading cedar, including Alaska-cedar, incense-cedar, Port-Orford-cedar, eastern, southern, and western redcedar, and Atlantic and northern white-cedar. Although this change may make it harder for some to find the trees, those readers familiar with the accepted common names should still be able to find them.

editor: In Minnesota and Wisconsin we have a species recognized as northern pin oak (Quercus ellipsoidalis), also called Jack oak or hill oak. This variety is distinctly different than the common pin oak (Q. palustris), also frequently planted here as a shade and boulevard tree. The northern variety tends to be taller, narrower, and less branchy, and I suspect it is somewhat slower growing, since the eastern variety usually shoots up two to three feet per year, and I've seen nearly inch-wide annual rings. Fall colors are different, too-the northern type turns blaze red and orange, while the eastern type seems to turn less noticeably into duller shades of red, yellow, and tan-brown. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources considers the northern type to be a native species. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.