[yew]

Mike: I don't think landscape-level forest planning is messing around with Nature or improving it. I see it as working with Nature, dealing with what you know about Nature from forest and wildlife science. Many landscapes on federal lands aren't natural Nature. They've been altered for years by fire suppression, non-native species, Indian burning, predator control/wildlife imbalances (especially in national parks where hunting is illegal). It's paradoxical that we should manage to correct past activities that were done purely for economic motives in order to make some landscapes "natural" again. Humans have improved upon Nature. Humans have improved plants, fish and animals through artificial selection for crops and livestock. Our high standard of living is a result of improving upon Nature. What are the examples in "History ... littered with the wreckage."?

[yew]

Ski: Wow, quite a response from folks! I did not expect this kind of dialogue to erupt when I posted that hyperlink. But, this is good. It is good to see people conversing about National Forests. It shows that atleast some people really care. I wish that attitude were more widespread and genuine in the general, non-hiking public. I've read some of Breaking New Ground by Gifford Pinchot and didn't really care much for it. It's not as relevant as it used to be since there's been so many scientific advances and change in social values since then. I read all of Lien's book but that was like 10 years ago. I did not care much either. It was OK I suppose. The book I think everybody who's interested in this topic must read is "Wildlife, Forests and Forestry: Principles of Managing Forests for Biological Diversity" by Malcolm Hunter. This is the Bible on this subject. A classic, easy-read. It's a textbook for many college courses on this subject. "Maintaining Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystems" is another one of his books. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521637686/ref=sid_dp_dp/104-2054564-5725532?ie=UTF8 Jerry Franklin wrote of this book "'Malcolm Hunter has provided us with an excellent volume covering the important topical areas of managing forests for biological diversity. ... A 'must read' volume for scientists, students and managers involved with managing forests for biological diversity.'" On the "conifer thickets" comment I made: I know they're tree plantations. I just wrote that because I was trying to use language for normal people and avoid jargon. To this day, when I hear the word "plantation" the image that comes to my mind is a large, white house with columns and tobacco and crops in a field, not Douglas-fir seedlings on a hillside.

[Ski]

yew_betula- I agree totally with you about Pinchot's work. It does, however, provide a starting point for understanding the issues involving management of public lands. My step-father gave it to me after about 10 years of heated arguments; he the career timber cruiser, and me the raving "stop cutting trees" lunatic. That book, and my interaction with people at NFS caused me to have a completely different view regarding public lands management. KCTS (Seattle PBS affiliate) recently aired a program "The Greatest Good" which was very thoughtful and offered a comprehensive look at the issues of NFS lands management. If you didnt' see it, watch for it to be run again at a later date. I will check out Hunter's work. Thanks for the tip.

[yew]

To All: Jack Ward Thomas is referring to national forests across the whole country in this op-ed. He's referring to hardwood forests in the Appalachians, pine forests in the South, aspen and jack pine forests in the Upper Midwest, spruce/aspen forests and ponderosa pine forests across the West and maybe little bit to forests in the Pacific Northwest. That's a lot of diversity! Those forests are different from each other and have diffferent issues. (BTW, you can keep in the loop by reading national National Forest news at http://www.fseee.org/ ) For example, quaking aspen is a disturbance dependent species. Fire suppression and overgrazing of its suckers have made aspen far less common than it was historically. Species that use aspen are now less frequent and abundant. The solution to bring back aspen is to clearcut the conifers like Englemann spruce and subalpine fir often overtop aspen, then burn it, then fence it off from cows, deer and elk. Forest preservation activist groups (often referred to as "environmental groups" or even less accurately "conservationists") often appeal timber sales like this on national forests like Dixie in Utah: http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/07/05/national/a10070506_05.txt. Many National Forests in the Appalachians from Maine to Georgia were purchased as cut-over stump/brush fields and abandoned farms. Many forests there initiated late 1800s to early 1900s. Now, 120 - 80 years later, a vast majority of the Appalachian forests have stands that are all middle-aged. There's very little young forest and very little old-forest on Appalachian national forests. The number of species that use middle-aged forests is lower than the number of species that use young or old forests. Some wildlife needs young forests. The only good forest is not an old forest or a wild forest. Jack Ward Thomas and many other biologists back East advocate creating meadows, shrubby & brushy areas, berry bushes and thick, young, dense forests with small clearcuts. They also advocate commercial thinning in middle-aged stands to speed up succession to old forest structures. If we leave these forests alone, there will be less number of species, less biodiversity. It's important to remember that they only advocate putting maybe 2-3% of the National Forest landbase in the 0-20 age class. It would not even come close to resembling an industrial forest. And it'll be adaptive management. They'd do this a little bit at a time, monitoring wildlife populations (esp. T&E spp.) with surveys. They use GIS and other landscape management software (like http://lms.cfr.washington.edu/lms.html ) to project forest stands out into the future so they can make sure there's enough habitat for all species, not just species who need middle-aged or old forests. Jack Ward Thomas is a wildlife biologist with years of wildlife science research. His name is on a lot of peer-reviewed scientific papers. He's not a "timber beast". When Clinton made him Chief of the USFS a lot of people on the timber side opposed him. He's probably not talking about logging old-growth or roadless areas. I bet he's an advocate of leaving most old-growth forest alone. He probably advocates staying out of roadless areas for wildlife, hydrology, fisheries, soils and recreational concerns. He's also not advocating going back to high logging levels of 1960 - 1989. I highly recommend the short, concise, easy-to-read "Science Updates" put out by the USFS Pacific Northwest Research Station http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/sci-update.shtml . Of these http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/science-update-8.pdf is highly relevant.

[yew]

Ski: If the Dry Burton timber sale on the GP is in plantation units 50 -60 years old and 15 - 18" dbh, the Gifford Pinchot Task Force probably will not appeal and litigate. They don't mind timber sales like that. However, if the purchaser has to remove that little amount of little stuff by helicopter, no one may bid on it. http://www.gptaskforce.org/ . They used to have a timber sale database with photos and gripes on this webpage. Maybe it's still on there?

[Timber Cruiser]

[Ski]

Sorry, perhaps my statement was painted with too broad a brush. Please check out Lien's work and maybe you'll understand why I have such a dislike for Weyerhauser and some other large companies. I think you perhaps misconstrued my comments, or I wasn't clear enough: I'm all for "sustainable" forestry, and that means harvesting trees. I have no problem at all with clear-cuts, provided they're not done on steep slopes ( ie: Plum Creek along the I-90 corridor ), or at higher altitudes where the recovery time is so long, or along riparian zones. I don't generally voice that opinion ( on clear-cutting ) because I'm usually attacked for it. I also fully understand the need for economic benefits, and seriously regret what's happened to the industry every time I drive through Aberdeen/Hoquiam, or Morton, or Randle, or Raymond/South Bend. My comments regarding management practices applied only to public lands. Weyerhauser, Simpson, Plum Creek and the rest can and will do whatever they want with their own holdings, provided they don't foul up any riparian areas. Perhaps I'd feel differently if those lands hadn't been acquired in the manner they were. ( see Lien's book on that one ) Perhaps I'd feel differently if I hadn't watched over the course of 40 years the destruction of the upper Nisqually, where my family had a cabin that washed away only a few years after dozens of adjoining sections were mowed down ( in some cases less than 50 feet from the river ). And perhaps I'd feel differently if I'd gotten an answer from Weyerhauser's public relations man at a public hearing, who instead of responding to me ducked out the back door and left the building. It's not guys wielding chainsaws or chokers I have a beef with, it's the stuffed-shirts sitting around the board of directors tables that make my hair stand on end.