JoseCuervo
New member
This appears to be a big swath of land that will soon be protected for our Hunting and Fishing pleasure. If you got an extra $$$ in your pocket, you should send it on to the groups protecting your hunting areas.
Can't get Wilderness Soon Enough for Goshawks
- Thread starter JoseCuervo
- Start date
Ithaca 37
New member
Thanks for the article. It will help hunting and fishing. I'm sure the SI looney tunes will think it's a communist conspiracy! 
Ten Bears
New member
Name exactly which huntable species do you think will benefit from these restrictions.
Go find yourself a new "spotted owl"
Go find yourself a new "spotted owl"
http://birds.cornell.edu/BOW/NORGOS/
Nemont
Well-known member
THANK YOU EG FINALLY SOMETHING THAT IS A SPORTSMAN ISSUE.
One serious question: On FS land how much old growth and roadless lands over a 1,000 acres are we talking about? I have no idea how much FS land falls into that definition.
Nemont
[ 03-17-2004, 10:41: Message edited by: Nemont ]
One serious question: On FS land how much old growth and roadless lands over a 1,000 acres are we talking about? I have no idea how much FS land falls into that definition.
Nemont
[ 03-17-2004, 10:41: Message edited by: Nemont ]
Ithaca 37
New member
Ten, "Name exactly which huntable species do you think will benefit from these restrictions."
It's hard to believe you're actually that stupid, but I'm getting it done. Anything that benefits habitat for non game species also benefits game species that live there.
It's hard to believe you're actually that stupid, but I'm getting it done. Anything that benefits habitat for non game species also benefits game species that live there.
Ten Bears
New member
HINT: Which game species live/thrive in old growth forests?
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Ten Bears, Elk would be the first one that comes to mind.
Nemont
Well-known member
I think moose are even more dependent upon old growth than elk.
Ten Bears
New member
How are elk and moose dependant on old growth?
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Well I don't know about Idaho, but here in Washington, where there is old growth, there is elk. Of course there are generally meadows or clearcuts in close proximity to the old growth, but they use the old growth for cover, both for security from predators, and for I believe what biologists refer to as "thermal cover," which means it keeps them cool in the summer and warm in the winter.
JoseCuervo
New member
And Salmon....
BuzzH
Well-known member
Elkchsr, why dont you tell us what old growth is, in your own words...
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Elkchsr, yes we all know what old growth is.
Elkgunner, good point...salmon definitely benefit from old growth. Although I am sure someone on here will say old growth is bad for salmon...
Elkgunner, good point...salmon definitely benefit from old growth. Although I am sure someone on here will say old growth is bad for salmon...
BuzzH
Well-known member
Elkchsr, you'll find I have a pretty good memory, and I remember you didnt know what old growth was.
Do you have any better idea now, or are you still confused?
Elkchsr, is this your understanding of old growth?
ELKCHSR
Member
Member # 764
Member Rated:
posted 01-30-2002 06:59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets fill every one in on the history and age of an old growth forest. Lets start with Douglas fir [psudo tsupg menzizii] and Western red ceder [thuja plicata] These forests are the oldest lived forests in the world. It takes between five and ten thousand years to run a full cycle. It starts with what we hear as second growth, then third, forth, fifth [bastard growth] and first [old growth]. Every doug fir or ceder will not make an old growth. I was told by an old logger ten years ago how to distinguish between the generations. a second growth doug fir lives to be maybe 80 yrs or so. The branches are usually in well defined whorles and are generally thin skinned. The true old growth is only a certain generation. They have branches that kind of hop around up a tree. The tree will live to be up to a couple thousand years and the bark is very thick, even on younger trees. The centers between the two old growth is a nice creamy color and the second in a definat white with a pinkish center. It is much harder to define the western red ceder. It takes a trained eye. But you can after a fashion tell the difference. But the quality difference of an old growth and second growth ceder is remardably different. Roof shakes from and old growth will sit on top of a roof in a mossy area for maybe 100 yrs plus. The second growth will maybe last 20 and thats if you continually put sealers on it every two years. Now getting back to old growth forests. They grow in cycles. The seeds from the old growth trees are very viable and produce lots of babys. While the seeds from a bastard growth few are viable. "A TREE NO MATTER THE SPEICES WILL NOT LIVE FOREVER". With that said. Lets move onto the next part of this. Trees are not like humans in their growth habits. They go slowly into their prime and then just fall off the other end and die fairly quickly. Like all plants. Since basically most of the trees present at any given time came up at once. They basically die at once and the next generation comes up. This is not a darwinian thing at all. Its a cyclacle thing. Its very easy to see if you have the expierience or some one pointing it out. Now that you have had a crash course in this. The old growth forests were at their prime when white man came into the region and started to take them all out. So Ithica it is true that they are almost on forest land gone. But if you truelly know what you are looking at, you will know that the ones left look pretty old and worn out. The reason for the mandate to eliminate the last of these trees on public land is because they are becomming dangerous diseased and what not. Some of the second growth behind this old growth is now at its prime and ready for harvest. It was put as a recomondation from the fs that the old growth be removed before the second growth could be harvested. The old growth they were required to remove in a commercial sence is getting to be of poor quality but had to be taken out before they could have the better wood. Or it would still be there. The old growth forests we here about do not have diverse amounts of life under their branches. They choked out life for so long it could'nt be. I could sit here and write pages on this subject. It is what I studied and lived for nearly fifteen years. If any one wants to watch an old growth cycle in our life times. The shortest lived forests in the world are right here in the U.S. also. They are the Aspen forests of Colorado and that vicinity. They live for around thirty to fourty years. And yes they live and die in cycles just like all other forests of the world.....
--------------------
It is the veteran, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
I fight fires because the little voice in my head tells me to!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 14326 | From: anaconda mt. | Registered: Nov 2001 | IP: Logged |
Heres the part where you get schooled....
BuzzH
Member
Member # 189
Rate Member posted 01-30-2002 08:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELKCHSR, all I can say is...HUH?
Where in the wide world of sports did you come up with that crap? Its a big steaming pile.
First off, if you're going to reference trees by scientific name, at least do it correctly and with the proper spelling, sorry but right off the bat you're credibility is in the gutter.
Doug-fir and Western Red Cedar are the longest lived old growth? That isnt true, apparently you've never put an increment bore to its proper use. You don't think individual bristle cone pines aged at 8-10 thousand years are oldest? Well, according to every source I've found, they are the oldest conifers in N.A.
Aspen are not considered old growth when they reach 30-40 years and in fact live much longer. I know that for a fact, this summer alone I bored a hundred or better that were over 80 years old, many over 100.
As far as what that logger told you about old growth, I think he's all wet. He should try to sell that crazy BS to the various colleges and professional forestry associations across the country. They'd be real interested in his "weird science", I'm sure.
You're also wrong about true old growth, it is not a "dead zone" as you claim. I did lots of work with old growth in extreme Western MT (Superior Ranger District) and the Idaho panhandle, basically trying to identify and come up with a qualitative approach to identifying it. Its simply not a function of tree age. There is lots of critters that rely pretty heavily on old growth forests, and I dont mean just lynx and spotted owls. Lots of furbearers utilize it a good portion of the year, so does big-game, particulary for thermal and hiding cover. Many bird species use it, and water temps in streams surrounded by old growth are much cooler, which is very conducive to healthy fisheries. Also, at least in the Interior Rockies, true old growth Ponderosa Pine has tree densities of 3-5 per acre, hardly a jungle. Lots of big-game use that habitat type. In fact, the best examples of old growth I've seen tend to have drastically fewer stems per acre than the younger stands. Over-all plant diversity is much higher in old growth as well.
You cant describe one or two old growth types and cover them all with a blanket statement. Doesnt work, huge difference between Cedar to Fir to Pine types, huge differences.
It just makes sense that, as you claim, these old growth types were very common historically. Since they were so common it only stands to reason that many critters utilized that habitat and relied heavily on it.
Just because a forest is allowed to reach its climax stage, and trees die, its not a waste. These forests functioned very well for many thousands of years before we started messing with them.
As far as you're statement about the old growth standing up to the elements (your shingle example) it isnt because of any genetic difference in the trees. It has to do with the growth rates and the amount of early VS late wood. I'll agree that the older tree is better. But what makes it better is the tighter growth rings (less early wood between the late wood) and the resins and terpines that form in late wood.
[ 01-30-2002 08:31: Message edited by: BuzzH ]
[ 03-18-2004, 16:00: Message edited by: BuzzH ]
Do you have any better idea now, or are you still confused?
Elkchsr, is this your understanding of old growth?
ELKCHSR
Member
Member # 764
Member Rated:
posted 01-30-2002 06:59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets fill every one in on the history and age of an old growth forest. Lets start with Douglas fir [psudo tsupg menzizii] and Western red ceder [thuja plicata] These forests are the oldest lived forests in the world. It takes between five and ten thousand years to run a full cycle. It starts with what we hear as second growth, then third, forth, fifth [bastard growth] and first [old growth]. Every doug fir or ceder will not make an old growth. I was told by an old logger ten years ago how to distinguish between the generations. a second growth doug fir lives to be maybe 80 yrs or so. The branches are usually in well defined whorles and are generally thin skinned. The true old growth is only a certain generation. They have branches that kind of hop around up a tree. The tree will live to be up to a couple thousand years and the bark is very thick, even on younger trees. The centers between the two old growth is a nice creamy color and the second in a definat white with a pinkish center. It is much harder to define the western red ceder. It takes a trained eye. But you can after a fashion tell the difference. But the quality difference of an old growth and second growth ceder is remardably different. Roof shakes from and old growth will sit on top of a roof in a mossy area for maybe 100 yrs plus. The second growth will maybe last 20 and thats if you continually put sealers on it every two years. Now getting back to old growth forests. They grow in cycles. The seeds from the old growth trees are very viable and produce lots of babys. While the seeds from a bastard growth few are viable. "A TREE NO MATTER THE SPEICES WILL NOT LIVE FOREVER". With that said. Lets move onto the next part of this. Trees are not like humans in their growth habits. They go slowly into their prime and then just fall off the other end and die fairly quickly. Like all plants. Since basically most of the trees present at any given time came up at once. They basically die at once and the next generation comes up. This is not a darwinian thing at all. Its a cyclacle thing. Its very easy to see if you have the expierience or some one pointing it out. Now that you have had a crash course in this. The old growth forests were at their prime when white man came into the region and started to take them all out. So Ithica it is true that they are almost on forest land gone. But if you truelly know what you are looking at, you will know that the ones left look pretty old and worn out. The reason for the mandate to eliminate the last of these trees on public land is because they are becomming dangerous diseased and what not. Some of the second growth behind this old growth is now at its prime and ready for harvest. It was put as a recomondation from the fs that the old growth be removed before the second growth could be harvested. The old growth they were required to remove in a commercial sence is getting to be of poor quality but had to be taken out before they could have the better wood. Or it would still be there. The old growth forests we here about do not have diverse amounts of life under their branches. They choked out life for so long it could'nt be. I could sit here and write pages on this subject. It is what I studied and lived for nearly fifteen years. If any one wants to watch an old growth cycle in our life times. The shortest lived forests in the world are right here in the U.S. also. They are the Aspen forests of Colorado and that vicinity. They live for around thirty to fourty years. And yes they live and die in cycles just like all other forests of the world.....
--------------------
It is the veteran, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
I fight fires because the little voice in my head tells me to!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 14326 | From: anaconda mt. | Registered: Nov 2001 | IP: Logged |
Heres the part where you get schooled....
BuzzH
Member
Member # 189
Rate Member posted 01-30-2002 08:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELKCHSR, all I can say is...HUH?
Where in the wide world of sports did you come up with that crap? Its a big steaming pile.
First off, if you're going to reference trees by scientific name, at least do it correctly and with the proper spelling, sorry but right off the bat you're credibility is in the gutter.
Doug-fir and Western Red Cedar are the longest lived old growth? That isnt true, apparently you've never put an increment bore to its proper use. You don't think individual bristle cone pines aged at 8-10 thousand years are oldest? Well, according to every source I've found, they are the oldest conifers in N.A.
Aspen are not considered old growth when they reach 30-40 years and in fact live much longer. I know that for a fact, this summer alone I bored a hundred or better that were over 80 years old, many over 100.
As far as what that logger told you about old growth, I think he's all wet. He should try to sell that crazy BS to the various colleges and professional forestry associations across the country. They'd be real interested in his "weird science", I'm sure.
You're also wrong about true old growth, it is not a "dead zone" as you claim. I did lots of work with old growth in extreme Western MT (Superior Ranger District) and the Idaho panhandle, basically trying to identify and come up with a qualitative approach to identifying it. Its simply not a function of tree age. There is lots of critters that rely pretty heavily on old growth forests, and I dont mean just lynx and spotted owls. Lots of furbearers utilize it a good portion of the year, so does big-game, particulary for thermal and hiding cover. Many bird species use it, and water temps in streams surrounded by old growth are much cooler, which is very conducive to healthy fisheries. Also, at least in the Interior Rockies, true old growth Ponderosa Pine has tree densities of 3-5 per acre, hardly a jungle. Lots of big-game use that habitat type. In fact, the best examples of old growth I've seen tend to have drastically fewer stems per acre than the younger stands. Over-all plant diversity is much higher in old growth as well.
You cant describe one or two old growth types and cover them all with a blanket statement. Doesnt work, huge difference between Cedar to Fir to Pine types, huge differences.
It just makes sense that, as you claim, these old growth types were very common historically. Since they were so common it only stands to reason that many critters utilized that habitat and relied heavily on it.
Just because a forest is allowed to reach its climax stage, and trees die, its not a waste. These forests functioned very well for many thousands of years before we started messing with them.
As far as you're statement about the old growth standing up to the elements (your shingle example) it isnt because of any genetic difference in the trees. It has to do with the growth rates and the amount of early VS late wood. I'll agree that the older tree is better. But what makes it better is the tighter growth rings (less early wood between the late wood) and the resins and terpines that form in late wood.
[ 01-30-2002 08:31: Message edited by: BuzzH ]
[ 03-18-2004, 16:00: Message edited by: BuzzH ]
RockyDog
Member
Now that's comedy. I especially like the old growth is a deadzone part.
Based on this wisdom i will now stop hunting elk and elk sheds in old growth, they have no business there.
Based on this wisdom i will now stop hunting elk and elk sheds in old growth, they have no business there.
Yep, pretty much, I would probably change some of my wording, but you didn't dig up any of the following posts that also said that these long lived forests were in the Pacific North West. And yes the spelling in my early posts were atrocious, but thanks to your calling me on it, I have mended my way's. Which should be very clear, I even thanked you with a very nice post for helping me clean up my posts. If you like, I will do it again. I still see that you have not changed with the gutter trash talk and what not O-Great and Knowledgeable Buzz, but I have learned to see past such shallow chatter any way...
What I did say about the Aspen forests was what I was parroting from one of my teachers in the Tree School I went to, nothing more. I don't see any where in my post that the ages are absolute, and that older specimens couldn't be found.
If you think your small minded ranting on myself or others will stop me from posting where ever I like… well I would have figured by now, you would have taken notice. But I do suppose you don't have much going on in your small world any way, so the continual adolescent behavior gets you thru life…
What I did say about the Aspen forests was what I was parroting from one of my teachers in the Tree School I went to, nothing more. I don't see any where in my post that the ages are absolute, and that older specimens couldn't be found.
If you think your small minded ranting on myself or others will stop me from posting where ever I like… well I would have figured by now, you would have taken notice. But I do suppose you don't have much going on in your small world any way, so the continual adolescent behavior gets you thru life…
BuzzH
Well-known member
Elkchsr, you said you knew what old growth is, you also challenged others if they "know what old growth is".
Its pretty obvious from your post that you dont know what constitutes old growth, let alone the importance of it for all types of habitat requirements, wildlife, species diversity, etc.
Old growth is not limited to the Pacific Northwest, old growth forests occur everywhere forest habitat types exist.
Do you really think you understand old growth when you call it a "deadzone"? Thats ridiculous, just plumb crazy talk...You wont have much luck finding a single ecologist, biologist, silviculturalist, forester, hunter, fisherman, etc. that believes old growth is a "deadzone". You're pretty much alone in that belief, and its just plain wrong.
The project I undertook with the FS was led by silviculturists and foresters from all over Region 1. Forest types dictated what constituted stands as "old growth". Tree age, tree density, tree size, health, species, understory vegetation, were all considered for classifying old growth. For instance, the requirements for an old growth stand of lodgepole was different than the requirements for Ponderosa pine than those required for spruce/fir types. The work we did was used to identify and inventory how much old growth was present on the lolo NF and the panhandle of Idaho. My question to you would be, if old growth is a dead zone, why was the region so interested in identiftying, mapping, and inventorying it?
Some of the conclusions and observations from several months of work by several crews was that old growth provided lots of key habitat for wildlife, old growth stands were typically more fire resistant, had lower tree density, more disease tolerant. Understory plant diversity was much higher. The other thing that was pretty clear is that not much of it was present, further conclusions about other issues were drawn from that, in particular the need to protect what old growth remained, and to take steps to manage for future old growth.
Sorry, but I just havent seen any proof that you have even a slight grasp of what old growth is.
Its pretty obvious from your post that you dont know what constitutes old growth, let alone the importance of it for all types of habitat requirements, wildlife, species diversity, etc.
Old growth is not limited to the Pacific Northwest, old growth forests occur everywhere forest habitat types exist.
Do you really think you understand old growth when you call it a "deadzone"? Thats ridiculous, just plumb crazy talk...You wont have much luck finding a single ecologist, biologist, silviculturalist, forester, hunter, fisherman, etc. that believes old growth is a "deadzone". You're pretty much alone in that belief, and its just plain wrong.
The project I undertook with the FS was led by silviculturists and foresters from all over Region 1. Forest types dictated what constituted stands as "old growth". Tree age, tree density, tree size, health, species, understory vegetation, were all considered for classifying old growth. For instance, the requirements for an old growth stand of lodgepole was different than the requirements for Ponderosa pine than those required for spruce/fir types. The work we did was used to identify and inventory how much old growth was present on the lolo NF and the panhandle of Idaho. My question to you would be, if old growth is a dead zone, why was the region so interested in identiftying, mapping, and inventorying it?
Some of the conclusions and observations from several months of work by several crews was that old growth provided lots of key habitat for wildlife, old growth stands were typically more fire resistant, had lower tree density, more disease tolerant. Understory plant diversity was much higher. The other thing that was pretty clear is that not much of it was present, further conclusions about other issues were drawn from that, in particular the need to protect what old growth remained, and to take steps to manage for future old growth.
Sorry, but I just havent seen any proof that you have even a slight grasp of what old growth is.
Similar threads
