Talk:Old growth forest
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Move this article to "Ancient Forest?"
I'm proposing this article move to Ancient forest because it more adequately descibes the ecosystem. "Old-growth" has a management of tree harvest bias. - Steve3849 talk 00:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. "Old growth" is the scientific ecological term, and it has a very specific meaning. "Ancient" only means old. And a forest can be old growth without being ancient -- what defines ancient? A 150-year-old forest can be old growth, but I would tend to define ancient as five hundred years or more. I really think we need to keep this under old growth. jaknouse 20:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for the reply. "Old-growth" does appear to be the most commonly used term. ... and wikipedia is certainly not the place to attempt to change current scientific terms. I don't agree however, with your point regarding "specific" differentiation. The word "ancient" in dictionary meaning is a better umbrella term for what is also commonly referred to as pristine wilderness. "Old-growth" focuses specifically on growth. A forest does much more than grow. I suspect when "old-growth" was commonly accepted as a term, it was not a scientific decision. Yet, this is all beside the point. Again, thank you. - Steve3849 talk 13:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Split up the locations and amount of destruction or retitle the section
I propose that the section listing the locations of old growth forests have all of the destruction related information removed or be retitled. This is an article that should present facts, not try to promote a conservation crusade. Jessecurry 21:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that it should be retitled. Following the links of the reference it does not appear to be peer reviewed. However, a noteworthy claim is made that no government funded studies are being conducted on this matter and there is included a detailed description of how the percentages are determined. Certainly the information, assuming it is factual, is pertinant to the article even if there are crusade overtones. - Steve3849 talk 14:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Change in section title made - Steve3849 talk 14:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- pristine old growth? The linked web site says forest in question is "an intact, natural state if it showed no signs of infrastructure, industrial forest harvesting during the last 30-50 years, mining, land clearing" That is not pristine. KAM 12:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Change in section title made - Steve3849 talk 14:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The whole page looks to be a propaganda piece configured to bash the timber industry.
- Agreed. I notice all seven references sited are from organisations known for political activism, five of the seven being Greenpeace. Hardly unbiased, is it? Steve64 00:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Forexample many writers on the topic observe that much of the forest disappearance in Africa and Latin America is associated with roving agriculture pursuant to which natives of the area burn off the land to clear it for agricultural use, or the wood is harvested for fire wood.
Attributing all reductions in forest cover to the darth vader timber industry is not supportable.
Theh classic understanding of 'old growth' in the pacific Northwest has simply been timber that was here before the European settlers were. In more the word has been pushed around for political purposes. When an advocate is trying to make a point that the last old growth on the planet is disappearing, an extremely narrow definition is used. when a political effort is made to attempt to shut down the active management of a tract of land, the definition of old growth expands to include the tract---nomatter what its history is, because there is more political support for not actively managing 'old growth' than there is for other types of forest cover.Rvannatta 04:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- "Industry" is used only once at the bottom of the article. "Logging" and "clear-cut" are not industry specific terms (ie. native logging). - Steve3849 talk 19:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "percentage of intact rainforest"
This is a very sneaky and misleading collection of figures. This describes how much of the old growth rainforest in the world is located in each continent, not percentage remaining from the original amount.
This discrepancy is obviuos in the oceania figure because most of oceania is Australia which is also mostly desert. These figures may impy that over 90% of Oceania's old growth forests have been removed which is untrue. What they DO mean is that Oceania only contains 7% of the world's remaining old growth rainforest.
I'm going to correct the wording of this paragraph so that it is clear what it means. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jabberwalkee (talk • contribs) 02:29, August 21, 2007 (UTC).
I agree. I feel that this should definitely be clarified more. I also feel that this section of the article (though the whole article falls into this category several times) is not without bias. While it addresses that there are conflicts with logging companies and conservationists, it clearly takes sides several times. While I agree with the side that it takes, I suggest that the article be reworded many times to remove bias whenever possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Persecutive (talk • contribs) 04:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Scientific definition of Old-Growth
That Wiki page doesn't present a good scientific definition of what Old-Growth forest is. There is specific scientific definitions that were made in the past 10-20 years. Intact and Frontier forests are totally different things than Old-Growth, although they are connected. Intact forest is a definition concerning landscape features, whereas Old-Growth connected to forest stand dynamics. Maybe you should divide your explanation between what general public thinks about what Old-Growth is and what is strict scientific definition. For now, the public don't really understand what Old-Growth is, since even the scientists didn't understand what it is until recent decade.
Whoever made that Wiki-article, should read articles of J.P. Kimmins - best example: "Old Growth forest: An ancient and stable sylvan equilibrium, or a relatively transitory ecosystem condition that offers people a visual and emotional feast? Answer - it depends?" published in Forest Chronicle 2003, VOL 79, No.3
That article defines what is Old-Growth and deals with most important issues connected to the term.
Old-Growth can't be defined generally and should be defined individually for different bio-climate zones. Interior, boreal Old-Growth forest is totally different from coastal rain forest Old-Growth.
You should also read articles of J. Franklin good example: "Ecological Characteristics of Old Growth Douglas Fir Forests." By Jerry F. Franklin, Kermit Cromack, et al. 1981
open source of his articles: http://faculty.washington.edu/jff/index_files/Publications_2000_to_present.htm
If you allow me, I can change that Wiki page and add more science into it as well as more history. Or just do it by yourself. I gave you enough information sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M gerzon (talk • contribs) 21:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
