Well--yes and no. We have objective definitions for about 40 different kinds of old-growth in Alaska. Age, of course, is one of the important attributes. Other attributes that are important: size, arrangement, and density of the tree stems, amount and kind of understory vegetation, amount and kind of organic detritus. I think the most important attribute of old-growth is structural diversity, by which is meant there must be some openings and some closed areas of the canopy, and several levels of trees at various stages of development in the vertical arrangement of the trees. There should be some dead trees and snags around. There should be down logs at various stages of decay.
The "no" part of this is that old-growth is what the person who is talking about thinks it is. You can get into some very nasty arguments with people on the issue, if such is your desire. People up here started talking about "Cathedral Trees" which are the biggest and oldest trees around. That starts putting an emotional element in the issue. I understand completely but 25 years before any environmentalist thought of using the term I was using it in some of the poems and verse I wrote. I'm not a tree-murderer, and I do understand (and internalize) the emotional value of forests better than most. I just choose not to lie about the environmental aspects of forestry. Under George Bush, I expect forestry to regain some of its losses experienced under Clinton. It will never be the same, however. Too much water under the bridge. |
