Old Growth: How much should there be?

[mdvaden]

Now this is a topic that could be a real debating issue. I haven't formed a firm opinion on this subject yet. But it would interesting to see what everybody's idea is, whether it's a pure nature worship idea, or a cut-em-all down idea.

Recently, one of my reading projects has been about lichens that are common on old growth west coast conifers, and these lichens can even fertilize forest areas. Apparently, it could take centuries, not generations, for forests to produce an abundance of these lichens again. On the other hand, if these lichens and old growth were not always around, what's the "beef" with them not being around, again.

Another issue is "Big Trees". Personally, I thoroughly admire huge trees, such as the redwoods shown on a page linked in my signature.

On the other hand, I've asked myself if these trees just have no reason to ever get that tall. They are in limited isolated areas, and form one point of view, could be considered natural odd-balls that should have collapsed years ago and put their organic matter back into the system.

So in short, I think there should be more old growth than what we have, with the total amount not diminishing. But that's partly based on preservation of species, and a lot based on what I consider eye-appeal.

I don't think I'd call it emotional appeal. For example, when Oregon's champion sitka spruce broke off this last winter, I felt something emotional. But the emotions were based on the loss of a place matching experience, not the tree in itself. For years and years, I've stopped by to stretch my legs out by that tree, because its impressive looking. Now, I may pick a new spot to visit for something else to look at. On the other hand, maybe it is part emotion. I don't like to head down that road, because knowing trees don't last forever, I prefer that they remain something I like to enjoy, not something to love or feel sorry for.

You would never find me cutting pieces off that old spruce to try and "root' children from it in some attempt to perpetuate it. 

As one who enjoys trees, I'm still amused by people like Taylor or Atkins, that have spent up to half a lifetime searching for the tallest tree in the world.  I hope they enjoyed the outdoors experience, because as an outdoorsman, I'd hate to spend my time looking for the tallest tree. I'd much rather enjoy myself exploring and looking at all the trees. In many respects, the largest and tallest don't even look that much different to the average eye from a couple of hundred feet away.

How much old growth do you think we should have? Would you say that your opinion is based on personal desire? Environmental protection? Statistics?

[Tom]

I would like for someone to define "Old Growth" as well as terms like Virgin Forest and like terms that indicate that the flora in a particular spot is "special", in need of being protected or would remain in its mature state for a time worthy of conserving it.

I think that arguments like this have a lot of holes and openings for differing interpretation.

Basically, I'm of the mind that conservatory is esthetic.

Where do the descriptions of Conservation and Preservation fit?

[stumpy]

It seems to me that forests are like crop land.  The differnce being the time between harvests.  The problem I have is people protesting logging (especially Old growth).  They seem to be taking a sort of Selfish position.  By that I mean that they want to protect forests so that we as a people can enjoy them.  Forests, if managed properly, will be there for generations to come.  The only thing that changes is what stage of growth they are in when we are looking at them. I may enjoy a forest today and then come back a year later after it has been logged and not get to excited by it, but when My grand children's children look at the same forest  years from now, they will  get the same enjoyment as I had.

[Jeff]

As far as I am concerned man has no right to define the term old growth other then to satisfy a self importance he finds by comparing the human life span with the plants, animals and minerals that make up a planet that will be here long after we are gone. We're just a blip in time utilizing what we need to exist while we are here like every other organism. Sure, we should use good stewardship for the time we are here, because after all, we do have some intelligence, but one day we will be gone along with the terms like old growth that we invented. The trees will continue to grow and mature and then die and fall, and then start to grow anew. They'll do that all without us and without caring what  year it is or how old they are.

[stumpy]

Jeff has made my point much better than I did

[mdvaden]

One thing is certain, I had definite impression about what I thought of as old growth when we lived in north Oregon, and most forests I went to were like Mt. Hood national forest, or older trees at the Oregon coast. Then we moved to southern Oregon, in an area where forest fires are fairly common, and the forests don't have the same density or appearance.

Although I'd love to see the old forests of the 1800's returned to the Pacific NW if possible - purely from an eye-appeal standpoint - I think it would be equally cool to experience the dramatic and industrious logging of that period - bustling logging communities, huge logs, etc..

Hey, here's athought...

Lars Larson (heard of him), on his show, seems to have commented about Oregon becoming like a state that IS a park. Is it possible that could happen? (Lars is not supportive of that kind of idea - he talks about it critically).

[stonebroke]

I don't know, lichens in the east take about ten to twenty years to be come established.


Stonebroke

[snowman]

Old growth along with spotted owl, black foot ferret, lynx , grizzly bear has become a buzz word and a club for enviros to use to stop logging. Having said that, I love going into old growth never been logged forest and think some areas should definately be set aside, left as is.No stumps, no roads no skidtrails, no slash.Theres several stands of cedar around me that have been set aside, amazing to walk through,huge trees like 7 ft on the butt.Nothing but a small hiking trail through them. Thers another place I love to backpack into here. Long Canyon, the only unlogged drainage left in north Idaho.HUGE white pines cedars hemlocks, the grounds covered in moss like a thick green carpet.I firmly believe we need places like this left so you can see what things looked like , felt like, before man got here.

[Tillaway]

MD,
Lars is hardly a credible source for any natural resource related issues.  I have been tempted to call the show and set him straight.  The loggers that listen to him feel pretty much the same way.  More than once I have pulled up on a landing with the shovel operator saying something about Lars not having a clue.  What he says is for entertainment purposes and should be taken that way.

About "Old Growth", a technicality... There are two types. Old growth by process; where trees of all age classes are well represented throughout the stand and has arrived at that point without any management activity.  Sort of the ideal the environmental community has embraced.  It is the always been here and always will be static thinking process.  It was embraced in the late 19th century and was the working theory until the late 1950's when research finally started to support the theory.  Turned out the theory was wrong.  Stands studied found that there was disturbance or stand replacing events since all trees throughout the different canopy levels were roughly the same age or only two or three distinct age classes are identified .  These forests are what the NW was made up of prior to European arrival.  Old growth by process is thought to exist in areas that are well sheltered from any possible disturbance.  The closest thing researchers have found to this so far is an Alaska muskeg.  The stand would have to exist in a near vacuum of perfect conditions virtually nonexistent on this planet.

Old growth by definition; An age, size, or stand structure used to describe a forest.  No one can agree to what this is, the definition suits the agenda of the person or group making it and tends to be a moving target.  

[mdvaden]

Tillway...

I'm not recommending Lars as credible. But his statement got me to thinking whether or not Oregon - or another state - could over a period of decades, develop into a "Mecca" of forest.

In Oregon, we have some of the best state parks in the nation already - parks and campgrounds.

Logging had restrictions put on it, and some bustling towns like Coos Bay declined some.

The high tech industry, and developments like Nike world headquarters in Beaverton, have provided many jobs in the urban areas which are strong voting blocks.

So I have not shelved the idea that an entire state could become a park Mecca, aside from the private land. But even then, it seems that the Oregon government has it's grips on that too.

It's not in the works, but I read that someone in Oregon state government had considered taxing water from wells at Oregon residences, using meters. Because apparently, we don't own the water under our property here.

[Faron]

I don't know about Oregon, but here that official would be a prime candidate for a bucket of tar and some feathers.

[Ron Wenrich]

I think some of the old growth is dependent upon perception, and not so much discription.  Most people tend to think that old growth would mean big trees.  It would be an interesting research assignment for someone to find out what the perception is.

To me, an old growth stand is a stand that has been relatively untouched and is more in the climax stage of development.  Do we need them?  I think we do.  Its sort of like having a 50 dollar bill tucked away someplace.  You don't have to see it all the time, its just knowing that you have it that makes you feel good.  

We can look at forests as a crop.  I don't think that's a good perspective, since it doesn't take into account everything the forest offers.  Too often crops are only looked at by what's above the ground.  There are other intrinsic values that should be taken into account.  A lot of different species are dependent on different stages of development in the forest.  

We can manage for big trees.  Too often we get blinded by the quick dollar or interest rates that seem attractive.  We tend to manage fairly intolerant species, which leads us to always be looking at shorter rotations and heavier cuts.  

I once read a forester's recommendation on a stand to do something to enhance reproduction.  His first concern was to kill off the deer, then he wanted to put up a fence (it was part of his business).  I was quite familiar with the stand and I just wondered why he didn't want to manage what was there for at least 20-40 years, then worry about regeneration at the time of the final harvest.  Perhaps it was because he would be retired by that time.  Maybe I have my management perpectives all wrong.  
  

[Tillaway]

Ron,
From perception comes the definition. 

To me, an old growth stand is a stand that has been relatively untouched and is more in the climax stage of development.  Do we need them?  I think we do.  Its sort of like having a 50 dollar bill tucked away someplace.  You don't have to see it all the time, its just knowing that you have it that makes you feel good. 

I would have to agree, we need to keep some around just how much, where and why?  The how much and where and why is the part everyone struggles with.  What I don't like are preserves or other legal designations that limit management options, its static thinking applied to a dynamic resource. 

[Ron Wenrich]

It depends on how you are planning to use the resource.  A dynamic resource only implies change.  It doesn't imply change in my lifetime, only the forests.  We take it upon ourselves to manipulate the dynamics to our own use.  I'm not saying that's always bad, but as a forester, I've always tried to work within the natural dynamics.  (Bring on the tar and feathers. )

How much and where are valid parameters.  Here in the east, I'd say anything that hasn't been cut should stay that way.  Its a very small percentage and has never been in the resource stream.  Other areas could be added in areas where logging or timber production really aren't the better options.  Timber production isn't always the best option.

How much old growth is left on the west coast?  Are there any mills that can handle it any more?  For some people, there will never be enough old growth; for others, there will always be too much.   

[SwampDonkey]

For me, and this is just personal. I would like to see old trees mixed in with younger trees, so more uneven aged. I like to see some old cedar and that big old yellow birch mixed in my woodlot. I'm not too keen on letting fir and aspen grow too old and fall down. That's a real tangled mess to walk in.  Since we want to have old growth, I assume someone wants to go see it or walk in it. cough 

Old growth is more even-aged with species that have a similar life span. I could also argue that an over mature  balsam fir - white birch stand is old growth to. Once the fir dies, so does the white birch within a short time. Although, white birch can live a lot longer when mixed with longer lived species that won't collapse around them. None-the-less after that stand dies, it's fir and birch again without anyone touching it.

Up here in the north big is old, and small can be really old to. But, big is definitely old.  Even a 26 inch aspen is old, it might me 90 years old, but it's old and over mature with conk growing out the sides. I don't like walking in old aspen, especially in wind storms. But, generally up here, old is 150 + years, since the environment is a lot tougher here and a 300 year old rock maple doesn't exist. But at the same time 400 year old red spruce, white pine and hemlock do exist. With exception of some sheltered red spruce, the old pine and hemlock are big trees. Now we have to define big.   

[Ron Scott]

The amount of Old Growth acres will continue to be an issue and concern among forest users and managers with disagreements as to how much old growth is enough.

Ecosystem, biological diversity, and intigrated resource management should be considered in our retention of old growth as part of forest management.

As a minimum, it is recommended that a representative acreage of each ecological land type be designated and retained in old growth.

On the 965,000 acre Huron-Manistee National Forests' this amounts to about 18,000 acres or about 2% of the forests' acreage.

[Ron Scott]

Definitions of Old growth on the Web:

The complexity of Old Growth makes for many points of definition and argument when defining specific acres as old growth.


old growth is a forest that contains live and dead trees of various sizes, species, composition, and age class structure. ...
www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/glossary/O.htm

individual trees that are beyond the age of biological maturity, or stands that contain old growth trees as well as some large snags, and logs on the ground.
edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FR063

Stands of forest trees of either seral or climax species growing singly or in association with other tree species. The stands are usually well past the age of maturity as defined by the culmination of mean annual increment and often exhibit characteristics of decadence. ...
www.na.fs.fed.us/pubs/silvics_manual/volume_2/glossary/glossary.htm

Refers to a forested area with trees that are more than 40 inches in circumference. These trees are often hundreds of years old, but size, not age, is more important in the old growth classification.
www.sherpaguides.com/california/mountains/appendices/glossary.html

Biologically, a stand of timber that is near its climax; such trees may be 200 years old or more. In timber management planning, old growth also refers to timber that is older than the rotation age planned for future forests; this definition may include trees that are 100 years of age, or less.
www.ufpi.com/product/lumber/glossary.htm

A forest that has never been changed by management or harvesting. This term is misapplied by many to describe any forest that appears to be old. Individual trees in this type of forest are usually over 200 years old, and there are large standing and fallen dead trees throughout the stand. ...
idahoptv.org/dialogue4kids/season8/forestsdesertswetlands/glossary.cfm

forest or woodland having a mature or overly mature ecosystem more or less uninfluenced by human activity
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

[bugmeist]

Talking about old growth shouldn't only be about the trees. It needs to be about the whole ecosystem.  Whatever definition you use for 'old growth' should include all the lichens, mosses, newts, etc, etc.

I've only been in an 'old growth' forest once for any length of time.  North of Lk Superior about an hr. north and east of S.S. Marie is an area that had huge White Pine, Yellow and White Birch, Hard Maple and Red Oak, many over 5' dbh.  Very few deer (very little low browse), lots of birds in the canopy, and a thick layer of leaf and needle litter underfoot.  Very different from my 100 acres (and the thousands around me) that were logged 1st in the early1800's then again between the 1930's and 50's.  We did a selective cut of hardwood 10 yrs ago and most of the Maple and Oak was between 80-100yrs old. 

One of the things I noticed that differentiated 'old growth' from 2nd or 3rd growth was that the old growth "seemed" to have a higher % of healthy trees.  Maybe the gene pool is stronger overall but there was a noticeable difference in the health I "perceived".

Old growth like old folks are necessary for balance in nature.  Put me on the side of those who want to save whats left of the old growth.  We should be able to supply our needs by better managing the non-old growth.

[SwampDonkey]

bugmeister all the other critters count whether it's old growth or not, right? But, we tend to relate more to trees because we use more fibre than newt meat. But, yet we may be managing or mismanaging for the newts in the process. Actually I'm certain that after 10 years of regrowth and rotten tops and stems there are lots of newts. Anyone have any hard numbers on newt population dynamics? What happens to them after a severe fire burns down  through the little layer? Anyone for Bar-B-Q'ed newt?

[arojay]

Something else to consider.  What part do forests play in the carbon cycle, proliferation of green house gases etcetera, at different stages.  Old growth has an ecological importance, but has come to mean something different from an intrinsic and existential perspective.  In some places, human intervention in the form of firefighting, has created old growth stands that would have naturally burned and regenerated long ago and would have been taking up much more co2.