: 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.

Ok, yes. Fair enough. I was thinking in terms of the Olympic Penninsula. My mistake. Obviously, the eastern slope of the Cascade range is still considered "Pacific Northwest." And fire is indeed an issue in on the drier side of the Cascades. Sorry. I wasn't being very accurate. I guess that's sort of ironic in that I was all excited about someone else being inaccurate.

: 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.

Not really sure what this is in response to, so I don't understand how it is an objection to what I was saying.

: 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

Again, I'm not sure how this is a response to my comments. Are you saying that it is a "dangerous misconception" that single fir trees left standing after logging are more likely to blow over in a storm? Or that trees at the edge of a new clear cut are not more suceptable to the elements? Moreover, I didn't say that forests are planned, so I don't understand why you seem to be implying that this was my argument. Additionally, I was attempting to discuss support and competition, so, again, not sure why you are pointing this out to me.

: 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.

Ok.

: 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.

What sort of forest are you talking about? I thought the subject was old growth.

: 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.

Again, it's like you're paraphrasing my comments, but then responding to them as if they mean something else. I think I rather forcefully argued that the process of moving from a young forest to an old forest is, in fact, quite natural. And it involves competition. And it involves blow downs. I specifically distinguished this natural process from what happens at the edge of a clear cut. You are now conflating the two once again.

: "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.

I honestly have never heard this usage, commonly or otherwise. We do have old growth forests, so it seems rather obvious that this usage is wrong. Regarding the "specific definition," that's fine if you wish to expand the list of things that happen in forests, but I don't think it gets us any closer to discussing my original objection.

: 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.

Well, I guess I just wasn't being clear. Sorry. I thought that was what I said. My original objection was to the idea that "vast tracts" of old growth forest are occasionally wiped out by fire or storm. I maintain that this is simply wrong. I attempted to explain that I recognize that trees blow down, and that this is a natural part of the movement of a forest from youth to old age. I also said that the time we see the wholesale destruction, the "vast tracts" being wiped out is typically when there has been human intervention. I maintain this view. And if you want to bring disease into the discussion, I think a look at mono-culture tree farming is the place to start. Of course there are insects that eat and diseases in the forest. It's part of the system. It's in the mono-cultures that these things are much more likely to get out of control.

: "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)

No. What you are describing is not "secondary growth."

: "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.

Huh? Yes, secondary growth is that which regenerates after some disturbance, like fire, wind fall or logging. The term can be used to describe the plant life in a particular area, as in "Those trees right there are secondary growth." It can also be used to describe a stage of development, as in "This forest is all secondary growth." My point was that people don't typically pick out a single 2 foot sapling in the middle of the ancient Hoh River Valley and say, "That is secondary growth."

I don't know. Maybe I'm making something out of nothing. I guess I should just drop it.