: I'm really not trying to be contrary for the sake of being contrary, but I
: have to disagree. Neither storm nor fire claim "vast tracts" of
: old growth forest in the Pacific Northwest. One of the reasons the Pacific
: Northwest has "old growth" is precisely because there aren't
: influences that claim much of anything. Fire of any consequence is so rare
: it is almost unheard of. I realize you said "less often," but
: that doesn't quite capture the reality, particularly since your point
: seems to be human and "natural" impact is, perhaps, comparable.
: Old growth forest in the PNW is temperate rain forest, and it's wet, very
: wet. Fire simply doesn't have much impact because soggy stuff doesn't burn
: well. Perhaps a lightning strike might take out a single tree here and
: there, but vast tracts don't burn. The reason there are 800 year old trees
: is that they haven't been burned or blown down in storms. You simply
: cannot compare fire or storm to the impact of humans.

sorry but I must respectfully disagree.
First of all while there is some rain forest in the PNW, espically on the western part of the olymics (near the Hoh river) and along the western part of vancover island; most of the PNW is not rain forest.

Fire is a naturally occuring issue, even in the PNW; it is usually responsible for all of the prized knot-free wood that we all desire. However it is not all that common, nor when it does occure, does it significantly affect tree mortality.

Consider this, Dougals Fir which is a very common wood in the PNW, is very shade intolerant and will only grow in full sunlight. How then did this start. While Fire may not play as big a role in the PNW as it does in eastern washington, bark beatles and Laminated Root Rot (LRR) can decimate whole acres. Pacific White pine used to be as common as Douglas fir, but has been ravaged by a fungal infection with in the last 200 years or so.

: With regard to storms, I think you are confusing two very different
: scenarios. It is certainly true that fir trees, for example, are shallow
: rooted; however, the weakened stands (those most likely to blow down) are
: at the edge of where logging has taken place, not in the midst of old
: growth. A protected fir, growing in the midst of a forest isn't anywhere
: near as likely to blow down in a storm as a stressed, weakened fir at the
: edge of a clear-cut. Some of the most dangerous trees are those
: "decoration" firs left dotting suburban areas after the land has
: been cleared for houses.

This is a part of a dangerious misconception. Forests are not planned, and most of the trees are as much competing with each other as helping each other. A commercial douglas fir stand (i.e. about 50 years old) has approximatly 120 stems/acre. Minimum planting according to state law is 190 stems/acre, and comercial jobs will do about 300/acre expecting between 30 and 50% mortality. I have seen natural regeneration (not planted) at well over 600/acre

The usuial hardpan depth in most of the PNW is about 4 feet. Which means that you are never going to have roots much deaper than that.

When trees are in competition with each other for sunlight, they respond by trying to grow taller than those around it. Typically this occures when the branches overlap. Since everything trys to grow straight up the trees do not build any thickness to withstand wind and the like. When this occures naturally what usually happens is one of the trees falls, due to desease or nature, and all those around it also fall, and wihtin about 5 years or so over 90% of the trees are down.

Some people think that this is caused by cutting operations, with out realising that this is a natural process that may have been accelerated by the logging, but would have happened naturally anyway.

"Old growth" has the common usage "forests that we don't have anymore". It also has a more specific definition, which has to do with a diversity of species, ages (very important) and structure types.

so "The process of how a young forest becomes an old forest isn't really related to "blow downs" in the sense you use the term." is incorrect. Blow downs, deasese, infestations, and fires are fundamentaly important to the progress of forests in the PNW.

"It doesn't really make sense to say that there is "secondary growth" in an old growth forest." is almost exactly wrong. an Old growth forest will have trees that are of differnet ages (and due to the mechanics, this will be by about 50-100 years)

"Secondary Growth" is pretty much defined as anything that is given enough light to grow. Usually this is due to a distrubance such as a blow down. Since it is charicterised by being not as old as some of the older trees in the area. trees growing from a clear cut are not techincally second growth.

: The process of how a young forest becomes an old forest isn't really related
: to "blow downs" in the sense you use the term. It doesn't really
: make sense to say that there is "secondary growth" in an old
: growth forest. Once you cut down an old growth forest, then you get
: secondary growth, but I wouldn't describe this growth as "in"
: and old growth forest. Nor would I describe it as
: "characteristic" of old growth. Indeed, I can't think of
: anything less characteristic of an old growth forest than secondary
: growth. A young forest, left to it's own devices, becomes an old forest.
: The process of maturation involves death and decay and the ever increasing
: density of understory. Some of the trees thrive and become dominant;
: others die and feed the understory. But the trees that die aren't
: "secondary." "Secondary growth" refers to what appears
: after a disturbance, like fire or logging (and we've already ruled out
: fire). This new (secondary) growth is primarily deciduous, though
: sometimes fir, and the process begins all over again. That is, the
: deciduous trees and the fast growing firs are slowly replaced by what you
: see in an old growth forest. To make this long story short, the "blow
: down" you see in an old growth forest isn't "secondary"
: growth, but "first" growth, for lack of a better term.

: So, neither fire nor storm are having any impact of a "vast tract"
: nature in the old growth temperate rain forests of the PNW. The only thing
: that has affected "vast tracts" is logging. I'm a woodworker, so
: I can't be anti-logging without also being a hypocrite. But I do think
: it's important to understand the issue. My personal opinion is that we
: have very little old growth left and we should protect it before it's
: gone. And I feel duty bound, as a woodworker, to point out the error of
: your characterization.