Old Growth: How much should there be?

[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.