|
|
Thought Provoking Quotations What forests were like before America beganThe first Europeans settlers did not step off boats into a vast, primeval forest untouched by human hands. Millions of Indians were living in these forests then, and more than half their food supply came from cultivated fields kept free of trees by repeated burning. There is no scientific evidence to support the largely romantic notion that eastern forests were somehow formed independent of human influences. The fact is they were shaped and reshaped by human and natural forces. Dr. Edward Buckner, Overton Professor of Forestry, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Evergreen, October, 1997
Instead of finding an uninterrupted forest carrying 100,000 (board) feet or more per acre, reaching from the Cascades to the Pacific, the first settlers 75 years ago (1840) found the valleys great areas of ‘prairie’ land covered with grass, brakes or brush which were burned to keep treeless by the Indians, and mountainsides upon which forest fires had destroyed the mature forests and which were then covered by a ‘second growth’ of Douglas-fir saplings or poles. Thornton Munger, “The Productive Capacity of The Douglas-fir Lands of Western Oregon and Washington” University of California Journal of Agriculture, 1916, Evergreen, March-April, 1994
Fires have widely ravaged the region examined. There is not a single forested township either on the west side or on the east side of the Cascade range in which timber is not more or less fire marked without much doubt the present agricultural areas, once grass covered and carrying scattered stands of oak, were burned over quite as extensively as the timbered tracts. John Leiberg, “Twenty First Annual Report of the United States Geological Service,” 1900, Evergreen, March-April, 1994
The assertion is often made that today’s western forest health problems are the result of the aggressive fire suppression activities initiated by the Forest Service and other federal agencies in the 1930s, coupled with the extensive harvest of western pine forests after World War II. While there is some truth to these assertions, they tell only a partial story. A substantial reduction in ecosystem fire had already occurred over much of the West by the late 1880s or even before. It coincided with the disintegration of the cultures of native peoples in the area, virtually all of whom actively used fire as a major land management tool. [Other factors included] settlement of western valley areas and, especially, with increased livestock grazing which broke up fuel continuity.Douglas MacCleery, USFS, “The Way to a Healthy Future for National Forest Ecosystems in the West,” Evergreen, Winter 2000
Why forestry is in trouble with the public
For too long, we foresters took the public for granted, assuming unwavering support for those who grow the nation’s wood fiber. Few noticed when the public’s mood changed, and those who did were often ridiculed by disbelieving colleagues. Now we come to a day of reckoning: the public believes forests are too important to be entrusted to foresters. To restore lost confidence, foresters must first come out of hiding. We have a lot of explaining to do because, where forests are concerned, the public will no longer support what it cannot see and understand. Regaining the public’s trust will take time. We must be prepared to answer hard questions about what we are doing and how our actions are impacting the environment. We must also help the public think through its forest management options. When we lay out these options, we must speak of much more than trees. Only then will our critics know we love forests as much as they do. Dr. Alan Houston, Forester and Wildlife Biologist, Ames Plantation, Grand Junction, Tennessee, Evergreen, October, 1997
Environmentalism increasingly reflects urban perspectives. As people move to cities, they become infatuated with fantasies of land untouched by humans. This demographic shift is revealed through ongoing debates over endangered species, grazing, water rights, private property, mining and logging. And it is partly a healthy trend. But this urbanization of environmental values also signals the loss of a rural way of life and the disappearance of hands-on experience with nature. So the irony: as popular concern for preservation increases, public understanding about how to achieve it declines. Dr. Alston Chase, syndicated columnist and lecturer; author of “Playing God in Yellowstone” and “In A Dark Wood,” Evergreen, September 1990 Society has demonstrated an unwillingness to vest in scientists the final Authority to make the decisions that affect the rest of us. We insist that our non-scientific views be heard, that we whose lives are affected have the right to participate in the decision making and policy processes that flow from today’s scientific facts. The timber industry is going to have to share these forests with others that have different values and want different things from the forest. Frankly, I welcome it, and I rue the day when polarized factions no longer tear away at the fabric of our society. The American revolution is still going on. We are still changing, still learning. If some of us were not constantly tearing away at what others of us think we know, we would all still think the earth is flat. What is science today is witchcraft tomorrow. Leonard Netzorg, lawyer and legal scholar, Evergreen, July, 1991 Defining “nature”Not even the wildest forest can serve the habitat needs of all creatures. As forests evolve through time, they provide habitat for different groups of species. As the structure of the forest changes, species move on or die out. That’s nature. Dr. Allan Houston, Forester and Wildlife Biologist, Ames Plantation, Grand Junction, Tennessee, Evergreen, October, 1997
Dr. Tom Bonnicksen, Forest Ecologist and noted author, Texas A&M University, Evergreen, June, 1995
Old growth is a human-imposed phrase, not a natural law. As such, it is closely tied to the mistaken idea that nature exists in perfect balance. We use the old-growth phrase now to approximate a range of structural features and processes associated with relatively old forests. From a scientific perspective, these forests are a piece in the puzzle, perhaps no more or no less important than young forests. Dr. Chadwick Oliver, Silviculturist, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, Evergreen, September-October 1993
The lesson in “Playing God” is that there is no such thing as leaving nature alone. People are part of creation. We do not have the option of choosing not to be stewards of the land. We must master the art and science of good stewardship. Environmentalists do not understand that the only way to preserve nature is to manage nature. Dr. Alston Chase, syndicated columnist and lecturer; author of “Playing God in Yellowstone” and “In A Dark Wood,” Evergreen September 1990
What will happen if forests are left to “nature”The problem with leaving forest “to nature,” as many seem to want to do, is that we can’t control the outcome. We get what nature serves up, which can be pretty devastating at times. But with forestry we have options, and a degree of predictability not found in nature. Dr. Alan Houston, Forester and Wildlife Biologist, Ames Plantation, Grand Junction, Tennessee, Evergreen, October, 1997 Waiting for nature poses a greater risk of large-scale ecosystem destruction than the risks associated with small-scale human intervention. Our region’s forests have a history of frequent, violent, large-scale disturbance. If we walk away and leave these forests to nature, we run the risk of losing the very ecosystems we are trying to preserve. Moreover, we have no assurance that forest set asides will actually grow older. There is a greater probability they will burn up or blow down first. Dr. Chadwick Oliver, Silviculturist, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, Evergreen, September 1993
Letting nature take its course in these forests implies a willingness to accept the consequences of catastrophic fire. I am unwilling to accept the ecological consequences of huge, unnatura fires. We can’t restore the forests that were here 150 years ago, but we can restore the natural processes that created them, and that is what we are trying to do in our research work. Dr. Steve Arno, Fire Ecologist, USFS, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory Missoula, Montana, Evergreen, Winter 1994
People who think doing nothing in forests is the best way to provide habitat for old growth dependent wildlife species may be fooling themselves. Forestry provides the only means for predicting and controlling the outcome. Forestry is a tool for imposing equilibrium in an otherwise chaotic natural world. By controlling the limits of natural disturbance, we produce outcomes society wants: timber, wildlife habitat, clean water and beautiful forests. Nature is indifferent to society’s needs. Forestry tries to fill needs. Dr. David Loftis, Project Leader, USFS, Bent Creek Experimental Station Asheville, North Carolina, Evergreen, October 1997
Misconceptions about naturalness are seriously eroding the public’s ability to deal effectively with land. The undisturbed old-growth landscape many envision never existed, and the quest to achieve it is undermining science-based efforts to restore a range of more viable growing conditions. The public is loving its forests to death. Dr. Edward Buckner, Overton Professor of Forestry, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Evergreen, October 1997
You don’t have to return to pre-settlement forests to see the likely result of a ban on harvesting. The years 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1996 were big fire years in the Intermountain west. They provide very visible evidence of what happens when forests are neglected: severe fires in ponderosa pine forests that historically had lower intensity burns, major losses of fish and wildlife habitat and degradation of air and water quality. [Minus some form of management in the forests we will witness more] large damaging firs, a futile fire fighting effort costing hundreds of millions of dollars and possibly taking firefighter lives, and massive insect and disease infestations. Dr. Steve Arno, Fire Ecologist, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, USFS, Missoula, Montana, Evergreen, Winter 2000
For ecological, biological and moral reasons, I oppose the ban on timber harvesting in National Forests. Those who support the ban seem to believe it will prompt natural restoration of pre-settlement forest conditions. I think that is highly unlikely. Biologically speaking, eliminating harvesting, while continuing to control wildfires, would have significant adverse effects on bird and mammal species that thrive on early succession forest conditions.The Yellowstone fire was a wakeup call for many scientists, including me. Unless we soon begin the long process of dealing with diseased forests that are prone to very hot stand-replacing fires – restoring natural ecosystems as we go – Yellowstone-scale fires are a serious probability. I know many people distrust thinning, fearing a return to the days when too much harvesting was occurring in National Forests, but I don’t see how it could happen. Far greater risks lie in accepting the idea that the best way to protect National Forests is to set them aside in no-harvest reserves. I’m a wilderness fan and would favor adding appropriate lands to the Wilderness system, but major portions of the National Forest System are not suitable for Wilderness designation and ought to be managed for multiple benefits, including commercial timber production. Dr. Tom Bonnicksen, Professor of Forestry and noted author, Texas A&M University, Evergreen, Winter 2000
Forest policies mirror changing public valuesAnd now, first and foremost, you can never afford to forget for a moment what is the object of our forest policy. That object is not to preserve the forests because they are beautiful, though that is good in itself; nor because they are refuges for the wild creatures of the wilderness, though that, too, is good in itself; but the primary object of our forest policy, as of the land policy of the United States, is the making of prosperous homes. It is part of the traditional policy of home making in our country. Every other consideration comes as secondary…You yourselves have got to keep this practical object before your minds; to remember that a forest which contributes nothing to the wealth, progress or safety of the country is of no interest to the Government, and should be of little interest to the forester. Your attention must be directed to the preservation of the forests, not as an end in itself, but as the means of preserving and increasing the prosperity of the nation. Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States, at a Society of American Foresters meeting, Washington, D.C., March, 1903, Evergreen, Winter 1994-95
Some may argue we have a clear idea of the consequences of our decisions. But, in fact, few people understand that in a global economy linked by international trade, a significant reduction in timber harvests in one region will most probably precipitate action in other regions that may be detrimental to the global environment. These actions could very well offset most or all of the alleged environmental benefits. Without natural resources life itself is impossible. From birth to death, natural resources, transformed for human use, feed, clothe, shelter and transport us. Upon them we depend for every material necessity, comfort, convenience and protection in our lives. Without abundant resources, prosperity is impossible. Gifford Pinchot, First Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, 1898-1910, Evergreen, September-October 1991
The national forests are no longer primeval solitudes remote from the economic life of developing regions, or barely touched by the skirmish line of settlement. To a very large degree the wilderness has been pressed back. Farms have multiplied, roads have been built, frontier hamlets have grown into villages and towns, industries have found footholds and expanded. Although the forests are still in their early stage of economic development, their resources are important factors in present prosperity. William B. Greeley, Third Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, 1920-1928, Evergreen, September-October 1991
America is growing. There are many people who want to go to a section of the country where they will have a better chance for themselves and their children…You have acreage capable of supporting a much larger population than you currently have. And we believe that by proceeding with these great projects it will not only develop the well-being of the far West and the Coast, but will also give an opportunity to many individuals and many families back in the older, settled parts of the nation to come out here and distribute some of the burdens which fall on them more heavily than in the West. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, at ceremonies marking the beginning of construction at Bonneville Dam, August 3, 1933, Evergreen, March-April 1993
Preserving and maintaining this nation’s cultural diversity is as important to the survival of America as is preserving and maintaining biological diversity. What we are preserving in rural farming and timber communities is people, not abstractions or symbols, but real people who embody basic values which are fundamental to our nation’s history and its traditions. Dr. Robert Lee, Sociologist and noted author, University of Washington, Evergreen, August 1990
It is not unethical to grow and cut trees in ways that leave soil, water and ecosystems in a healthy condition for the future. What is environmentally unethical and globally irresponsible is to use amounts of wood we are not willing to produce as prudent land stewards - or to think that we can get by with wood substitutes that use far more energy to produce and are not as recyclable or biodegradable as wood. What good does it do to conserve biological diversity in our own backyard forests if society merely depletes the same in someone else’s forests to satisfy our wants and needs. The ultimate challenges may not be what we think they are - old growth, jobs, spotted owls, roadless areas, endangered species or even biological diversity. These are important issues we must address, but they are only symptoms of the real challenges: human population growth, consumption and pollution. The real challenge is not to see whether bio-centerism can overcome homo-centerism as the paradigm of the 1990s, but to develop a new and more useful paradigm: eco-centerism, where people and nature are seen as interdependent parts of the whole. Dr. Hal Salwasser, USFS retired, Dean, Oregon State University College of Forestry, Evergreen, September-October 1996
The public’s attention has been so riveted on the spotted owl, old growth forests and other preservation-related issues that it no longer sees, much less understands that the real question has nothing to do with owls or jobs. The real question is how will the nation’s forest reserves be allocated. If the public decided it wanted to preserve all of its timberlands, and never harvest timber again, it could do that, but it ought to understand the social, economic and environmental costs associated with such a decision. Dr. James Bethel, retired Dean, University of Washington College of Forest Resources, Seattle, Evergreen, 1990
One of the most disturbing aspects of the U.S. environmental policy process is that it rarely recognizes the global nature of the economic and environmental systems in which it must operate. In a global system, environmental damage spreads across political boundaries and different resource types. We must never forget that the implications of domestic land use policies extend far beyond the lands to which they are directly applied. Roger Sedjo, Senior Fellow and Director, Forest Economics Program, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., Evergreen, Summer 1993 Redefining forestry
It is time for science to produce some defensible, reproducible experiments. It is imperative that we verify or otherwise correct land policy decisions made on the basis of theories. The consequences of error – social, economic and environmental – are simply too great to rest on conjecture. [From these experiments] I believe we will find forests are far more resilient than has been assumed. We will also learn that species adapt more readily to changing habitat conditions than has been theorized. There is abundant evidence of these facts in the Northeast and Great Lakes states where harvesting began long before it did here in the Northwest. Dr. Robert Buckman, Forest Scientist, Oregon State University, former Director of Research, U.S. Forest Service and past president, International Union of Forest Research Organizations, Evergreen, June, 1995
Planting forests, harvesting timber and planting new forests have been articles of faith in forestry for a very long time. We have assumed that if we take care of the timber resource, everything else will follow along nicely. We know now this is not necessarily the case. There is a sameness in our forests now, where once there was a great deal of diversity. What we must do now is restore diversity, and the fastest way to do this involves the use of silvicultural (harvesting) techniques that mimic the kinds of natural disturbance and re-growth that gave us biological diversity in the first place. Dr. Chadwick Oliver, Silviculturist, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, Evergreen, September 1993
I think the largest single need in American forest biology is the study of man’s relation to forestland. Our foresters need to understand much more than most of them do about purely human motives and aspirations with respect to the land. They ought to become genuinely knowledgeable and respectful of people’s economic, social and aesthetic institutions. Hugh Miller Raup, “Forests In The Here And Now: A Collection Of Writings Of Hugh Miller Raup,” 1981, Bullard Professor of Forestry, Harvard University, Evergreen, September 1998
Conservationists need to consider a broader range of land management options. There is currently a significant bias favoring old-growth related research. It is undermining our more complete understanding of how the pieces of nature fit together. For every old-growth research project, there should be companion research involving young and middle-aged forests. Biological diversity is the sum of all ecological processes, not just those we can observe in old-growth forests. [The bias favoring old growth research] has spawned largely cosmetic terms like “ecosystem” and “biological diversity,” which serve to promote the idea that ecosystem management is only possible on a very large scale. This isn’t true. I want to promote the idea it is possible to increase the ecological content of almost any tract of land, regardless of its size or management regime. There is a positive role here for everyone, from the backyard gardener to the largest industrial forest landowner. Dr. Robert Buckman, Forest Scientist, Oregon State University, former Director of Research, U.S. Forest Service, and past president, International Union of Forest Research Organizations, Evergreen, June, 1995
The term “sustainable forestry” is redundant. Forest is, by definition, sustainable. Nevertheless, the discussion is useful, if only to help reaffirm our faith in basic concepts and truths about forests and forestry. Of these truths, none is more important than the certainty of random, natural change, or the power of forestry to control the limits of change, thereby providing society with a regulated, predicable flow of economic and environmental benefits not possible in nature.
Dr. David Loftis, Project
Leader, Bent Creek Experimental Station, USFS
If ecosystem management is to succeed, attention must be paid to smaller, local ecosystems. There are unique landscapes, each different from the other, yet linked to one another and to larger landscapes in a variety of ways. It is here that citizens and managers should join together to decide how the land will be used. It is also here where dedicated land managers should decide what must be left intact to keep the land sustainable, and what can be removed or otherwise used to meet some of the needs of people.
Dr. William Moore,
retired Chief of Fire Management USFS, Northern Region
|
