Our OG Experts    Robert Leverett    Jun 08, 2005 09:19 PDT  Robyn:    Thanks for the inside information. Actually, we have a host of experts on our list who routinely deal with OG definitions, many of whom have participated in conferences and symposia devoted exclusively to OG definitions. For the benefit of our members, I present the following list of ENTS members who have spent a considerable amount of time developing, compiling, critiquing, or applying old growth definitions.    1. Lee Frelich, forest ecologist, University of Minnesota    2. Charles Cogbill, independent forest ecologist from Vermont    3. David Orwig, forest ecologist, Harvard Forest    4. John Okeefe, forest ecologist, Harvard Forest    5. Robert Van Pelt, forest ecologist, University of Washington    6. Alan White, forest ecologist, University of Maine    7. Gary Beluzo, ecologist (aquatic and forest), Holyoke Community College    8. Rick Van de Poll, independent mycologist/forest ecologist    9. Will Blozan, arborist, former science technician, GSMNP 10. Larry Winship, forest ecologist, Hampshire College 11. Tom Diggins, ecologist, Youngstown State University 12. Dale Luthringer, naturalist, Cook Forest State Park 13. Jess Riddle, general ecologist - recent graduate Furman, U. 14. David Stahle, dendorchronologist, U. Arkansas 15. Don Bertolette, forester, NPS 16. Yours truly, whatever.     There are probably others. Please forgive me for any omissions. Over the past two decades, many if not most of teh above have approached OG definitions from some or all of the following perspectives:     1. Physical characteristics     2. Ecological processes     3. Disturbance histories     4. Impressiveness (Not valid, but that criterion has a tendency to creep in)     5. Statistical     6. Economic     7. Cultural (Indian vs European)    8. Administrative      These approaches have been applied at both the stand and landscape levels.      The Forest Service once compiled a list of OG definitions that numbered around 100. They weren't all distinguishable from one another.      In addition to the above list, Malcolm Hunter, University of Maine; James Runkles, (Wayne State?); William Martin, Eastern Kentucky U.; and Don Leopold, SUNY have all written/lectured on OG definitions. There are many others.      Another I should probably mention is Tom Bonnicksen. He believes that virtually all of the Americas was so heavily influenced by aboriginal use of fire over centuries past that no present day forests can be treated as having origins controlled primarily by non-human influences. His accounts of the aboriginal origin of forests is as full of holes as Swiss cheese, but he has collected very valuable anecdotal material. He is clearly a man with an overwhelming bias, but he still has made a very valuable contribution to our understanding of the aboriginal use of fire.     Finally, there are some sources that have been given much greater credibility than they deserve, at least IMHO. The foremost comes from Oliver and Larson. I'll through that tidbit out for the present without providing an explanation. Bob   Home