|
ENTS,
Some time back, I mentioned that my
topic for this year's presentation at the Forest Summit will be
"Forest Health - Scientific Concept or Political
Gimmick". I asked for comments and
suggestions from members, but so far nobody has take the bait. I
think I understand why, but make the request again. Someone out
there must have some thoughts on the subject that they are willing
to share.
As I see it, forest health is a
topic that drifts into the public arena as tied either
to legitimate forest management efforts or attempts by the lumber
industry and its extensions into government and academia to
justify increased cutting of forest lands for good or not so good
reasons.
As a concept, forest health is
legitimately important to:
1. Lumbermen
2. Silviculturists
3. Government foresters
4. Private foresters
5. Ecologists
6. Wildlife biologists
7. Naturalists-environmentalists
As a class, I define lumbermen as that
group seeking to make money off cutting trees. Lumbermen often regard
timber as a raw material or resource to be obtained at
the lowest cost. Lumbermen include mill owners, timber cruisers,
loggers, etc., and some foresters, but by no means all. Procurement
foresters would be included in the lumbermen definition.
Lumbermen almost always see forest health
in terms of individual tree health and a dominance of
commercially valuable species. As a consequence, they will see a
forest dominated by noncommercial species as unhealthy. I think
most foresters see forest health in a similar way, but an
elite few are cognizant of processes that they believe need
to play out (Of course, those foresters belong to ENTS. Eeveryone
saw that coming, right?).
Silviculturists are focused on growing
timber for the future through employing scientific processes.
Timber is usually the species that the silviculturists consider
most valuable. At its extreme and when controlled by timber
companies, silviculture leads to tree plantations, but this is not
an inevitable outcome of the practice of silviculture.
Silviculture can be practiced toward meeting objectives
other than maximizing the production of wood fiber in the shortest
time period.
Ecologists tend to see forest health in
terms of processes and balances, long and short term, such as
an overall balance between the forces of regeneration and decay
that leave the aggregate system functioning for long time periods.
Individual species my change their percentages of composition, but
looked at from afar, the whole system works.
At this point, I should mention that I
recognize the above 7 classes are not necessarily mutually
exclusive. They are presented mainly to stimulate further
thinking and discussion. Definitions of forest health have
overlapping ideas and concepts. Seen from a distance, the
whole thing looks like a bowl of idea spaghetti. But on
closer examination, we would notice distinct trends. For
example, when all the goobledegook is set aside, wild life
biologists may see health in simpler terms: ample habitat for
species they think important to be maintained across the
landscape. If the habitat is there and the right wild life is
using it, they may see a forested ecosystem as healthy.
As a general rule, naturalists and
environmentalists range far and wide - some have a good
grasp of natural processes and accept the role of management in at
least mitigating damage wrought by humans, but others can be
incredibly naive. It is hard to pin this last group down on the
subject of forest health. I say this freely, because I am, for the
most part, a member of this group and know my brothers and sisters
well.
Okay, I've gone an done it. I hope I'm
not opening up Pandora's box, or at least a can of worms, but the
topic is extremely important to discuss (my sneaking way of
asking for ideas for my presentation).
Bob Leverett
Bob:
Forest health is a legitimate scientific concept that is often
misused for
political reasons. I think you have your categories correct.
The definition of forest health I use is the same one I use for
ecosystem
health: maintenance of productivity and species richness over the
long term
(several generations of trees). Spatial scale is important--this
definition
can sometimes be applied at the stand scale, but makes most sense at
the
landscape scale.
Most of the people I know in the US Forest Service have adopted a
similar
definition that includes maintenance of species richness.
Just about all health threats can be related to the above
definition. Here
are a few examples:
(1) If songbirds disappear, then bugs will eat tree leaves and
productivity
will fall, thus a decrease in health. I made this point to a
startled group
legislators and citizens during a presentation at the Minnesota
State
legislature last week (Dr. Frelich--did you mean to say that
birds
actually have some value other than to support bird watching
activity??).
(2) If emerald ash borer, hemlock wooly adelgid, dutch elm disease,
etc.
remove major tree species from the forest then at least a temporary
decline
in productivity and long-term decrease of species richness will
result.
(3) If European earthworms remove the forest duff, then plant and
tree
species that germinate in duff will disappear, and impacts of
droughts on
productivity will be exaggerated, thus a decline in forest health.
(4) Forest fires might cause a temporary loss of productivity, but
will
also keep pests in check, release nutrients needed for growth and
regenerate species that would be lost without fire, so it may be
positive
for long-term health.
The impacts of droughts might be ambiguous--routine droughts from
which the
forest recovers might lead to short term declines in productivity,
but the
change in overall patterns of drought seen in recent times in the
Midwest
may be leading to permanent changes in forests and decline in
health. It
might be wise to recognize short term health as a separate concept.
The only circumstances not taken into account are if nature wants to
grow a
type of tree on a site other than what the forester wants, or if
someone
sees trees only as product that is waiting to go to the mill without
regard
to long term health of the forest, and they use a false definition
to fool
the public (i.e. some of the timber salvages in some fires out west,
and
removing large trees in multi-aged forests because having some dead
trees
is bad for forest health, etc.).
Lee Frelich
Well if you pay attention in Ecology classes, they teach at
least now, the forest health
is the ENTIRE forest, ll the flora, fauna, the water quality,
etc. The trees are a minority
part of it. Biodiversity, water quality, and presence of
various communities are some
of the gauges used. But its also clear that there is no good firm
definition of the term.
The way it was presented in the one case at Robinson, the
foresters would NOT define
what they meant by forest health, after being asked by
several environmental groups.
It was apparent that if that project was being done for
"forest health", it was healthy
as applied to sustainable forestry species for revenue, not
as a biodiverse park. It
appears that was exposed, and changes are being made. We haven't
been informed
as to what, but lets all hope they see the park for what it is, in
the words of one
of the study participants "a real gem".
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 11:05 AM
Subject: Forest Health
ENTS,
Some time back, I mentioned that
my topic for this year's presentation at the Forest Summit will
be "Forest Health - Scientific Concept or Political
Gimmick". I asked for comments and
suggestions from members, but so far nobody has take the bait. I
think I understand why, but make the request again. Someone out
there must have some thoughts on the subject that they are
willing to share.
hmmmmm!
As I see it, forest health is a
topic that drifts into the public arena as tied either
to legitimate forest management efforts or attempts by the
lumber industry and its extensions into government and academia
to justify increased cutting of forest lands for good or
not so good reasons.
As a concept, forest health is
legitimately important to:
1. Lumbermen
2. Silviculturists
3. Government foresters
4. Private foresters
5. Ecologists
6. Wildlife biologists
7. Naturalists-environmentalists
As a class, I define lumbermen as that
group seeking to make money off cutting trees. Lumbermen often regard
timber as a raw material or resource to be obtained at
the lowest cost. Lumbermen include mill owners, timber cruisers,
loggers, etc., and some foresters, but by no means
all. Procurement foresters would be included in the
lumbermen definition.
Lumbermen almost always see forest
health in terms of individual tree health and a dominance of
commercially valuable species. As a consequence, they will see a
forest dominated by noncommercial species as unhealthy.
Or, at least, "unwealthy".
I think most foresters see forest health in a similar
way, but an elite few are cognizant of processes that they
believe need to play out (Of course, those foresters belong to
ENTS. Eeveryone saw that coming, right?).
Silviculturists are focused on growing
timber for the future through employing scientific
processes. Timber is usually the species that the
silviculturists consider most valuable.
In the complex forests
of the Northeast, with many species- we usually don't really know
what species will be most valuable decades into the future- we
have a general sense that some are more likely to be so- such as
red oak, cherry, sugar maple- less so for ash, white pine and
others- some we predict will have low value such as hemlock, red
maple, beech and others.
We can't just decide to
grow our favorite species- we can only work with what's there and
make a semi-scientific guess as to which trees to favor for the
future. With conservative silviculture, we usually lower the basal
area from full stocking to the "B" level which is often
roughly a one third reduction. In doing so, in any given small
area that we're looking at- we decide which trees have
the most potential for the future- sure, we tend to favor those
individual trees that can produce a high rate of return on
existing value but this doesn't always mean retaining a a high
value species over a lower value species since, for example, if an
oak is next to a red maple- the oak might be "overmature"
or of poor form or dying and the red maple might be an exceptional
specimen.
Over time, some species
will be favored for sure- on a site which is ideal for red oak- a
south or west facing well drained slope with good soils- it only
makes sense to favor oak, not sugar maple which will grow better
on north facing slopes with very rich soils.
On very well drained
soils- such as outwash plains the species which does best might be
white pine- on such sites oak and maple and cherry might not grow
nearly as well, with relatively poor form- so on such sites pine
might be favored.
Thus, favoring certain
species isn't just about determining which species have the
highest stumpage value- it's more about which "good
species" will do well on that site- and by doing so, the
silviculturalist is working with the "natural forces"-
that is, working scientifically AND economically- resulting in
"healthy" forests which also happen to be producing
value- and which happen to have high aesthetic value, if done
carefully.
At its extreme and when controlled by timber companies,
silviculture leads to tree plantations, but this is not an
inevitable outcome of the practice of silviculture. Silviculture can
be practiced toward meeting objectives other than
maximizing the production of wood fiber in the shortest time
period.
Keeping in mind that
maximizing wood fiber is usually not the goal of real economic
forestry- though it is for the pulp industry which doesn't care
much about the shape of the tree or the lumber grade that can come
from it. In the northeast where there is little in the way of a
pulp market- the economic goal is to produce premium grade timber,
preferably veneer.
When the goal is to
produce such premium timber, it's usually with a long rotation.
So, the idea that "economic forestry" implies
monoculture forests with short rotations is only true when serving
the pulp industry.
Ecologists tend to see forest health in
terms of processes and balances, long and short term, such
as an overall balance between the forces of regeneration and
decay that leave the aggregate system functioning for long time
periods. Individual species my change their percentages of
composition, but looked at from afar, the whole system works.
And this perspective
can easily be in harmony with good silviculture- yes, the species
do change over time, the process of "forest succession"-
which process silviculturists will use to develop the forest or
attempt to develop it as they desire- working with those
forces, not opposing them by clearcutting, burning, and replanting
as in commercial tree farms. If you desire late succession
species, you simply cut lighter- if you want early succession
species, you cut heavier- but seldom is there the need for
clearcutting.
At this point, I should mention that I
recognize the above 7 classes are not necessarily mutually
exclusive. They are presented mainly to stimulate further
thinking and discussion. Definitions of forest health have
overlapping ideas and concepts. Seen from a distance, the
whole thing looks like a bowl of idea spaghetti. But
on closer examination, we would notice distinct
trends. For example, when all the goobledegook is set aside,
wild life biologists may see health in simpler terms: ample
habitat for species they think important to be maintained across
the landscape. If the habitat is there and the right wild life
is using it, they may see a forested ecosystem as healthy.
Wildlife biologists
almost always favor "game species"- to me, that's as bad
an attitude as "foresters" who desire monoculture
forests. If the forest has abundant deer and turkey and trout are
in the streams, they're ecstatic. It's this desire to favor game
species why the state of Mass. Fish & Wildlife agency is now
pushing large clearcuts- without even showing solid scientific
evidence that clearcutting will give us more of those species than
other forms of silviculture- it's now the party line and they
won't budge. The real reason they like it, I contend, is that it's
easy to do....
As a general rule, naturalists and
environmentalists range far and wide - some have a
good grasp of natural processes and accept the role of
management in at least mitigating damage wrought by humans, but
others can be incredibly naive. It is hard to pin this last
group down on the subject of forest health. I say this freely,
because I am, for the most part, a member of this group and know
my brothers and sisters well.
"Forest
Health" is a really bad term- it's not a scientific term-
it's more like the Republicans ranting about "family
values"- a term misused for political purposes.
Okay, I've gone an done it. I hope I'm
not opening up Pandora's box, or at least a can of worms, but
the topic is extremely important to discuss (my sneaking
way of asking for ideas for my presentation).
There certainly are
problems with the forests which could be put under the banner of
"forest health"- but a better term is needed.
Regardless, the issues include epidemic diseases, invasive
species and the extreme abuse of forests by the naked apes which
continues due to a corrupt forestry establishment, which I often
refer to as "the forestry Holy Mother Church"- a term
not appreciated by that establishment. <G>
The state
people, as most foresters, are not good at explaining what they're
really doing- even if with good intentions. Certainly, profit
wasn't the goal as the state is NEVER profitable- they may
generate revenue, but the revenue never exceeds the costs- NEVER.
They do feel pressure to sell timber as the "wood
producers" expect it- and that socio/economic/political
"class" has friends in the legislature who tell the DCR
bosses what the major policies will be. It may also be that to
some degree the state people believe stands such as at Robinson
will actually look better after the work- and sometimes it happens
that way, once you let a few years go by.
So, Robinson,
and other such state harvests aren't really about "forest
health"- it's about other things- but if the state
people just yap about forest health, then they shortchange the
discussion- they should be more open about their real motives and
stop using propaganda terms.
The fact is
that some people hate to ever see any tree cut- so to them, all
tree harvesting is evil- but taking that perspective is just as
bad as the timber beasts claiming their doing great forestry. All
such harvesting is a trade off of various values- that's what the
discussion should be about.
Joe Zorzin
This does sound important. Way back when in my Save the
Headwaters days (Humboldt County, CA), there was an emerging
"restoration forestry" movement. I don't know too
much about it: but Trees Foundation was a part of it.
I know you know more about this than I do: unfortunately, I was
pretty science-unaware and know very little about forest health.
I mean, I know that clearcuts are usually bad news and species
should be conserved....
Do you think that restoration forestry is a genuine trend?
Part of it seemed to be promoting transitional forest (from Clearcut
on up) and finding use for native woods, for selective/sustainable
cuts. An alternative for local landowners and timber industry
ex-employees.
Anyway, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this: hope you get a
presentation.
(And by the way, please disregard my concerns about Mohawks not
being current Mohawk haircuts. Some modern Mohawk people have
them, I just found out. Oops. I'll work on no more stupid
generalizations....)
Grace Nichols
Science 8
Reid Middle School
Grace-
As one who graduated from Humboldt (twice, I really liked it there!)
and went back to school later to focus on forest restoratioin, I can
report that it is a fledgling discipline that is striving hard to
solve one of the hardest of tasks...repairing the injury we have
brought about to our forest ecosystem.
Our ecosystems (any of them) are incompletely understood. It
would be hubris to think that we can make a big difference in the
short term. It would take even more hubris to think that we
shouldn't be working very hard at understanding the ecosystems
needing reclamation/revegetation/reparation/restoration.
To get an idea of the issues involved, I can recommend two specific
journals (Ecological Restoration, and Restoration Ecology), and more
generally, Conservation Biology.
Our recent returnee to ENTS posting, Joe Zorzin can update you on
local trends ("Part of it seemed to be promoting
transitional forest (from Clearcut on up) and finding use for native
woods, for selective/sustainable cuts. An alternative for local
landowners and timber industry ex-employees."), but I
wouldn't characterize forest restoration quite so cynically. Which
isn't to say I have been immune to the difficulties of forest
restoration in the context of large land management agencies.
Although I've now retired, as the Restoration Forester at Grand
Canyon National Park, during my last two terms of employment, I
strove to introduce forest restoration techniques, specifically
within the context of our "Fire Restoration" program.
To make a long story short, I'd have to say that it wasn't hard to
be humble about the accomplishments. But that isn't the point
at this stage of the game...it's being out there and advocating
forest restoration.
Now that I have the time, and no constraints on my speech (other
than my own sensibilities), I can respond in depth to questions that
the above paragraphs might engender.
- Don Bertolette
(ex-) Restoration Forester
Grand Canyon National
Park
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 4:10 PM
Subject: RE: Forest Health
(snipped)
Our recent returnee to ENTS posting, Joe Zorzin can update you
on local trends ("Part of it seemed to be promoting
transitional forest (from Clearcut on up) and finding use for
native woods, for selective/sustainable cuts. An alternative for
local landowners and timber industry ex-employees."), but
I wouldn't characterize forest restoration quite so cynically.
Which isn't to say I have been immune to the difficulties of
forest restoration in the context of large land management
agencies.
hmmmm.... now
sure where you got that quote, Don- but it wasn't from me. Though,
I am cynical about "forest restoration" as I think any
really good forestry is restoration forestry- since most forests
have been abused.
(snipped)
Joe
Thanks, Don:
Yeah, Humboldt was terrific. So was the Trinity Valley.
We activists -- who were mainly not scientists -- didn't mean to be
cynical. We thought that an environmental strategy that
respected the families who had been so abused and misinformed by
these multinational timber corporations -- Maxxam and
Louisiana-Pacific et al -- would be more likely to take hold.
We felt that environmental aims and social justice were compatible.
But science-wise I couldn't evaluate the strengths of the strategies
proposed. I just assumed they were good because of the people
involved.
By the way, I admire you folks who work within the governmental
agencies to make environmental change. We activists weren't
paid but we had fun, unconstrained by the bureaucratic constraints
you were under. I hope our work had some positive effect and I
think it did. I liked that in concert with legal work, we could
defend some private (timber company owned) land. Always far
less than we wanted.
Grace Nichols
Lee,
Yes, you are right on the money. I wasn't clear, but
I was trying to say that what people usually mean when the refer
to managing for old growth is managing for some old growth
characteristics.
Bob
ENTS,
Generally I think to some degree we are all activists. Most of us
are
or should be willing to learn about what we are trying to preserve,
trees & forests. I am no genious but I am willing to learn about
what
I think should be saved.
James Parton
Good points Grace.
I don't mean to come off as some kind of cynical activist, but the
particular
harvest we have been exposed to is totally inappropriate
for the area its being proposed
for. Timber harvesting can be very appropriate in many areas of
our state. However,
before barging forth and cutting, they need site specific
management plans. They
HAVE NONE for most of the areas they have been harvesting. The species
lists for
the area were extremely incomplete, and vernal pools were being
infringed upon
by the cutting plan as it was marked.
I've never been an "activist" in the past, but I was
part of a committee that generated
a real management plan for this particular park in the 1980's. Its
nowhere to be found,
and labeled "outdated anyway".
Sustainable forestry is not a bad thing if one appropriately on
the appropriate lands.
Ray Weber
Absolutely. As we used to say: "When you save
something, you save it for a few years; when you lose something,
it's lost forever." Only things the forest can absorb
being lost ought be taken.
We also used to think that the Habitat Conservation Plans the
government would come up with were entirely inadequate to actually
preserve species. I'm glad you are critiquing the forestry
practices out there.
Now, I'll shut up and listen. So much to learn! Thanks
for all your work!!!
Grace Nichols
Ray,
I think you voice the opinion of the
majority, certainly on this list. Most, if not all, of
us are not anti-forestry and never have been. When we oppose
timber harvesting at a site, it is with good reason - not just to
be ipso facto anti-forestry or anti-cutting trees.
For any on the list who might have heard
of the situation at Robinson State Park in Agawam, MA, and don't
know what to think, let me clarify, it is a case of a state agency
being decpetive. DCR's hidden plan to harvest in
Robinson, their deceptiveness in addressing the real
reaons for their wanting to log, their obstructionist role in
attempting to divert attention from what they were trying to
do, and why, and finally, their constant attempts to smear the
opposition to timber harvesting in Robinson has left an
extremely sour taste in the mouths of many of us. For months, I tried
unsuccessfully, behind the scenes, to get DCR to take a more
reasonable approach. It didn't work. I gave up. I gave them every
benefit of the doubt, but they proved themselves to be unworthy of
that benefit.
DCR created a strong group of opposition
activists in your Friends Group where none had existed before. Now
they reap the results of their obstinance, incompetence, and
deceptiveness. Strong words? Yes, but sadly true. The planned
Robinson SP timber harvest was and is not about forest health, it
is about forcing Green Certification to fit on 80% of the State
forests and parks - come hell or high water. Urban forested
parks are not appropriate places to apply Green Certification. But
that seems to be a concept just a little to complicated for DCR
to grasp.
Bob Leverett
Well, Bob- glad to see
your forthwith description of the state Bureau of Forestry. I have
been "interfacing" with them for 34 years. Whenever I
ranted about them, almost everyone said I was crazy- but it was
all true. You've heard most of my stories, but not all- some of
the true horror stories I'll reserve for my autobiography and the
movie version, starring Nicholas Cage.
Joe Zorzin
PS: the real problem
isn't the state, it's the ENTIRE
forestry "profession" - which
drastically needs a major overhaul- but which will never happen
unless more people speak up against them.
Bob and Ray,
One of the most despicable attempts to rationalize timber
harvesting is the "forest health" rexcuse that I see
being used more and more in Massachusetts. The idea that humans
can make a natural forest or a forest with natural processes more
"healthy" is absurd. Oh they might make the forest look
more "tidy" and protect the public from "falling
trees that are "decaying, dying, or decadent" but of
course these actions are NOT part of a natural forest nor part of
natural processes. So, I respect the need for lumber and pulpwood,
but timber harvesting (whether labeled "commercial" or
not) should take place in already diminished forests not in the
few, isolated, natural forests. And let's call these forest
management ideas what they really are rather than buffalo the
public. Other than invasives control along the edges, Robinson
should be respected as one of very few urban parks they occur
along a National WIld and Scenic River and there should be no
timber harvesting under any guise.
Gary
Ray, et al
The ONLY SOLUTION to Robinson State Park controversy is to go back
to the original statutes and regulations in which PARKS were
preserves with NO harvesting. The Green Certification program
which sets aside some large forested parcels for reserves is not
applicable to parks. Reserves versus Preserves. What's the
difference? A preserve means that the forest would be preserved
and natural processes would be allowed to continue, no change in
the natural genetic composition of the forest by humans. A reserve
on the other hand is an area which has been set aside for the
future but this does not guarantee it's preservation. I suspect
that these large reserves in Massachusetts, although taken off the
devlopment list, will provide timber for future harvesting. I
would not settle for "reserve" for any natural forest in
the state.
Gary Beluzo
Though I'm a
"practicing forester"- I happen to agree that Robinson
should NOT have any harvesting. But, look what happened- some of
you put up some resistance but LOST the battle- it certainly
isn't due to faulty logic- your level of thinking is orders of
magnitude beyond the DCR's "thinking"- which proves
that these battles aren't about intelligence, science and the
law- it's about raw politics- it's about a wood industry that
finds ways to rationalize what it wants to the misinformed,
naive and politicians who are easy to purchase. That is, you
lost the battle because you didn't play hardball politics- you
can't defeat such people with such "polite and
professional" methods. You say you "won't settle"
but you may have to settle unless you get down and dirty with
the "leadership" of the DCR.
As Bob L. said in a
previous message regarding the struggle over Robinson, "It
didn't work. I gave up." But why give up? Through American
history, people fought for what they wanted- they threw tea in
Boston Harbor- they fought to end slavery, they fought to build
labor unions- but today, people fight with fancy
logic and if that doesn't work- they give
up.
Joe Zorzin
Joe,
I agree that folks interested in seeing Robinson State Park
preserved should not give up. It is interesting that although
scientists often know the most about a given forest they
historically have not spoken out because they want to be seen as
impartial, unbiased observers of the system they describe.
Unfortunately this allows more politically/economically motivated
folks to ignore the golden rule "the data, whole data, and
nothing but the data" and present rhetoric rather than
didactic arguments. The squeaky wheel gets the grease! So, we have
many decisions being made not on the basis of the data but on the
basis of how the data is portrayed or ignored, usually for
utilitarian (not ecological) reasons.
This has led us to our present environmental and ecological
crisis.
Scientists are people and as such DO have an opinion and the
opinion is at least informed by the data. I think in the future
you will see more scientists speak out to "promote their
data" rather than "promote their agenda". Perhaps
then we the decisionmaking process in a corporation and in the
state of Massachusetts can be guided by reality and less by
perception and arm-twisting.
Gary
Gary,
I am becoming more and more
suspicious of Green Certification. Is it a real program with teeth
or a convenient marketing label? I'm getting mixed reviews, but
I've got a sneaking suspicion that here in Massachusetts it is
being used far more as a marketing label than as an approach to
better forest management. In an after the fact review, I
suspect that what we are going to see in the Bay State is that
good foresters manage well with or without green certification and
bad foresters will continue to mismanage. I think Green
Certification needs a lot of outside reviews and I hope we can
cast as much light on the program and process as possible. I wish
I could be more positive, but the process of Green Certification
may have been rooted in good intentions, but it may well turn out
to be a toothless tiger.
BTW, Bob O'Connor has alerted me to
a conflict in his schedule, but he will send a qualified
replacement. Bob is a good guy who wants Green Certification to
work, but I fear that he is going to get lost in what he is
wishing for than what is actually occuring on the ground - the
topic to which Ehrhard Frost will speak to.
We wouldn't need green
certification if we had a legitimate forestry profession- since
all forestry should automatically be at the level of certified
forestry- all forestry should be restoration forestry- why should
any other type be tolerated?
Joe Zorzin
Hi Bob,
I am very interested in this issue with the Robinson SP - I grew
up in East Longmeadow, just across the CT river from Agawam - does
anyone have pictures of what the forests look like? I'd like
to see what these people are looking to do. Is there a
management plan on file somewhere that the public can view?
On the subject of Green Certification, I know a little bit.
I work in PA's green certified forest and we've just gone through
our annual reassessment.
What follows is certainly my opinion, but it is the opinion of
someone with 5 years in one of these programs. I believe
that the companies that have done our green certifications
are genuine, professional and dedicated and their employees
certainly believe in what they are doing. The inspectors
they have had come to our districts have asked hard, perceptive
questions and didn't seem motivated by anything but seeing
that there is good management of forest lands.
The problem with green certification, as I understand it, is
that there is no baseline standard for all certification.
Every company that provides it has their own idea of what 'green
certifiable' is, though they are undoubtedly similar. What
this means is that you could theoretically have an unscrupulous
company that was certifying forests for the right price, not the
right reasons.
I am not certain if the marketing advantage of having green
certification makes it worth risking this kind of deception, but
without regulation of the industry, there is a potential for it.
And there goes the benefit of having a green certified forest.
In my district, and indeed in my state, we practice good forestry
with or without green certification. I can honestly say, the
additional mandates have not changed how I manage my timber in the
slightest. I was already responsible, educated, ethical and
concerned with rare and endangered species and habitats.
Green certification has also not increased the amount of timber we
sell or the prices we get for it. I can see in theory how it
could improve forestry and increase the amount we get for green
certified timber, but quite frankly, until these people get
themselves regulated and formulate some sort of mutually agreed
written standard - and stick to it - 'green certified' won't
mean anything.
As for the case of Robinson, I don't know enough to say anything
about the management, but if they are having to contort themselves
to come into compliance, I have to wonder about their practices -
or the certification company's motives.
Joe, although Bob's efforts didnt work out, and boy he did
try,
what makes you think the battle is lost?
Trust me, the citizenry out here is outraged. They have signed
petitions, and
flooded the representatives and senators with mail. There are
numerous
laws on the books that try to protect parks, with more in
legislation as we
speak, with a LARGE ammount of backing. Now, legal help and advice
has come forth.
If DCR insists on turning this valuable urban park into
sustainable forestry,
this is headed for court. Our group is NOT the only group that
this has
happened to. DCR also proposed a cut RIGHT ALONG the edge of
a stunning
lake in the Berkshires, which outraged the citizens there
also. They also retained
an attorney. So far no answers on that plan either. One park they
harvested at,
they left behind in a landing a huge pile (over 8 ft) of unwanted
whole logs and
slash, making it an unsightly mess, now two years back.
FYI, Boston Urban parks are EXEMPT from Green Certification. When
asked why,
the director told us "If they ever tried to harvest in these,
there would be hell
to pay".
Well, this park is worth protecting, and yes, there WILL be hell
to pay.
Ray Weber
Ariel:
There ARE no management plans for these parks they are harvesting.
The goal of the harvest to put it simply, is to eliminate all
the early
successional species, and promote the growth of oak, white pine,
and some other hardwoods.
They had no public input, lied to the abutters in writing
claiming they were
just addressing pine plantation issues, and misrepresented the
real reasons for
the harvest, often with the "forest health"
wrapper.
Well, as any of the many informed that have visited can tell you,
except for the
pine plantations, which all agree need to be addressed, any
claim of forest health
at Robinson is pure smoke and mirrors. You would have to
visit to appreciate fully
what that means, but its pretty clear.
In the process, they made numerous wetland violations that
the average Mass. citizen
would pay dearly for it they did them. Trees were marked for
cut INSIDE vernal pools,
logging road construction marked right through a rare
community next to a stream,
and the list goes on and on.
Fact is, the park is a piece of narrow land parallel and
along a river. Its not real hard
to understand that its not suitable for sustainable forestry,
considering its location,
and public use of the land.
Hate to bring this all back out, but I guess some of you were not
aware
of what this was about.
Lin,
Thanks a lot for your valuable input. It
is good to hear from the voice of experience and it is especially
comforting to hear that you have not had to change your management
methods due to green certification - because you've been
doing it right to begin with. Massachusetts DCR assures the public
that everything is okay and the management foresters are doing it
right because they are now green certified. What were they doing
before and why?
Ray Weber on this list is the best source
of historical information about Robinson. Ray?
Bob
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: Forest Health
Joe, although Bob's efforts didnt work out, and boy he did
try,
what makes you think the battle is lost?
Oh, I
thought the state had completed their harvest. So, it hasn't
happened yet?
Trust me, the citizenry out here is outraged. They have signed
petitions, and
flooded the representatives and senators with mail. There
are numerous
laws on the books that try to protect parks, with more in
legislation as we
speak, with a LARGE ammount of backing. Now, legal help and
advice
has come forth.
If DCR insists on turning this valuable urban park into
sustainable forestry,
this is headed for court. Our group is NOT the only group that
this has
happened to. DCR also proposed a cut RIGHT ALONG the edge
of a stunning
lake in the Berkshires, which outraged the citizens there
also.
Just to be
fair to both sides, I'm well aware of that issue- I had a nice
long talk with the state forester who set up that harvest in
Becket. He didn't mark trees RIGHT ALONG the edge of the lake-
it was more up on the side of the hill, and it was a rather
light marking- so light that it only sold for a pittance, mostly
small, poor quality trees.
What I heard
from various people was that there was one individual, a
very wealthy individual- who has a house on the lake and who
just couldn't stand the thought that some trees on the
hillside might get cut- so he put up a big fuss by hiring an
attorney. He and the state agreed that the state guy would
unmark some trees- which the state agreed to- he was told to
retain a consulting forester to represent his interests- I
happened to talk to the guy via email but when I told him my
professional fee- he apparently didn't think "professional
foresters" were worth much so he backed off- I then
recommended that he hire a forester living close by who'd
probably give him a break (as if he needed it)- not sure what
came of it- but, to imply that there was a groundswell of local
people against that harvest is NOT true- it was one rich guy and
a few friends- as far as I can tell- a fact that gives foresters
the opinion that much of the anti cutting attitude amongst the
public is for selfish reasons. I don't agree, but there are
times when selfish motives propel each side.
They also retained
an attorney. So far no answers on that plan either.One park
they harvested at,
they left behind in a landing a huge pile (over 8 ft) of
unwanted whole logs and
slash, making it an unsightly mess, now two years back.
I certainly
wouldn't defend that- but believe it or not, that sort of huge
pile is now considered a great thing! yes, the forestry/wildlife
mgt. party line are now pitching the idea that monster brush
piles are fabulous! Right across from where I formerly lived in
the town of Peru, a certain non profit forestry firm slaughtered
(clearcut) an 8 acre woodlot, claiming it was to enhance
grouse habitat- an incredibly stupid excuse- they got several
thousand bucks from some federal agency to do it- bringing in 2
huge skidders which just smashed the place down, not actually
utilizing any of the wood- then they piled all the debris up
into 2 humungous piles larger than a McMansion- right up against
some uncut spruce forest! I raised such a fuss on the net, that
they then went back with another machine and spread out those
huge piles so that each is now an acre in size and 5' tall of
almost solid wood- which, they claim makes great wildlife
habitat. I brought several people there- including some from TNC,
who referred to those piles as "ecological sinks".
That non profit firm and the state are now pushing huge
clearcuts and monstrous brush piles- I and one other forester
(Mike Leonard) have bitched about these practices- with no help
from any other foresters or enviro groups- showing that a broad
based alliance is needed to oppose bad state practices- and such
opposition, to be effective must be militant.... along the lines
of Michael Moore, one of my all time heroes.
I've seen a
lot of the state's harvests in recent years, and I think most
are rather well done- that state mgt. forester in Becket-
he's done right along the road and they look great - those
stands look much better now than they did before.
Joe
Ray,
I don't doubt that there are pockets of older trees but there is
significant acreage with young trees as well (particularly the
east side). It will be interesting to core some of the tulip
poplars to see how old they are. Over the next year I will be
coring tulip poplars from New Hampshire to Ontario and south to
Florida to really get a better understanding of what this species
can do. The results will be a profile of Liriodendron across its
range with more focus near the edges. Bob will continue to assist.
Gary Beluzo
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 5:45 PM
Subject: [ENTS] Forest Health - Last Call
ENTS,
The Forest Summit is only a few days away and I'm looking to finish my
presentation on forest health. My prior request for the ideas of
fellow and lady Ents got a couple of good responses, but I have the
feeling that there are some of you out there who have views that need
to be heard.
The biggest problem associated with the whole issue of forest health
may not center on differences in definitions, but how the overall
concept is applied. A forest being attacked by insect invasions and/or
lethal fungi and/or being overrun by alien plants and animals such
that tree mortaility is very high isn't likely to be considered
healthy by any proponent of forest health. But actions aimed at
promoting forest health need to be carefully examined for motives that
relate more to the financial bottom line than to the ecological health
of the forest. For instance, in calls by timber interests in the
Northeast to thin forests presumably to promote species diversity
(invoke the biodiversity buzzword), I never hear a concern expressed
over the lack of say sassfras or black gum. The concern is for a few
commercially valuable species like northern red oak and/or white pine.
Noncommercial species are treated as hitchhikers. If they regenerate,
all fine and well - provided the regeneration doesn't interfer with
cash crop species. So, where does the concept of forest health fit in
when noncommercial species are not specifically addressed? Do public
resource managers care a whet about species such as sassafras or black
gum?
When we examine a forest that is amazingly diverse like the Great
Smoky Mountains NP or Congaree NP, what situations would justify a
management action in the name of forest health? Tsuga Search addresses
the lost of an ecologically valuable species, but concept of forest
health isn't being bandied about and rightly so from my perspective.
The loss of the hemlock will have enormous ecological consequences and
that is discussed. So, does forest health have any place in the
discussions about what to do or not do on a property if there isn't a
commercial motive to save a species or eradicate it. In the final
analysis, is the notion of forest health all about forest economics?
Thinking along a slightly different line, do simpler forest ecosystems
with appreciably fewer species of trees, shrubs, and herbs lend
themselves better to the human concept of forest health than do the
species rich environments? When the climate changes and a forest
becomes subject to species change that would impact commercial species
does that legitimately raise an issue of forest health? Suppose
climate change impacts mostly noncommercial species in a region, is
forest health a legitimate concern if it is a concern were commercial
species effected?
Bob
From: "Russ Carlson" <elist@tree-tech.com>
Being new to the list, I'm not sure what has been discussed on this
issue. And though I have forestry training, I've been involved more
in
arboriculture for many years. But here's a few thoughts, or perhaps
questions for my own edification.
When talking of forest diversity, what scale is discussed? The GSM
NP
is a large tract of land, and cover types vary greatly. In the
northeast, there are few large tracts of unbroken forest. Is
diversity
an issue for a 15 acre woodlot? 100 acres?
You mentioned sassafras and birch, both of which are pioneer
species,
usually preceding the other hardwoods in cleared areas, and seldom
found
in old mature forests. Diversity of species has to take into account
the whole site and all its characteristics, not just the number of
species.
The problem, of course, is that we really don't know how much we
don't know.
--
Russ Carlson
Bear, DE USA
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 15 2007 12:21 pm
From: dbhguru
Russ (Carlson),
Forest diversity as a component of forest health is usually thought
of as important at the landscape level when the term is used by
scientists. Lee Frelich can speak to acreages better than I, but I
would expect a minimum to be in the hundreds of acres. However, here
in the Northeast, forest health is often applied willy nilly to
fulfill some commercial objective or to address an insect or fungal
invasion. Forester, Russ Richardson has said it very well. Let the
public beware.
I plan to address all approaches to use of the term in my Friday
presentation.
Bob
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Forest Health - Last Call
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/browse_thread/thread/ce2f0d5548875ffb?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 14 2007 2:45 pm
From: dbhguru
ENTS,
The Forest Summit is only a few days away and I'm looking to finish
my presentation on forest health. My prior request for the ideas of
fellow and lady Ents got a couple of good responses, but I have the
feeling that there are some of you out there who have views that
need to be heard.
The biggest problem associated with the whole issue of forest health
may not center on differences in definitions, but how the overall
concept is applied. A forest being attacked by insect invasions
and/or lethal fungi and/or being overrun by alien plants and animals
such that tree mortaility is very high isn't likely to be considered
healthy by any proponent of forest health. But actions aimed at
promoting forest health need to be carefully examined for motives
that relate more to the financial bottom line than to the ecological
health of the forest. For instance, in calls by timber interests in
the Northeast to thin forests presumably to promote species
diversity (invoke the biodiversity buzzword), I never hear a concern
expressed over the lack of say sassfras or black gum. The concern is
for a few commercially valuable species like northern red oak and/or
white pine. Noncommercial species are treated as hitchhikers. If
they regenerate, all fine and well - provided the regen
eration doesn't interfer with cash crop species. So, where does the
concept of forest health fit in when noncommercial species are not
specifically addressed? Do public resource managers care a whet
about species such as sassafras or black gum?
When we examine a forest that is amazingly diverse like the Great
Smoky Mountains NP or Congaree NP, what situations would justify a
management action in the name of forest health? Tsuga Search
addresses the lost of an ecologically valuable species, but concept
of forest health isn't being bandied about and rightly so from my
perspective. The loss of the hemlock will have enormous ecological
consequences and that is discussed. So, does forest health have any
place in the discussions about what to do or not do on a property if
there isn't a commercial motive to save a species or eradicate it.
In the final analysis, is the notion of forest health all about
forest economics?
Thinking along a slightly different line, do simpler forest
ecosystems with appreciably fewer species of trees, shrubs, and
herbs lend themselves better to the human concept of forest health
than do the species rich environments? When the climate changes and
a forest becomes subject to species change that would impact
commercial species does that legitimately raise an issue of forest
health? Suppose climate change impacts mostly noncommercial species
in a region, is forest health a legitimate concern if it is a
concern were commercial species effected?
Bob
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 14 2007 2:55 pm
From: "Edward Frank"
Bob,
To large degree I think the term Forest Health is so linked to being
an excuse for thinning or other management to help promote
commercial species, that I think trying to use the term in any other
context is counterproductive. Gary proposed the name ecologics (or
something close to that) to overcome the associations with older
terminology. I think a new terminology should be developed to
express the ideas of ecosystem health for all species without the
existing baggage from the "Forest Health' nomenclature.
Ed Frank
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 14 2007 5:34 pm
From: ForestRuss@aol.com
Bob:
I have wrestled with the question you have posed many times and
making such
choices is a daily fact of life for me in my work as a forester.
I think that for the most part forest health is a commercial term
that has
little to do with the actual health of the forest and it is usually
a
justification for cutting a tree or a stand of trees. I hate to say
it, but
foresters like to cut trees because their old...not because they are
sickly, in
decline or damaged...there is no where as much money in cutting such
crap....but
it is supposed to feel better if you label it as a part of the
"forest health"
mantra.
Russ
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 14 2007 6:21 pm
From: dbhguru
Ed,
Point well taken. The commercial underpinnings of the term are
inescapable. A new set of terms is needed.
Bob
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 14 2007 10:53 pm
From: "Russ Carlson"
Being new to the list, I'm not sure what has been discussed on this
issue. And though I have forestry training, I've been involved more
in
arboriculture for many years. But here's a few thoughts, or perhaps
questions for my own edification.
When talking of forest diversity, what scale is discussed? The GSM
NP
is a large tract of land, and cover types vary greatly. In the
northeast, there are few large tracts of unbroken forest. Is
diversity
an issue for a 15 acre woodlot? 100 acres?
You mentioned sassafras and birch, both of which are pioneer
species,
usually preceding the other hardwoods in cleared areas, and seldom
found
in old mature forests. Diversity of species has to take into account
the whole site and all its characteristics, not just the number of
species.
The problem, of course, is that we really don't know how much we
don't know.
--
Russ Carlson
Bear, DE USA
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 15 2007 2:48 pm
From: DON BERTOLETTE
Bob/Ed/ENTS-
I hate it that brief concise accurate phrasing such as forest health,
and others, get pre-empted! A part of me wants to "take back the
night", and dilute their usage of the Capital Forest Health
phrasing.
Given that above effort would be as effective as sending a stream into
the wind, would not "ecosystem health" be more
accurate/brief/concise?
-DonB
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 15 2007 3:08 pm
From: DON BERTOLETTE
In the final analysis, is the notion of forest health all about forest
economics?
Bob-
Your question positioned above is a basic one considered by most, if
not all forestry/natural resource majors. For years, the USFS (as one
of the larger public resource managers) funded most other forest
activities through timber sale earnings.
Now that timber sale earnings have diminished so much, the funding to
carry on forest health activities is similarly diminished. If forest
health activities don't of themselves generate income, then the
activities are not economically feasible in the current business plan
of running USFS as a business.
Should the USFS (in the context of the lands they manage, I realize
that USFS has much less in the way of holdings in the East) begin to
provide services such as forest health improvement (or 'ecosystem'
health improvements)? I know that whatever USFS presence there is in
the East, the USFS has sullied their own name, and can't soon be
easily trusted. Certainly not during this adminstration, and without a
major 'sea change'/perfect storm, perhaps not as soon as the next.
I don't suppose there's a world of difference between USFS and the
various Eastern land/resource management agencies
(city/commonwealth/state/federal) in this respect, and each one has
its own deeply entrenched leadership/administrations that preclude
easy change, but change they must. One of the hardest nuts to crack...
-DonB
October 23, 2007
Another web-based forestry forum http://www.forestryforum.com
has an ongoing thread on the subject of Forest Heatlh: http://www.forestryforum.com/board/index.php?topic=27158.0
|