Old growth forest

[jim king]

I have been ask a question again that I cannot answer intelligently.   The question what is an "Old growth tropical forest".   From a lot of years wearing out boots and machetes in the jungle I do not have a clear answer.

The jungle does not stand still.  The trees mature and die from 50 to maximum 80 years.  Does that mean that an old growth forest can be created in 60 years ?

My idea of an old growth forest here is one that 2 to 3 % of the forest dies every year and has the appearance of no one ever having been there.  The problem with this theory is that if you chainsaw log a parcel and cause little disturbance within months it would look like an Old growth forest.

I have been arrested a couple of times for illegal logging.  The inspectors who were sent to verify that I harvested the trees indicated on my forestry plan could not find any sign of logging activity a month after we were done.  I had to send my people back in with the GPS points and in addition to what they remembered they found the stumps.  To the unknowing this would look like and old growth forest so the undisturbed idea is out the window.

Based on what we think we know I am older than an old growth forest here.  There are no 1000 year old trees as in California. 

I think someone on this site once said that Old growth forest is more of a propaganda term than reality.    Any ideas ?¿?¿

[Texas Ranger]

I truly think it is an environmentalist driven term, used to push politicians in one direction or the other.  In your case OG is less than 100 years, in the southern US one can "create" old growth pine in less than 100  years, in the west and mountain areas the numbers expand considerably, as you mentioned the 1000 years old in California.

An example is a National Forest here near me in Texas.  It is constantly referred to as "wilderness" or "old growth".  It was all planted in the 1930's when the CCC converted stump grounds to plantations.  It has one of the largest groups of an endangered woodpecker in the state, in an old plantation.  Yet it is not referred to as a plantation.

Humans think of life spans in terms of their own, foresters think in terms of maturity, or used to, any way.  There is some truth in that you cannot create old growth with all the species that used to exist.  But it is amazing how many species reappear with just a little help.  Cougar and bear disappeared in east Texas 50 or 60 years ago, yet they are still here.  Part of the old growth biome that was supposedly lost.

Propaganda by the Luddites.

[Tom]

Yes, it's propaganda that means what the person with the agenda wants it to mean.

Most people who use the term "Old Growth Forest" aren't knowledgeable about trees or the forest.

Old Growth, to most, means that the tree, or trees, is older than they are and might even be two or three generations old.   They give no though to whether the trees were planted by a human, or for what reason they were grown.    As a matter of fact, you now find many humans who are negative about planting trees because they say that it causes plantations and that even-growth, mono cultures are "Bad".

If I were to use the term "Old Growth",  I would have in mind an old, little touched ecosystem of naturally grown trees that live until they die from old age without the benefit of the hand of man or providing man any benefit.  Virgin Forest is also a term used to exclude man from Nature.

We, as users of trees, must be careful about some of our terms too, like "over mature", when we are speaking to someone who hasn't a clue.

Good post, Don.

[jim king]

Texas Ranger:

Would you mind if I posted your answer on the blog site I am working on ?

I answered last night on this topic and got myself dizzy with my answer.

Jim

[jim king]

Tom:

You answered while I was typing.  Also would you mind if I used your comment on my blog ??

You guys hit it much better and clearer than I did.

Jim

[Tom]

Be my guest.  ;D

[beenthere]

Jim
I think your questions in OP summed up "old growth" quite well. There is, to my knowledge, no single answer, but is just in the eyes and between the ears of the beholder.

I recall a friend coming back from a group tour (believe it was Belize or near there) where they were bussed out into the "Jungle". The tour bus guide provide the explanation that they were looking at the original wilderness, untouched by humans. The local guide shortly after explained that through the years of occupation by the Mayans and Spanish, they had evidence the trees had been clearcut several times over. Guess the tour guide never did catch on to that fact. 

[Magicman]

I still hear the term "Virgin Timber" describing mature timber.  I guess it depends on who is doing the counting.

[fuzzybear]

   Jim,
   Could you post a link to your blog please.  I follow your story very closly and am very interested in your struggle. You educate people all the time. I live in the total opposite environment that you and am fasinated by it. Please never give up your fight, it is a good fight.
   Living here in the north we consider any thing over 80 yo "old growth". This is a term that is used tongue in cheek.  The forest have a very short growing season (4-5 months max)  some of our oldest trees are only 6" at the butt and 12 to 16 foot tall. They are around 130 yo.   The biggest trees here along the rivers where there is good sun and water, grow to maturity faster. They reach 100' tall but die at around 80 years old.
   Part of the major problem here is that during the gold rush of '98 until the 1950's we had 30+ paddle wheelers running the river. They burned up to 100 cords of wood per trip. The forest around the Yukon river were stripped clean.  There are groves along the Peel river water shed that are over 300 yo.  We are struggling to protect this area as it is the last piece of undisturbed "frontier" left in North America. 
   We are fighting against a corrupt government as well as corporate interests for the gold and oil deposites located there.   The peel river is a remote hostile wilderness that very few people have set foot in.

[jim king]

Thank you very much every body for the comments.   I did post them on the blog.

The blog is getting quite long so get a cold one before you start.

The blog starts below the story.    Please add more if you want.  These kind of blogs need more comments from people like yourselves who know what they are talking about.

http://www.woodworkerssource.com/blog/?p=1053&cpage=1#comment-9223

[SPIKER]

The oldest trees in the USA (some place hidden in California) are little more than shrubs in what most loggers would say they are simple scrub brush in need of a clearing fire and or some real trees planted in their place.   They look like a Bonsai tree.   These trees I think are in the 3500years old range, just think that one which was cut down was the oldest one and if I remember right was in the 4000 year range.?

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WMQDF_Methuselah_The_Worlds_Oldest_Tree (went & looked 4768 years old Living tree)

Locally old growth is somewhat different and common to what other have said.  in the 80~120+ year range as it takes some time for the first story trees to mature (near fully grown) and then the second story trees to grow up (through the first canopy) and displace the first story trees (as the first story naturally dies out) so that the actual 2nd generation of growth is now the primary first generation of trees of which were left undisturbed these trees then become the "Old Growth" in my neck of the woods :p

Mark.

[jim king]

I still hear the term "Virgin Timber" describing mature timber.  I guess it depends on who is doing the counting.

Magicman:

Is it true that when a virgin tree is cut down it screams do it easy ?¿  8)

I have been to serious today

[Ron Wenrich]

Virgin timber usually means it was never cut and harvested before.  I think a lot of lay people interchange the idea between virgin and old growth timber. 

Old growth contains a variety of species, as well as snags and downed trees.  Tree age is often in the upper range of longevity. 

I would look at it more from a stocking standpoint.  We use basal area to determine forest distribution.  If you have 60-70% (my guess) of the stocking in the older trees, then I would classify it as old growth.  Using that as a gauge, then you can manage for old growth while allowing other trees to grow into the age category. 

But, old growth forests would tend to grow into climax forests.  They're the ones at the end of the succession chain. 

[Texas Ranger]

Have at it, Jim.

[Samuel]

I have been ask a question again that I cannot answer intelligently.   The question what is an "Old growth tropical forest".   From a lot of years wearing out boots and machetes in the jungle I do not have a clear answer.

The jungle does not stand still.  The trees mature and die from 50 to maximum 80 years.  Does that mean that an old growth forest can be created in 60 years ?

My idea of an old growth forest here is one that 2 to 3 % of the forest dies every year and has the appearance of no one ever having been there.  The problem with this theory is that if you chainsaw log a parcel and cause little disturbance within months it would look like an Old growth forest.

I have been arrested a couple of times for illegal logging.  The inspectors who were sent to verify that I harvested the trees indicated on my forestry plan could not find any sign of logging activity a month after we were done. 

Based on what we think we know I am older than an old growth forest here.  There are no 1000 year old trees as in California. 

I think someone on this site once said that Old growth forest is more of a propaganda term than reality.    Any ideas ?¿?¿

Jim:

From the Certification world, ENGO's have grabbed onto this term, and have twisted its meaning to create a very strong backing for themselves.  Case in point, Green Peace attacking Kimberley Clark for purchasing "old Growth Forest" from the Canadian Boreal.  Our Aspen/polar stands, under the definition of "Old Growth" that are a result of forest fires 100 years ago, are very far from that.  The Old Growth term I believed was derived from the coastal setting of Western BC and scattered throughout the western coast of the US, where there are legitimately old growth stands in excess of 200 years of age.

Our aspen here in the Northern Alberta is about as old growth as your tropical rain forest, but as I alluded to, the ENGOs have blurred this definition so, that its very difficult for the general public (consumers) to understand.

From my reading and discussions, I thought the biggest concerns in the rain forest that ENGOs and FSC had was deforestation and land conversion to non-forest uses?

Hopefully some of this made sense for you.

[jim king]

Samuel:
The FSC certification program in Peru has gone astray.  These are the same guys that came up with the absurd forestry law to promote the certification business.    I dont know if they have ever been here or not , but from the news about them it is questionable.  Here in Iquitos we are the second largest lumber producing area in Peru and no one has seen anything of them.

I don´t know the exact relationship between the World Wildlife Fund and FSC but they appear to be very closlely conected. 

I don´t know if the NGO business has any interest in the forest or not.  I see the advertising about all the wonderful things they have done in Peru but I live here and see what happens and  it is all BS.

The really strange part is that the US government only speaking of here in Peru gives these groups millions and millions of your taxpayer money.  I cannot figure that one out either.

Here is a link to one of the certification scandels in Peru.  If you read it all it becomes very clear that they do not have a presence in Peru but suppsedly work thru others.

http://www.fsc-watch.org/archives/2007/07/20/Certification_of_Forestal_Venao__Peru__another_FSC_credibility_disaster__courtesy_of_SmartWood_and_WWF

This is a good one also.  The WWF arguing with the FSC.  Nobody did it.  All parties are innocent.

http://www.fsc-watch.org/archives/2007/07/26/WWF_responds_to_Peru_scandal

[fishpharmer]

Good topic, Jim.

Methuselah is too ugly to be the "old growth" Poster Tree.   

[crtreedude]

First of all Jim is right, a tropical forest is young. Eighty years is pretty much the limit, except for some very rare trees (like Ceiba). One reason in our neck of the jungle is that after 30 years, they either pull out of the ground, or rot from inside. Epiphytes will haul a tree down as well.

For me, old growth is not a good term. I prefer mixed aged forest. Diverse is another good term. Honestly, removing a valuable tree from a forest is not a problem, if you replant one too, just to help replenish them.

[Samuel]

Jim:

Once I read the title of the first ad I knew where the story was headed.  I too subscribe to FSC Watch and the majority of the claims are against companies that have been certified by Smartwood as it seems that a Certificate is available to any that asks.

I did review the FSC standard (http://www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/en-st16e-peru-wood-products-amazon.pdf) and I am not so sure one could blame the FSC organization as much as you could the certifying body in this case.  Just because a company has FSC Certification, does not automatically make them a higher performer than anyone else, because that is not what FSC is about.  It is more about social forestry and ensuring that all affected parties are involved in the management strategies for a specific Defined Forest Area.  There are obviously forest management practices that are applicable, but are not given the same onus as the social aspect.

I understand your frustration, but would be interested to see what a credible Certification Body like KPMG in Vancouver would have say about this standard and if it were achievable.  We can spin around and around on this subject about certification, but without some sort of marketing label, it is going to be increasing difficult to sell a product within the world marketplace.