I've been part of similar discussions in North Carolina and Virginia. It's important for folks to appreciate that we are, nominally at least, still a free people and as such will, generally, behave in a manner consistent with our best self interest. Freedom and self interest are fundamental to any topic about reforestation because the landowner will, generally, act to maximize his betterment and utility from owning the land. Consequently, if the Land Expectation Value for managed timberland is less than farmland, solar power fields, or other potential uses it is perfectly natural for the land to get converted. If we communicate, through our dollars, that we dont want forestland then we can expect the economy to produce less forestland. Although planting trees has significant personal value, it rarely creates a lasting impact beyond your immediate sphere of influence, as the economic forces that limited forestland production are not changed by simply forcing a bit more trees into the system. If you truly want to "change things" and still respect the individuals right to self determination (in other words don't go crying to the government) the best thing to do is work with your local forestry/logging associations to market the value of what you've got. You might have heard the studies many paper mills are fond of quoting "we have more trees now than we did 100 years ago", and that's true, but its only true because we have more mills now than we did 100 years ago. No forest has ever been converted that's within 50 miles of a paper mill.