 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The article states that Mount Pisgah (5721 ft) is the highest point in the forest, but then goes on to claim elevations in the forest reach over 6000 ft. Clearly these two points are contradictory, unless it simply means that Mount Pisgah is the highest mountain located entirely within the forest, in which case I suggest some clarification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.215.132.137 (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I just made some edits to the page, mostly to the history section. It was claimed that Pisgah was the first national forest of the United States. I was skeptical and looked into it. From what I gather, and referenced in footnotes, Pisgah was not even close to the first. It was established in 1916, but a great many national forests were established in the west decades earlier. Terminology changed -- in 1905 the "Bureau of Forestry" was renamed the "Forest Service" and put under the USDA, and in 1907 the "national forest reserves" were renamed "national forests". One could thus argue that true national forests did not exist until 1907. But even if one buys that argument, quite a few national forests were created between 1907 and 1916 -- mostly in the west, but also including Nantahala (1907) and Ocala in Florida (1908, later joined to Osceola NF). Further, national forests were being created in the Ozark region as early as 1907. Often the names and delineations changed over time, but still, I don't think Pisgah can really claim to be the first -- not even the first in the east, the southeast, or the Appalachians. The history of national forest creation can be found in great (overwhelming) detail at National Forests of the U.S..
I can see how the Cradle of Forestry and the Biltmore lands, now part of Pisgah, could be seen as among the first forest lands reserved and later made into national forests. But still, they were not actually made into a national forest until 1916 as far as I can tell. Anyway, just explaining my edits. Sorry if I got anything wrong. Pfly (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems half-finished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.194.125 (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recently President Obama signed in a new Law that firearms can be carried in all natoinal parks. How does this effect Pisgah National Forest? What has changed? We have always been able to carry 22 long Rifle weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.77.109 (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the "Globe Forest" a part of Pisgah National Forest? Based on the photos on the photo gallery page of this website -- the Defend the Globe Forest website of the North Carolina Forest Defense Campaign -- it appears that the Globe Forest is connected to the Pisgah forest is some way. Does anyone know? And if we have a reliable source (not a blog), we should endeavor to improve the Pisgah article by covering this important controversy dealing with saving old growth forestinNorth Carolina. N2e (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pisgah National Forest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
