One of the Last Old Growth Forests in the Midwest 

Timber companies are upset that most people like old trees, so they spread lies to confuse so they can continue to cut them down. Older trees are more valuable ($$$) than younger due to tight grain of the lumber.

Wow that's just ridiculous for someone to think that. Personally I've worked in logging for 16 years, and grew up in a small timber industry based community, and even I'm aware of why old growth forests are important, and why they should be preserved.

Likely the old timer mentality that things need "cleaned up" as they would call it. The same people that think a grass lawn is a necessary component of the ecosystem and that mowing is doing the Lord's work.

No cuz theyll just cut them down when they get too big

Many of the photos in my Cleveland then and now vid were also shot on location.

I live in Ohio, by almost all official scholarly sources Ohio is considered part of the Midwest US, Oklahoma usually isnt. Even culturally Ohio is midwestern, with the farmlands, industry and great lakes, much more similar to wisc, indiana , and michigan than PA or WV or KY. Thanks for your support.

Correct. Virgin timber stands are nearly non-existent, at least in this part of the U.S. The terminology for types of old growth are often bandied about.

What are you even talking about. I live in Iowa and there are tons of old growth forests in Iowa

@@ImSrry4BeingWhite tons you say? Please, go on

@@Gwilfawe margo Frankel woods in des moines. Pammel state park in winterset. Some in ames. For cereal

@@ImSrry4BeingWhite I am not sure what operational definition of 'old growth forest' you are using when referencing those tracts. The definition I refer to is something like - "forests old enough that the tree dominants have reached their natural longevity, died of natural causes and been replaced through natural succession" By this definition Iowa has no old growth forests. If I granted that the entirety of the acreages you mentioned as old growth forests (when in reality, only portions of the named areas you've mentioned [136 & 350 acres, respectively] are forested), those two, together total to 0.019% of Iowa's *existing* forest land as of 2020. That calculation itself uses generous numerical values too, rounded up and down in your favor. The fraction would be more minuscule still, if we made the calculation using historical forest metrics of Iowa. Does Iowa have 'forests'? sure. But it ranks 52nd out of 56 US designations for forested land, just before states like South Dakota, North Dakota, and Nebraska. If I have room to be educated on old growth forest ecology, or forests in Iowa that I am missing out on please let me know.

The natives of those regions were not vegetarians and yet didn't destroy their forests! Most of the great lakes region is used for corn production! Something that goes into many vegan products! Not so black and white as your vegetarian propaganda pamphlets would tell you!

Though the trees can be huge, Old Growth doesn't necessarily relate to size but age. 100 feet tall is impressive, however.