A forest stand that is very old and has a special appearance is called an ancient forest. These are special places to many people and each person seems to react to them differently. Some people see them as undisturbed or primeval forests. Some call them virgin forests. Some see them as the place for rare or (at least) fairly natural assemblages of plants and animals. Others see them as places where there are trees of the right size for harvest or trees that have grown beyond a harvest age or size that should be cut and replaced with vigorously growing, money-making trees.

Many people have tried to define what an ancient forest is because they believe that without a clear definition, policy or practice may fail and stands can be lost. Some people argue that no definition can be suitable. No one can describe "beauty" or "love" or similar words. "Ancient forests" is just such a phrase. There is no appropriate definition. "When you see one you know it", some people claim.

Rogers (1982:197) said they used to be called "decadent forests", suggesting a clear bias about their perceived conditions (disease, broken limbs, etc.) as well as about a financial growth rate that has reached an amount approximately less-than-bank-interest-rate. Decadent is one way of looking at a forest, as it is about old people, but there are other well-known ways. They are not taxonomically pure; they are better described with words used to describe and sell wines than to describe warblers. They are multi-valued, perhaps multi-cultural. They are not merely gigantically complex ecosystems. People legitimately regard them as esthetic entities. Ecological entities, yes, but they are also esthetic. Also economic. They are simultaneously all three and a fourth, energetic. The latter concept of them includes the practical financial values of wood biomass energy, the system near its long-term potential as a solar collector, the system as the mature stage of an ecosystem, and the depiction of the most fundamental laws of energy flow within ecosystems (as society must eventually master it). It is also the basis for testing a profound hypothesis. The hypothesis is that most things that are judged by masses of people as having great beauty also have high bound energy (H.T. Odum 1980).

Ancient forest stands are not lands removed from the commercial timber base. They are lands that often are not productive of wood-based profits (due to access, etc.). They are areas that allow and encourage intensive, high-yield wood production on other areas. They are the variety in land use that people need. Some people know of the need for them so clearly that they are willing to go beyond talking about it to have it. The ancient forest areas are usually small; they are rare, thus by economic principles, they have high demand. They provide most of the "forest benefits" that most people want in a weekend or brief recreational experience. They are a "conditional resource." The public and landowner is often saying: you can do classical forestry, conditional upon you retaining old-growth, the ancient forests.

I consider every piece of land unique; every part of a forest is unique. To arrive at a decision about what is an ancient forest for a particular forest ownership or agency requires much generalizing. Old growth or the ancient forest is a stand that is past full maturity (past a rotation age and "over-mature" and showing decadence (Thomas 1979) but also "the last stage in forest succession" (Thomas 1979). The older the stands observed, the more closely they approximate the potential (climax or near climax) of the landscape unit being studied. Hardly the end, others have spoken of them as "the mature and perpetual forest. " Franklin et al. (1981) said it was a forest ecosystem that has developed over a long period essentially free of catastrophic (including human) disturbance. More esoteric: A shifting of fine-grained, seral-stage mosaic steady-state forest (Borman and Likens 1979:174) used by wildlife seasonally and annually. Dale Robertson, Chief of the U.S. Forest Service in 1989, issued a national position statement on old-growth forests. He saw them as ecosystems distinguished by old trees and related structural attributes. Old growth encompasses the later stages of stand development that typically differ from earlier stages in a variety of characteristics which may include tree size, accumulation of large wood material, number of canopy layers, species composition, and ecosystem function.

The age at which old growth develops and the specific structural attributes that characterize old growth will vary widely according to forest type, climate, site conditions, and disturbance regime. Old growth in fire-dependent forest types may not differ from younger forests in the number of canopy layers or accumulation of down woody material. However, old growth is typically distinguished from younger growth by several of the following attributes:

1. Large trees for the species and site.
2. Wide variation in tree sizes and spacing.
3. Accumulations of large-sized dead standing and fallen trees that are high relative to earlier stages.
4. Decadence in the form of broken or deformed tops or boles and root decay.
5. Multiple canopy layers.
6. Canopy gaps and understory patchiness.

Rogers (1984:197) noted Painter's (1984:193) view that old-growth forests are ecosystems that have taken over 2 centuries to develop. In the context of any human generation, old-growth is a non-renewable resource. As such, it needs more protection, higher valuation, or higher risk assumptions than decision situations involving the classical renewable resources. For some, the category of old growth is very broad; for others, it is so narrowly defined that few areas can be so classified. I have developed a set of criteria by which I believe people can know when they are within an ancient forest. The criteria are used in a computer system as a type of "taxonomic key", using the degree of achievement or adequacy of meeting a set of criteria. There are many ways that combinations of criteria can result in a decision that a particular forest or forest stand can certainly be classified (or not) as old-growth. I use the same information to assign an ancient forest score, one ranging from 0 to 100. Any forest with a score greater than 80 is called an ancient forest. The large number of criteria (10), the weights assigned to each criterion, the alternative "equal-to", and the associated reports for many areas makes computer use reasonable (at least efficient).

Long-term investigations of entire ecosystems seem to be necessary before complex interactions among trees, wildlife, and other resources can be known. Old forests are viewed by some people as ecosystems that need to be studied to achieve understandings. They are given "long-term-study" imperative. Everything needs long-term study! Sooner, not later, there must be a willingness to stop procrastination, take appropriate risks, and make decisions about them and begin to learn the lessons they are imagined to claim. The need is not to ignore the difficulty or complexity of decisions about old forests but to use actively, totally, what we now know. (More will be said later about the science controversy.)

Old-growth forests became an issue in national forest policy in the 1960's and 1970's. They were unknown, unnamed then, although the phrase "old growth" was used in the 1930's. Extensive clear cuts triggered concerns about them - their role in long term wood supply, changes in evapotranspiration (Myren and Ellis 1982), changes in fisheries (Sedell and Swanson 1982), wildlife changes, and other effects.

That old growth is a part of managed forests (at least on public lands) is now widely recognized. Acceptance of the concept emerged in the 1980's in the U.S. Forest Service especially as related to frequently-stated biodiversity goals. A National Old-Growth Task Group was formed 1988. Thirty-five forest types in the Eastern U.S. may eventfully be described as done by Meadows and Nowacki (1996), Harms (1996), or in the U.S. Forest Service's "Guidance for Conserving and Restoring Old-Growth Forest Communities on National Forests in the Southern Region: Report of the Region 8 Old-Growth Team" (draft May 7, 1997). The latter report summarized scientific definitions for 16 old-growth types (Table 1). Croy's (USFS, 1992) old-growth categories were added for types within the region. Authors of that report said that old-growth communities may be in 0.5 percent of the total forest acreage in the Southeast, i.e., 676,000 acres.

Table 1. Potential old-growth forest types of the George Washington - Jefferson National Forests (based on Croy, USFS, 1992).

Class	Moisture Group
1	Forests with frequent, low-intensity, local disturbance episodes (single tree gaps)
2	Terrestrial Forests 1. Northern hardwoods1 2. Conifer-northern hardwood 3. Eastern hemlocks2 5. Mixed mesophytic Palustrine Forest 13. River floodplain hardwoods
3	Forests with frequent, low intensity, widespread disturbance episodes (fire, flood scouring, and deposition) Terrestrial Forests 21. Dry and dry-mesic oaks 22. Dry oak woodlands 24. Xeric pine and pine-oaks 25. Dry and dry-mesic oak-pines Palustrine Forests 28. Eastern riverfront forests
4	3. Forests with infrequent, high intensity, widespread disturbance episodes Terrestrial Forests 31. Montane spruce and spruce fir 37. Rocky, thin-soiled and/or excessively drained conifer woodlands2
5	Transitional Forests Terrestrial Forests 42. Upland conifer and conifer-hardwood Forests that follow agricultural crops or clearcutting2 43. Upland hardwood forests that follow agricultural crops or clearcutting2

¹ CISC (US Forest Service database) code for the forest type.
² Not shown in Table 2.

In 1997 there was still a sense of newness and discovery of the importance of and need for adequate old-growth forests. Calls for cooperative efforts to preserve such stands emerged in the late 1970's. Some people did not receive the messages that were being sent, even from the highest levels of government and collective public opinion statements. It only seems that way. A louder, more forceful message was received from others who were unified in harvesting public timber, and who were often exceeding the even-flow, harvest-then-plant provisions of several laws. The compelling problems are not with the phase "old-growth" (a nominal diversion, devouring enormous amounts of time and money in debate and conference) but with (1) understanding forest structure and processes at all ages, (2) deciding on what forests are available and needed, and (3) deciding on reasonable removal or use rates. The planning issue for southern National Forests (1997) was one with several facets, namely "...including: How much old growth is desired? Where should old growth occur? How should old growth be managed?"

There are few reasons why old-growth should be treated as a separate entity within a land use plan. It is, however, because of economic and esthetic reasons and because it has not one but many strongly-felt characteristics for many people. Therefore it must be treated separately.

Disposition of remaining old-growth is also a problem on private as well as public lands. There already exist wildernesses, wild areas, and parks that contain old forests. Those that exist have not been studied well... or at all. Even optimists hold little hope for the funds to study more than a few such areas at the appropriate scale. The issues before us are complex, "snarled" and "wicked." My view is that the above issues are often interwoven, but they must be written about sequentially.

Description of the Resource

People have needs for old growth. We can readily list them as for research, education, recreation, esthetic appreciation, options (e.g., genetic) for the future, watershed protection and control of runoff. Any one reason is sufficient unto itself. By law, the U.S. Forest Service (NFMA Sec. 6(g)(3)(B)) must provide for "diversity of plant and animal communities." Bringing all forest stands to less than 120 years of age would probably not satisfy that law. We have much old growth. Compared to the needs, how much do we have? Because the needs are far from clear, we can safely say that there is no way to decide on the amount needed. Perhaps they cannot be defined or described adequately but perhaps they can be recognized if they have most of the major easily-agreed criteria: large, live old trees; large, dead standing trees; large, dead down logs; large logs in streams; a patchy shrub understory; multiple layers; open patches (gaps); distinctive fauna; and relatively stable large-area biomass. Perhaps arguments can be made from a categorical as well as a quantitative perspective. The criteria for such areas may be advanced as:

1. Large trees - that there must be many large (greater than 20 inch diameter and great height) live old trees is the only common criterion found by Bolsinger and Waddell (1993) for old growth (1 tree per 440 feet (10 ft. wide) belt transect). There may be about 140 trees per acre; 14 is more common in this region.
2. Number of stands - there should be at least several such areas to avoid "all-eggs-in-one-basket" type risks and to provide multiple different opportunities.
3. Size - there should be at least one large area greater than 20 acres to increase the chances that opportunities for knowledge gains not be lost because of size. This may include, for example, home ranges or areas needed by certain animals and the influence of dispersal distances of areas typically that are 10 acres (5 ha) or more. Small areas (2 acres or more) can be evaluated, however.
4. Shape - the area should have a high circularity index. A large area that is very long and thin (a low index) may not have many (any) of the central or core old-growth forest conditions--ecological, esthetic, or otherwise.
5. Type - there should be at least several major types (grossly SAF types) represented in an area (but a stand is, by definition, only of one type). Several types may allow tests to be made about whether principles learned in one type may be learned in others. A stand, however, is of one type. It is likely that groups of citizens have personal (cultural, etc.) affinity to different types and that different groups will respond differently to the relative beauty or esthetic meaning and interpretation of different sites. The old stands probably have more species than similar areas having younger forests. That this relationship holds has not yet been well established.
6. Disturbance - wildness or amounts and types of disturbance can influence the resource and the benefits it may provide. This is perceived disturbance. Recovery rates as well as landform may influence perception. Nearby highway sounds may affect the esthetics of an area as much as a stream impoundment may affect the ecology of the same area. Whether disturbances are bad in a particular forest needs unique, on-site, specific evaluations of actual or significant likely effects. "Solitude" and "serenity" are negatively related to one type of disturbance.
7. Time Since Disturbance - years since major human disturbance (other than fire) is usually reckoned in terms greater than 120 years, usually 200 or 300 years. Estimating time is easier than judging "perceived disturbance". A practical or "common-sense" approach is taken. There should be no obvious evidence of past human disturbance which conflicts with the old-growth characteristics of the area. Recent management activities to restore or maintain old-growth conditions (or significantly increase the ancient forest score) do not disqualify an area as "existing old growth" or ancient forest. These activities include commercial thinning, mid-story treatments, prescribed fires, or hiking trails. Old structures, fences, stone walls can usually be ignored because they are rapidly deteriorating or add knowledge about the history of the forest. Generally roads, dams, etc. may be closed and most areas will recover to a condition of imperceptible disturbance.

   It has generally been agreed that time-since-disturbance should be over 100 years for a forest to be called an ancient forest. In the western U.S., 250 years is the criterion (Bolsinger and Waddell 1993). Determining exact age of such stands is very difficult and often costly. To use an increment borer on large trees with defects is fraught with many problems. Rather than determining specific age, diameters may be used and correlated with ages of stumps of nearly harvested trees of equal size.

8. Stream Relations - because we think old growth along the banks and bottoms of a 3rd or 4th-order stream are different than headwater-cove forests or ridge forests, and because animal and other phenomena are different in the areas, I think that at least presence-of-a-stream is a minimum discriminating category. I am aware that "types" relate to streams and there will be overlap and correlation. I think that this is desirable and thus argue for no more than stream presence or absence (no further quantification of size, order, etc.). Part of the justification for this criterion is: (1) the esthetic dimensions of flowing water in forests, (2)the frequency of notations about "waters running clear and cool" in such areas, (3) hydrologic relations and interest in the ecology of watersheds, (4) terrestrial wildlife dependence on water, and (5) energy flow and mineral cycling relations within communities.
9. Snags - large dead logs, standing or fallen, are typically present over streams and throughout the area. Removing trees for any purpose reduces this criterion but it may be substituted in other ways. There may be 20 snags per acre but 10 are expected.
10. Effect - there is the probability of the area producing the "colonnade or cathedral effect" or one of tranquility, subdued lighting, patches of light, shade, and Zen views.

Ancient forest scores may range from zero to 100, 100 having the best imaginable physical properties and some other properties for such areas. Esthetic, metaphysical, religious, spiritual, or cultural aspects are included in only one part of the index but many people believe that they are strongly positively correlated with high scores. If the score is high, opportunities for the other personal and impossible-to-quantify benefits are likely to exist.

The Ancient Forest Controversy

Almost every aspect of natural resource and environmental work can be controversial, and most of them are. People educated in modern universities tend to think that there are rational solutions to every conflict. The evidence for such "solutions" is lacking. The ancient forest controversy is not likely to be"solved." It can be brought to a state of impasse, temporary resolution, quiescence, or neglect. The controversy over old-growth or ancient forests has an almost unbelievable numbers of dimensions. It is over long- and short-term goals, over regional or national goals, over personal or local goals, between animals and trees, between trees as things of beauty with metaphysical benefits and trees as the raw material for industrial stability and personal financial well-being and employment. There are factual disputes over local financial gains from log experts; disputes over whether industrial closures and layoff have been due to technology, or industrial organization, or due to closing land to logging. There are factual debates about the ancient forest acreage available. Debate continues over the ability to log those areas left and the likely quality of harvested wood.

Already mentioned above is the controversy over the definition and how many acres there are left (a decision requiring a definition). Booth (1991) suggested the need for stating the amount of old-growth that there was in pre-logging days (fire, etc.) so that change can be properly expressed. The age criterion itself is debated (in the Pacific-Northwest of the U.S. some prefer 200 years, others argue for size, 32 inches in diameter; others debate the effects of stocking rate and site quality on size). Others debate the accuracy of old forest resource surveys; others debate whether park or designated wilderness areas should be included. There appear to be no remaining old-growth stands on private or industrial lands so it is clear where some people stand on the controversy.

Booth (1991) observed that since about 82-to-87 percent of the original old-growth is gone and only about 5 percent is reserved in national parks and wilderness areas "...the intensity of the current debate over the preservation of unreserved old-growth is not surprising."

Few people comprehend how intimately linked each evident, large, beautiful stand of old large trees is to national and international politics (e.g., trade and tariffs with Asian wood importers), to the national budget deficit and its politics, to the national business climate and its politics, to bank and other interest rates (e.g., influencing "housing starts", thus lumber demand), and to court injunctions (e.g., one that shifted timber harvest pressure, overnight, from the northwestern to southeastern U.S. forest areas).

There are vast regional differences in U.S. forests. The original old-growth controversy was over "Temperate Zone rainforest ecosystems", the forests with massive redwoods, Douglas firs, and hemlocks of the Pacific Northwest (about 2.3 million acres). Some included the old ponderosa communities of the eastern slopes of the Pacific Northwest. Human interest in old forests of all types enlarged the problem, nationwide, to any tract with old trees. The expansive expanding interest, itself, was controversial.

Heilman (1990) argued for preserving old-growth stands but against merely lengthening the rotation age over large areas (making the forests "older"). He wisely saw that lengthening the rotation age, say from 100 to 120, would impact timber supplies and would increase pressure to cut the remaining old-growth stands. He saw that an excellent protection strategy would be increased timber production from managed acres.

Some people debate whether ancient forests are "renewable resources" like other forests. They agree that trees re-grow if planted, but observe that in human history, no civilization has grown more or increased its supply of ancient forest areas. Chris Maser suggested no productive forests in the world exist past three rotations. Extreme positions have been taken by people asserting the importance of trees, or plants, or animals (e.g., the spotted owl) claiming that their part or use of the forest is more important than others (an unintended "put-down" that any psychologist would recognize as likely to result in retaliation in some form.)

There are multiple agencies with different laws and regulations involved. There are multiple support and watchdog groups for the agencies. There are independent groups that will benefit from the old-growth controversy as long as it persists. When there are so many participants, by chance alone, controversy will be produced. Some people join the controversy because of the perceived below-cost operation of the U.S. Forest Service where old-growth seems to occur. "Why pay excessively for anything, especially something of which we disapprove?!"

Some people were opposed to forest "clear-cutting", especially the expansive intensive work done in some areas adjacent to parks, and thus were opposed to cutting down any forests, including ancient forest stands. Their opposition was to the removal practice; they readily joined the controversy. Others, perceived to be damaged by the ill effects of logging (erosion, stream destruction, salmon run destruction, lake siltation, viewscape change, road dust, and fire hazards), joined in also.

University professors, having taught many foresters about appropriate practices on the land, yet cannot believe the actions seen there (1997). There are always some differences between profession and practice, but the extreme situations following ancient forest removals have caused some professors and even agency staff to join in the controversy.

Ancient forests are, like other forests, important to people because they store carbon and play a role in delaying global warming (which is related to CO2 and the"greenhouse effect"). They protect the land from rainfall, then filter and slow water on its way across the land and into groundwater, thus reducing peak-flow of floods. They provide homes for wildlife, often for species found nowhere else. In Virginia they are homes for over 200 species of large animals and over 1000 invertebrates species (but this has been poorly studied). They are believed to offer future options for medicinal plants, potentials in bioengineering, and a source of potential innoculum for recovering forests. Esoteric arguments for saving old forests to preserve their gene pool because of their"priceless genetic adaptation to specific sites" is grounded in a theory of a forest as an organism, not an assemblage of species, each species having its own genetic dynamic. Resolving genetic as well as ecological hypotheses remains a fruitful area of work.

The list of services, conditions, and functions offered by such areas (and not provided in toto by the average 80-year old harvested site) has been mentioned in several ways. A list may be useful (see Harris 1981: 28-35):

1. a large amount of above-ground biomass
2. a rich insect fauna (food for larger wildlife)
3. often-abundant, varied mast
4. desirable groundwater recharge and stream base-flow maintenance
5. a multi-layered, three dimensional habitat for a variety of species
6. vertical heights to increase bird diversity
7. varied sunlight at the forest floor
8. dead wood for a variety of arthropods that enhance the food base for birds and tree mammals
9. perching and cavity sites, particularly for the larger birds and mammals (e.g., pileated woodpecker, bears, raccoons)
10. micro-"travel lanes", both fallen and standing trees for many animals
11. critical habitat for several species of reptiles and amphibians
12. critical habitat for several species of tree bats
13. sources of mycorrhizal fungi as wildlife food and for invaluable tree-growth enhancement
14. the conditions for floral richness
15. climatic modification due to albedo and winds
16. a consistent source of stream and forest floor debris (reducing erosion, supplying nutrients, and maintaining a food base)
17. unique combinations of the above.

Some people simply argue that taking old-growth is "not fair" in the sense that high-valued, wide, dimensional lumber with clear wood will not be available to future generations. Much profit comes from wood of such qualities. Similarly, over time, competition with other wood-producing nations cannot be maintained. A complicated equation shows net gains of wood, even on large very slow-growing trees, that add value at a high rate due to scarcity and quality of the remaining wood of such dimensions.

Part of the controversy is over an hypothesis of many scientists. The hypothesis is that these areas hold secrets and answers. They can think of 100 questions about them easily. They imagine these areas as "normal", thus they may serve at least as one basis for comparing other similar sites. "What are natural conditions and processes, and how have we changed them by our actions?" can be heard. "What is optimal growth? Does it occur on such sites? When do certain insects and diseases appear; can they be avoided? What are the rates of decomposition and, are the minerals that are released leached into the soil and streams or taken back into the system? They look "healthy"; what does this mean and what are its measures? How can we know when other stands are not healthy, ill or becoming"ill"? What species were once found in these areas that are already lost, not occurring elsewhere? What resources exist that may be exploited, conservatively, for future people?

Studies of the ancient forests are needed but the work already done needs to be synthesized and used. "Studies" are used as a delaying tactic by agencies and individuals. Risks are involved in making decisions without information, which may come from research. Studies of ancient forests can be very expensive and sampling strategies usually prevent"solid" conclusions or advice to be given. The rapid loss of ancient forest stands creates higher risks to society than the risks of a poor decision from inadequate new information from studies. Studies are needed. All that can be afforded! A strategic research plan is needed and funded studies fit into it. However, ad hoc studies are a form of personal recreation. Such ad hoc studies are to be encouraged for that reason alone. The probability of a high payoff to society or to making a major addition to the human knowledge base for ancient forests from such work is very low. Planned and coordinated studies are essential. Science, said Heilman (1990:22), has an essential role in the forest controversy, but he thought one that should remain subordinate to political processes.

As resources become available and as volunteers may be able to assist, plans can be made to conduct comprehensive stand-specific evaluations and studies. Emphases can be on finding rare and sensitive species about which little is known. Past reliance has been, due to resources, on reports of species. The surveys need to be conducted by groups of qualified specialists at appropriate times of year. Efforts need to be made to determine whether proposed actions in the stand or adjacent stands may affect the listed species.

Action in the Stands

Ancient forest stands are not places where no forester goes. They need to be seen as managed areas, differently managed. They are managed to achieve a high ancient forest score. The potential actions include:

1. Surveys of wildlife fauna will suggest a full range of species known from historical studies to be present within the vicinity. Structures may be added if a species in not observed so that it might be enticed. Other species-specific tactics may be employed.
2. Plants known to be present in such areas may be transplanted along trails from nearby areas.
3. Standing snags may be created (to a 2-per-acre standard).
4. Logs or large diameter tops can be put at right angles across streams.
5. Promoting use of these areas (with a permit and for a fee, also having costs) is part of the ancient forest philosophy within the planned R* System. There are costs and foregone monetary returns from most forest decisions. There are ways to reduce these costs and to make gains.
6. Fire protection is needed and this may be in constructed fire lines, hidden stored fire-fighting tools, signs at the boundary, and careful control of camp sites (if camping in the ancient forests is allowed). Firewood may need to be provided and wastes removed.
7. Research needs to be planned and promoted. This requires funds and usually will involve more than one ancient forest stand.
8. Typically, horses will need to be excluded (because of soil compaction, extraneous seeds introduced, and grazing/browsing).
9. Local fish may be moved upstream after logs and other structures restored in the area reduce the length of runs, increase pools and riffles, and widen the v-shaped valleys common to once-harvested areas.
10. Boundaries and trails need to be clearly marked. Pleasant, properly scaled and designed signs can be placed. A positive name may be selected (e.g., the "crystal stream tract" vs. "skunk hollow").
11. Narrow trails should be built to esthetic sites and to study sites (e.g., wildlife exclosures).
12. Seats (native log, rock, without fasteners or mortar) can be built to encourage visitors to rest, contemplate, and enjoy the scenery, odors, and silence.
13. Cul de sac trails can be developed for those seeking solitude. Other uses are often listed and other provisions can be made, unique to each site, to meet these people's needs. These uses include, in addition to solitude, esthetics, recreation, research, ground water recharge,"option demand" values, escape, challenge, adventure, and a return to cultural roots.
14. Gaps (from 1 or 2 old trees falling) are expected at about 1 per 5 acres. These may be created by "frilling" large trees or sawing them and leaving them in place. See No. 3 above.
15. Membership of users in the Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club, and the Nature Folks can be encouraged.
16. In the process of obtaining a permit, a person may be present with opportunities to purchase an interpretive book and photographs about the area. Comparisons with other areas, especially disturbed areas, may be made.
17. Fire has been a part of these areas historically. A lightning strike may do it again. Controlled patch-burns are recommended. Ground fires may be used when the soil is moist and cool and when down logs are wet. Selecting the proper conditions during the lightning season - and gaining a fire-fighting crew and equipment for control - are major managerial and scheduling tasks.

In some small areas that tend toward old age (but do not yet have a high score and where owner interests in ancient forest conditions are very strong), all of the above practices are relevant. Trees can be cut to provide down logs; snags can be created, gaps created; trees fertilized (even irrigated in some areas); vegetation introduced; understory thinned for visual appeal; stem density reduced; an upper canopy managed to produce a 40% closed canopy with multiple layers. The forest can quickly gain within (5 years) most of the qualities of an ancient forest even though it may be only 90-110 years old.

Few foresters will debate that extending the rotation or harvest age a few years is a safe practice. It usually provides additional values, adds quality value if not volume, and is the least disruptive of almost any decision they may make. "When mean annual increment culminates" is a gross public land criterion for the proper time to harvest a stand. As a criterion for logging, it has almost no meaning to a complex company (and hopefully to modern agencies) with diverse financial holdings that are trying to maximize total system financial returns to owners while achieving many, many other owner and public benefits.

Even if the land ownership changes or the ancient forest is no longer under sophisticated management, the delay in harvest can rarely be judged to be bad or even a risky practice. Once old trees reach a size plateau, the pattern of increment is relatively flat. There is a plateau allowing great flexibility in selecting a rotation that provides almost the same increment and yield. When prices fluctuate but tend to increase rapidly for high-valued wood, it is reasonable to expect high profits from selectively harvested trees from these forests.

Because of scale and other factors, the ancient forest concept is that an area cannot be "just left alone". It may be of interest to some people but it is unlikely to sustain benefits and call for no costs over the life of any owner. The ancient forests need to be managed for the benefits typically listed and expected from such areas. They are wild areas, not inviolate wilderness patches within and surrounded by vast forests of similar characteristics. They need management in the modern world with a yet-growing human population.

Loss of land to wilderness and old-growth reservation is a normal topic of concerned conversation among loggers, company wood procurement people, and some foresters. Reserving these lands seems like an act to incur financial losses. As long as so much forest land is harvested on a schedule and in a way that produces only 60-80% of its peak profit (by both private and public land holders), then these expressed concerns are inconsistent with the apparent financial motivations of these people.

References

Bolsinger, C. L. and K. L. Waddell. 1993. Area of old-growth forests in California, Oregon, and Washington. U.S.D.A. For. Service, Pacific Northwest Res. Sta., Resource Bull. PNW-RB-197, Portland, OR. 26 pp.

Booth, D. E. 1991. Estimating prelogging old-growth in the Pacific Northwest. J. For. 89:25-29.

Davis, Mary B. (ed.) 1996. Eastern old-growth forests: prospects for rediscovery and recovery. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 420 pp.

Harris, L. 1981. The fragmented Forest. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill.

Harms, W. R. 1996. An old-growth definition for wet pine forests, woodlands, and savannas. USDA For. Serv. Southern Research Sta., Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-2. Asheville, NC. 7 pp.

Heilman, P. E. 1990. Forest management challenged in the Pacific Northwest. J. For. 88:17-23. Kent, P. 1982. Small start in a big forest. Forest Planning 3(6):14-15.

Meadows, J. S. and G. J. Nowacki. 1996. An old-growth definition for eastern river from forests. USDA For. Serv. Southern Research Sta., Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-4 Asheville, NC. 7 pp.

Mladenoff,D.J., M.a. White, J. Pastor, and T.R. Crow. 1990. Old growth forest fragmentation in a forested landscape:lessons for biodiversity management. 52nd Midwest Fish and Wildluife Conf., Minneapolis, Mn

Mladenoff, D.J., M.A. White, J.Pastor, and T.R. Crow. 1991 GIS-based analysis of a fragmented old-growth forest landscape for biodiversity management, 76th Ann ESA meeting. Bull. Ecological Soc. 72(2):197 abstr.

Meslow, E. C., C. Maser, J. Verner. 1981. Old-growth forests as wildlife habitat. Transactions North American wildlife and natural resources conference; Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.; Wildlife Manage. Inst. 46: 329-335.

Painter, R. 1982. Statement on old-growth forest/fisheries relationships, p. 193 in W. R. Meehan, T. R. Merrell, Jr., and T. A. Hanley (eds) Fish and Wildlife relationships in old-growth forests (Alaska symposium). Amer. Inst. Fishery Res. Biologists. Morehead City, NC. 425 pp.

Raphael, M.G., S. L. Marquardt, and R. H. Reginald. 1989. Evaluating stand conditions to support integrated silvicultural prescriptions for timber and wildlife: snags and old growth. In Habitat futures: integrating timber and wildlife in forest landscapes: a matter of scale: Proceedings of a workshop; 1989; Eatonville, WA. 2-20.

Ripple, W. J. 1994. Historic spatial patterns of old forests in Western Oregon. J. For. 92:46-49.

Rogers, G. W. 1984. Summary and concluding statements p. 197- in W. R. Meehan, T. R. Merrell, Jr., and T. A. Hanley (eds) Fish and Wildlife relationships in old-growth forests (Alaska symposium). Amer. Inst. Fishery Res. Biologists. Morehead City, NC. 425 pp.