donb at rational.com
Sun Nov 24 13:54:57 EST 1996
In article <RY3lysqB+GdH091yn at teleport.com>,
Larry Caldwell <larryc at firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>Then you need to use more accurate language. There are lots of "old growth"
>forests in Oregon that have been logged one or more times. "Old growth"
>simply refers to mature trees, normally about 90 years old for Douglas
No, not true in any technical sense. Stands designated as "old-growth"
by forest ecologist not only contain old trees, but much meet a variety
of conditions related to the structure of the stand (i.e. canopy
closure, with a layered undercanopy with certain characteristics, etc).
> There are plenty of "old growth" forests around that have been logged
>since WWII, but a 40 year old scrub fir wasn't worth cutting at the time.
Again, not true by the definition used by forest ecologists if the forest
under consideration has been clearcut.
There are stands that have been selectively cut which do meet the working
definition of "old-growth" that have been logged in the kind of timeframe
you mention, but not any which have been clearcut. If you know different,
I'm welcome to correction, and would love a DeLorme page reference or
something so I can go check it out myself.
>Nonsense. You need to talk to a forester some time. You'll have to
>pardon me for not believing you are one. You sound like some kid who
>set chokers for a couple summers.
Well, you seem to misunderstand the working definition of "old-growth"
as used by those in the management game.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>
Nature photos, site guides, and other goodies at:
More information about the Ag-forst