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.

[Gary_C]

Now this is a topic that could be a real debating issue.

And I think a debating issue is all it is as there is no real good answer to how much old growth should there be. It's kind of like asking Bill Gates and Rupert Murdock just how much money does a person need to have. I am not expecting them to say "I've got plenty and do not need any more." So even if we could all agree on what exactly "old growth" is, and how much is enough, there are some that would not be happy and still set their sights on more and more.

Best answer I could give is whatever could be determined to be reasonably attainable now and then no more. Just as long as the accepted target would never be moved again and would not affect our ability to manage and use the remainder of our forests for the benefit of all and not lock them up in the "trophy case" of old growth or wilderness area.

[beenthere]

.......................just how much money does a person need to have. ................. So even if we could all agree on what exactly "old growth" is, and how much is enough, there are some that would not be happy and still set their sights on more and more................

That money analogy is the best I've heard yet about Old Growth thinking....and especially when very few people can agree on what Old Growth is, or what it might mean (as so well described in this thread). Prolly no one could agree on a defn for "money" either, and for sure not "how much" would be enough.

Thanks Gary_C, for that thought. 

[Woodhog]

Old growth is viewed as quite important here in Nova Scotia and they want to have 8% of the Crown land in old growth as an objective.

I have about 20 acres on the back end of one of my lots that I was working in and I just left it alone. I figure there should be a few spots around where the 2 leg animals just stay out.

Lots of info here:

http://gov.ns.ca/NATR/forestry/planresch/oldgrowth/index.htm

[SwampDonkey]

My understanding of old growth forest is even-aged. Surely, a forest is not stagnate with one age class of trees, but the majority will be of similar longevity. You'll have a few pole trees and a carpet possibly of fir ,hemlock, maple or beech at the ground level, usually very shade tolerant. I've walked in virgin old growth forest before here in NB and in BC. It's like parkland. On the Charlottes in BC even more so, no brush and no devils club. It will spoil ya, aside from the wet weather and greasy side hills.  In BC it's softwood and in NB it can be both softwood and hardwood, but there are generally 3 or 4 species of similar longevity and development paths. On the Charlottes I can honestly say that the tree composition I was in was 60 % hemlock, 5% spruce, 5 % yellow cypress and 30 % red cedar. In NB it's sugar maple 60%, yellow birch 10%, beech 20% and ash 10%. So there is your 4 dominant species in each situation, hemlock and white pine here in NB wouldn't be 5 %. We get more hemlock and white pine left on clear cuts, or sites they took out the spruce, fir and hardwood and the hardwood suckers in the undergrowth along with fir regeneration that was established before the fir got too old. Generally the composition is 80 % toward hardwood or toward softwood. You might get a pocket of hemlock and spruce in the middle of hardwood, or maybe in bands depending on past history and the soil/rock. Similar on the west coast, you could get a pocket of red alder where a land slide occurred, or it could be sitka spruce on those slides. Now there are all kinds of mosses and lichens on everything from live trees to rotten logs.  The more humid and rainfall, the more abundant. Here is NB we tend to get a lot of shade tolerant shrubs. I've even seen mosses colonize the spruce limbs lying on the ground after a clearcut within 5 years. Once you get a new canopy overgrowing the ground it becomes more humid in under there for these things to grow and the rotting wood stays damp. Those rotting limbs from a cut are gone in 12-15 years. Go to a 10 year old fir-spruce thinning and see how clean it is on the ground and no regeneration yet.

[OneWithWood]

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.

Maybe I can help you out here Tom.  "Old Growth" is what you see in the mirror, especially if you can't remember where you left the razor.  "Virgin" is a term most of us forgot a long time ago

As for the trees, it is all relative.  You can create 'old growth' characteristics in any wood lot with a little planning.  Locate a large over mature tree.  Surround it with some course woody debris.  Presto, change-o, you have an old growth environment, even if it is only a micro segment. 

There are some stands of stately trees that are better left alone, if only for the aesthetic value.  If one adheres strictly to the 'take out the worst, leave the best' ideology eventually one ends up with 'old growth'.  Maybe not in our lifetime, but somewhere down the road.

[mdvaden]

Seems that this issue or type of conversation can be very related to deciding what is a park or what is a forest.

Or what a park should be like and if a forest should be the same or different.

And if one should be managed according to occassional logging, but another managed as if it were a giant natural garden.

One think that comes to mind are the nurse logs in Oswald West State Park or Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park. The nurse logs are as large as 4' to 13' high, laying on their sides, and become like gardens with the trees, ferns and huckleberry growing on them.

Also, those logs can retain thousands of gallons of water to reduce runoff to streams.

But in a different kind of forest where trees are harvested before reaching that size, it appears far less likely, if at all, that nurse logs like that will be retained or grown with the intent for them to grow until dying and falling.

Is it simpler to satisfy everybody, to simply slice up the map as to types of forest, rather than try to implement too many aspects of forest care into every forest?

[Tom]

Is it simpler to satisfy everybody........

There's a favorite Aesop's Fable, with that as a subject, about a Boy, an old man and his donkey, going to market.

[BBK]

Humans have had as much to do with the type of forrests that exist as mother nature. The quote below says a lot about the  falacies on "Old Growth" and "Virgin Forrest". I doubt that any one on earth, besides Adam & Eve have ever seen a forestland untouched by human influence.


"The first Europeans settlers did not step off boats into a vast, primeval forest untouched by human hands. Millions of Indians were living in these forests then, and more than half their food supply came from cultivated fields kept free of trees by repeated burning. There is no scientific evidence to support the largely romantic notion that eastern forests were somehow formed independent of human influences. The fact is they were shaped and reshaped by human and natural forces."

Dr. Edward Buckner, Overton Professor of Forestry, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, October, 1997

[SwampDonkey]

BBK, yes and no. Indians in our region moved like nomads with the seasons and they followed the waterways. If they climbed a hardwood ridge it wasn't to clear off a homestead to build a village site. They were more likely in pursuit of a moose on snow shoes in very deep snow with spears, a caribou might be cornered or ambushed on a baron path, hare or grouse with bow and arrow. They had no steal, just stone, bone, wood and fire. They were known to burn forest land, but to keep from starving to death mostly. It works in flushing big game animals. They did this on prairies as well to hunt buffalo. The sensible Maritime natives here returned to the southern coasts for milder winters to keep from freezing and starving to death. Heck they could even eat sea weed in the tough times. Who do you think kept the newly arrived Acadians from starving to death after the rations ran out? The "traditional fishing grounds" they called where places they came during the time of abundance. The governments here have made reserves on those areas, usually at river mouths. In the early part of the last century there were very small bands of natives left and they lived very miserably when they spent the winters and were dependent on what some Indian agent or priest decided they could have. Most tribes, before European exploration and some time during, kept to their own territory because of possible raids and attacks for food and competition for what was available. Any village sites that were discovered here in NB were very small and rare, not indicative of thousands of people living on them. Crops were not grown here, they were gathered from what was available and likely traded. And yes a good many natives died off from disease from Europe, but according to accounts the villages were not like those of Inca and Mayan cities up here. The most advanced natives in Canada were on the west coast and around the great lakes, where there were permanent dwellings called long houses. All they had here and the prairies were wigwams and teepee's made of brush/poles and animal hides that could be moved quickly with the seasons. They didn't leave much of a foot print on the landscape that wasn't part of the natural succession of the forest or prairie land here. Now the further south you get, the larger the tribes. It's easier to live when you don't have to worry about keeping from freezing to death.

I'm no expert on Natives, but these are some of the things I've come to except with any amount of rationality.

[crtreedude]

Old Growth in the tropics tops out at about 350 years. Usually a tree pulls out of the ground around 50 to 80 years old - epiphytes weigh them down so much.

Back about 500 years ago everything around us was cleared by the Mayans.

I personally like the idea of mixed stands of trees that are being openned up periodically to keep producing food. Sort of like having living quarters and then the supermarket. There isn't a lot of food in old growth forest down here - but they sure are interesting.

I have no answers, just observations.

[Phorester]

We have had pretty much this same discussion a couple months ago in the "What constitutes a healthy forest" thread in the "Ask a Forester" folder.

An observation I find interesting; a lot of the trees we consider old growth now were just saplings when Columbus arrived a tad over 500 years ago.

Also, most people think of old growth as big trees.  Practicing good forest management (versus leaving a forest alone) can double the size of trees in any time span you choose.  So, if you practice good forestry, you can have an old growth forest in half the time it takes Ma Nature to do it on her own. 

[crtreedude]

Your right about growing big trees quick. If you do the work and care and plant on good soil, the results can be pretty incredible - at least if you are where nothing stops growing.

[Ron Wenrich]

I've been in a few old growth stands here in the east.  I remember them to be nearly devoid of understory.  There were also very few trees in the poletimber size classes.  Smaller trees and understory came mainly from where a tree in the overstory was knocked out.

Old growth and slow growth need not be the same thing.  We could manage stands at the upper end of full stocking instead of the lower end (or less) and probably achieve old growth characteristics in many stands.

[crtreedude]

I agree Ron, we need to manage for optimal if we can. It is romantic to think of large expanses of forest unutilized but it means those around those areas have no jobs except for the occassional tourist.

We are planning to go to a permanent rainforest after our plantation cycle - but that doesn't mean it will be left alone. It will be managed to improve the forest (diversity, etc.) and kept relatively young. There will be some areas that will be untouched - probably 20 or so percent - but that is because of location of those trees - around streams, rivers and springs. Though if a tree falls, we will still probably remove the usuable wood.

The desire for esthetics has to be balanced with the need to support the local community in my opinion.

[crtreedude]

I meant to say this above - in climax forest here you can ride a horse through them!

[SwampDonkey]

In my signature photo I'm not in old growth forest, I'm standing by an old maple, but the majority of that stand is immature and pole sized. All that green stuff I'm walking in is sugar maple seedlings. The sky is totally obscured by canopy at least 90 % anyway. But we get that in old hardwood forest here as well.  We will get some old hardwood forest with a carpet of fir on some sites that are not as dry, white ash regen will be present if there are seed trees. You won't see oak regenerating to well with full canopy in oak forest unless there are big canopy openings. Sugar maple and beech will kill that stuff out every time. I saw someone trying to plant red oak in under undisturbed sugar maple, never took and it had partial sun coming in from along the roadway. When you start opening up those old maple-birch-beech forest you get invaded by beaked hazel and/or iron wood on dry sites with beech regen gaining the upper hand, other more moist sites with possibly white ash mixed in will be over run my mountain and striped maples on damp sites with springs running out of the ground. Basswood, black cherry, bur oak, red oak and butternut are odd ball species up here with no pure stands (or rarely) and only tiny pockets or a very light sprinkling or them, so it's not really a unique forest type here or of commercial significance. About like taking a pepper shaker out on the beach with a strong wind.

[mdvaden]

I meant to say this above - in climax forest here you can ride a horse through them!

Reason?

I'm unfamiliar with your area. Would that be from natural forest fires cleansing the underbrush? Shading?

Oh heck - you are in Costa Rica. Do they even have forest fires there, or is it too moist?

My 7th grade Spanish teacher was from there - "Mrs. Alvarado"

[crtreedude]

I meant to say this above - in climax forest here you can ride a horse through them!

Reason?

I'm unfamiliar with your area. Would that be from natural forest fires cleansing the underbrush? Shading?

Oh heck - you are in Costa Rica. Do they even have forest fires there, or is it too moist?

My 7th grade Spanish teacher was from there - "Mrs. Alvarado"

Just notice this - we are rainforest, anything that falls to the ground melts during the rainy season. In are part, we don't really have forest fires.

[SwampDonkey]

Yeah, it was even amazing there were past fires on the Charlottes with all the rain. But, I saw evidence there with big red cedar standing with one live limb 100 feet up and one strip of bark coming down to the stump. Took 2 - d-tapes to wrap around them for diameter measurements. Yup we had to measure them for usable volume. We were suppose to be measuring juvenile stands, well yes they were. But they also had these beasts among them and tonnes of salal vines that never died. 

[Clark]

A very interesting topic coming from foresters and the like.

Growing up in the midwest and now living in the north west I see huge differences between what old growth is here and back home.  The forests operate under the same processes but the environmental conditions are very different. 

Coarse woody debris is a buzz word when talking about old growth.  Out here the wet season is the cool season and nothing rots away very fast.  I see the remains of old growth every day.  Stumps, logs and old roads still litter the woods, almost unchanged from when they were logging here 100 years ago.  Many old cedar stumps still have the notches in them for the spring boards. 

Back east everything rots away.  I've never come across the stump from an old white pine or cedar back home, they all rotted away before I was born.  Quite frankly I don't think coarse woody debris exists back east.  So there is one problem with defining old growth.

Another problem is what is "big"?  Most people would call any tree bigger than 20-24" dbh "big" simply because it's wider than most people.  Compared to the biological potential of a tree 24" dbh might not be all that big.  Out here it certainly isn't.  For many tree species back east 24" is huge. 

In trying to balance the concerns of retaining old growth (let alone defining it) and yet use our resources wisely we would be wise to keep some of our forests untouched.  On the other hand, it would not be wise to put the rest of our lands into high-production, short-rotation forests.  So there must be some balance on many lands.  IMO the Menominee Indians of NE Wisconsin have a great forestry program based on a biological rotation of the trees.  They have been recognized the UN for their efforts.  Because their forests stick out from the surrounding ownerships, NASA is able to use their forest boundaries to help calibrate satellites. 

If the average Joe walked into the Menominee forest they would probably call it old growth.  Yet it is a managed forest that is being used for fiber production.  More information can be found at their website.

Clark

[Ron Wenrich]

I remember seeing chestnut stumps that were logged off about 50-70+ years before.  Its kind of hard to comare something that has a high resistance to rot to something that does not.  Woody debris would also be different in various environments.  It just means that old growth definitions would be different for different types of forests.

Another term for Menominee types of management is Dauerwald. 

[SwampDonkey]

I can show ya old remnant white pine still standing, but dead from forest fire and a 40 + year old forest growing up amongst it again.

[snowman]

When it comes to the way enviros classify old growth, i'ts a moving target. The description changes to suit their needs. On the one hand they say we have cut 95% of the old growth forest but in the next breath will say 40% of the forest needs bo be left alone because it's old growth. Suddenly and old growth forest is any tract that averages 4 trees over 100 years old per acre. Talk about fuzzy math. HA!

[Clark]

My point was that in the PNW things don't rot away like they do in the east and because of that classifying old growth based on the amount of coarse woody debris is a sticky subject.  CWD is common out here, it isn't in the east.  It's not simply cedar stumps and logs, plenty of old douglas fir still sitting in the woods. 

As you pointed out Ron, the definition of old growth must change from one area to the next.  Unfortunately many people don't realize this and think that one definition fits the whole continent.

In his very green book, "The Hidden Forest" Jon Luoma talks about hemlock (eastern and western) like they are the same creature.  He even thinks that they both need old dead logs to regenerate on!  (And he never quite figures out how to spell "silviculture".)  What bothers me is that he has been published and many people probably consider him an expert on forests and forest management.

Now, back to the original question, how much old-growth do we need?  A little more, especially in the east.

Clark

[Tom]

If we're just talking opinions here, I say, we don't need any if the forests we have are properly managed.
The original question that mvaden asked was how much should we have.  I can only answer, "what is your esthetic desire?"  I think we all enjoy an old tree.  We don't need it,  but, like a flower garden, it sure is nice to look at.

I guess it all comes down to what it would take to perpetuate an old growth forest.   Since the general populations idea of an old growth tree is one that lives forever, then it wouldn't have to be replaced.  If it were replaced, it wouldn't be an old growth forest anymore.

Y'all have a bunch of old trees in the cascades that should probably be left alone.   I hate to see the matriarchs/patriarchs of the Redwoods and Sequoias taken down when there are better trees in the managed forests.  I enjoy seeing the grand old Cypress in the Okeefenokee Swamp too.  Most of these trees are already protected, so I fail to see why more acreage is wanted for non-production and non-management.

[Ron Wenrich]

How much do we need?  There's a problem with how you solve questions like this.

You've brought to the subject that there needs to be woody debris in some western forests to consider them to be old growth.  I believe Ponderosa pine would be different.  You might also get to where age is a factor, stocking levels, tree size and a few other qualifiers.  But, they are all quantitative factors, which means you can put a number to it.  Sure, you can just go and say that certain quantities yield a certain quality.

That leads to cookbook management.  Just get to a certain quantity of predetermined factors and you have a certain quality of stand and management.  I don't like that type of management.  There is also a type of artform in forestry that belies the strata of numbers.

To come up with a number of acres of old growth is also a quantitative approach.  If you come up with 1,000 acres, does that mean that 100 ten acre parcels is as good as one 1,000 acre parcel? 

Every time a forester walks into a woodlot, he should be thinking on how he can improve the stand of timber.  Sometimes its better to clearcut, sometimes its better to do nothing.  I've been in some areas where the scenic beauty was so great that it would be a crime to cut the timber and convert the stand to something that would yield a few more bucks.  Sometimes the intangibles are too great to be measured by tangible methods. 

[Blue Sky]

Anyone interested in finding out where 'old growth' forests exists in the Northeast should pick up a copy of a reference book put out by the Sierra Club called "Ancient Trees of the Northeast" by Bruce Kershner and Robert Leverett      ISBN 1-57805-066-9.  Amazing how-to- find where stands of very old trees are, including the ages of some really old live trees here in the NE where far too many people cut trees down 'cause there in the way' of me getting tv reception etc, etc.   Enchanted Forester

[mdvaden]

I meant to say this above - in climax forest here you can ride a horse through them!

Reason?

I'm unfamiliar with your area. Would that be from natural forest fires cleansing the underbrush? Shading?

Oh heck - you are in Costa Rica. Do they even have forest fires there, or is it too moist?

My 7th grade Spanish teacher was from there - "Mrs. Alvarado"

Just notice this - we are rainforest, anything that falls to the ground melts during the rainy season. In are part, we don't really have forest fires.

"Melts" - I like that description.

I wish branches would "melt" here too.

Lately I've been spending a lot of time reading The Wild Trees, and my mind got away from my previousl perception of rainforests.

The north California redwoods are a rainforest too. And the book explains that the redwood rainforests like Prarie Creek or Jedediah Smith have more biomass per hectare, and more epiphytes than almost any other rainforest.

While exploring off-trail there, is was interesting just how much debris accumulates on the ground in that redwood rainforest. It was so thick in some areas, that snowshoes would have been useful - literally. Our feet and legs would punch through in the same way as in walking over deep snow on Mt. Hood or Mt. Rainier near here in winter.

I can imagine how much different our local rainforest would be if the debris would just "melt" away.  A horse ride through the redwoods would be a fun way to cross the trails.

[KnotBB]

There is only about 4 mills that regularly buy large  (old growth) logs in northwest Oregon, Large is ~32"+ on one end.  It's not economical to saw a few big logs per year so the big head rigs are mostly gone.  Big logs are now not worth as much at the mill as the smaller ones
I believe the State of Oregon has defined Old Growth based on size because the public views "big" as "old".  Personally I view old as old, i.e. tight ring count.  A local mill is milling "Old Growth" boom logs that are only about 20" big end.  Boom logs are what were chained together to corral rafts of logs in the rivers.

How much old growth should we have?  Enough.  Enough to provide a gene pool for seed source.  Enough to share a legacy with our children.  Enough to remind us short lived creatures that age is measured on a different scale by some species. 
But all trees die or become casualties to natural disasters such as fires or storms and that is a waste to me.  Better to harvest than let perish.   

20 years ago we had a fire in a wilderness area in Southern Oregon.  The forests service had even gone in and removed established camp sites to "restore"  the place.  No power equipment or vehicles allowed in the area by law.  So to fight the fire the fighters were reduced to hand tools and walking.  So the fire was contained in the wilderness area and that's what it burned.  The tree huggers were distraught that we didn't save the wilderness, didn't use aerial spray and heavy equipment to build fire trails, but we were just following the laws that they wanted.  Fires, big and small are part of natural.

Here's a thought.  Since we Americans have been managing forests we haven't grown one old growth.  Not one!  Hasn't been enough time.  Our time perspective is a little presumptive when trees can live a thousand years and we scratch by to get 90.     

[mdvaden]

Knott BB

I had not been to that wilderness that burned when it was green, but I can see the fringes of it now as I drive west every so often.

That sure was a heck of a big burn.

The situation should have showed the environmentalists just where the border line is between "environmentalist" and "wacko environmentalist" (or extremist).

It reminds me of someone who expects to live by saving every dime, to the detriment of expecting living needs without expending a dime.

[wbedient]

I firmly believe we need places like this left so you can see what things looked like , felt like, before man got here.

The problem is nobody knows what the Americas looked like before "we" got here.  I just read this article for a class here at WSU.  http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200203/mann .  Basically, it says that the americas were densely populated before 1492.  This dense population farmed and mangaed lands through flooding and burning.  The autor calls the americas the worlds largest garden, because it was structured and managed.  Europeans got here and brought over diseases, killing all the natives.  This leaves the land unmanaged, and "wilderness" is created.  So eurpeans have just recently created "wilderness" by introducing diseases that wiped out the forest managers of the time (indians).  Now we want to preserve what we see as natural.  The real question is:  What is natural?

Found it interesting and thought you may want to see it too...

[snowman]

wbedient, I agree, the indians, native americans, or whatever current term is most PC    did manage forest. They started fires to keep forest cleared out and game plentiful, stuff like that. When I say "before man got here" I guess i arrogantly mean european man with his technology and machines. I truly do enjoy going places where there is no sign of modern man, just a trail through untouched forest and feel sorry for anyone who hasn't experienced this. It almost has the feel of a time machine, like you have gone back 200 years,until a jet flies over that is.

[SwampDonkey]

Where's my stump.   

Most of the technology to move large volumes of wood to the mill and to cut it off the stump was invented in the presence of the natives. I don't remember too many trains, chainsaws, transport trucks and pulp mills being shipped over here in 1492.   They wanted to live a laid back, slow paced life style while the rest of us progressed. I'm not saying there were not misdeeds and exploitation of natives by a long shot. Books will record the history, stop trying to relive it . It's not going to do anyone good to dwell on a past to fuel descent. That is well behind us. People need to pick themselves up and carry on and help themselves progress and stop depending on handouts and compensations. I'm certainly not responsible for what happened before my time, it's time to get on. Personally, I don't believe I owe anyone anything. Those wars and conquest are well in the past no matter how shameful. It has happened all over the globe.

Ok, I'm going to hit the POST button and hope for the best. 

[blueduck]

...... 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.

When I lived near Naples and the government proposed the idea of making Long canyon a "wilderness" area I was against it, not from the standpoint of preserving the area for future generations to look at, but from the standpoint of it being perhaps a host to a lightning fire [not a rarity] and the flames would have to be let go, until they reached to non-wilderness lands, thus gaining momentum.  This stemmed from the 1968 Sundance fire which started on Idaho state ground and they refused help from the circus to put it out, by 10 pm that evening from the 2 pm start the entire range of mountains from Sandpoint to the Canadian border was lit afire, as a 5 year old returning from the Bonner county fair, I can remember the "prettiness" of the fires, that once put out more or less destroyed some very nice timer that need not have been destroyed, ergo the no wilderness stance from myself and others.... then I moved to Idaho County in 1988, and figured out that just one wilderness area out of the 5 in the county is about the same as the land mass of Boundary county where Long canyon exists..... 50 miles by about 50 miles square...... now tell me such designation is productive for any future generation. That coupled with the cherry stemming that was done to make some of the other designated wilderness areas, was outrageous, but then the people in new York have more say than the local folk do particularly when the population of the county is still under 25,000 and is the largest county in the lower 48.....

I have always been a conservationist, I dont personally like the clear cuts that deface the land in more than one way, even the (EDITED) Idaho Fish and Game had the Circus log several back country mountain sides on the North Fork of the Clearwater river in the early 1960's, then the (EDITED) Idaho Fish and Game complained in the 1990's about the practices that the Circus did on those mountains, forgetting it was at the request of that agency to clear cut it off.... desolation peak...... for elk habitat and the elk stayed away as there was and still not any cover on the mountainsides, the only difference between the Forest service and the Boy Scouts is that the BSA have adult supervision.

Old growth Forests are nice to look at sure, but what value is actually in looking at something?  If you look into the designation of true wilderness from the Original act, you can see no one is suppose to be in the forest overnight, nothing "mechanical" is to be taken in, no commercial activities were to be allowed, you were not allowed to photograph anything in the wilderness and profit from it, and the list goes on, but then you have the grandfathered parts to the act, so there is commercial activity, there is folks camping inside the wildernesses [and not all wilderness is old growth forest particularly after a fire has went through].
In Oregon in the mid 1930's they stopped the train my dads uncle was riding and EVERYONE got off and fought a forest fire, his uncle was wearing a nice white traveling suit, the "old growth" forest burned then, and it will again burn today, and tomorrow, you can not stop nature from continuing, no matter how much it appeals to a person to try. Man is a visitor yes, but at the same time mankind is the dominant creature in the food chain on the planet [though watching some of the workings of holyweird and Washington D an C makes a fella wonder at times].  I just dont see the use of having something to look at like a oldgrowth forest, and yet at the same time i can see some folks point of looking at plantation forests back in the East, such cant be done on the side of a mountain here, terrain will not allow machine planting on every site, so it is never "perfect" rows of timber since it is planted by hand, but once a person has seen a tree, they kinda all look the same to point, and the wildlife will adapt, Elk and deer were once primarily Plains animals seeking refuge in the mountains from the pioneer, and no they cant go back to the plains and need forest land to thrive on [if the idiots who planted the wolf to kill them off dont succeed in doing that completely] Mankind has a problem with micro managment, because a few folks hollar about the over all way things are managed, thsmall plots get picked apart and the bad things are brought out to show as "see this, this is what i am talking about" chest thumping, and laots of passing of bad gas out the mouths of protectionists, and the people who never get there but one day aspire to see the old growth forest side with them and so it goes, protectism is the winner over common sense and conservation.  Fueled by huge corporations, the activists win over the public opinion, and the public perception is of that they see in the campaign for preservation and not of the actual facts and figures.  Corporations are considered a "person" by the 50 states and Congress, but they dont vote like all the little people, they vote with dollars and propgenda to sway those who can not think for themselves.  Televiscion programing like that of Ax Men are not represenative of all logging activities but soem of that is goiong to be used against the logging industry as the way everyone does things..... smoe of that looks devastating in itself, but it really is an edit job in the cutting room..... not everyone who logs is a good guy, and not everyone who logs is bad, nor do we all drink, cuss, smoke and chew, but the perception is embedded as such and the extremists get off promoting the logger and his occupation as not something good for society in the several states.... soon the profession will be outlawed if they keep it up and keep pushing for more designated primative area.

yeppers it is a heated subject indeed, I see the wilderness and oldgrowth forest issues as  waste of land, and no tax is paid tot he counties in which those designated areas lay in for their single use.... beauty.

William
North Central Idaho

[Rocky_Ranger]

Idaho will get just over 16,000,000 dollars in FY 08 since it got that in FY 07 for PILT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes).  Meaning - it's not a tax payment but a payment to the Counties based on the amount of Federal lands within that County.  Title II $ (old 25% fund) offsets that amount just a tad, but is just more $ to the County's to make up for the loss of private lands.  So yes, you do get paid for Wildernesses........

[blueduck]

Well 16 million dollars seems like a pittance compared to the taxes lost in current valueation, but that really doesnt matter, the government is near broke and the empire is near finished as all republics fall due to the welfare recipients feeding at the trough off the backs of producing people. 

The wilderness is useless in the state it is in and pretty much only 1 in a 1000 people or maybe 1 in 10,000 can actaully fathom the size of this chunk of landmass that is taken off the books for mere pennies on the acre compared to the taxable base property in Idaho county which runs pretty much an average of $125 per acre from the people who use their own ground..... the real world and the government world are two very different places it seems.

William
Idaho

[SwampDonkey]

Yeah, we have 50 % of forest land in NB not collecting tax while forest companies operate on licenses to harvest wood and the only procurement costs are in writing 25 year management plans and updating them every 5 years and paying less than $5 m³ stumpage. Employees pay more tax than the mill owners. They will argue that they pay $20 m³, but that includes roads, fire, and insect management.  They can't state that the government doesn't help finance the fire fighting and the insect control. That would be nothing but a lie. That cost is the same on any land, but i can't buy wood for that price off private land. So, if you draw a comparison it costs about $30-40 m3 to operate on private land. You can see the disparity.

[Dodgy Loner]

Old growth Forests are nice to look at sure, but what value is actually in looking at something? 

Immeasurable.

[Tom]

I understand your ire, but I think it is much mis directed.

the government is near broke and the empire is near finished

I don't believe this.

I also don't believe that declaring a piece of large acreage to a protectionists state is wasteful.  It might not be useful and it might not be in the best interest of the forests, but it will be useful to some who declare it their "Garden".

Nature will eventually burn it, or disease and age will eventually put it into rotation but it is still better than considering the pure dollar value of the land.  The last thing we need to do is turn everything into dollars, especially tax dollars.   Turning those thousands of acres into single family dwellings for the sake of collecting tax dollars would be the ultimate waste, even though nature will outlive even that.

Some of the Government land is a hands-off garden, some of it is farming business. We should acknowledge that the two exist and not get sidelined by mixing the two.  There is a place for logging and Foresters on Government lands.  If we are really the government, we will protect those areas that we deem beautiful for beauties sake.  By condemning efforts to  manage those lands that need to be managed, we are diminishing the existance of those lands that we hold only for beauty.  Environmental protectionists have waged a war on the government and its effort to manage lands because they have confused the types of lands, see it all as Hands-off and greedily demand that it be so.  The government isn't robbing the land of trees, it is managing forests.