Found this map...and it got me thinking....Firstly, the definition widely accepted is for a forest to be classified as 'Old Growth" it has to be over 200years old, and that it contains a variety of different, lichens, fungi and tree species of varying ages, including some very large trees that are hundreds, or even thousands of years old.
As old growth forests disappear, does Bigfoot go with it?Click to view attachment

I know there is 2nd and 3rd generation forest habitat which looks to be in good condition....but...how important does old growth play in bigfoots survival...Many of us believe the British Colombia is the last bastion of a large population of bigfoot and its survival....Almost exclusively due to the presence of large areas of untouched 'old growth' forests that bigfoot has to live in.
Yet these satellite images from NASA paint a worrying picture...The bottom image was taken in 1992...clearcuts are clearly visible..the top image of the same area was taken in 2003. Not only are clearcuts visible but the pink areas is the bare earth/soil...(click on the pics to get a better look)

Have no idea why there are 2 pics of the same thing and have no idea how you get one of the off...sorry.

I don't know for sure, but I think Old Growth forests have a much lower nutrients/sq. acre than clear cuts, or new growth forests. example: Far fewer deer in an old growth, than in a clear cut area. Any Foresters want to comment on that? I'm thinking the habitat change could only help them, look what it has done to the deer population. (It certainly hasn't made them easier to find)

Rod, your question is thought provoking. If the species does exist, and I believe it does, logging must of had the effect of displacing them to a certain degree. It's hard to deny that man hasn't had an effect on their domain. Here is an interesting article by NASA on some facts about old and new growth. While it seems there are actually more trees now than there was 400 years ago (primarily due to replanting), new growth doesn't quite have the same environmental bonuses as old growth. It could very well explain why sightings overall have gone down since the 70's (from what I've read) even while our population has expanded. It would seem logical that it would be quite the opposite if the species were thriving. Has logging accelerated their demise or is it something else? Is it just part of natural selection that our species was destined to push theirs out?


http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienceques2002/20030404.htm

Regards,
Mojo....

Just one of the million things we will never know until a real study is done about them. That will not happen until they are first proved as real.

No. They don't need it. All the sightings here have been in transitional areas such as swamp, near lake shores, streams, riversides, edges of clear cut etc. And it makes sense since this is where the greatest food availability is. The berries proliferate in the places where the forest gives way to sunlit glades, such as small logged off areas. Tuber bearing plants like moister areas but well-lit. All the bigger mammals are attracted. If anything, they want seclusion, which can be had annually by keeping to higher elevations and areas which are difficult to access because of terrain.

I would think that they just adapt the best possible, changing their eating habits and movement routes to accommodate.
Better take your kids/grandkids to see some of the huge old-growth trees - it doesn't seem they will stop cutting until their all gone.

Rod, maybe you can better help me understand exactly what you are asking re: forests. This is a field I have extensive experience in and would be most happy to answer any direct questions you have pertaining to ecosystems. Your mention of lichens particularly intrigues me, it was one of the primary focuses in Northern North America. I have published journals and articles dealing with exactly what you are showing (and more), it would be easier if you put the questions you are seeking directly so I may answer them as such.

Mojo, thats a great article... ..and I think the loss of so much old growth has probably helped diminish their numbers....but....I also agree with 3foothick and vilnoori that they would have to be very adaptive so as long as there is a healthy forest habitat, old growth or not, they probably are doing OK....(if they exist)

bluforMD....be great to pick your brains....from what I have read lichens and fungi etc are good signs of a healthy diverse forest habitat...and only the older forests can accumulate the rotting vegetation to create such an environment for these things to live....also Old Growth allows for all the smaller and miniscule animals and bacteria to play their role, ...younger forests and plantations fail to provide that...are these 2 questions correct...cheers rod

a squirrel could feed a squatch for a day, and theirs 3 squirrels for every human

yeh, if he was on the Jenny Craig diet it would.....a squirrel would be entree' or a snack before bed....

I'd say the Animal's use Old Growth & we'd be silly not to think they didn't & even possibly prefer it but on the other hand, we'd be silly to think that they need it fully, which i very much doubt they do as this Animal, if it exists, would have to be very, very adaptable..

This of course is assuming that these things require, or even prefer, "old growth".
In most cases disturbed(second/growth)forest is more productive and supports more large animals then old growth. Drew noted this, and it's true.
My WAG is that as the original forests were cut, they were driven into a few isolated areas(this pertaining more to the east, and other areas where the forests have been pretty much totally cut over at least one time), and the population initially likely dropped a lot. However over time, the forest grows back even more productive then it was, and like many species, they may now be expanding back into formerly depleted areas, and repopulating them.

Nightwing, I am not disagreeing with you, for I have heard the same thing about disturbed forest being a better habitat for some animals than old growth....Have you any info on this mate?...I am interested to find out....I just think that we humans measure a forest habitat by' there are lots of deer", but I wonder if that is not incorrect....anyway, what do you know?....cheers

I love to inhabit old growth.

One (1) tree X 20 MBF/tree X $11/MBF = $220. Four (4) trees/7 hour day = $880/day.

Yep, I like old growth. In fact, I love old growth!



KTM XCW200 = $8,599 out the door / $880 per day X 10 days = $201 left over to buy a tall soft seat and a DB snorkel so I can go rip up the trails in stealth fashion!

Yep, yep, I really like old growth!

You set the trap for me Norc...and.....there is no way I was not going to respond to this one....7hour day and you walk away with $880US bucks a day!!!....thats about $1200Aus a day!!!......I am good with a chainsaw...how much is a one-way ticket......F**k Old Growth, its overrated....now lets see....$880 a day doing 6 day week...um.....carry the 2....subtract and divide...by 6......sh*t that $5280US bucks a week......can I stay at your place Norc, all I eat are vegies and we can talk and talk and talk and talk about Global Warming.........

Maybe you hang out in different woods than I do, but in this part of the state they haven't cut an old growth tree in at least a decade.

17x7

You're funny Rod! You can't make that much these days but I sure did when I was in my twenties. There is one big offset to all those big bucks- you sacrafice your body. I have 3 sets of stitch marks on my left leg. I have a steel rod running up my left femur. The cartilage is shot in my left knee and I've had my right knee completely rebuilt. I have 2 sets of stitches in my right leg along with a piece of steel in there somewhere, 4 sets of thread on my right arm, my face has been stitched 4 times (although I'm still INCREDIBLY good looking ), half my teeth are fake, I have a ruptured disc, 4 concussions, tendonitus in both wrists and my back hurts so much that the first thing I do each morning is take a double shot of vodka. On really bad days I use vicodin (an endless prescription) and soma. I've been flown in, driven in and ambulanced in to the hospital, given the eulogy at an employees funeral (killed on the job) and stood there in gloom at I don't know how many fellow loggers last rites.

And I loved every minute of it. I couldn't hardly wait to go to work on Monday morning. It was a plethora of excitement for every bodily sense. I wouldn't trade those days for the world.

And you want to talk about being in shape! When I had my knee rebuilt (by the worlds foremost orthapedic surgeon), there was only one other guy that had ever tested better than me- Eric Hyden (sp), the five time olympic gold medal speed skater, and if they had told me in advance I know i could have beat his record. Honest! I really could of! I promise! Cross my heart and hope to die! ...Really though, I was very close.

And if you like to eat there was no better occupation. We figured it out one time that the guys on the cutting crew averaged 8,000 calories a day. Look at the inside of your wrist, that's what my stomach used to look like. No fat at all. When I had my teeth knocked out it was really hard to eat because my mouth hurt so much. I withered away to skin and bones. Couldn't have anything hot or cold. You like luke warm cheap American beer don't you? That 6 month period of my life really sucked. I'll never forget one time when my wife and I were still dating we were in an upscale restaurant and I had just consumed 2 full entrees, 2 desserts and a bottle of wine and the chef came out and told me that I had eaten over 10,000 calories in my meal. He couldn't figure out how I could do it and I wasn't about to try and explain. I'm only 5' 6" tall and back then I only weighed 145 lbs. but man, could I ever eat.

Those days were fun but I pay for it every day now. The only good thing is I still get around pretty good and I only have minor arthritus.

I don't know what you do but I sit in a cushy air conditioned tractor cab these days and am just plain happy to be alive! Have fun, Norcal

(and I love to hike through the marvel that is old growth)

So in other words 17x7...they are just as scarce as they were 10years ago...for you don't plant Old Growth mate...

Who or what knocked your teeth out Norc?

Nowadays I sit at a desk(46yrs)...used to be a builder and brickie till arthritis started to kick in....Planning to go down to the wilds of Tasmania later in the year and built me and my girlfriend a cabin in the bush on her brothers land, just so I can get callouses on my hands again and strengthen my back and shoulders...I feel very soft and pudgy....
So you were a champion skater Norc?

A big tree branch (slash) lying on the ground was hit by a falling tree and swung around and hit me under the chin breaking a whole bunch of my teeth (oh, forgot about that one, that would be 5 stich marks on my face), knocking me out and led to my one and only helicopter ride of which I had complete amnesia. Amnesia is pretty cool. One minute I'm just doing my job at work, the next minute I'm laying on my parents couch watching "Leave it to Beaver" on the old boob tube.

Skater? Not at all, Eric was though. Actually, I love to ice skate but I don't do it very often.

Just curious, have you ever ice skated? It's a ton of fun. We have to drive a little over an hour to Squaw Valley (1960 Olympics) to ice skate and it's really worth it because the rink is way up on the mountain and if you get tired you can always look at the fabulous view.

Have fun, Norcal

The only ice have seen is in my drinks.....I have seen snow and did not like the stuff very much.....and yes I have seen ice covered lakes in Tasmania but again, me and it did not bond...as for skating on it...no cannot say I have....and to be honest it does not get the old adrenaline pumping when I think about either....leave that one to you Norc.......years ago, I saw an porn flick called 'leave it to beaver"...acting was superb and the script was one twist after another...is that the film you mean Norc?....think it starred that great russian actress Nora Tittoff.......

I knew that was coming when i first saw the thread the other day, it was only a matter of time...

You're too funny! No, no, no, the "Leave it to Beaver" I was referring to was the polar opposite of the one that you saw. It was a thirty minute situation comedy about a boy, "Beaver" and his family. It was noted for its' wholesome values.

You know, it just dawned on me that I left something out concerning the money I used to make. I was a timber falling contractor back then so I had to pay for all my business expenses out of that money. Still, I was earning about 5 times what it cost me to live albeit I did live a very modest lifestyle.


And Bobby, I tried not to do that but with the memories I have, I just couldn't resist.

Have fun, Norcal

Timber falling is scary. I tried it a few times, and it was too dangerous. I never had anyone explain how to do it.

Back to the topic. Cutting old growth, means roads, and roads mean people. If the roads are gated off then BF will probably be just fine IMHO.

Anyone looking at that series of maps might want to keep in mind that by 1620 it had already been 80 years since Hernando De Soto and his army of men, horses and other livestock including several hundred pigs had travelled in a wide swath through the southeast setting off a series of epidemics that in all likelyhood devastated the native populations which means that many villages would have been completely gone and the land itself would have appeared to be "untouched" by Eupeans visiting almost 100 years later, even though the relatively uncluttered undergrowth associated with "old grown" (actually the result of the form of selective permaculture that was long practiced and perfected by the Eastern woodland natives) would have still been evident, as would many of the original trails, making travel through this "wilderness" a lot accessible than it is even today. The wilderness ethic is one I support but our true human and natural history is not quite what we thought it was when it was originally espoused.

Georgerm, just to let you know that logging does not necessarily mean new roads, and I'm sure Norcal can attest, many area's are Heli-Logged, the cost of running and maintaining roads to reach units of timber slated for logging is cost prohibitive and other factors affecting water sheds and flora/fauna.

Heli-logging is common in my area of the PNW and log decks are set up on existing roads. The USFS also does not have much funding to improve or maintain existing roads due to budget cuts. Many weather damaged roads in my area have been closed due to lack of funding for repairs.

There are also area's of the PNW that are in the process of being designated roadless wilderness (preservation) and other area's that are designated closed to traffic for wildlife habitat conservation, yet there are area's being set aside for off road vehicles to try and balance the public interest and the governments obligation to preserve the National Forests (whether it be for recreation, wildlife, old growth preservation (historical), or timber to be logged to support the costs of maintaining the US Forest's).

As to Old Growth, many area's are being protected in the PNW and selectively managed, not gated off to preserve it. I would hope they never gate off or eliminate access to Old Growth (gates don't mean hiker access is denied) because of the historical/educational value to those who want to walk among the old giants and see the ecosystem that exists in these area's.

This is a picture I had taken of an old growth signage in an area I hike in often:

Click to view attachment

As to learning how to fall timber, it is very dangerous, yet you can go and talk to many organizations or businesses in your area and see if they have a class you can attend or get into some private training. You can check with your local USFS Ranger District, local logging/landscaping/tree removal businesses and even your local fire departments (volunteer or paid), you can also check with private firefighting contractors in your area. There are even tutorials online, About.Com has information as an example. Don't give up if you really want to learn to fall timber safely

Norcal Logger

I plant trees for a living and it's done the same thing for my fitness. And don't think it's any safer.



Using draft animals also requires fewer roads, and it's a lot cheaper running a mule than a helicopter (or a truck for that matter).

............

Yes, it's too bad those old Indian trails were no preserved.

.

Glad to hear this type of logging is going on. Less damage and run off into Salmon inhabited creeks and rivers.

When areas are gated off, hikers and horse travel should be allowed. Other areas can be set aside for off roaders.

I'm sure BF does not like lots of noise in its area since game is spooked, and it makes it harder for it to stalk game and to travel. If BF sees a pickup on a road, stalking game ceases, and now it has to wonder if it will be shot at. Now travel is impeded and so is its survival since making a living is now harder.




I would really like to see logging this way on flat ground of course. Its probably only cost effective under certain conditions.

Rod,

Just a couple of those "pesky" responses to this and some other posts:

1: If BF are linked to "old growth", then sightings should only happen in or near those areas, but sightings are reported in every state. So if you believe they only exist in isolated old growth forests, then you are discounting all the other sightings, which seems to be a problem for many believers.
2: If man kills BF by transmitting disease, see #1 (why all the sightings, they should all be dead long ago)
3: If roads or access to Old Growth forest means BF are in trouble due to the fact that man is around:
a: (see #1) why so many sightings in not so remote areas
b: unless you believe the Bluff Creek Massacre theory, there is NO HISTORY of man killing BF in numbers that would affect an viable population (or killing one at all)
- If there was, we would have a body by now

The more people that are in an area the greater chance of a sighting. Just because an area has lots of sightings doesn't mean there is a greater density of BF, it usually means more people are in the area who might spot BFs. It might also mean BF is forced to hunt by day, since people are hampering its survival methods thus it's. My point is, people driving roads probably interfers and hinders BF when hunting, traveling, and nest building. When BF's life is hampered, then they begin to die off. If roads are gated and only hikers or horse back riders are allowed in, then 95% of the public is eliminated, and BF will be far less hindered. Bf might actually be helped by providing roads to travel by night and fresh brush to eat in logged areas.

The map shows forests that are 200 years old or more and the tiny areas left are depressing. Forest that are 75 years or more are still very beautiful and great habitat for BF. I hope the map would show lots of forest in black. Roads in many of these areas are overgrown or have disappeared. These areas probably sustain a good BF population.

Nice post george....I will try and find a map of the the forested areas in the USA..not including plantation timber......There is no doubt have and continue to disrupt Bigfoot as well as many other animals...just what impact that has is the unanswered question.....not sure Bigfoot spends his days hunting white-tailed deer...think he'd be happy largely with berries and fruits, nuts, roots, lichens and fungi such as mushrooms etc...bit of the odd meat as well, but not its main source....in the poorer habitats deer etc it may become its main source of food which would alot harder to catch(exersion of energy) and may not have all the required nutrients he needs.....so in the poorer habitats he/she may be not travelling so well after-all....


Bit of info for you all.....
Before European settlement, forests covered nearly one billion acres of what is now the United States. Since the mid-1600's, about 300 million acres of forest have been cleared, primarily for agriculture during the 19th century. Today about one-third of the nation is forested. While total forest area has been relatively stable for the last 100 years (currently about 747 million acres), there have been significant regional shifts in the area and composition of the nation's forests. Reversion of marginal farmland in the east, large scale planting in the South, and fire suppression have contributed to increases in forest area. Urbanization, conversion to agriculture, reservoir construction, and natural disasters have been major factors contributing to loss of forests.

Eastern forests cover about 384 million acres and are predominantly broadleaf (74%), with the exception of extensive coniferous forests and plantations in the southern coastal region. These are largely in private ownership (83%). By contrast, about 363 million acres of western forests are predominantly coniferous (78%) and in public ownership (57%). Nearly ten million private individuals own about 422 million acres of forest and other wooded land. Most public forest land is held by four Federal agencies (Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service) as well as numerous state, county, and municipal government organizations.

source.
http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/biology/a_forest.html

Here's a good map..it includes all the plantations as well as younger poorer forest habitat....
Click to view attachment

The percentage of land covered by forrest, old growth or otherwise, is interesting, but when it comes to habitat and productivity it would seem that the type of trees which comprise that coverage is at least as important, if not more-so.
The loss of the chestnut, for instance, did not mean that some other edible nut-producing tree took its place and so the ability fo the forests, regadless of there successional stage, to produce crops capable of supporting megafauna (including humans)was altered/reduced in ways that have not likely been compensated for by their replacements. Furthermore, the percentage of nut and/or fruit producing trees that comprised the "old growth" forests of the east (the western forests are another situation altogether) was in all liklihood the result of countless generations of practicing selective forest permaculture by the natives whose presence and impact, according to some stongly supported current understanding, was far greater prior to the indigenous people's exposure to the devastating effects of european disease and other impacts.

From what I interpret your question(s)/statement(s) to be, what you are saying is true to a certain degree but very oversimplified. That is not a knock against you, it would/does take many books to fully explain and understand the many, many aspects of healthy "old growth" forests and the ecology behind it. You are correct that a healthy fungal ecosystem is a wonderful indicator of old growth. Many "indicator species" would also be present. Regarding lichens, they are extremely important to the ecosystem of the forests (and elsewhere). They are rather slow growing (an indicator, with a healthy lichen ecosystem) and ecophysiologically advantageous in the sense they can survive in wide varieties of climates and conditions. Although certainly not immune, they can survive in extended periods of dryness (desiccation) in irregular patterns/conditions, meaning they are poikilohydric. They are incredibly important in the stabilization of soil (especially in sand) as they retain water thus helping other plants (even when they grow on other plants species they are not "parasitic", they do not take from the plant nor do they kill them). In the grand scheme of things, you can see how one simple organism can do so much. That is why I say the ecology behind all of this is a massive amount of information. One particular aspect of forests that I haven't seen mentioned would be fires (natural). This is extremely important as it does return many nutrients to the earth creating succession and second (or "new") growth. The biodiversity of an old growth forest when compared to both other old growth forests and new growth forests can be lower or higher depending upon a number of factors, not the least of which is geography and climate (I am leaving out logging and other man-made variables). One must take into consideration where (geographically) the loss of the old growth forests when determining the impact it has on wildlife, another vastly important aspect of ecology. The unnatural loss of old growth can be devastating in certain geographical locations and would impact all of the animals unique to that area tremendously. In North America there are many areas of old growth that are protected; it can take over 1000 years to reestablish what there once was. Despite this, there are areas of pollution that are killing many of the smaller plants and organisms essential to these forests. Much of what is needed in terms of protection isn't happening on a large enough scale in certain areas and the loss of natural habitat has most certainly increased as man has encroached upon these ancient marvels.

Nice post dogu4...I agree lots of trees does not necessarily equate to a healthy habitat....especially for the larger animals...so when people look at maps like the one above and they see lots of green, it can be a misrepresentation of what is healthy forest and what is not....cheers

Glad you like it. I think a more indepth understanding of the transitions that have gone on in North America since the end of the Pleistocene is worthwhile, and in fact why I enjoy speculation regarding BF, and am always surprised at how the reality of what prehistory was like based on modern understanding in contrast to the way we typically are (were) taught it in school. A good treatment regarding the impact European contact and a real eye-opener is Charles Mann's emminently readable book "1491".

yet despite deforestitation, not one logger or gov official has seen sasquatch or any evidence? ridicolous

There's been many claimed sightings...but no evidence has come to light...I agree blue bear...its hard to fathom in 2009...
As dogu4 says, the clearing and altering of Nth Americas native forests has been massive...yet no bigfoot has ever turned up....its a stark question bigfoot believers struggle to explain....

Yet, rod, how do you believe this?

What impact on BF do you see with the loss of old growth forest? By the way, very precise writing........but please use paragraphs so I can read your well thought out answers.

In old growth forest most of the understory shrubs are shaded out which probably reduces the deer population since they need fresh brush to browse on along with BF. How does nature compensate for this issue?

Not sure what you mean blue bear...if you mean how can I believe in bigfoot despite all man's incursions into its habitat and yet no evidence.....well.....thats why I am a 80/90% believer not 100%...I cannot easily explain away why no proof....to do so I have to ignore much of what is common sense and to some degree turn this animal into a very intelligent stealth like creature...or some sort of Superfoot...neither cut it for me...so I simply do not know...how to mesh all the sightings etc... with no physical proof in the year 2009..

bluforMD...wonderful reply....I personally think Bigfoot is in trouble...the reason being we have created this false belief that there is still lots of healthy forest out there...when you look at a map and see all the green you would think so until you have a closer look....Bigfoot if he is out there, would need a varied diet..not just deer...and I am not convinced he would get enough of that varying diet in much of the forests anymore....I believe therefore Bigfoot just like the Yowie here in Oz is probably on the decline....struggling to compete with mans impact....pollution in waterways knows no boundaries and kills much of the fish as well as what plants are growing along its banks.....

Rod, you expressed what I think and feel about BF. Someday, I hope we all get the answers to your questions.

I don't really want to speculate on what impact the loss of old growth would have on indigenous primates simply because it would be conjecture. One can assume it would force such a creature to translocate just as it does other animals. The suggestion that these creatures might be nomadic brings in a new angle.

Canopy openings in old growth forests are absolutely essential. In many forests you will find that there is no noteworthy branches, leaves, etc. on trees until many meters up. When you do find canopy openings you will notice in many forests the whole area will be teeming with plant life which in turn goes up the scale in terms of animal life. The biodiversity is incredible This is also true for second growth. Furthermore, you can often find herbivores such as deer returning to an area after a wildfire to feed on the new growth.

I hope I understood and answered accordingly the questions you were asking. Keep in mind all forests are unique to a degree, even different areas of the same forest.

On an unrelated note, I'll try to use more paragraphs. Often when I'm typing something long, new thoughts keep popping up, etc. I don't pay attention to the structure of my writing. I can see how it becomes difficult for others when I look at it after I am done/have already posted it.

I personally think we are in trouble. And what hurts us is almost guaranteed to hurt the animals (and vice-versa), we tend to find alternate solutions to problems that typically involve science. In that you brought up an excellent point. Water pollution is one of the things I worry most about. We take it for granted but I have had the water on the remote lake I have property along tested and I have seen a decline. It has made a comeback in the last two years, but the very few people up there (including myself) have agreements and enforced bylaws regarding the preservation of the water (and the forests). I often go up in light aircraft during photo mapping ops of the lake to make sure no one is harming or altering it (including people adding sand to make beaches, more so dumping sand into the water because people don't like the "slime" on the bottom...not knowing the importance of this "slime").

The surrounding forests were hit by a wildfire about 150 years ago, and despite it being healthy, there are concerted efforts to preserve the area. Unfortunately the number of poachers has been on the rise. I have noticed vast changes, seen better on old photos vs. new photos, of how this remote area has been changed by man. There are a few people who don't "get it" and break the law, hurting the water, forests, animal populations, etc.. One man in particular is the devil's right hand. I won't get into it but he's dangerous to everyone and everything. He knows my background (to a degree) and won't pull anything with me, but he has an old Winchester .30-30 he seems to love to intimidate people with. He knows I'm almost always armed in the woods (for a very different reason).

I knew a duck hunter who was similar to the dickhead your talking about....This duck hunter would wander past my camp with his shotgun and abuse the sh*t out of me...at night he'd fire his shotgun above my campsite and into trees etc....point his rifle at me etc...one day my brother came out to camp with me(he was a trout fisherman)...and this guy aimed his rifle at him as he fished...scared the crap out of my brother...anyway, that was it....me and bruv worked out a plan....his car was parked about 1000yards from where his duckhide was...so I went up and slashed his tyres and poured dirt into his fuel tank, all the while yelling at him to grab his attention..as he came running leaving his duckhide, my brother lit up his duckhide with some kero from his cooker...went up like the 4th of July.....we then hightailed it to where our car was parked and bolted.....laughed all the way home....have never felt bad about it...

As for worried for 'us', I agree blu...I studied ecology and read what I can on environmental issue...we are running towards a cliff...laughing all the way and trying to figure out whom we should vote for on Australia/American Idol as we go...we are a very dumb species.....
And water is going to be our achilles heel.....here in the developed nations we are running out of it, wasting it, polluting it and we have no idea what lies up ahead....

Technology.

You kidding me wiiawwihhgddwwiaabbii....technology cause as many problems as it solves...water scarcity mixed with population outgrowing its resources and you got a recipe for collapse...no matter what technology we throw at...the green revolution in the 70s developed by technology has opened up a pandoras box in pollution, ruined soils, depleted acquifers, draining rivers and there are more people starving now than back then...and list goes on.....technology is not our saviour, never will be....it maybe mean the world's top 10% people may avoid things for awhile....but for the vast majority it is useless...more people are hungry today than 40years ago, worse environmental conditions, less water, less healthy soil blah blah blah....despite our best technology being thrown at it....

We know that oregon and washingtons forests can swallow up the wholel state of ny

Fair enough.



Yup. And us, too. And a whole bunch of other hosts.



I think they'll hold their own in 2nd and 3rd generation forest habitat which looks to be in good condition, and will always exist in old growth, long-time-stable, and wild lands.



I've been flying over logged lands in the Pacific Northwest since 1975 and have seen the "patches". While less and less "old growth" exists, there exists lots of growth that is a whole lot older than I. Even growth that is younger than I am can conceal a sasquatch, especially if it's a "patch" surrounded by an older forest.

I think it would make sense they would go with it for just the fact that there is more cover for them.

in new your where i live, the dec has done a great job at replanting trees, at the turn of the century(1900) 90 % of ny's forest was clear cut, I cant remember the exact figures , but we have a LOT of trees now...........cornell has done a great job at keeping the native trees and you can purchase then for your own projects too, relatively cheap........

http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7127.html

anyway, I do have a question to pose..........how much did forest fires have an impact on the old growth forest ? what im gettin at is the natural selection process of fires and the amount of timber they would consume? seems to me, more trees, more and larger fires back then...........how do we measure that against logging of old growth?........

land reclaims itself, life finds a way......watch an asphalt parking lot if it is left alone for 20 years, lol.........I have seen the effects.......what I am gettin at here is
that trees have been coming down for many many centuries, so when we talk about "old growth" are we really talking about old ecosystems?........


im sure the bigguy is adapting to old growth, new growth, second generation, third generation forests , its really just an adaptation of survival skills.......

The history of the eastern forests is complex, particularly during the last 800 to 1000 years. Fires were an important aspect of the natural balance that had been established in eastern forests, much of it caused intentionally by humans. The indigenous populations of the eastern forests when described as sparsely distributed primitive forest hunters living in small camps is a description that fits best when describing these populations following the introduction of European diseases and other impacts, which as we all know wiped out about 90% of them over a few generations. Prior to the European contact, the forests were pretty well inhabited by well adapted cultures who managed the forests managed using fire and selective cutting/preferrence in combination with a multi-crop permaculture that had been perfected over many generations.
For an interesting perspective on what the current thought is among those studying pre-contact North and South America, I recommend Charles C. Mann's "1491". In a nutshell, the New World wasn't like most of us were taugh it was, or have come think of it as having been: an uninhabited wilderness waiting unchanged from primeval times until the arrival of Europeans to put it to good use. Mann in his book discusses some of the current thought by those who are reappraising the historical and comparing that to the current archeological record that suggests that the vast flocks of passenger pigeons, herds of bison, and other examples of super-abundance may have been the result of the depopulation of the natives who up until their near extinction would have been a mighty powerful limiting factor on the animal population numbers and range.
So, as to the topic, I wonder if BF might not find that modern forest, what's left of it, a more secluded habitat than it might have hundreds of years ago, considering how sparsely populated the woodlands, once you get off of the paved roads, are.