California is conspicuously absent from this discussion. The agency continues to promote bad projects (for example, you need go no further than the recent controversy over salvage logging of the Biscuit Fire and the attempt by some timber industry proponents at OSU and the agencies to suppress scientific research--see Washington Post, February 26). I don't know of anyone in California who is tying up the FS with appeals and lawsuits--does anyone have the time or money to do that??--unless it is absolutely necessary to keep the agency from destroying habitat for rare and endangered species, using pseudoscience to justify unsustainable logging  and other illegal and unethical acts. I get Mitchell's point, but collaboration is a two way street...

It ain't so pretty in the South East either. Clear-cuts are aplenty, and they've gotten smart about it- they leave a hundred feet or so around roads so you can't see that a hundred acres has been cleared. Much of the unsustainable logging in these parts is done without the USFS getting involved, because it is privately owned (much of it by logging companies). Conservationists are too busy fighting privates to worry about the USFS.

This article sure sounds like justification for huge timber sales- small diameter or not, it still removes accumulated life energy from the forest, alters habitat, and removes nutrients. Aren't the young trees needed to take over for those damaged by big storms (global warming) and infestations (due to species loss)? This is not the way nature created old-growth forest, and it's hard to believe that thinning is going to re-create what took hundreds of years of favorable conditions without interference from humans. Is there clear agreement and reliable data to support this theory?

As for feeling sorry for the 'beaten-down' forest service or logging companies, just call me heartless. Certain industries are unsustainable and must go away while the Earth recovers. We must support restoration, and it can provide jobs, and the USFS should be involved, but windfall profits from huge 'timber' sales need to end forever. Trees have far more value alive than dead.

Nice article, but don't you think we need to look at the Bush budget proposal that wants to sell 300,000 acres of National Forest lands in 32 states? Possibly we need to ask congress why the administration plans to outsource 2/3 of all forest service jobs by 2009. These actions could be the beginning of a total privatization push by the Bush team. Which would make this article somewhat unimportant. Sub-divisions and summer trophy homes don't really belong on National lands. Please call or write your Senators and your Congressional representatives to stop this privatization plan by the Bush administration. Grist Mill! have they even addressed the issue of National Forest privatization? Oh well...Peace

I knew Mitch pretty well from our Earth First! days in the '80s.  I haven't seen or talked to him in 15-20 years, but he was as cool as anyone, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt here unless I hear otherwise from another old EF!er.

Fundamentally, restoration toward natural (i.e., free from human interference) ecosystems is the ONLY justifiable reason for killing trees, the idea of which I generally strongly dislike.  However, some forests have become unnaturally overgrown due to fire suppression and/or cattle grazing, both of which were supported on OUR federal lands by the Forest Disservice and the Bureau of Leasing (to ranchers) and Mining (BLM).  In these situations, thinning of the forests would be a good thing.  The problem is, I don't trust the government, which is more in the pockets of industry than ever, or private industry, which only cares about profits and jobs, to limit killing trees to the thinning needed to restore native ecosystems to their natural condition.  These two groups have an enormous way to go to prove that they're willing to restrict logging to the amount needed for restoration.  If they show that they are, this plan should be supported.

How can you say "Forests are a wonderful spiritual thing" and in the same breath say " The thought that 'killing a tree is bad' is ludicrous"? Apparently, the tree's only 'spiritual' worth is the one that fools like me imagine it has- any value other than it's material use as 'wood' or 'lumber' is irrelevant. You also claim that "clear-cutting 'working-forests' is also NOT A BAD THING". I suppose a 'working forest' is one that Man has chosen to serve Him and no other creature, and therefore grows only the kind of tree that He wants until it is time to die. Tell us, exactly what is the 'right way' to clear-cut a forest? How do you make up for the 100+ years of organic matter lost from the soil? How do you protect the ground from baking in the sun and washing away in direct rainfall, with nothing to shade the ground or to soak up the water? How do you purify the water that the trees used to aspirate? Do you put back the used wood to feed the forest floor- or does it go into a landfill? Obviously, what WOULD be needed to put back what was taken is rarely (if ever) done. What you call 'good forestry' is really the science of deferring the true cost of forest destruction to other generations and other species. It can be 'maintained' for just so long, but it is NOT sustainable.

You cannot really believe that there is no environmental cost to clearing an old-growth hardwood forest, full of diversity and accumulated life force, and replacing it with a disease  susceptible tree-farm that gets clear-cut until the land is truly dead and finally sold off to housing developers or ranchers.

Perhaps home sizes have increased (in large part) because USFS give- aways and the privatization of forests has kept lumber costs artificially low (just like oil subsidies).

If the forest service is indeed tied up in court (by hypocritical bleeding heart ecologists who have misplaced their spirituality), wouldn't it be more efficient if it gave up destructive policies that are not sustainable and not supported by the public but by private logging companies and the developers who swoop in after clear-cuts?

I'm sure you won't object if one day the 'more advanced and deserving' species that planted it's crop of humanity on this planet returns to reap the harvest and consume mankind for it's noble purpose. You will say "ahh, that's the meaning of life" and willingly jump into the people-chipper, right?

Kudos to Mitch Friedman for articulating a vision in which everyone involved with public forests gets along, where the lions lay down with the lambs.  It sounds really quite remarkable.  But, sadly, most things which sound too good to be true are, in fact, too good to be true.  And that's what's wrong with Friedman's collaborative vision - it's just too good to be true.

What Friedman is essentially proposing is for the conservation community to actively sign over a large proportion of the federally owned forests to the timber industry, in perpetuity.  This isn't some philosophical discussion about favoring or opposing the idea of "zero cut."  This is about conservationists actively promoting high - breathtakingly high - cut levels on public forests, and ignoring the kind of long term damage that those cut levels would inflict not just on salmon and other aquatic resources, but the whole range of things that we value about public forests.

The numbers he tosses out are astounding.  2.3 billion board feet of timber just waiting there to be thinned?  It's a sad fact that thinning forests can often have even worse effects than clearcutting them.  Many more acres are affected, and vastly more roads required, to extract any given amount of timber volume.  But, we are told, thinning just lets a little light into the dense, dark, overgrown forests, and hastens the day when they too will become old-growth. Sounds great, but again, those things that sound too good to be true almost always are too good to be true.  And that's the sad truth about thinning.  It requires massive road construction, and depends totally on ground based yarding, which means lots of heavy machinery driving all through a forest to drag logs away, compacting and severely damaging soils, and sending that soil straight into streams and rivers, choking fish.  It opens up stands where trees have protected each other from wind, meaning that many of the leave trees end up blowing down.  Thinning does not hasten the development of old growth, in fact its effects are quite the opposite.  It leaves a degraded, unnatural forest.  The "emerging scientific consensus" in favor of thinning that Friedman talks about has emerged largely among those researchers whose funding depends upon finding justifications for increased logging.  

People do not know how to do better than mother Nature in creating old growth forests.  Forests are not "restored" by carving roads through them and logging them.  Even in drier forests where fire suppression has led to unnatural fuel buildups, there is little or no evidence that thinning is of much benefit.  Some places may just have to burn, and that's not necessarily bad.  Burning has far fewer bad effects than the kind of roading densities and ground yarding that would be required for thinning on the scale envisioned by Friedman.  Thinning and brush clearing does make sense in areas immediately surrounding houses and communities, but not beyond that.

Of course we need a timber industry, and there is no danger at all of it going away.  Some of Friedman's ideas deserve to be tried out - on private lands, not public forests.  When the National Forests were created a century ago, they were essentially the leftovers, the places the timber industry didn't want, less productive lands, usually mountainous or higher elevation.  The timber industry got the good lands, and that is where creative new ideas in forestry should be tested out.  Logging in National Forests has never been anything other than a subsidy to a favored few corporations.  Just when the conservation movement has finally gotten cut levels down to bearable levels, along comes Friedman wanting to push them up again.  He sounds more like a timber lobbyist than a tree hugger.

We'd all like to see the "calloused hands" of Friedman's old time logger doing productive work.  But, please, let's have that happen someplace other than on the National Forests.  The subsidized, public lands based timber industry is finally on the ropes, just as the buffalo hunters and whalers were before them.  Let's hope that it dies.  The forests will be far better off without it.  Let's not put it on life support as Friedman proposes, allowing it to further destroy the only public forests we have left.  

It's remarkable what modern mills can do, converting trees with tops as small as 4" diameter into boards. But its certainly true that much of the material is more suited to biomass or chips. There's ongoing debate, in Congress, communities and among conservationists, on the question of subsidizing infrasucture (such as biomass plants) to create markets for this materials. I noted one example (Gila NF) in the article.
   In reply to Snoqualman, other than some basic mistruths (far from needing more roads, we've found thinning can actually fund removal of existing roads)and mischaracterizations of science and empirical experience, the rest of what he wrote is same old, same old. He might even have plagarized it from things I myself have written (and believed) over a decade ago. Live and learn.

I consider forests to be a spiritual thing, but I also consider unique rock formations to be spiritual. It doesn't make them the same. Same goes for trees and forests. Just because you have a bunch of trees together doesn't make them a forest.

As far as clearcuts, I hope you thoroughly read my other post. In it I am referring to progressive strip or patch clearcuts, which are functionally the same as a clearcut with plentiful advance regeneration. Of course, the size of the cut is relevant, as is the amount of slash removed (several benefits of leaving some: erosion control, tempering of the ground surface temps, exclusion of herbivores and protection of fragile seedlings, but negatives also: insect and pathogen refugia, poor aesthetical quality), previous natural variability in disturbance on the landscape level, and species' tolerance of the conditions.

Here are some responses to your questions: "Tell us, exactly what is the 'right way' to clear-cut a forest?" I already tried to cover this, in my opinion: by progressively cutting whole strips (maybe 3-5 acre area with about 2-3 tree-lengths in width every 5 or so years, not exceeding 20 for the whole stand, but that's only to make it 'even-aged' by definition, it could be whatever you actually want) or if plentiful advance regeneration is available maybe all at once, with removal of the entire overhead canopy: this works very well for shade-intermediate and shade-intolerant tree species.

"How do you make up for the 100+ years of organic matter lost from the soil?" Good question, most ecologists and silviculturists suggest that in about 50-60 years, o.m. levels and complexity of litter duff and upper soil horizons (epipedons) will be the same as pre-cut. This seems to hold true in most temperate systems. Side note: I am really concerned with the ability of tropical systems to be as resilient, and they are by far the major source of pulp and to a lesser degree roundwood in the world right now.

"How do you protect the ground from baking in the sun and washing away in direct rainfall, with nothing to shade the ground or to soak up the water?" Good question, good best management practices (BMP's) such as prog. strip clearc., leaving slash to shade the ground, etc. would take care of that. BMP's are something that is promoted within the government AND the industry, since the industry tends to be in it for the long haul, at least in the NE (not to say that it is always done, which is both a shame for the ones who do not and a major cause of concern).

"How do you purify the water that the trees used to aspirate?" I think you mean respire, but in reality it should be transpire, and this question is extraordinarily stupid (I'm sorry, I tried to think of ways to sugar-coat it, maybe unlearned is better?), as the trees are the ones who are 'cleaning' the water of nutrients. The nutrient spikes are an issue on watershed scales, where inputs of high nutrients are responsible for eutrophication of fresh- and estuarine waterbodies. Once again, if implemented, BMP's, prog. strip clearc., riparian buffer zones (a type of BMP and overall a damn good idea: since my M.S. focused on this, and I just have to plug it), and growth of the regeneration and 'intermitten' species, such as raspberries usually take care of it, through moderating the effects during the first few (about three) years, after which it becomes a non-issue.

"Do you put back the used wood to feed the forest floor- or does it go into a landfill?" Well, are you talking about slash? That's usually left for previously stated reasons, as well as being economically unfeasible to remove. If you are talking about trim at the sawmills, that is usually used to power and heat them (making them sustainable, in my opinion, with regard to carbon sequestration). However, there is a concern with removing too many logs (good for coarse woody debris and snags for wildlife) and thus should be more regulated by foresters and considered when applying treatments.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe at all that everything should be clear-cut or even the majority of stands, since I think that there should be a good balance with regard to natural and historical (in US think Indian tribes burning forests) variability of disturbances, as well as optimum amounts of habitat for maximum biodiversity (assuming that is a good thing). I am also not against preserving old-growth (and especially ecologically sensitive areas), I am not pro-cutting everything, I am thinking about these things in the context of modern socioeconomics (rural communities need income, and people need wood) and available science, which suggests that there is a need for both horizontal and vertical structural diversity in order to maintain the largest biodiversity at the landscape level. My research has to do with sustainability of silviculture and timber harvesting on a landscape level, and it is important to realize that sustainability does not come with harvesting a few big logs here and there. That actually leads to genetic depletion of a stand, and reduction of biodiversity (both plant and likely animal). There also needs to be a certain amount (maybe more than half or maybe 3/4, I don't know yet) of uneven-aged (selection) systems, which allow for maximum vertical structural diversity and little horizontal. Maybe the two types of systems should be united at the landscape level to produce functional landscapes, stands and ecosystems.

In regard to Snoqualman, National Forests cover vast amounts of productive acreage out West, and while I agree that there has been some mismanagement of taxpayer money, these lands are NOT leftovers that no one wanted. Just wanted to say that. Alright, hopefully ya'll will read this and think about these issues analytically and with due regard to facts and science. Thanks for reading, come back soon and all that jazz.

Wood contains much less nutrients than leaves, bark, small branches and the roots. So by removing wood from a site, non-carbon nutrients loss is relatively small and will be regained by microbial activity (nitrogen mineralization or nitrification) or atmospheric deposition.

Thanks, atreyger- your expertise is apparent. It sounds great, but I gotta tell ya, I've never seen it done that way. Surely, much of what you discuss is untested, since that kind of logging has not been practiced for long in many places. If the USFS was only proposing that kind of cutting, I seriously doubt it would be in court defending it's decisions very often. To expect logging companies to exercise that kind of self-restraint without major arm-twisting is unrealistic, in my opinion. It is still much cheaper and profitable (in the short term) to clear large areas at a time, leaving very little behind (under the guise of fire prevention).

I'm confused about the water issue- don't trees act as water purifiers, taking in polluted rainwater and releasing pure water vapor?

It still seems unwise to me to trust the agency responsible for so much short-sightedness- like the villan who is down, but will rise up as soon as you let down your guard.

Forgive me for respecting the life force within the trees- I still would prefer to see wood alternatives, wood re-use and recycling. If our economy relies on new developments and housing growth for it's health, then we are on a fast track to destruction of our ecosystem.

Birdboy, I think you've forgotten one of Friedman's primary points.  It is time for conservation agencies to engage with the Forest Service.  With engagement and collaboration, conservation agencies can push for the types of practices that atreyger is discussing.  As long as it's an adversarial relationship, it's that much harder to become involved in the planning of healthier, more sustainable logging practices on our public lands.  

Do I wish we could just stop all logging, preserve all forests, and let Mother Nature do her thing?  Yes, but I think it's time that folks start looking at the reality of the situation.  Our society has a voracious appetite for wood products, whether it's for ridiculously large McMansions, junk mail, newspapers, whatever.  This is not going to change anytime soon, no matter how much we wish it would.  Do I think this is a good thing?  Absolutely not.  Do I wish all paper was made from primarily recycled pulp?  Of course.  Do I wish people lived in smaller homes?  Duh.  But my point is that until our usage of wood products becomes more sustainable, we should not be exporting our problems to countries that have fewer/no environmental standards when it comes to logging.  (And as an aside, think about the fossil fuels used to transport this wood to the US.)  That is what we are doing right now.  In the short term, wouldn't it be better to encourage the sorts of healthy logging practices that atreyger is suggesting here at home, so as to lessen our reliance on even less sustainably cut woods from other countries?  My answer is yes, but no doubt many will disagree.  

Period.  It is immoral to kill anything one doesn't eat.  As I said in my earlier post, removing trees that would not be there if not for destructive human activities would be an exception.

In response to atreyger's comment that "wood is as necessary as food," I have just one word:  Why?  People don't eat trees, and many cultures lived without killing trees, using small amounts of deadwood or no wood at all.  It's only our highly environmentally destructive lifestyle that requires trees, but that's does not make them necessary.

It should be illegal to import wood not 'harvested' in a sustainable manner (if it really can be done). These practices are why America is not what it pretends to be- our biggest export may be environmental crime. This is the unintended result of environmental laws that exist in America only because of those troublesome tree-huggers who Friedman paints as villains!

In those thriller movies, when the villain is down, I'm the guy yelling 'kill him- NOW!". I'm just sayin'...

The forest service still hasn't offered to sit down with me and discuss 'good management'. Instead, they sit down with loggers, decide what to do, and then announce it like it's a done deal. The comment period is allowed to pass, and the comments are noted and filed (under 'yah, right'). Hence, the lawsuit.

When they re-structure the FS and re-write it's primary mission statement to a quick-shift toward restoration, and hire guys like atreyger to run the show, then we should sit down and talk.

Our problem is not that logging is hard to do with a loving touch, but that we have a voracious (and unnecessary) appetite for wood. We should be fighting the problem from the demand side, as well as the supply side. Better management goes under the heading of short-term goals, but it worries me when people tell me I have to accept that our reckless consumption is not going to change. Stop saying that.

Well, a lot of these practices are actually currently being done, partially out of good will of educated foresters and partially due to rise in standards, such as FSC or SFI certification. FSC certification and market for these product needs to continue being the goal of forest product policy. In most of Europe, it is very hard to buy or sell wood (raw logs or sawn boards) that is not certified. This should be the case in the US, but isn't, it's just like organic food: a specialty market. I heard sometime ago that in Germany, organic food production is on the order of 30% of all food production. First off, by now it should be the same here, second, it should be same or similar with wood certified products. I will try to look into how many companies are certified tommorow.

Conservation is my personal priority, but it is virtually impossible to single- or small-group-handedly (is that a word?) to convince the rest of US citizens to do. There are some interesting side issues with that though: think of the potential for carbon sequestration if we could all have more wood products such as books without recycling or throwing them out (of course the trees need to grow quicker, and this has not yet been shown to be true worldwide: it depends on moisture regimes, nutrient limitations, etc.).

birdboy: trees and plants in general (usually coupled with mycorrhizal fungi, symbiotic critters) take out leaching nutrients from groundwater solution or from soil aggregates through use of organic acids and let some water escape (more so with smaller plants than trees). Trees do transpire water, but it is not 'pure' in the true sense of the word: there is plenty of carbon dioxide, some methane (groundbreaking research apparently, I still have to read that article), and some volatile organic compounds (smells) with few nitrogenous compounds (not a lot).

Jeff: How about killing invasive species? What's your take on that? And somehow I don't think that humans only used deadwood. My knowledge of this subject is very limited, but from what I have seen on Discovery or Travel channel, tribal Africans and South Americans use live wood (think huts, dugout canoes, etc.). Dead wood is just not very structurally sound, and can only be burned. When I started to learn how to make a bow (that project is on a hiatus right now) you can't use dead wood, simply because it's rotten. Why is it OK to 'kill' something to eat it, but not OK to 'kill' something to use it? I'm using quotes, because a lot of plants (both ag and forest) are clonal and regrow rather well. Plus if you think of the genetic component, than you never are really killing anything (myself included) if you are allowing it to pass on its genes. This is also applicable to animals (but here there is awareness of surrounding environments at, close or better than our level), and this becomes personal preference.

HUGE side note: there is nothing wrong with hunting either (a lot of people may disagree, but I doubt there is a better way to get meat), and I think that most people are hypocrites (especially my ex who would eat bacon for breakfast but then complain about that idea).

From what you "have seen on Discovery or Travel channel" (?!) you don't think other cultures did without kiliing trees?  Dude, try actually educating yourself instead of being braiwashed by the idiot box!  Go to the library and check out some books on traditional indigenous cultures, starting with those that used to exist on Turtle Island.  "Question everything" is more true for TV than any other form of media.  The vast majority of traditional indigenous cultures killed either no trees or so few that it was unnoticeable

Yes, non-natives are a HUGE problem (both plants and animals) and should definitely be removed.  This is another exception.

However, the feeling I get from your posts is that you are at least American middle class and have no clue how others live or lived, or how it's possible to live.  Saying that wood is "necessary" evinces gross ignorance of what is really necessary: unpolluted air, water, and land, and healthy ecosystems with all of their native flora and fauna intact in healthy numbers.  All else is luxury.

And, BTW, I agee about hunting, but due to our gross overpopulation, I think everyone needs to eat as vegan as possible until our numbers are low enough that we can hunt without disrupting the populations of other species.

Last time I heard, many Native American tribes set fires to maintain savanna conditions (such as in the Willamette Valley, Oregon).  I would imagine that those killed many trees (saplings), grasses, animals, etc. that they did not eat.  

And dugout canoes.  Those weren't dead trees.  Long houses were made of wood.  What about poles for teepees?  How about the grasses/reeds that were "killed" for basket making?  

Sure, maybe some indigenous peoples did not kill trees but that's probably because they lived in climates where they weren't available.  I think you would be hard pressed to find an indigenous culture that did not "kill" live trees as a resource.  Granted, it was generally much more sustainable than what is happening now but you only gloss over that point ("so few that it was unnoticeable"--except Easter island).

Cherry picking when it is ok to cut down trees (restoration, invasives, not noticeable) seems a bit hypocritical to me.  

Arguing that killing trees is immoral is not going to solve any problem that our society is facing and it is definitely not going to save any trees.        

Thanks mpb1111. My point exactly. And, Jeff, I have been exposed to different cultures, growing up for the first 10 years of my life in Russia, a place, where if you don't use wood, you die.

'a place, where if you don't use wood, you die.'
Traditionally that is.

FSC certifed (USA only): 99 forests for a total area of 5,620,306 ha

SFI certified (assumption is US, since I do not think it works anywhere else): more than 136 million ac / 2.5 ha/ac = 54,400,000 ha

Overall forest cover (US, Sustainable Forests USFS publication, 2003): 749 mill ac / 2.5 ha/ac = 299,600,000 ha

Historic perspecitve (prior to settlement): 1 billion acres  / 2.5 ha/ac = 400,000,000 ha

SFI is an industry-based goal of management principle verified by independent third-party auditors. The principles are heavily skewed to the silvicultural and managerial aspects of forestry. Historically it makes sense, since for example there are few indigenous people left to 'deal' with.

FSC, an independent certifier, puts more criteria into the sector of socioeconmic responsibility (indigenous rights, community and worker rights, local use of wood, etc.), while maintaining broader silvicultural and management criteria (I think these criteria are specifically left to the regional standards, as FSC and SmartWood label are a global certification agency). Thus, this is a more stringent label, however I do not think that SFI certification is 'bad', it does maintain a good level of sustainability built into it.

To put it in a slightly different perspective: between 1982 and 1997, 11.7 mill ac (or 4.68 mill ha) were converted to developed land and 7.9 mill ac (3.16 mill ha) were converted to range, crop or pasture land (USFS 2003), combined almost twice the forest area certified by FSC. Also definition of a forest is 30% tree cover by area, which includes many woodlands, not something I would personally call a forest (personal bias). The above information regarding conversion may have doubled in the past 9 years, and this is a much greater threat to forest productivity and societal lack of sustainability than forest operations.

Trees produce homes

Trees produce heat

Trees produce paper

Trees make toilet paper

Trees are always growing

Trees will always be plentiful

Trees serve Mankind

Men do not serve trees

Neo-Druids do serve trees however

...

Mbp1111,
Grass fires set by Native Americans burned the surface.  They probably didn't even kill grass, as the roots would be left intact, and they certainly didn't kill trees or animals, though they might have prevented trees from growing in edge areas.

More fundamentally, your description of trees as "resources" and your implication that indigenous people destroy the environment as much as we do is the typical defense of those who support environmental destruction.  My response is simply to look at what the Americas, for example, looked like before Europeans got here and compare that to what it looks like now.

Trees should not be viewed as resources, but as living beings that deserve as much respect as humans.  When I stayed at the Dine (Navajo) reservation in Arizona, the people only used dead wood and called trees "rooted people."  Much more environmental way to live and think.

Atreyger,
Your comment about needing to kill trees to live in Russia is an argument agains humans living there, not proof that people need to kill trees.  Humans have no fur and should be living in the tropics where we evolved.  Even having to wear clothes causes environmental destruction.  The farther from the tropics that humans live, the more destruction they have to do to survive.

Jeff,

Calling something a resource does not deny respect or even that it has a spiritual essence.  It simply means using something for living.  I know Native Americans respected the earth a hell of a lot more than we do.  

"your implication that indigenous people destroy the environment as much as we do is the typical defense of those who support environmental destruction."  

Do you mean my reference to Easter Island?  Have you read what happened there?  How about the Anasazi?  The great cities of the Mayan empire?  Ever wonder what happened to the large mammals that roamed North America that existed when humans arrived on the continent?  How about the huge diversity of flightless birds on south Pacific Islands that Europeans never saw alive?  Not all indigenous cultures lived in absolute harmony with their surroundings, as much as you'd like to believe.

My point is that people, all people, use stuff and that stuff must come from somewhere.  Sure, our society uses a disgusting amount of resources-- I'm not justifying our level of consumption.  Half my working life I've been educating people about ways to decrease their ecological footprint.  I'm just saying that there are better ways of using and obtaining resources, and there are worse ways.  Clear cutting old growth?  Bad way.  Sustainably logging 2nd growth?  Better.  Using products made of reclaimed or recycled wood?  Even better (but even it has an original use).  Not using any sort of wood product, best, but it ain't gonna happen.  

Jeff, unless you're sending smoke signals (from a fire made of dead wood) to someone doing your dirty work (typing your messages on a computer made of plastics, heavy metals, wood products, metal, etc.) from somewhere in the tropics wearing only skins from an animal you killed, you too are using resources. I am too, I admit it.

That is why I fully believe Friedman is right on with his article.  If environmentalists (of which I claim to be) engage the Forest Service, we can hopefully increase the pressure to start sustainabily logging on our public lands, instead of relying on clear cuts.  If we're going to use resources, which we all do, we might as well work to decrease the enironmental harm.

Oh man, that was funny. He's right, Jeff, you cannot insinuate that we should all live naked in the tropics. Besides, my point is that the people living down in the tropics also use wood. That was what I was talking about with my 'knowledge' from discovery channel. By the way, it IS educational. Cultures that do not use wood are cultures that live where there is no wood or not enough of it, like Navajos or Ladakhis.

By the way, what do you think of beavers using wood? They are cutting live trees, and partially eating them but mostly using them for huts and dams. Should you try to reeducate them as far as their resource use? And by the way they tend to have quite a negative effect on tree growth around their ponds and wet meadows. Just putting things in perspective: sustainability of OUR WAY OF LIFE does not imply 'naturalness'. Poison dart frogs (Amazonian) are quite natural, but just try touching one, and you will kick the bucket. We have evolved with our ecosystems, and the ecosystems have evolved or changed with us and not always for the worse (that by the way is a value judgement and depends on what you or him or I prefer: personal preference).

You and I are white for a reason: we get more vitamin D this way, and if you stick me in the tropics, I will die way sooner than a native. Sickle cell anemia is an adaptation of human species to malaria resistance. Since less Northern people have it, we have moved away from adaptation to a specific region, and 'moved' our evolution further to a different region. We are constantly evolving as a species. By the way, what is good for the species is not good for the individual and vice versa. If the strongest of the species survive and breed, while the weakest die, that is good for the species. By the way that is one of the only 'real' rules of natural order.

I am not saying that current trends are a good thing (global warming, persistent toxic bioaccumulation) but you have to put things in perspective: if you are concerned with these things, you are worried about your or my (our) way of life and our previous experiences. We are nothing but a blip in the timeline of evolutionary history, and when we disappear things will continue to change and evolve but it's not really relevant to us now, is it?

OK, so instead of debating issues like how we should live or not live, you two are now attacking me personally.  Whatever, though I bet my ecological footprint is less than either of yours by a longshot.  You also obfuscate issues by taking a generalization about traditional indigenous people and using exceptions to make the point that the generalization isn't true.  Ridiculous.  More later, gotta go.

You guys come so close to the point and zoom right by. People CAN live without wood (they do when no wood is available). Primitive people moving into cold climates needed the wood to stay warm. Today, people COULD choose to use solar power or geothermal or even heating oil instead of clearing the forest. Or they could reduce their presence in harsh climates. Indigenous peoples usually had no choice- but with modern technology and the experience gained from historical mistakes, we CAN reduce our impact dramatically. We have extracted so many resources already that we could support a huge population (at less comfortable levels) just by re-distributing and recycling, with better efficiency and reduced waste.

Houses COULD be built without cutting more trees, and we could build a lot fewer of them and a lot smaller ones.

Paper COULD be 100% recycled and we COULD use much less of it.

But since people think trees will 'always be plentifull' (and conveniently have no spirit), and since lumber is still cheap and trees are in the way of new development anyway, people continue to cut- it is no longer unavoidable, and we DO have a choice.

And by the way, Captain, I am proud to serve the trees- we owe it to them. Humans can live in harmony with Nature, if only they wanted to. Saying we cannot is just an excuse for not trying.

I don't know exactly what it would take for an "agency" to be demoralized.  Like "the Russians" or "The Catholic Church" whose demoralization really counts for the"agency" to be demoralized?

I would argue that I and my fellow workers are not demoralized, for the most part.

We believe in what we are doing and the form of government we have.. the tension between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government as laid out by the Founders is applied to important topics- including as how the public lands are managed.  Certainly in our work, we get caught in the crossfire between branches but it's the best system of government so far and that's our job.  

Most of us have worked for R's and D's and based on our own predilictions, would prefer one to the other.

If on some days we are demoralized, it's more likely to do with the competitive sourcing initiative, computer programs that don't work, not getting paid on time, or plaintiffs or their attorneys who are disrespectful or nasty to us personally. It's not due to the some overwhelming desire to cut trees that has been thwarted.

In short, if they looked at what we do in the Forest Service and the contributions of the judiciary and the legislative branch, I believe the Founders would be smiling. Certainly I and my colleagues at the Forest Service are smiling. If folks did as Mitch suggests we would be smiling even more broadly.

Bravo, Doc!! As part of the next generation of "forest sculptors", I too am not demoralized by a lack of old growth not being cut. As a matter of fact, I'd like to see a revolution in how timber dollars are spent and how revenues are distributed. If we do have to cut some trees to save the forest ecosystems (and make no mistake, we DO), we need to get full value out of those trees and put ALL the money back into the forests. I surely don't want my hard work to go to paying for a poor foreign policy. Too many people posting here are fighting the battles of the last millenium. They don't realize that we don't clearcut or high grade anymore, here in California for the last 13 years. Yeah, can't let truth get in the way of some good fund-raising opportunities by the Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity and such. Talk about "extractive industries"!

Anyway, since many western forests have mortality levels exceeeding both harvesting AND growth combined, is it ethical to allow those trees to be "killed" in the name of "preservationism"? If you're going to apply humaan characteristics to the forest, is it "humane" to allow forests to die slow horrible deaths through drought, insects and fire? And, make no mistake that these events are "natural". There's 10 to 100 times MORE trees in the western forests than before the arrival of the white man. However, there's still less and less water to go around for these forests which demand more and more water as they get older. Take, for example, the San Bernardino National Forest, where timber harvesting was eliminated for 15-20 years. The forests became overgrown and even the most drought-resistant old growth pines died off in droves. And, this disaster continues today, as a majority of those 12 MILLION dead trees lie in wait for the next inevitable firestorm. "Natural"??? I think not. Another example of an ongoing disaster is the Tahoe Basin. Back in the early 90's, two thirds of all the trees either died or had their tops killed by bark beetles. Another example is the Bitterroot, where trees that weren't killed in the fires were attacked by voracious bark beetles because of past mismanagement.

Now, before people fly off the handle and accuse me of being a timber beast, I'm not for liquidating old growth, clearcutting and junk science. I'm for ecologically AND economically-sound forest management using the latest ecosystem science. That's includes managing for endangered species, protecting water quality, avoiding archeological sites, eliminating bad roads and listening to public input, amongst other important issues. Unfortunately, all too many won't buy into a middle-of-the-road solution and the forests suffer.

Well here it comes, the lies propagated by the Forest Disservice.  I'm not going to waste my time researching the truth and posting sites to it here, but just suggest that anyone who wants to know what's really going on do your own research.  To say or even suggest that the trees and forests in the west are in better condition now than they were before white people is laughable/infuriating.

A founding member of Earth First! I just received an email from said that he drinks with timber company executives, but he won't talk with Forest Service people (we call them Freddies) because he can't trust anything the latter tells him.

Re lack of water, stop removing water from ecoystems, don't kill tress to deal with people stealing their water.

Backcut, what universe are you living in? Trees are not the problem, humans raping the forests is the problem. Don't blame lack of water on trees. Trees are good for the land, good for the water table, etc. Trees are dying, yes, and it is because of extreme imbalance, human caused, in the forest ecosystems and the planet as a whole. When you cut too many trees you eventually get drought. Insect infestations are also signs of extreme imbalance. Fire is nature's way of getting rid of scrub, clearing "junk wood" and honing the forest for its next period of growth. Some species actually need fire to germinate.
Forests know how to be forests but too many of us have forgotten what it's like to be human.

In my many years of debating sane forest management on the Internet, many who cannot argue with facts and science resort to personal attacks. It appears that Jeff is no different, using politics, rhetoric and emotional angst to further their unsustainable goals. What about thinking globally and acting locally?? Whatever happened to the famous tolerance of the old hippie movement??

When even EarthFirsters are advocating thinning projects, you ignore the writing on the wall? I really can't see where you got the part about today's forest being "better" than before the white man. I, certainly, never said or implied that. MORE trees in the forest isn't always a better thing.

The true goal should be to have forests that survive droughts, insects and fires, while still supporting all the ecosystem features that harbor sensitive species. I couldn't care less if the lumber mills make huge profits. As a matter of fact, I believe it should be the mills "patriotic duty" to only break even on Federal timber sales. The eco-folks have seen to it that lumber mills died out, along with the precious jobs in those out of the way towns.

Forests ARE resilient but, not indestructible. The terrible logging styles of yesterday didn't "destroy" our forests so, today's eco-friendly style of surgical forest management will prevail, especially where it counts. In court. BTW, I didn't vote for anyone named Bush. If I had voted, it would have been for Nader. It's very unfortunate but apparently necessary to include politics in forest management.

I say: Depoliticize the Forest Service! Let science rule!

Here we go with the angst and rhetoric again SML.

What's wrong with thinning our historically documented overstocked forests?? What's wrong with balancing and restoring forest ecosystems?

I've worked on projects in California that remove trees that are mostly in the 9-18" dbh category, while leaving ALL trees above 30" dbh, retaining 70% crown closure and using 18 foot triangular spacing (give or take, depending on the conditions). Apparently, even this style of restoration isn't palatable to the NIMBYists who can't see beyond 10 years. High-intensity fires have long-lasting impacts to everything we like in our forests. Even pre-historic archeological sites are being impacted and some of those are over 5000 years old.

Even though wood is a renewable resource, that isn't enough for me to eschew ecosystem qualities in favor of board feet.

Yes, it isn't always so easy to lump us "Freddies" into one nice easy stereotype. I'm also a nature photographer who shoots breathtaking landscapes and mountain vistas. I, too, enjoy sparkling water and recreational opportunities. I, too, enjoy seeing the rare wildlife and appreciating their shrinking habitat. I, too, marvel at massive ancient trees that can't be valued in dollars or board feet.

Are you part of the solution or are you part of the problem?? It seems that the courts are destined to decide THAT for YOU!

Lastly, I wonder what rape victims think of your  comparison of sane forest management to their terrible experiences.

is to love trees, forests, and the creatures that need them. Trees symbolize the human bond with Nature- their roots embrace the Earth, their branches touch the sky, and their lives transcend the elements.

Trees have served Man for too long- the strain on the Earth is becoming apparent in the poor health of what now passes for a forest- their collective existance is threatened by the short-term, near-sighted vision of the human race. I think we all understand how the disruption of one link, the disappearance of just one species, could take down an entire ecosystem. But since we can't prove it was Man's doing in a Federal court, we can't stop the killing of trees or other forms of life.

Is it wise, in these times (where R and D is a tool of the R's), to trust any agency of the federal government? Let's remember who's running the show, and what they are willing to do to feed extractive industies (Sierra Club excluded).

The way to save the Earth's forests is not better management of a 'valuable resource' but to respect their worth as living, breathing, members of the web of life. By teaching open-minded humans to see the spiritual value of an old-growth forest, we can empower humanity to share the tree's long-term, long-distance, perspective, and perhaps earn our own prosperity.

In order to not be further misunderstood, I need to correct a typo on my part. I do NOT endorse having the lumber mills making huge profits. Unfortunately, some mills have a monopoly on Federal timber and tend to only bid at "minimum rates". This HAS to change! However, this certainly won't come about during THIS Administration.

I felt I needed to clarify this.

Hmm.  A founder of Earthfirst says he can't trust anything anyone in the Forest Service tells him?

It would be difficult to argue that all of 25,000 (sorry I don't know current numbers) or so people lie about everything all the time. For example "the fire is contained" or "the road is closed."

Perhaps what this individual really meant was that he had never met a Forest Service employee that he could trust. That's very sad. Perhaps he needs to meet more FS people.

In the interest of building trust, perhaps FS folks need to spend more time having drinks with timber industry executives, so we increase our chances of meeting Earthfirst founders and impressing them with our trustworthiness.  It sounds like tough duty, but I'd volunteer.

"There's 10 to 100 times MORE trees in the western forests than before the arrival of the white man."  "I really can't see where you got the part about today's forest being "better" than before the white man. I, certainly, never said or implied that."

No comment, this speaks for itself.

"Many who cannot argue with facts and science resort to personal attacks. It appears that Jeff is no different ...."

FACT: Forests have been around for millions of years, long before homo sapiens.  FACT: Forests not only survived but thrived before humans started killing trees.  FACT: The ONLY threats to forests are caused by humans, whether by directly killing trees or indirectly by unnatural management practices, like fire suppression and cattle grazing in forests, or by taking water out of the ground.  FACT: The only benefit to forests from killing trees is where the forests are unnaturally dense due to human fire suppression or cattle grazing. (In these cases, I fully support thinnning to restore the forests to their natural density, but no more logging than that.  However, these are the only situtations in which an Earth First!er would advocate thinning.  Anyone advocating any thinning for other reasons, like to save jobs or homes, is not an Earth First!er.)  FACT: Wildfires are not only natural, but NECESSARY for many forest ecosystems to be healthy.  For example, the cones of some connifers will not release their seeds without a fire.  Also, natural wildfires thin the forest so that "fuel" does not become too abundant and cause catastrophic fires.  FACT: Insect infestations in natural forests, which have more than one type of tree (as opposed to the tree farms that have only one species) do not destroy forests.  The insects generally only thin the forests, destroying only the weak trees.  This is a natual form of tree thinning.

I'm accused of "using politics, rhetoric and emotional angst to further [my] unsustainable goals."

My goal is a human race that lives in harmony with nature instead of destroying it for other pleasures such as comfort, convenience, or profit.  This is far beyond sustainablility, which is a very low standard that allows as much destruction and killing as you think you can get away with.

"Whatever happened to the famous tolerance of the old hippie movement?"

Don't know, never been a hippie.  I'm a punk rocker.  Hippies are annoying as hell.

The EF! co-founder said that he won't drink with Freddies.  I deduced from the rest of his email that he meant that the reason was that he couldn't trust them, though that's open to interpretation.

The point is that the Forest Disservice works for the timber industry, at the expense of the forests and trees, the animals who live there, and the watersheds destroyed by logging.  You government people are paid directly by our taxes and are thus more disgusting than timber industry people, because you should be protecting the forests from the timber industry, not collaberating with it.  Those in industry are only supposed to be looking for profits.

In any conversation addressing public lands and environmental issues, participants must first distinguish between ownerships: public and private. I don't see that folks are making that distinction when it must be made. In our society, different policies and underlying incentives, disincentives, and assumptions do (and must) guide the differing legal and policy approaches to public land and private land.

Private lands, to a significant degree and within the constraints of applicable laws and their enforcement, can be managed how an individual owner pleases. As a practical matter, public lands should be managed in some way that reflects the way our array of public land laws say public lands should be managed. (Land ethics and philosophy are another issue altogether.)

With regard to USFS lands, what does our Congress-made law say about how the national forests should be managed? Good question. The answer will vary depending upon whom is talking. Our laws, when taken as a whole, are ambiguous and offer no clear, singular priority for management. Thus, management is always up for debate--in court and elsewhere. This is a major inefficiency, but it is the best we've got at the moment. To some it is a satisfactory situation. To others, it is not.

Although philosphy and ecological and policy-based debate is interesting, practical solutions will be found in clarifying public land law as it relates to the core mission of the national forests.

We must remember that USFS lands are publicly-owned. That said, much of the debate centering on ecological disturbance, anthropogenic disturbance, "use" vs. "restoration, etc. is well and good, but many comments posted here speak as much to personal values as they speak to ecological reality or prudent policy. In essence, we in society, in Congress, and in local and regional public lands communities are all operating on slightly different or dramatically different assumptions as to what the mission of the national forests is or should be.

While some measure of public debate is always healthy, the national forest debate often crosses that threshhold, where our energies in debate and legal battle would have accomplished more universal satisfactory ends had it been applied elsewhere toward other measures.

Is the USFS mission to manage for ecological integrity foremost? Is it to manage for commodity production foremost? Is it to manage for recreation foremost? Is it to manage for grazing and forage foremost? Is it to manage for clean streamflows foremost? Is it to manage for wildlife and fish foremost?

As many of you know, our suite of public lands laws, including NFMA, NEPA, MUSYA, FLPMA and others say basically that USFS must manage for multiple and divergent uses, must write forest plans and follow them, must solicit and consider public input on major projects, etc., etc. Our public lands laws, however, set no distinct priority as between wood production, recreation, habitat, etc.  Moreover, these laws do not adequately address issues of spatial and temporal scale. Is balanced multiple use to occur over a year, over a decade, over a century, over an acre, over a forest patch, over an ecoregion, nationally?

In other words, the practical reality of our public lands law is that because of the many management priorities, there is no clear  priority for our national forests.  Our having no clear priority creates a situation in which certain forces come to bear and set defacto priorities. These defacto priorities, beacuse of the ambiguity public land law, effectively become real, dejure priorities for Forest Service managers.

One of these forces is the budget that Congress makes for the USFS. Congress funds resource extraction--plain and simple. Both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for passing along budgets that skimp on trial maintenance, road repair and maintenance, ecological restoration, habitat enhancement, and wildlife monitoring. So blame the folks in Congress first for funding only the multiple uses they favor.

Congress funds timber sales. Congress funds energy development. Congress funds road building. This is not to paint all local and regional USFS managers is victims of Congress, but merely to point out that where the big picture focus of a forest is concerned, the decisions are largely tied to budgets handed down from Congress and further enforced by the central USFS office exectives in D.C.

Another force which manipulates the multiple use concept and sets defacto priorites is the President's administration. The USFS is an executive agency that serves at the pleasure of the administration. So, when the law is ambiguous, and the administration writes new regs for administering the law, guess what... the administrative regulations set priorites via their interpretation of the law.

Finally, my thoughts on Mitch Friedman's advocacy for collaboration and restoration follow.

Currently, there is much rhetoric flying around. If we are going to talk "restoration" or "collaboration," we must define our terms and agree upon the definitions. As Voltaire said, if you want to debate me, we must first define our terms...or something like that. The administration's definition of "restoration" and my definition are drastically different.

What I mean is this. To a traditional forester, or to those presently running the show, a "healthy" forest is a stand of evenly-spaced, middle aged (not yet "decadent") trees (timber), with no bugs, parasites, cavity nesting birds, fire, lightning, rodents, or other natural components that might diminish the market value of the wood. OK, I exaggerate, but not too much. Certainly many foresters value wildlife and ecological function, but to many foresters a forest is FOREMOST a means to produce a commodity, while maintaining some ecological values as side benefits. This is well and good on Weyerhauser land, but on national forests, the 'forest as commodity foremost' culture presents a problem in that it clashes with the multple use spirit of our public lands law.

Forest Service leadership is steeped in a tradition and culture of traditional forestry. Yes there are plenty of "ologists." There are social scientists, and hydrologists, and cultural diversity and all the other politically correct warm and fuzzies. However, unless one marches lockstep with the aforementioned defacto forces that drive resource extraction, she will not ascend the ranks of the agency.

Some questions and facts that speak to an insular and narrowly-focussed agency culture:

--How hard is it to get into the USFS as a new employee?

--Does the agency prefer to promote its own rather than bring in new blood?

--Is there significant coordination between the research and management arms?

--The professional organization most closely allied with USFS is the Socety of American Foresters (see SAF's position statements on issues and ask whether they jibe with the dominant policies on your local national forest).

Those who rise to positions of leadership (Chief, Regional Forester, Forest Supervisor, District Ranger) are folks who tend to be foresters (--yes there are some exceptions, Dombeck for example). Traditional foresters tend not to be steeped in ecological knowledge or a holitsic view of the landscape. They tend to view forests as a commodity--trees as standing dollars.

As for USFS management and timber primacy culture, there exist laws and mechanisms whereby the only way a local forest manager can garner monies that can go to non-extractive projects is to extract/harvest trees (see Knudsen-Vandenburg Act). Thus, beyond budgets that favor extraction, there are built-in incentives on a forest-level to extract in order to bring back discretionary funding that is not already dedicated to specific allocations by USFS central office budgets.

All that said, the current harvest of 2-3 BBBF is certainly less than the 12-13 BBBF under Reagan. However, timber volume is a separate issue from agency culture and the way managers would manage absent environmental watchdog groups and foundational public lands laws. Foresters are taught in forestry school that they know best--that they are the protfessionals. This culture persists in the agency and often hinders meaningful collaboration. Many USFS managers resent having to deal with the public. They do not view NEPA as a job requirement, but rather as a burden and hindrance to their unilateral expert management. NEPA is in effect a hoop that managers jump through. To this effect, the Bitterroot NF recently marked a timber sale before it had completed scoping under NEPA?!?!?! Most likely project decisions are quite often made prior to the NEPA process. Are we all wasting are time here?

Thus, Mitch Friedman's advocacy of collaboration is, I think, a good start, but there are some serious institutional-cultural problems in the USFS that will resist meaningful collaboration and satisfactory ecological restoration in the near future. We need holistic thinkers in the forest service. We need the new generation of graduates from the new generation of natural resource and environmental studies programs, that approach issues with humility and a willingness to learn from various stakeholders. We need many of the folks that go to work for Earthjustice, and TWS, and CBD, and Sierra Club to really put their money where it counts, to really show some idealism. We need the folks that sue the USFS to go work for improvement within the agency, within Congress, and other within influential insider entities.

To me, this post confirms what Jeff said previously. The forest service can't be trusted, even though there may be people within the FS who sincerely love the forests. But they aren't the ones in charge. Everyone knows, who lives near a national forest or who participates in their comment periods, that it is near impossible to change the FS from the "desired" action, which is usually one that calls for more cutting, or access or whatever. Rarely do the more conservative plans make it and the option of not cutting doesn't exist.
  The way I feel about it is this: Right now the Earth's remaining forests -- a fraction of what they were, or what they should be for healthy global ecosystems and climate -- are so endangered that we have an obligation to stop cutting in national forests except in those cases where "thinning to restore" is the best option. I realize this is a radical idea and that it would cut into profits for the timber industry but that's not my concern. I do understand the systemic issues involved, and I understand the reality of FS culture. (A colleague of mine started an organization called Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics -- whatever happened to that, I wonder?) Earth's forests need to be allowed to recover, and climate change is putting even more pressure on already stressed environments.
   

From a song I heard yesterday on the radio

"Don't feel like Satan but I am to them, so I try to forget it any way I can....Keep on rocking in the free world!"......Neil Young

I'd like to see you all in court but, I'm too low on the totem pole. While I definitely don't agree with every project I work on, I fully exercise the leeway and interpretation I have in wielding my paintgun. I consider myself to be a "true environmentalist" (which is WAY different than being strictly a "preservationist"), doing what is right for restoration of our forests within the constraints of this current reality and my own extensive experience in the woods. I do see some consensus here, and my vision of the future of our National Forests isn't much different than what you folks embrace. What is different is our methods (and timelines) to get there.

As it is, I seemed to have spent a bit more than my two cents worth.

Backcut wrote:

There's 10 to 100 times MORE trees in the western forests than before the arrival of the white man.

I have to agree with Jeff on this one -- where in the world did you find this statistic?

I didn't intend to use the "Lush Rimjob-ism" to say that more trees make a forest. Actually, quite the opposite. We have tons of plantations from the awful logging of the past. Too many of those have more trees on the land than there were before the white man. More trees on a piece of ground does NOT mean a better forest and plantations can't support the dwindling wildlife the forest ecosystem needs to survive. I think we can all agree with that.

Since many do agree that thinning is a valid reason for cutting trees, why don't we build on that and leave the "ancient history" behind? Yes, there ARE still many "dinosaurs" left at high levels in the agency. Piscatorviator so eloquently discussed some of those issues above. We need to focus on saving the patches of old growth we still have left and promote the ascension of second growth into a cohesive ecosystem worthy of endangered species and human adoration. We also have to become self-sufficient with our wood consumption and first stop importing wood that comes from places that have little to no environmental controls.

Think globally and act locally!

Piscatorviator,,
You left a very important, fundamental fact out of your post.  When the National Forest system was first created, logging was strictly prohibited in our National Forests.  Unfortunately, it only took about ten years for the timber industry to influence enough politicians to change the law.  This had nothing to do with what the public wanted, except for the tiny portion who made money by killing trees.

We have a corrupt government, where private campaign donations and lobbying by businesses are not only allowed but considered part of the "democratic" process.  The U.S. is a plutocracy  -- NOT a democracy -- and has been for a long time, though it has been getting much worse over the past few decades.  Our government is also quite fascist (which basically means that big business runs the government).  Until these things change, one cannot just accept what the government does as being legitimate or representative of the people.  (I'm not under any illusions that Americans are liberal, open minded, or environmentalists; they're not, regardless of what they tell pollsters.  But neither are they as anti-environmental or right wing as the government.)

Backcut,
We agree that the U.S. should stop importing wood.  (I am opposed to ALL international trade because of the environmental harms caused by transportation, but that's another issue.)  However, the environmentally beneficial solution is to live more naturally and greatly lower our population, not to kill more trees.  For example, houses need not be made of wood, and hemp can substitute for wood in all cases.

But your posts contain what seem to be serious contradictions.

You said you supported Ralph Nader for president.  Well, his position on public lands was no commercial activity, period, so I don't think you'd be too happy with him.

You claim to be supportive of the environment but denigrate groups like Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity, and preservationists.  Sierra Club's only problem is that it's too conservative.  If people like the late David Brower or current board member Captain Paul Watson were running the Club, it would be great group.  The Center IS a fantastic group that has saved more wildlife and wilderness than every other group put together.  We preservationists merely want to preserve natural areas in their natural conditions (which, by the way, include fires, droughts, insect infestations, forests and meadows warring for land, etc.)

So, which side are you really on?  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were just not being clear instead of assuming that you were being dishonest.  A third possibility is that you haven't really thought this stuff through, which led to your self-contradictions.

Jeff, first off, I'd like to apologize if you took my comment to be an attack on you.  It was not meant to be interpreted that way.  I was only trying to make a point (with some humor) that you are using resources too.  I don't care whether it's less than what I use, but you still use resources, including wood products.  

To point out that you use wood products was not to point out that you are a hypocrite and that you shouldn't argue for what you believe.  My point was that since you use resources (which is a FACT), don't you want them harvested in a more sustainable manner than is currently practiced?

I'll let you focus on the long term changes you're advocating for (which are important and to a lesser extent, I agree with), I'm just more interested in making realistic changes for the short term.  Both approaches need to exist.

In regards to others' comments about collaboration and the Forest Service, it is already here (although only in rare instances).  Wallowa County in NE Oregon just had their first timber sale on public land that wasn't challenged in court b/c the FS worked with the concerns of environmental groups.  I've heard great things about the Applegate Partnership in SW Oregon, and the Quincy Library group (I think that's what it's called) in California.  

If anything, the fact that the "Old Guard" of the FS are a bunch of tree-cutting curmudgeons (to stereotype), might be a reason to focus on local collaborations with the FS-- it might bring at least a little more of the power to local FS employees who might also happen to be environmentalists.  Sure, they work in a larger structure that has the ultimate decision making power, but I don't see how it will hurt.  If the FS reneges, take 'em to court.  If not, you have more sustainably harvested wood, local jobs in depressed rural areas, and less imported wood.

Thanks for everyone's comments so far.  I've been enjoying this discussion.

To respond to Jeff's quote:
"The point is that the Forest Disservice works for the timber industry, at the expense of the forests and trees, the animals who live there, and the watersheds destroyed by logging.  You government people are paid directly by our taxes and are thus more disgusting than timber industry people, because you should be protecting the forests from the timber industry, not collaberating with it."

Jeff, we barely have a timber industry where I work. Based on your statement, I should be bored with nothing to do.  Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on the way you see it) such activities as recreation, oil and gas development, providing access to private inholders, grazing, wildlife protection, fuels treatment projects and implementing the travel management rule are there to keep me busy.

I wonder to what extent these concerns about the "timber industry" are, in fact, fighting the battles of the last century. Seems to me, from where I sit, simple overuse by our growing population and indirect impacts of burgeoning home development next to public land would be one of the key threats to forests in the 21st Century. I would see great opportunities for collaboration with environmentalists in getting conservation easements for key areas near public land and in monitoring overuse, to select just a few.

Docpine,
First, I agree with you about overpopulation and development being threats to natural areas, including forests.  There are many ways to destroy the Earth, and killing trees is only one of them.

"[O]il and gas development, providing access to private inholders, [and] grazing" are all ecologically destructive activities that should be banned from our public lands.  Private inholders should be bought out, by eminent domain if necessary.  The cattle industry has caused more ecological damage to the western U.S. than any other industry (some people say than all other industries combined!).  Most pertinent to this discussion, cattle destroy western grasses, and when this occurs in or at the edge of forests, the forests become unnaturally dense.

While it's good to know that you're not killing trees in your area, there are other ways to destroy ecosystems and cause needless killing of other forms of life.

To borrow from Lord of the Rings, I'm not on either side because no one's on my side. That not only goes for the environment but in politics as well. I was relieved when Kerry didn't get elected and disgusted when Bush got re-elected. Nader merely represented a third choice who was not Republican and not Democrat.

Regarding the environment, I also "vote" for the third choice. Only "hands-on" ecologically and economically-sound management will save our forests, despite what outsiders will say. "Preservationism" was tried and it failed miserably on the San Bernardino, and other forests (see the Beetle Battle thread for pictures of the "killings".) If humans don't intervene, yes, Mother Nature will "re-balance" our forests over hundreds of years, often in ways we humans do not like. We HAVE learned from the past that cleacutting and high-grading ruins what nature has so amazingly created. Why can't we carefully restore those forests using the latest science and experience we've so painfully acquired??

Why? Because it's all about money. Both sides cherish the greenback and that idea is still in full force today with both mill monopolies and "preservationist" eco-lawyers reaping the big profits while the forests continue to suffer. Personally, I make my pittance either way because there will always be logging and it's up to the courts to decide which color of trees will get cut, green, brown or black. THAT, unfortunately, is our current reality. For the most part, the USFS is, and has been, a rudderless ship tossed about on the tides of politics and junk science, from both sides.

One of the major issues with you guys, and I am not afraid to say it: you are hypocritical. There is not necessarily anything wrong with it, especially if you diminish your use of resources. But my point is, was and will be you will not survive without resources.

Two examples: paper CANNOT be 100% recycled by any economic means (and I'm pretty sure it can't be by any other means). And: people in the desert that use earth to build their homes are destroying an unbelievable array of microbial biodiversity: soil there supports a much larger level of biodiversity than in most other ecosystems (tropical and temperate forests), AND they use soil!

You place a lot of emphasis on your emotional assessment of the situation, without using science or facts. You use blanket statements that you cannot trust Freddies, etc. You have to avoid using the hardliner stance, placing your opinions on pure belief, since that is what got this country into trouble in the past 6 years (think Christian revival of right-wing politics).

Usually deep beliefs lead to war (real wars and court wars), basically a huge waste of resources, both real and time. Some conflict is necessary and it is important to be passionate, but if you are proven wrong about something (and I am frequently), the best you can do is smile and say: well... damn I was wrong. This is something that I have not seen anyone do here. A good discussion requires adjustments of opinions based on facts, rather than emotional knee-jerk reactions, which seems to be an important component of what you are arguing.

I am not saying that what you are doing is not important. It is. I would love to work in a situation, where I use your opinions, as well as other people's opinions, but base the outcome of my decisions on facts. You have to understand that in order to maintain the forests, you have to pay for them (using timber to do it partially, and obviously without using tax money to pay companies so that they could make money). You also have to understand that a large proportion of the Western forest is monocultural in species but extremely diverse in genetics, and that 10 to 100 times more trees means stems, not sizes, that the temperate forests are not threatened by forestry but rather by development, the fact that if you don't use wood you WILL use something else. And what makes using wood wrong in that case?

In short, you have to understand that life does not revolve around your ideals but around real factors, economics included (as much as I disagree with it, it's prevalent everywhere), and you should learn more about these factors than throwing around harsh words (fascism has been aligned with corporatism by very few scholars, and thus does not appear to be the appropriate word to use, but it sounds so much worse!). Realism (one of the few ism's that actually seems to doubt itself) is important in most situations and without it we will not get far (especially with forest management).

Well, here's my rant, I expect that you will attack it from every perceivable idealistic level and once again not use any facts to back it up (I'm sorry, I have yet to see a real soul, even if I BELIEVE in its existence, and I have yet to see corporate propaganda in a nature film about... oh say dolphins), and if you do you will get a smile and an admittance of my wrong.

When I said 'maintain forests', I meant as National Forests, instead of industry/private lands, as well as using silviculture and other management practices to address public needs within a forest.

Jeff, have you ever heard of swidden, or slash and burn agriculture? This is something that was practiced by many tropical cultures, and involves clearcutting a hectare or two at a time (obviously killing trees), burning it, using the soil to grow crops, and then moving on to another part of the area. This increased biodiversity on the landscape level and became an important ecological driver in these regions, while being completely sustainable and beneficial to the ecosystem.

Docpine,
Your statments about upholding federal laws are no justification for doing something immoral.  The Interntaional Court Nuhrenberg trials held that "I was just doing my job" is not a legitimate excuse.  As I stated in an earlier post, the U.S. government is completely corrupted and in the pockets of the rich and their businesses.  If you choose to work for that government, then you've chosen against the environment, regardless of your personal beliefs.  Of course, if you believe that what you're doing is right or environmentally beneficial -- we would strongly disagree here -- none of this applies, but don't try to hide behind the your ethics code, the Constitution, or federal laws.

Backcut,
Nature, including forests, are much better off without human intervention.  Regarding the U.S., the problem is that humans have intervened negatively for over 500 years, so we should now fix the problems that humans caused.  However, all logging should be limited to fixing those problems in order to restore the forests to pre-European conditions.  After that's achieved, the forests should be left alone.

Re ""preservationist" eco-lawyers reaping [] big profits," that's nothing but a right wing, anti-environmental lie with no basis in reality.  The lawyers who make big bucks are those who work for corporations, like the timber, mining, oil, gas, and grazing industries.  I'm a "preservationist eco-lawyer," to use your term, and I can't even afford to buy a house in our grossly overpriced housing market in the San Francisco area.  Public interest lawyers do not make big bucks, despite what you've been led to believe.  Those who want to make big bucks work for Sauron.

The reason that restoration is not taking place is that the government, including your agency, is in the pockets of indutries, including the timber industry.  All timber sales on public lands have been deficit sales for a long time, meaning that we're wasting public money killing trees and creating artificial tree farms instead of spending it on closing roads and attempting to restore the forests to pre-European conditions.  Preservationist lawyers would eargerly support restoration and are definitely not the reason it's not taking place.

Atreyger,
Science and facts alone don't suffice; in fact, they're usually much less important than what's in your heart.  As I said in a post on another thread, it's about attitude, dude.  Reverance for all forms of life and the Earth itself serves environmental concerns more and better than all the facts in the world.  Traditional indigenous people don't have western science, but their ecosystems are in exponentially better shape than those of any civilization, because they have a pro-environment attitude.  Civilization has an anti-environment attitude.  The fact that you consider silviculture -- which is just a euphimism for how to kill trees -- to be legitimate tells me that your attitude is not of someone whose goal is restoration or protection of natural areas.

Furthermore, when I worked with EF! in the mid '80s, many, if not most, of the group was made of biologists and ecologists.  (There's a FACT that you requested.)  It's a lie to say we don't have science on our side, even though western science is just the modern person's way to look at life and is inferior to the perspectives of indigenous cultures for the purpose of living in harmony with nature.  It's the Earth destroyers who lack facts or pervert science in order to chase money.

Here are some facts for you merely regarding what's now the U.S., even though I don't place anywhere near the value on them that you do:  FACT: Turtle Island was in infinitely better shape before the arrival of white people, who have destroyed and polluted every ecosystem, and have driven many species to extinction.  FACT: Ecosystems do not need humans in order to be healthy; they thrived before humans were even an idea.  FACT: It is possible for humans to live without consuming so much or overpopulating as traditional indigenous societies did for millennia.  Every living thing consumes something, but that's not the same as overconsuming or overpopulating.  Your hypocracy claim is that of an anti-environmentalist.  FACT: Humans have only practiced agriculture for 10-12,000 years and industrial society has only been around for about 200 years, which are very short times in the history of humans.  FACT: You cannot eat, breathe, or drink money, which leads to the conclusion that economics should take a back seat to environmental concerns.  FACT: Money is merely a symbol of wealth and doesn't even exist on its own.  Economics, which is the study of monetary systems, is therefore a study of systems of illusory symbols created by humans that have no meaning in the natural world.  FACT: Paper can be made from hemp, and without the poisonous chemicals needed when it's made from dead trees.  See a book called "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" by Jack Herer.  Sorry, but there are no lack of facts to support Earth First! positions.

Re "fascism," Mussolini defined "fascism" as "corporatism."  If Mussolini doesn't get to define "fascism," I don't know who does.  Just because people in capitalist societies have chosen to pervert or totally change the definition of the word in order to hide what they're doing doesn't make that change legitimate.  Even ruling class Robert Kennedy said recently that "fasicsim" is when big business runs the government.

Finally, re slash and burn agriculture:  Yes, I learned about it in 1984 when researching an Earth First! campaign against logging in tropical rainforests.  It's not a traditional practice, but one used by people who were originally hunter/gatherers and were thrown off their land.  It's very destructive, because the soil in tropical rainforests is almost void of nutrients; plants, including trees, grow out of other plants.  If you cut down trees, you're left with a desert within a few years.  Slash and burn agriculture in tropical rainforests is completely unsustainable.

First fact: did not know that, and despite the claim still not 100% confident that it even means anything. That is because anyone can claim to be an ecologist or biologist after taking several ecology classes and receiving a bachelor's degree in biology. But even if all these guys are PhD's in biology and ecology, it does not make them right, since there is a lot of specialization in these fields, and just because they know every species of lichen in a 500 mile area does not make them aware of other issues. But like I said, it is important to know the facts AND I cannot even claim to know a hundredthof what really goes on, nay, even a millionth. So, based on what I know and what I have been taught, and what I have investigated through own research, I think that there are plenty of things that should be considered and more than just plain old don't do S#!T unless it's good for the environment or do S#!T just to do it b/c it's good for the environment, because you don't know what is good for it all the time.

A little side note: the reason I really got into this field (ecology and now sustainable forestry) is because of one very influential (and as opinionated as a drunk sailor is profane) professor. He got his PhD in sphagnum moss classification and is the top man out of maybe four or five others in the field. The man is wonderful, grumpy as hell and a great teacher. Knows a lot about botany, birds, forest ecology, tropical forest ecology and wetland ecology as well as sustainable agriculture: most of these things he teaches and I have taken every one of his classes. The man knows a lot, but he had us in the forest ecology class (not sure if it was his lack of knowledge on the subject or just plain let's do something to do something kind of a thing) put up fencing around beech trees so 'the deer won't eat them and preclude their growth'. Well, as I had later found out, deer can't stand beech, and these beech will die anyway because of beech bark disease (which he knew about but I'm not sure exactly what he was thinking), and as a matter of fact preclude other species from growing. Was he right to include that in his lesson plan? He taught us how to put up an exclosure, but it wouldn't have done anything useful, yet he passed it on as real knowledge.

The point of that tirade was that not everyone knows everything all the time, and it is best to have a whole bunch of people from different professions and backgrounds talking and attempting to reach a consensus.

An example of human integration with ecosystems: Eld's deer habitat in SE Asia consists of dry tropical forest with grasses (their main food source), an ecosystem driven by fire. Where does it come from year after year? People that live there have a holiday where they burn the forest (mainly for their cattle). Had this not been the case, these deer's habitat would have been much lower prior to recent century and they might have been extinct before any Westerner knew about them(of course they're still screwed by overpopulation now, but my point remains).

I could go on, but let's go to the second fact: Honestly, I don't know why you keep throwing Turtle Island around (I am assuming that you mean the Fijian island and not the hundred others). There are plenty of ecosystems that have been F**CKED by humans everywhere. It's not even worth talking about this in our current context however, since we are not talking about disjunct populations where endemic species have evolved through seclusion. We are talking about millions and millions of acres of semi-contiguous forests with relatively low biodiversity (if we're talking species).

Third fact: Absolutely, and if you read my previous post about the smoke signals, they will thrive for eons after we all stop existing. Your concern with the environment (mine too) lies at its core with humans and not the environment per se. Of course the environment is what we are concerned about, but following your logic we should attempt to go the age of dinosaurs and beyond in order to bring back the way things were. Besides there was a point in time when things weren't as peachy as they are now for us, and global warming may shift our entire universe back to what it was during the age of dinos. Please consider this idea (environmentalist because of humans and our way of life) again, and the consequences that it has for the ecosystem that you live in.

Fourth fact: I absolutely agree, but not with the nuances. We simply do not know enough about how humans lived prior to agriculture and how many species they have extirpated from across the globe. If this (large mammal extinction in North America, Australia, and most other places) is your idea of what we are going towards (as this is quite natural) then I strongly disagree. I think everyone should use less, and there should be less people, but the key word there is SHOULD and not IS. I eat local and organic (and spend way too much money: pretty much all of it), ride my bike to school and work, compost, reduce, reuse, recycle, and try to teach others. But the only way to do it is to either force people to do it or to teach them and I'm not so sure that everyone wants to be taught. I cannot address your anti-environmentalist claim about hypocricy since you did not elaborate. But at least I preach what I do.

Fifth fact: yes, nothing to say here and I fail to see the relevance.

Sixth fact: I agree, but how do you make 6 billion other people agree is what I would like to know.

Seventh fact: same as sixth.

Eighth fact: hemp is a living, being thing with its own soul (if you believe in it), and thus is no different from a tree. Hemp, at the levels that it would be grown at in order to produce paper, would have to replace forests or food agricultural fields (second option: not so bad). But why can't we just use what is already there in the forests? There's plenty of trees, let me tell you, and they grow back. Poisonous chemicals are required to feed the consumer preference of 'white as snow' paper and have no real relevance to the subject, as paper could be made from trees without using these chemicals. Once again, I am not against using hemp by any means, but you have to put this into context. By the way, it would still replace something, and that's all a crapshoot of what is going to go.

Facsism: this is a gray area, and I meant to use corporatism in the current sense of the word, since this is what we are all experiencing globally. Corporatism in Fascism implied a different thing: 'Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, and professional groups. Unlike pluralism, in which many groups must compete for control of the state, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process. These corporatist assemblies are not the same as contemporary business corporations or incorporated groups."

Slash and burn ag: this one is something that you are mistaken about. You are thinking about large, nay, huge scale slash and burn. I am talking specifically about swidden agriculture, and it is absolutely sustainable at low population densities and definitely increases biodiversity, think early successional species among a matrix of old-growth.

I guess I was wrong, you do have facts. I'm not smiling though, because you don't use them appropriately. Please elaborate for yourself and others in the future, especially about your concern for the environment and its root cause. I am staying tuned.

'Resource consumption'
When you call the blessings of life on Earth 'resources', you reduce them to things that serve man- they exist not for themselves or for diversity but to provide humans with what they need or want. This attitude is at the heart of the problem- the reason the Earth is in trouble. We do not deny that we have needs, and that we consume life to live, but what you call 'resources' are blessings provided by a loving Earth Mother. In this view, we take what we need to live (no more) and we put back whatever we can to support the ecosystem of which we are a part. No one claims to be able to live without eating or without shelter and clothing, but many believe that the closer you come to this way of living, the closer you are to being at peace. 'Resource consumption' is living on a regional, national, or global scale, which cannot be supported by the Earth. We advocate for living within our ecosystem- locally, where if you kill the trees, you live without wood. As with so many things, it is a matter of scale- the difference between mass consumption (abuse) and respectful, minimal, cooperative use. We may need to kill a deer to live through the winter, but we don't kill enough to harm the population, we don't destroy their homes, and we will provide food for them when snow is deep- we are respectful, thankful, and protective of them. If you kill the deer, skin it, gut it, and clean up the blood, you have faced the fact of the kill- you feel your debt. If you drive to the store and buy ground hamburger, you feel nothing- you can even ignore that a kill was made, unaware that big ag cleared a rainforest in Brazil so those cattle could graze. If we each had to cut down the trees on our alloted land to build our homes, we would feel the true cost of our shelter in the reduced quality of our land. When we buy a finished home from our realtor, painted and carpeted, we have no sense of the cost to the Earth's forests.

'Hypocrites'
The very fact that we live in America makes it impossible for us to live the way we should. We don't control where our food comes from, what our homes are made of, and the practices of those who 'serve our needs' (like big agriculture, forestry, and mining). We have few choices, unless we can afford to buy land and live on it minimally. Many of us would LOVE to bail out of this harmful system and gain control over our relationship with Nature- but would that help save the rest of the Earth from the 'system'? Wouldn't that be a cop-out? Couldn't we do more good by sticking around, trying to influence people and government for change, while adding as little as we can to the burden on the Earth? Sure, we are hypocrites, because we don't support the system that we are trapped within.

'Science or Facts'
I have yet to see any science or facts that prove that killing trees is harmless, good for the Earth or diversity, or even necessary for human survival. Much of what has been passed for science here is unprovable statements that support the theory that we must kill trees or that killing trees is good for forests or diversity. No one will be proven wrong or right in this discussion, since it is really about attitudes. I cannot prove that man is responsible for a lack of diversity or unhealthy forests, or even climate change, and I cannot prove that man can live without cutting trees. Certainly, early humans moving into harsh
climates might have died without cutting trees. But we all agree that some amount of using the blessings of the Earth can be tolerated if humans have the proper attitude and respect (and few enough numbers). Killing huge numbers of trees to sell for profit so that other humans can expand their numbers and take over more wilderness is abusive and shameful, and must stop.

I support an end to cutting on public lands, outlawing imported wood, and dis-incentives to cutting on private land. The cost of 'lumber' would skyrocket. This would be (temporarily) devastating to our (inflated) economy. But since most new housing is speculative (and not needed) anyway, no one will be left out in the rain. This will stop new home building in it's tracks- new housing developments would be abandoned. Most of the jobs lost would be to illegal aliens who could go to work on the many small farms that would re-appear when the housing bubble pops. Wood products could be economically recycled and re-used, since it is no longer cheaper to kill trees. Man, it just gets better as I dream- must I stop?

FACT: Most new development is not driven by a real need for more (or bigger) housing, but by profit motive and government subsidies that make new growth a necessary part of our inflated economy. Growth MUST end, and re-distribution, re-use, and recycling can fill the gap while we adjust to a shrinking economy and a shrinking impact on the Earth.

Good articulation, birdboy, and I could not agree with you more regarding the attitude and development. If we all had that attitude, none of this would be a huge issue, and neither would be development. Of course the next question is:

How do you go about it?

It being: convincing every person or even some out there that this is an appropriate way of life, that they do not need money or their 'bling-bling', that their entire culture is superfluous and superficial and that living off the land is as much fun, as easy and as good or better as their life is right now? I have been trying and haven't had as much luck as I originally thought. I generally wound up preaching to the choir more often than not.

Wouldn't it be simpler and more efficient to work on some of the more realistic problems from the 'inside', where you can actually learn more about ecological interactions and apply these tactics on a scale, where money is important but is not the most important thing? Where you can increase biodiversity through tactics which may imply 'timber extraction' (by the way I personally think that semantics do matter, but I am not so sure how much). Where you utilize techniques, which have never been used before, and are better for the specific system (ag, forestry, mining) used. At this point you are right about the feasibility of recycling and reuse of wood products, but does that not imply energy usage and need for some products eventually? And what about land taxes? What about the people who already have and want more? Let me know what you think.

A few of your "facts" left me laughing and I have a limited time to comment so I'll bring forth a few quips.

"Nature, including forests, are much better off without human intervention." Says who? All humans in North American forests have "intervened" in one way or another. Many indigenous people had MAJOR impacts on their environment. All I've ever proposed is the restore a balance through careful scientific intervention, where it is needed. Many posters here advocate thinning projects and that also is "intervention".

"...and I can't even afford to buy a house in our grossly overpriced housing market in the San Francisco area." Awwww, poor baby! I can't even afford to RENT a place there, much less own a home elsewhere in California. "Big bucks" is certainly a relative term and I think you've just alienated some of the "core activists" who barely eke out ANY kind of living.

"All timber sales on public lands have been deficit sales for a long time, meaning that we're wasting public money killing trees and creating artificial tree farms instead of spending it on closing roads and attempting to restore the forests to pre-European conditions." When the Agency has to jump through all the mandated hoops and can't cut the lucrative stuff (which I don't approve of, anyway), there's little chance of making a profit off of cutting trees mostly in the 9-14" dbh range. Many of these small trees included in the timber sales are incense cedar and white fir (the weedy species), and they garner very little in the way of competetive bidding with the monopolies that some mills have today. Is it better for these weedy trees that choke the understory, stealing precious water from the old growth, to burn at high intensity and incinerate the entire ecosystem or is it better to lock up that carbon, make more water available for the forests we want to restore, increase drought, fire and bark beetle resistance, improve wildlife habitat and set the stage for new old growth forests?

Remember, here in California, National Forest clearcutting was banned 13 years ago, trees larger than 30" dbh are off-limits and yearly green timber volume is 1/30th of what it was during the late 80's. Look it up!

"Preservationism" is in steep decline in the minds of Americans. The good thing is that those former "preservationists" have become "true environmentalists" (like myself), conserving and cherishing Mother Nature in the real world.

I have observed local, state and the federal government up close- from the rural county commissioner who owns a jewelry store, the retirees who serve in part-time state legislatures. I also worked for a member of the U.S. Congress answering constituent mail.

I too am concerned about corruption and I would be a fan of legislators being subject to the same ethics constraints as federal employees.

Nevertheless, with legislators, state and federal, we see them struggle with a variety of difficult issues- immigration, war, poverty, health care, federal and state resource management and sometimes fail. But do we know another system that could do better? And if the public elects only incompetent and corrupt dolts to office, do we have a responsibility in that of any kind?  Say an ethical responsibility to do something about it- to protect the environment, the poor, etc.  

I guess I'd have to say I still believe that the government is a powerful force for good or ill and it's worth it to work on it or in it, because much good can be done and bad outcomes prevented or minimized.  

P.S. I'm not hiding behind the Constitution and federal laws because I have never been asked to do anything at work that I consider immoral. 'Course people have different moralities and it sounds like you might not agree with mine.  

While I don't want to be the a-hole that keeps on replying to everyone, my question regarding black cherry, and this is me playing devil's advocate, is why not keep a good proportion of it in the forest? Not only is it good wood, it is also a good wildlife species.

The main issues with it are like you said the herbicides against interfering plants and even-aged reproduction methods, which many find to be offensive. I would like to find out your opinion and hopefully some concrete reasons for not having this species be a larger part of the ecosystem. This may sound sort of stupid, but feel free to throw in some citations (man am i a dork) or maybe just places where I can look this up. My research has to do with ecological integrity and while I find a lot of info about it as a concept, not as much about more concrete reasons for having the forest be pre-settlement (I don't think it's possible in any feasible way until the researchers can bring back the chestnut anyway).

I am actually struggling between these two modes of thought right now myself: on one hand it would be nice as a goal to have pre-settlement type forests but on the other how can we do that when we have inserted ourselves into the picture? Can we even do that without wolves and wolverines and all these other extirpated species?

Atreyger,
"Turtle Island" is what Native Americans call North America or the U.S.

Re Eld's deer: Why would they become extinct without humans artificially burning grasses?  How did they survive before humans got there?  This can't have been going on for more than a couple of thousand years, if that long, so what happened before that?  This comment is indicative of someone who thinks that life depends on god-like humans to help it along.  Give up the hubris; humans almost always destroy nature, they don't help it.

Following my logic, we should attempt to restore nature to the condition it was in before humans discovered agriculture.  I never said or implied anything about dinosaurs.  I realize that life is change and ecosystems also change, but humans have wreaked havoc on the Earth over the past 10-12,000 years, and the destruction is accelerating.

Re extinction and exterpation caused by hunter/gatherers: The First people in North Americal and Australia did kill far too many animals and thus caused these problems, but they eventually learned to scale back their killings because they have a respectful attitude toward other species.  This culture will never learn or change how it affects other species unless it has a major attitude adjustment.  Of course I don't support killing so many of a species that its numbers are significantly lowered, but this is not a necessary attribute of hunter/gatherer societies.

Re slash & burn: You're wrong about it being sustainable in a tropical rainforest; see my previous post explaining why.  If you have facts to the contrary, I'll be happy to consider them, but I don't see how anything can grow back in virtually zero nutrient soil.  Killing trees in a tropical rainforest is devastating for that reason alone.

Backcut,
Who says nature is much better off without human intnervention?  The facts, the truth, biology, ecology, etc.  All one has to do is compare any ecosystem without humans to one with them to see how much better shape the former is in.  Consider all the new species recently found in New Guinea where humans have never been; many of them certainly wouldn't be there if humans were, and none if civilized humans were.  I support thinning and other intervention, too, but only where it corrects the harms done by humans.  Otherwise, leave nature alone!  It's far wiser than humans could ever be and needs no "help" from us.  If you stopped worshipping your own species long enough, you might be able to see the truth.

Your personal attack on me isn't worthy of a response, but I'll give you one anyway.  We can't afford to rent an apartment at market rates around here, either.  If it weren't for my wife living in our place for over 25 years coupled with rent control, so that we pay about 1/4 of the market rate for our apartment, there's no way we could afford the rents that the bloodsucking landlords charge around here.  My point was that you were either dead wrong or lying about environmental lawyers making big bucks, or that we do what we do to get rich.  We practice environmental law to fight for the Earth, and I don't know one environmental lawyer who wouldn't gladly go out of business due to success of that endeavor.

Your post did not challenge or contradict any of my facts, even though some of them made you laugh.  In other words, you supplied no facts that call mine into question, so I guess I have the last laugh!

I have seen very little in the way of facts from you, Jeff. You have this vision that America's forests can be magically "fixed" if we only allowed Mother Nature to do her stuff. You even said that you are for thinning projects only in the name of fixing man's mistakes. Now, granted, we have made some whoppers, and many have occurred in the relatively recent past. That being said, most all of the western forests have been impacted by modern man's hand and we do need to correct those.

This is where we part ways, philosophically. Since you haven't explained "thinning projects", I'll try to fill in YOUR blanks. I've already defined the kinds of thinning project that we do. I'm very sure that your idea of a thinning project is to "kill" most of the trees that are unmerchantable (ie less than 9" dbh). What do we do with the merchantable trees that are incredibly overstocked? Burn them? Let nature burn them? Allow them to continue to grow and steal water from our precious old growth, weakening the entire ecosystem? How do we pay for that labor-intensive thinning? What do we do with the thinned trees? Many of these questions have not been adequately answered by the "preservationist" crowd.

All told, our forest ecosystems ARE in bad shape over a huge area of the entire west. We would be VERY happy to "treat" those areas, if you would only listen and understand what we do in this new millenium instead of focusing on the old destructive, money-hungry, science-deficient logging of the past. You should take a look at the picture links I have provided in the Beetle Battle thread (ironically, I ran a salvage sale back in the 90's named just that...lol) to see what the present conditions are like and what the future is sure to bring more of if we stay the course that "perservationists" have put forth.

Restoration forestry is where it's at and you seem to not even want to know anything about it. This thread is about collaboration and the truth is that many lawyers will be shut out if collaboration takes hold. This provides a very interesting parallel comparison with the old growth loggers who are finding that there's no more work for them. What will you do when local stakeholders and forestry people agree on forest restoration? The Quincy Library Group is a good example of collaboration but, even those plans are being litigated. Unfortunately, in today's litigious world, lawyers want you to think that they're the essential counterbalance to "forest rape and destruction", as you so fondly and pseudo-dramatically use. The key to being a "counterbalance" is to be able to allow compromise but, we haven't seen a lot of that in the last 10 years.

"Facts" of all kinds are easily available and easily "bought", as we have seen so recently. Personally, I get my facts by "reading" the land and adjusting to conditions. I encourage concerned Americans to get involved and learn more about what we're doing in the woods. It is truly sad that "forest defense" has now become more of an extractive (and destructive) industry than "forest management". (Extractive, meaning that they extract money from well-meaning but misguided people. Destructive, meaning that MILLIONS of acres burn each year.Other forests die from massive bark beetle infestations, because beneficial projects are blocked and gridlock seems to rule.) Again, are you part of the solution? Or are you a part of the problem?

I KNOW where I stand and you can't shake my love for the Forests of America. Yes, it would be sooooo convenient for you to simply label me as a money-hungry barbarian logger but, I enjoy restoring forests back to their natural condition, with all the benefits of biodiversity, ecological balance and aesthetics.  

Trees come and go

Trees are a renewable resource

Wood stoves keep people warm at night

People pass away, while young trees grow big and strong

People worry about trees, that will shade their headstones

People worry about trees, while some families  break up, because they cannot afford all of the taxation,......... and housing costs due to timber regulations,.... and government regulations built into housing costs......The people do languish with sullen faces.

Poor people live in concrete and mortar warehouses (government projects).  Concrete concentration camps are the homes of the poor, so that we spare the trees

Hopeless youth, hopeless Black youth, living in the brick jungle, in order that we save the trees

Spare the whales, trees and seals.......Let the people live in government brick jungles.

..

This one is addressed to you, but first I have to give kudos to Backcut, he seems to really love what he does and preach what he practices. If more people like you were in this profession in the industry and not governmental positions, then we really would not have an issue with 'sustainable forestry'.

Captain, thanks for the interjection, I like your rhymes and you're right, but unfortunately the real world is more complicated than that.

Jeff, I am not going to say that you don't love earth, or you don't want to do what's right, but you are idealistic living in a very realistic world. People steal, people kill, people cheat, people do absolutely amoral things. You have not answered the real questions that I had for you. You only approached the truths that I agreed on. Why are you concerned with the environment? Is it for the trees? Is it for your progeny? Is it because you have had a certain mentality for too long and do not want to change? What about other, more serious facts that you seem to continuously ignore. I will elaborate in a second.

Face it, timber does not cost as much as you think it terms of real estate. It might be cheaper out west, but in the northeast, you could make a hell of a lot more money by selling off the land to be developed. Forestry keeps forests, development cuts them and creates ecologically irreversible change. High-grading does something real similar, and it is absolutely rampant here. By keeping National Forests as forests, we are attempting to avoid private development and i think most of us are trying to keep them to plain old forests and not mines. If you don't produce something out of these forests,  any politico will look at it on paper, scratch his head, and say f... it sell it since we could fund our coffers by selling and not the other way around.

By letting people like Backcut work at this, you are allowing them to practice silviculture, an ecologically appropriate solution. Silviculture is like engineering: applied science, with it you can create any solution that someone (here insert the 'public' needs for national forests) wants. Without it you have exploitation without knowledge of consequences. If you insist that we do not collaborate with people who know what they are doing, and you obviously know next to nothing about forests and forestry (both currently and historically), then this is going to become a burden to the Bushies of the world who will sell it to make a profit or break even. This is EXACTLY what is happening right now! If you keep them as forests, you HAVE forests which produce a real tangible commodity, which you can plug into the market place. This is not rocket science, by insisting on change of attitude you are not helping until the attitudes change. You can very well support people like Backcut and I, or you can fight us and say you have to change. I think that we are as realistic (and frankly somewhat pessimistic) as it can get in today's world.

P.S. I have to run but I will get you a link regarding swidden agriculture.

Those of you who are interested in making contact with the more ecologically minded elements in the Forest Service might like to contact Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (FSEEE).  You can write to them at P.O. Box 11615, Eugene, Oregon, 97440-3815.
     Now, here are some opinions of my own; Clearcutting should be illegal on steep mountainsides, herbicides should have no place in our national forests, and we need to find ways to reduce our consumtion.  Even if paper can't all be 100% recycled, I'm sure the percentage can be much higher than it is at present.
      It may not be feasible for humans to completely stop "using" trees, (or animals. or other living things), but the relationship can, and should, be more considerate and respectful than it is at present.

Atreyger, the 'real tangible commodity' you are selling is the very thing that drives new developments- cheap lumber. Not in your forest, in some other place, not too far away.

Backcut, you say "...I enjoy restoring forests back to their natural condition, with all the benefits of biodiversity, ecological balance and aesthetics."

Have you ever actually seen this happen- a forest restored to it's natural condition- do we really know what that was? Can you hold up the 'original forest' and compare it to the 'restored' forest? What species were there but have disappeared? How long does it take- 100 years, 300 years? And how do you know it was your actions that accomplished the end result and not the forces of nature which overruled your actions? Nature makes a very poor laboratory- you cannot isolate the effect of your actions from those of forces you don't control (nature). This is why good policy is more about attitude and goals than it is about facts and data- because a good attitude may be the best we can do. This is where the forest service has failed us miserably- because extraction has been the goal since it's inception.

Only when man has made many concerted efforts in many diverse ecosystems to 'restore' health to the forests, documented carefully every significant force that acted (with or without man's efforts), and can show with statistically significant certainty that his influence was beneficial, can he claim to know what he is doing and apply with confidence what he has learned. I don't think we're there yet. But the Forest Service seems to think it (collectively) knows what is best for the forest, and rejects anything which is not so good for the timber industry. Many of you guys seem pretty smart, and your heads and your hearts seem to be in a good place- but are you really so confident that your ideas to restore forests are going to work? Is your confidence based on obvious results obtained by the execution of your ideas in numerous places and times? Or was it bestowed on you by a flood of information, theories, and a diploma?

By the way, thanks to the 'Captain' for the comic relief. I wish I could afford a brick home, but these taxes are breaking up my family.

Excellent point about the lumber. Lumber is a fungible commodity to a large extent, as well as present in a globally competetive market. If US stops producing wood, people will buy more wood from the tropics with only a nominal price increase, with the clear consequences for these ecosystems.

I think you are slightly off base regarding the effects of forest policies within the government and what is going on within private ownerships. The majority of the lumber in this country is coming from the SE pines, privately held ownerships, with intensive agroforestry on about a 30-45 year rotation (also a major part of the pulp produced in the country). Another very alarming trend is that a quarter of all the cuts in SE is from 'metro' cuts, land cleared to be developed.

The majority of the wood harvested from public lands in the northwest (don't know so much about) and private lands in the northeast is relatively expensive lumber. Those black cherries don't come cheap at all, and usually go into high-priced cabinets and the like. Same goes for sugar maple and white ash, as most of it goes into expensive furniture and cabinets. Not as sure about northwest, but much of these logs (both from here in NE and also in the NW) currently go overseas. North America was a net exporter of wood: 45 million cubic meters in 1990/94 and projected to export between 15-20 million in 2010.

In the same time US import of wood furniture products from China is up 1400% since the early 90's. Chinese import went from 149 thousand boadfeet in 1989 to 250+ million boardfeet in 2004, partially from exploitative practices in SE Asia and partially from North America. This is driven by cheaper labor costs and tax breaks for outsourcing. Also drives the closures of pulpmills and furniture makers with the clear loss of jobs in rural areas. Which is what Grist is all about for these seven weeks.

I think we are all arguing that reduction in consumption is a good thing. The point is that until you can curb other people's greed and wants, we have to find ways to sustain forests and it seems to me that sustaining them to grow trees is not something that we should scoff at as being unfeasible, since the consequences for the tropical ecosystems and development are dire. Besides (and this is huge), thinning projects do not feed the lumber market, if anything they feed the pulp and bioenergy market, which will hopefully increase as oil runs out and global warming tactics take off. Lumber does not come from trees below 12 inches dbh, at least with older sawmills, and these tend to be what remains, since no one wants to spend millions of dollars on a new one.

Thinning projects in the NE produce maybe 500-1000 bdft to the acre with 12-7 cords of wood, if thinned to 60% rel density. That yields 200-500 dollars to the acre every 15-20 years in even-aged stands after 40-50 years of growth, while the taxes in the same period of time run about $100-300 once thinnings start ($8-10 per acre per year) and operational costs are not cheap either. It is different with selection system, since here there are sawtimber yields every 15-20 years, and there is a $2-3K yield of sawtimber and some pulpwood, while the residual stand structure remains the same, which then grows in. Is this exploitation? Would it not be much simpler to sell the land for $4000-5000 an acre (at least and I mean at least), cut the wood, sell it overseas, and then develop on it using tropical plantation wood? Please tell me how this is not a reasonable solution!

I'm sorry about so many numbers, they may not make a lot of sense to you, especially if you live out West (Jeff especially, not sure where you live birdboy) and they are definitely not complete, but my point regarding development remains.

I am not saying that my previous post is the way that things should be, but rather the way that they are, and do not seem like they are about to change any time next month, since that's the way things were for a few decades.

I will refer you to several magazine articles:

Ferguson B.G. et al, 2003. Post-agricultural succession in El Peten, Guatemala. Conservation Biology 17:818-828.

Bayliss-Smith T et al., 2003. Rainforest composition and histories of human disturbance in Solomon Islands. Ambio 32:346-352.

Baird IG and Dearden P., 2003. Biodiversity conservation and resource tenure regimes: A case study from northeast Cambodia. Environmental Management 32:541-550.

In case you are not capable of getting access to these journals (and I cannot provide it for you), here is an excerptfrom Bayliss-Smith et al.:

Slash-and-burn, shifting or swidden cultivation creates gaps in the forest canopy not much larger than those produced by some natural hazards. Swidden was once demonized by colonial officials as primitive, destructive and inefficient; as it still is by some developing nation politicians eager to obfuscate serious forest damage by logging which they condone. In the mid-20th century a more liberal interpretation began to emerge, and was summarized in the conclusion reached by Lord Hailey in his African Survey of 1936. Shifting cultivation, he wrote, was "not the relic of barbarism, but it is in fact rather ... a concession to the character of the soils" (8). Research did indeed show that despite its remarkably high growth rate, the tropical rainforest was rooted in soils that were generally deficient in nutrients. Nye and Greenland (9) found that if a period of cultivation lasted only 1 to 3 years and was followed by about 15 years of bush and forest fallow, then soil degradation could be avoided. After a brief episode of swidden cultivation there was no serious decrease in available cations, except perhaps phosphorus, and the rapid build-up of biomass in the fallow produced a pioneer forest stand that could be the basis for a sustainable system of land use (9, 10). It was, moreover, a system of land use that required less labor and produced better returns than short-fallow or zero-fallow alternatives (11). So, increasingly, swidden cultivation could be represented as being a rational, benign, and even efficient land-use practice. In any case, European contact with the indigenous peoples of the humid tropics between c. 1500-1800 had generally been adverse in its effects, dislocating societies and introducing disease.

One more thing, the more I thought about it the more I thought it important in the context of this discussion, this is from Baird and Dearden 2003, and while it pertains to Cambodia, I think it's relevant globally:

The management of tropical protected areas (PAs) is one of the most significant issues in natural resource management today, for these areas are major global repositories for biodiversity but are often exposed to ongoing anthropogenic change. Two management alternatives dominate the literature. One espouses the value of a people-oriented, local approach to natural resource management and conservation as part of the quest for sustainable development (Schwartzman and others 2000, Wilshusen and others 2002) and is supported mainly by social scientists, local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and development agencies. The other camp recognizes that anthropogenic goals dominate about 92% of the landscape already (Green and Paine 1997) and that areas protected from human activities have to be established to provide habitat for those species that do not flourish in human-dominated landscapes (Redford 1992, Terborgh and van Schaik 1997; Redford and Sanderson 2000). The literature is replete with arguments and counter-arguments between these camps (e.g., Redford 1992, Vandergeest 1996, Terborgh and van Schaik 1997, Dearden and others 1998, Redford and Sanderson 2000, Schwartzman and others 2000, Dearden 2002, Wilshusen and others 2002).

This debate is missing the point that elements of both strategies are sometimes needed, and the debate will not be resolved when one side wins and there is a generic edict that all PAs will be managed via the protectionist or sustainable development paradigms. The answer lies in appreciating the context of each PA and devising the most appropriate management strategies to achieve the goals for that particular PA and local population. These site-specific strategies, of necessity, will range across the entire spectrum of management approaches from the strictly protectionist to the overtly developmental. PA scientists should spend more effort understanding the local situation and what approaches are successful rather than worrying about the rhetoric of conservation.

Key to the design of effective management strategies is development of a clear understanding of existing resource tenure arrangements of local peoples (Ostrom 1990). Wholesale replacement of long-practiced resource management strategies by state-dictated national park regulations is seldom an optimal path for forging effective long-term conservation strategies (Dearden 1997). Often there are elements of local practices that have, and are, serving biodiversity conservation very well, while others are less effective (Ostrom 1990, Baird 1999, Berkes 1989). It is important to ascertain, together with local people, those practices that can be used as foundations for future management approaches and those that require change.

As I said earlier, I support a) an end to cutting on public lands, b) dis-incentives to cutting on private lands, and c) stopping all imports. I think this would put a serious dent in new construction. Instead, our government prop's up the housing industry by a) being lax on enforcement of environmental laws, b) selling off public forests and lands, c) providing tax incentives to outsourcing wood products, d) allowing illegal immigrants to take most construction jobs at illegal wages, and e) all the other ways that I don't know about. Our government WANTS new growth, beyond what is needed, because that is the only way they can pay the interest on our huge national debt. Budgets balance only if new growth is included. Where I live, new developments are touted by city planners as the way to avoid increasing taxes (a lie), and most folks are denser than hardwood when it comes to taxes.

I live in the SE, and I know what's going on here. Incredibly diverse hardwood forests are being clear-cut and replaced with monoculture tree farms. Any applicable environmental laws (ESA, CWA) are ignored because they are not enforced. Lost diversity is resulting in huge losses of pines due to uncontrolled beetles (no woodpeckers?) and water shortages- timber companies' response is to use pesticides, cut more hardwoods and plant more pines.

I don't doubt that logging young trees is not very profitable, but does a small profit margin nullify the harmful effects? Saying that it's better than selling the land to developers is like saying that slapping Mother Nature around is better than killing her outright.

I could get on board with some of the things you propose (ie, thinning), if there were better evidence that human attempts to emulate (or improve on?) what existed before his interference are usually (ever?) successful. Can you give a clear example?

OK, birdboy, ya got me on one issue. No one knows what our National Forests looked like before man crossed the land bridge. Most people assume that "natural" means before the white man came to America. Both regimes (man-less ecosystems and pre-white man eras) were in balance, mainly because the timelines were so long and the impacts were so slight. Yes, at times, there were big events (500 year droughts, massive bark beetle infestations, volcanoes and such) that resulted in wild mosaics but, they were unusual and the forests had "buffered systems" that reduced the impacts. Indian-dominated forests often had "management" through semi-controlled burns and trees actually grew faster and bigger than without their "fire management programs". They thinned the forests with fire, creating surplusses of water that the fire resistant pine trees would greedily suck up, making them huge and dominant. A perfect environment that compliments their strengths. The early historical reports of the white man documented the open understories and the massive pine forests.

This is exactly the kind of forests that I envision when I talk about "restoration forestry". Of course, elevational and regional differences allow some other kinds of trees to win out in the battle for domination and we'd be foolish to try and change those areas into some other kind of forest. Lodgepole pine stands come to mind but, there's plenty of marginal areas that lodgepoles will try to convert away from P. pines. This situation is quite a tough thing to judge and resolve. It takes a keen eye to recognize which lodgepole stands are invading outside of their own areas and which ones should be left to their own fire-adapted strategies. (You will be hard-pressed to find a western forester who will admit to not knowing the difference. In my assignments to many different states, I have been humbled by seeing that my experience in my home areas does not often apply in other parts of the country, or even within the P. pine areas, themselves. Forestry isn't rocket science.....it's way more complex!)

Anyway, there ARE examples of where man has "created" functioning forests and restored others. There's a forest in Texas that has been grown from scratch that many people now want to turn into a wilderness area. The Tillamook Burn in Oregon now has much in the way of old growth characteristics. In my own backyard, there are plenty of areas that were destructively railroad logged in the old days and are often described (wrongfully) as "pristine". Lake Tahoe is a good example of that.

Yes, forestry is often an inexact science and we certainly still don't know everything about our forests but, we continue to learn from our mistakes and broaden our understanding over time. Just look at the last 25 years how far we've come. From clearcutting to uneven-aged management. Let's continue to eliminate the bad policies, like high-grading, still in place, in some corners of America.

I've been on both sides of the fence and have found a happy medium. And, I am still open to learning more. My experience with spotted owls, goshawks, hydrology, archeology and all the other important disciplines within the ecology fields have given me great respect for the complexity of "proper forest management". We MUST not allow our precious remaining old growth to burn at high intensity.

PS, thank you, atreyger, for the kind words, compliments, open-mindedness and perspectives.

Collaboration is the Oracle of today's modern forest management. We should use it wisely and often.  

After sitting through days and days over years of public meetings on the National Forests of the Sierra Nevada, Southern California and the Scientific Advisory Board Meetings for the development of the Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan -- and seeing what has resulted -- I can say that I am sure that Mitch Friedman is on the right track.

The only way we are going to accomplish anything with our National Forests -- keeping them forests and protecting the ecological integrity that is left -- is through collaboration between everybody:

USFS management staff
USFS scientists
other agency scientists
private scientists
conservationists of all types
local people who live in or immediately around the National Forests
forest users of all types.

The main thing that we all have to deal with is that the National Forests are public land and it is currently mandated to be multiple use and there are different opinions across a whole range of uses.  And, if you want to have the forests, however you want to have them, you had better come forward and say what you want and be willing to deal with all the other opinions, which is not easy.

If we are going to have National Forests left it will be up to individuals who are willing to do what we need to do to protect and restore these lands as forests -- and I mean individuals at all levels in and out of the USFS.

Personally, I think parts of the National Forests need to be moved into the National Park Service because the mission of the National Park Service is basically ecological integrity and there are parts of the National Forests that are significant enough ecologically that they should no longer be multiple use.  But this is a Congressional issue.

Of course, there is always the point of changing the mission of the USFS from multiple use to ecological integrity through Congress.  Is this realistic?? -- I don't know!

But what worries me is that whatever the use, if we are going to have forests, ecolgical sustainability must be the most important thing -- this may involve the removal of some understory trees or trees in overcrowded replanted clearcuts, but, in my opinion, it also means no more clearcutting ever because clearcutting has such a negative impact on the biotic province of the land that we don't know if clearcut land can ever be restored to anything near what it was originally.  Clearcut land will not grow what was cut again.  I think there has been way too much clearcutting already and that all clearcutting should be stopped immediately.  We should only do single selection or small group selection removal of trees as part of reducing fire hazard and protecting biodiviersity.  It is possible to do planning to involve all of these things.

I suggest reading  the book, WILD CALIFORNIA, VANISHING LANDS, VANISHING WILDLIFE by A. Starker Leopold -- especially chapter 7, THE NORTH WOODS.  To quote it:  "If forest managers are willing, there are many ways in which timber practice can be modified on the ground to provide wildlife habitat with moderate - but not excessive - sacrifice in board-feet production and economic yield."  A. Starker Leopold wrote this as far back as 1978.

From my experience in California, there are some forest management people who are willing, but it is still a fight and all forest users need to get involved and make comments, sit through meetings, read the USFS documents so you really know what is going on.  And despite what others say, hold your position and make it known and communicate with others.  Hopefully, we can save the forests as forests.

Right now we are dealing with the matter of selling off USFS and BLM lands.  Can we stop it through Congress?  Can we deal with it at the local level?  I want none of it sold off -- but being mostly concerned about biodiversity on a planet-wide level, I want to stress the importance of the areas that are significant to global and regional biodiversity -- keep them protected and do not have one piece of these sold into private hands.  This means none of the USFS and BLM lands in the California Florsitic Province should be sold.

There are a lot of perspectives.  Fine -- just get involved.

To answer freewill's comments, National Forests in California that are under the old CASPO guidelines have banned clearcutting since 1993. This policy did not come about because of a lawsuit but, was voluntarily implemented by the Forest Service to try and head off an endangered listing of the California Spotted Owl. Along with the no clearcutting policy was the decision to ban the cutting of trees above the 30" dbh size.

The diameter limits effectively reduced high-grading and many mills went out of business because of that decision, which was generally a good one. Personally, I'd rather not be so rigid but, I have my reasons. For example, a 40" dbh pine might be loaded with misletoe and raining down "death" upon all the smaller pines within a 150 foot radius. However, we can't touch that pine. Another example is where there's a clump of very large trees with diameters approaching 60" dbh. Within that clump of a dozen trees are some suppressed 36" dbh trees with poor form and vigor. What's wrong with "plucking" two of the four suppressed trees and still leaving the rest of the 10 old growth trees on that acre? That would free up some water to improve the health, vigor and drought resistance of the remaining trees.

On the other hand, the diameter limits can be a double-edged sword. Since we can't cut trees bigger than 30" dbh, the trees in the 24-29.9" dbh size class are at risk. These trees are our future old growth and we definitely should not be cutting ones with health, vigor and importance to the immediate area. Now, I am motivated to save these kinds of trees but, less experienced timbermarkers can and will designate some of these trees for cutting. This is also a form of high-grading.

I find it "interesting" that timbermarkers are routinely certified to cruise timber but not certified in silviculture. That needs to change, IMHO.

Thank you, freewill for standing up and being counted. If people do not get involved, they will have to live with the decisions made for them.

I think we've all spent too much time on this, I know I have.  I will conclude my comments with this:  Anthropocentrists and biocentrists don't have any common ground on which to discuss this issue, and we live in different worlds.  The former don't understand the latter, because this is a highly anthropocetric society and that's the only paradigm people in this society ever see, except for rare occassions on a superficial level.  On the other hand, we biocentric/deep ecologists fully understand you, because we came from your world.

So, let's work together where we can.  For example, we all agree that we need tree thinning to fix overgrown areas caused by human fire suppression and cattle grazing.  In other areas, we'll just have to agree to disagree and will not be on the same side.

Jeff- I agree with your conclusion except for one small point. I think many of us understand both the anthro and bio centric point of view. I, for example, have studied and even taught a graduate environmental ethics class, which included studying writings from both points of view.

We can disagree on some fundamental theoretical worldviews and still agree on what is best to be done on a particular piece of ground at a particular time. That is the sweet spot where we can both agree to work. I think part of what Mitch was saying is that is worth the time for the FS and environmentalists to think about and talk about where those sweet spots might be.

And what's important is that while we disagree we retain our respect for the people we disagree with -so that we can have the talks which will identify our areas of agreement. I have appreciated this dialogue with all of you.  

Noam Chomsky once wrote words to the effect that if you want to know what is important in a discussion involving insitutions, consider what issues are NOT being discussed.

There are several important issues not addressed in Friedman's article about environmentalists and the Forest Service.

POWER.  Knowledge is power, trite but true.  Collaboration is an inherently exclusive process open only to those who know about the existence of the process, have a willingness to engage in collaboration, and the time/resources to participate. It is anti-democratic and anti-grassroots. I worked in government for many years and observed (and regrettably, participated in) just this kind of ploy in dealing with controversial community issues with significant grassroots interest -- form a handpicked, collaborative committee to make recommendations to the powers that be to address the issue, and by the time the committee has finished, momentum has been lost. Typically, the recommendations sit on a shelf somewhere.  

POWER (again)  Collaboration favors local interests over the broad interests of the American people.  National Forest lands are just that, national. The Vaaghen Brothers or the Ferry County Commissioners have no greater legal interest in the Colville National Forest than someone from Bellingham, or Miami for that matter. National groups complain about the devolution of federal authority over our National Forests to States but are curiously silent on the issue of collaboration which devolves the forum for discussion to an even more local level.

POWER (again, surprized?) The Forest Service has a long history of using/characterizing "collaborative processes" to legitimize their own purposes.  One example of this is the ORV "collaborative process" for the Wenatchee National Forest. The Forest Service used a "collaborative" process started by Forest Service ORV enthusiasts to make recommendations on ORV use. The process did not include any environmental groups. The Forest Service later falsely characterized this as an inclusive process.

Inequitable distribution of POWER.(There it is again.)  Take the current forest planning process. It is supposed to include recommendations for wilderness designations. In a give and take collaborative process, let's say we agree not to contest an extension of grazing rights in a certain area in exchange for agreement to recommend another area for wilderness designation. The grazing permits get issued because they are handled administratively. What happens to the wilderness recommendation? Nothing. It sits, waiting to be taken up by a Congress (and House Resources Committee) hostile to wilderness designation. The Forest Service can recommend, but can't deliver. This creates a power imbalance and produces a strong disincentive to agreement by differing parties.(I'm just waiting for the Administration to allow the Forest Service to stop managing lands recommended for wilderness designation as wilderness. Then, what little incentive exists for agreement in this area will disappear completely.)

As a trained mediator, I strongly believe in collaborative processes and alternative dispute resolution. But, there are differences between collaboration involving purely private interests and parties, and collaboration about matters of public concern -- indeed, in this case, collaboration about public property. Who, for example, are the appropriate representatives for the American public in this process?  And how will  the process insure those interests are protected?

There will ALWAYS be folks who will NEVER trust anyone in the Forest Service and it is truly sad that those people will take that distrust, and even, dare I say it, hate, to their graves. Those kinds of people won't come to the table, believing that "the system" is, has, and will always be "fixed".

I DO understand what you are saying, Greywulff, and I can't discount some of that truth. However, hope should not be abandoned and collaboration should continue to be fought for. Green anarchists and biocentrists will never be satisfied with any kind of compromise so, they will be left behind in the collaboration process.

Join us in this new millenium and together we can reach a happy medium for most everyone............................................................................................ .................................................................................................... ..............eventually <G>.

We shall overcome!

The Fickleness of the Conservationist

All of a sudden conservationists realize what land managers have known for years.  As a Forester with the Forest Service, I know the collaborative process with the public as well as with various environmental organizations.  The Forest Service has done nothing but attempt to appease the public in its efforts to restore and care for the land while carrying the torch for many rural communities.  I am a young and forward-thinking professional and have spent my short career thus far working to accomplish what is right for the forest at this point in time.  I do not understand why the conservation movement will all of a sudden change its ways and want to collaborate with the Forest Service when all the movement's efforts have been pointed against forest management.  How can conservationists now work toward forest management and forsake all their efforts in the past to prevent an agency like the Forest Service from performing its job to sustain forest health, create a sustainable forest yield, and prevent rural economies from collapsing?  The weakened current state of the Forest Service is directly related with the conservation movement and the `red tape' thrown up by the movement in order to prevent forest management from taking place.  Now conservationists expect the Forest Service to collaborate with them and the conservationist expect the Forest Service to rise again but now as an environmental friendly agency.  The fact is that the Forest Service is an environmental friendly agency and has been for some time.
The fickleness of the conservation movement is appalling to me.  The once demonized Forest Service is now getting a hand out from the conservationists.  Now with the approval of conservationists the Forest Service can go ahead with projects and do the job they were called to do...care for the land.  Well, I, for one, thank you for your approval but I, for one, do not need it.  The Forest Service practices sound silviculture.  These practices are proven with scientific, ecological, and environmental facts from studies of site specific significant and cumulative effects and impacts to the forest on each and every proposed timber project.  Why should the Forest Service now embrace the very movement that brought it down?  It is true that the management objectives of the Forest Service as a whole have changed from timber production to restoration and forest health.  This isn't to say that the Forest Service was wrong in the past but it is to say that the needs of the country and of the forest have changed and the Forest Service changed with them.  It seems that the conservation movement is changing in such a way that is wants to work with the Forest Service in order to meet a common goal.  Where the Forest Service has only changed in management theory, the conservation movement has done a full 180 and is now willing to collaborate with the Forest Service instead of fighting and slinging mud at the Forest Service shield.  As a young Forester, I find the change of heart of the conservation movement to be like a change in the wind.  Today conservationists will applaud the efforts of the Forest Service to restore forests to a fire-adaptive and disease and insect resistant landscape but as for tomorrow, who knows.  The fickleness of conservationists and environmentalists will continue but the Forest Service will continue with the same sound silvicultural practices that it has attempted to implement for years despite whatever platform the conservation movement chooses to take at a given point in time.  The Forest Service changes with the needs of the country and of the forest...conservationists change with their emotions.

but, beware the dark side, my young padowan. You sound very eager to please and are sincere about the Forest Service's mission of "Caring for the land". Yes, the public is quite fickle regarding the Forest Service but, I'm seeing a trend where good, well-meaning people are finding their spots somewhere in the middle instead of clustering at the extreme, as many have done in the past. As the public becomes more educated on forest ecosystem issues, they have shyed away from the "preservationism" scare tactics and become good conservationists.

On the other hand, in my 20 years in the Agency (15 of which I was merely a "temporary", and I DO have some lingering heartburn over that but THAT'S a different story <G> ) I've seen stealthy bigwigs who worship their timber volume figures. "Get the cut out", is, unfortunately, still on many people's minds in the hieracrchy of the USFS. Many of us relative newcomers have been waiting for the old guard to retire so that the Forest Service can continue its "re-invention".

The reformed eco-folks do want a say in how their forests are managed and collaboration is the best way for both sides to learn. "Preservationists" are quite scared that their best tools for stopping us have been marginalized by "Healthy Forests". Now, some have turned to collaboration as their best avenue towards their own goals. Some will never adjust, clinging to rhetoric, dogma, court battles and, finally, monkeywrenching.

I'd say OUR path is pretty clear. We need to walk the talk, now <G>.

While I know next to nothing about the Mark Twain NF, I'm going to reserve comment until I've seen the story from another angle, Jeff. From the obviously slanted article, it looks like there just might be a case for you legal types. Get on it and earn those lawyers bucks.

Regarding the budget, since I don't have those numbers in front of me, I have to take the article and figures at face value. Yes, many agencies are facing lower budgets because of foreign policy issues. I don't like it and Americans shouldn't either. I do have a few comments about specific items mentioned.

One of them is the road maintenance budget. Whenever there is a timber project, roads are incorporated into the project package and correspondingly subtracted from the road maintenance budget. They seem to be counting on those projects to help maintain our roads. The backlog has ballooned because of a lack of funding AND a lack of projects due to "analysis paralysis" and gridlock. When a logger impacts a road, he's "bought" the responsibility to put it back to Forest Service specifications. If a logger merely uses a road, he has to restore it consistent with "commeasurate usage", as it says in the contract. If that road was not included in the project package, the logger, or purchaser, must pay for that maintenance out of his own pocket.

That being said, I am NOT a fan of new road construction and, in my neck of the woods, higher ups aren't either. A heavy roads package can easily sink an entire project.

Another important budget issue not covered in the article is the fact that the fire suppression budget is often woefully inadequate. In the last few years, the fire suppression budget has sometimes run out of funds and other project funds were "hijacked" to pay for bad fire seasons. We've had several record fire seasons in the last 5 years. This all ties back into the need for proper ecosystem management that reduces fuels, both live and dead, and fire intensities, reducing extremely damaging crown fires.

Again, you say that it's bad to "kill" trees but, is it OK to allow overstocked stands to burn at high intensity, "killing" vast acreages of trees? This calender year alone, we've seen a half million acres burn already, nearly quadrupling the 5 year average. What will happen when summer comes? Add to that the bark beetle problems that are basically "biological wildfires" that eventually are just as bad as the uncontrollable firestorms. Are we to manage ecosystems or are we just growing "firewwood" with which to heat our atmosphere?

I also do not appreciate being called a liar, Jeff. Show me where I am lying, bud.

Natural wildfires are necessary for ecosystem health.  One of the bad things that the U.S.F.S. has done is fire suppression.  I only support thinning if the stands are unnaturally thick, i.e., too many trees due to human fire suppression, cattle grazing, or some other human factor.  Otherwise, let the wildfires burn.

Re calling you a liar: Don't be overly sensitive.  I never called you a liar, just the agency for which you work.  Read the article, it's fully explained.  Of course, if you support your agency's lies, then I guess the shoe fits.

You've danced around the issue of thinning and have not defined specifically the kinds of conditions that you say are "unnaturally thick". It is my contention that most of the ponderosa pine stands are just that way. And, it's not just the sub-merchantable trees that are overcrowded. Again, I direct "unbelievers" to look at the picture links I posted in the Beetle Battle thread.

However, a widespread let-burn policy is NOT an option. There's too much at stake to allow high-intensity fires to burn up MILLIONS of acres every year. Significant streamcourses, watersheds that supply drinking water, recreational sites, archeological sites and precious endangered species habitat are just a few of the things you seem to be proposing to "let-burn". As a matter of fact, the second largest giant sequoia in the world was allowed to burn and is near death. "Natural causes"?? Nope, as there were several weeks that a crew could have gone up there and worked for a few hours to save that tree. Is it worth it? You tell me.

I'm NOT saying that we should put every fire out. The USFS has indeed been allowing some fires to burn "naturally". However, do we allow these fires to burn, with the smoke affecting human health? Do we continue to label high-intensity fire as "natural and beneficial"? Is it sustainable to have an average of 5 MILLION acres burn EVERY year? It's WAY more complicated than just saying "let the wildfires burn".

Your blanket statement about the USFS being liars speaks volumes about the flailing "preservationists".

Backcut,
I haven't "danced around the issue of thinning" at all, you apparently just didn't understand what I said.  For the last time, here's my definition of what it unnaturally thick: fire suppression, cattle grazing, or some other human activity has caused more trees to grow than would have otherwise.  Period.

Your statement that "t is my contention that most of the ponderosa pine stands are 'unnaturally thick'" shows your human arrogance and hubris.  This is further evidenced by your extreme aversion to natural wildfires and your total refusal to recognize that these forests were here and flourished long before humans and even before Europeans.  (Fire suppression on any significant level did not begin until Europeans invaded.)  Who are you, or any other humans, to decide when any group of trees is "unnaturally thick," unless that thickness was caused by humans in the first place?  Nature knows best, humans should take a back seat and just watch.

It seems that you are the one who doesn't get it. Yes, forests did just fine before the white man but, today, forests ARE dying at alarming rates and you'd like to say it's "natural".

FACT: Pine forests are overcrowded and "unnatural" due to fire suppression and other activities by man. This includes partial species conversions to a more flammable composition.

FACT: These overstocked forests have more trees in many size classes compared to before the white man.

FACT: Today's forest are dying in numbers never before seen by the white man.

FACT: Only so much rain falls during a year and the boom and bust cycles promote accelerated growth and increasingly intensified drought in forest ecosystems.

FACT: Most of the western US forests HAVE been impacted by past activities.

Fact: Natural and native American fires mostly stayed on the ground and burned cool.

FACT: Today's fires burn at much higher intensities because of both live and dead fuels buildups.

FACT: "Natural" fires rarely happen in our western National Forests.

FACT: Bark beetle infestations of the past were fewer and less intense because natural mechanisms kept them in check.

FACT: Significant portions of our western forests are now perfect bark beetle habitat.

FACT: Forest fires in the last 10 years have been becoming more and more intense and widespread.

FACT: We've had record annual amounts of acres burned several times in the last 5 years.

These are just a few of the facts I could come up with right now. In the Forest Service, we use "basal area" (the amount of square feet per acre taken up by growing stems) to measure stand thickness. Lowering the basal area to match the rainfall amounts is paramount to our thinning projects and can be quantified simply by measuring.

If you're going to convince anyone, ESPECIALLY a judge, you're going to need specifics and science, Jeff. You seem to have neither. All too many "preservationists" use faith-based arguments and talk in generalities. That is why you are not only losing the court battles but, the minds and hearts of Americans.

Screw the lumber mills! Screw the "preservationists"! Join us in the middle somewhere! Anywhere in the middle is fine with me.

Eco-Forestry RULES!  

You have some good points, docpine, and I appreciate your critical thinking and suggestions. While I can agree, hypothetically, anyway, that focusing on a single species is not looking at the whole picture, in this particular case the black cherry issue is entwined with the issue of forest succession.

Black cherry, as I mentioned, is an early-successional species. Thus the Forest Service is maintaining the Allegheny in an early-successional state with its current policies - and the driving force behind those policies is the value of the cherry.

I should also clarify that the economic value of the cherry is being realized by only a few private parties - most of the cherry is being exported out of the country to German furniture manufacturers under a loophole in the log export ban. The area around the Allegheny remains economically depressed. So while the industry tries to frame this as a local "jobs" issue, their argument doesn't hold water. My impression is that most of the locals' opposition to conservation efforts is ideological rather than based on self-preservation. (However, there are a lot of local jobs in the oil & gas extraction industry, so in that case the self-preservation motive does come into play.)

Anyway, back to the forest succession issue - as long as the high concentration of black cherry is artificially maintained by clearcutting & herbicides, the forest cannot achieve later successional stages. The Indiana bat is the most well-known species that is being adversely affected by this lack of old-growth characteristics. Most of the other old-growth-dependent species died out or moved on a long time ago. Does that mean we shouldn't work to create suitable habitat for re-colonization by those species? I don't think so.

It is true that there are many other factors affecting the Allegheny's forests - I mentioned a couple earlier (acid rain and deer overbrowsing.) Water quality is improving, thanks to mine drainage reclamation efforts, but increased oil & gas drilling are taking their toll there, as well as punching more roads into an already heavily-roaded forest.

The Allegheny is by far the most industrially exploited forest in the whole system, I think. And while the Forest Service employee who posted earlier complained about conservationists' antagonistic stance toward the agency, I think we need to raise the issue of overall vision here. An increasing number of environmental groups are joining in the call for no further commercial extraction on our National Forests. There are very good reasons behind this call - in a nutshell, we feel that the National Forests are uniquely positioned to be reservoirs of native wilderness & biodiversity. The small, mostly rock-and-ice Wilderness Areas are clearly not enough to protect North American biodiversity.

Considering that the vast majority of American land is privately owned, and that National Forests represent only a small percentage of public lands, I don't think this call is unreasonable. The Forest Service and the industries may see it as a stubborn unwillingness to negotiate, but that is not really where we're coming from. We think it is utterly reasonable for the public to ask that the primary motive behind National Forest management be the protection of native ecosystems, rather than the shilling of public resources for private profit.

I have to agree with Karen on a few important things. The main one being the thwarting of natural ecosystem succession. The substantial value of the black cherry is not enough, in my book, to justify managing only for their uses as fine furniture stock. Yes, I have seen those forests but, what I saw was a more diverse forest than you have described, Karen. I also saw extensive red maple, equalling the populations of black cherries. There's also significant numbers of yellow poplar, white ash, silver maple and cucumber tree. As you also have said, there's not much in the way of hemlock and pine. The white ash and the silver maple are also of a high value.

For those of you who don't know, a single large black cherry tree of 30" dbh is worth up to $5000 "on the stump", meaning that is what a mill would pay the Forest Service up front. This is VERY lucrative and very often, the Forest Service will have 5-10 bidders on timber sales there. To me, it's a shame that money is the driving force behind this unnatural interruption in the forest's succession. We're supposed to be "caring for the land" and, this is clearly not within our mission, IMHO.

While I really didn't see too many black cherry plantations, that doesn't mean that they aren't there. My work on that blowdown project a few years ago had me working in the older stands where the money was. I go where I'm told to go but, I also have some leeway in making those on-the-ground decisions on individual trees. "Juggling" multiple uses is not the easiest thing in the world to do.

On another subject, there are substantial oil pumping sites within the forest and some people seem to be aghast over this. The truth is that the oil companies used to own most of the Allegheny and after it was all clearcut in the old days, they didn't want to deal with the thick trees and brush of an unmanaged clearcut. So, they "donated" the lands to the Forest Service, while still retaining the below-ground rights to the oilfields. I'm not sure but, I suspect that there may be some kind of link between oil companies' new pumping sites and the lumber mills which benefit from the logged timber off those new sites.

Eastern hardwood forests certainly aren't my expertise. I'm only offering this as a personal observation and an opinion. It seems to me that there truly ARE grounds for questioning motives and re-evaluating projects over there.

I want to stick my nose back in here to offer three quick thoughts:
  First, "hi" to Karen Wood, who I've not seen for 15 years. Great points about different circumstances in different regions.
 Second, to fsseth, please reread my article. I firmly believe the Forest Service was an arrogant and out of control agency causing great destruction throughout recent decades (and still in some areas). Persistent conservation opposition, along with changes in scientific knowledge, technology and markets converge to offer new common ground and opportunities. Changing tactics in recognition of new realities is anything but fickle.
  Lastly, to Greywulf, your points are all theoritically sound. But there are also clear limitations on how a process can best represents the national interest, level the power playing field, incporate sound information, and operate with any efficiency. Trust is a surrogate for all this process. When trust breaks down we wage war. That's fine; I'm a warrior myself. But no war should be permanent. Right now collaboration is working, trust is building, success is occuring on the ground in multiple locations. Let's go where it leads takes us.

Well, it's interesting that Karen brings up biodiversity when relating it to old-growth habitats. My understanding (which hasn't been challenged by any research) is that old-growth forests (I'm focusing on the NE US, but it is relevant elsewhere) provide relatively low biodiversity compared to early and mid-successional habitats.

The old-growth forests tend to provide specific structural characteristics that are not frequently seen in forests under even-aged management, such as high vertical diversity and coarse woody debris. However, plant species number (and animal species number also, depending on the thought given to wildlife habitat under a management scheme)is generally low in the old-growth forests, and is highest in early to mid-succesional habitat (provided low or no management of 'interfering' plants). I hope I don't have to elaborate, since that would take a while. Because of that, stand and to a certain degree even whole forest biodiversity argument is faulty.

I'm not saying that you are wrong about old-growth, since I think when you are talking about biodiversity you would have to get into alpha, beta and gamma diversity. Alpha is unquestionably lower with old-growth conditions, beta is higher when old-growth, uneven-aged and even-aged managed forests are included on the landscape and gamma is highest. I believe from what I have heard that in the NE, gamma biodiversity has actually increased since European settlment. That's not necessarily a good thing though, since ecologic integrity may be affected due to higher amounts of invasives, which can negatively influence nutrient cycling, native habitat, endanger species' survival, etc.

I just wanted to mention this, so that we are all on the same page regarding what we are talking about with regards to diversity.

I am personally against herbicide spraying, however, sometimes it may be a necessity, such as when an invasive species proliferates and precludes regeneration of either desired or native (which are still desired) species. Many invasives have excellent reproduction strategies (see Japanese knotweed). This applies to several natives that have become 'interfering' plants.

For example, beech bark disease has reduced beech to a shrubby existence, and beech is extremely shade-tolerant, grows like a beast and precludes everything else from growing below it. Same goes for some of the ferns (New York and hay-scented)and grasses (however nothing set them off, except for poor management practices in the past and overpopulation of deer) and while it may look pretty, it once again prevents regeneration of trees. I think that genetic breeding should be conducted on beech that is resistant to the disease (between 1-10% of the population) and the shrubby ones should be killed off in order to retain more integritous conditions for the species and northern hardwoods. I am not sure how to go about the ferns and grasses, except for better deer hunting (they seem to be eating fern competitors like they are at an all-you-can eat buffet).

Well, that about does it for me on this one. Let me know if you have any objections.

You're right--Backcut--the Forest Service doesn't clearcut anymore in California. That's because they call it "group selection" now!!! Group selection--yep, clearcutting groups of trees. It is the same thing, but in today's Forest Service,  clearcuts in California are less than 10 acres in size--bazillions of them, all over the landscape. But we are grateful for small incremental progress. Of course, private industry more than makes up for the FS' incremental progress. At the rate SPI is clearcutting California, there won't be any native wildlife left in 100 years.  

Forest Service clearcuts, oops, I mean groups--are cut, bulldozed, piled and burned, doused in herbicides, replanted to uniform single species tree farms managed with repeated applications of herbicides (ok, not in all 18 National Forests in California--just the  forests of the Sierra Nevada that contain species on the brink of extinction like the California spotted owl, the Sierra Nevada Pacific fisher, and the Yosemite toad).

Then after this treatment the Forest Service has the gall to tell us that this is done in the name of restoration. Backcut, you intentionally tried to mislead Grist's readers.

Actually, the standard for "regeneration cuts" is 5 acres, or less. Other requirements for these are that the lands are understocked and/or stocked with extremely poor trees that will never make it to an old growth size. These cuts may or may not need herbicides. Generally, these 2-5  acre cuts often don't need herbicides after piling and burning. Of course, bearclover sites almost always do, though. The driving force behind these regeneration cuts is to rebalance these sites to recover from the bad practices of the last millenium, like high-grading.

Outside of the Quincy Library Group National Forests, these regeneration cuts aren't all that common and often occur within a selective cutting unit.

However, these 2 acre, or less, "group selections" are part of a new age forestry management practice pioneered by the QLG. Group selections differ from regeneration cuts in that they are more like regular forest land, and have decent trees on them. I'd like to say that money isn't a driving force behind these cuts but, it DOES play a role. I don't exactly like how they lay them out, spatially but, these cuts help offset the costs of doing submerchantable thinning. The intent is to thin the forests out, using merchantable trees to pay for the non-commercial parts of the project. They also hope to create a mosaic of many different types of forest, including "edge effect". My beef is that they randomly lay out the 2 acre patch cuts instead of hand-picking spots that are most appropriate. For example, a rocky knob is NOT a good place to take all the trees off of. These cuts are supposed to mimic natural lightning fires, even down to their elliptical shapes.

Vivian, if I wanted to mislead the public, to earn more money, I'd push for MORE "analysis paralysis", as it creates more work for me, as a seasonal employee. When mortality exceeds both annual growth PLUS harvesting, we have to act. What good is CASPO habitat when it burns at high-intensity? Streamside zones are choked with live and dead fuels, just waiting for that inevitable lightning strike to cook the toads into oblivion. Streamside Management Zones are approaching ridiculous sizes with greater than 300 foot buffers on even intermittant streams. Potential fisher habitat is protected by retaining at least 70% canopy closure. And, hmmmmm, did I really not plant all those white fir, Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine saplings?!?

Regarding SPI, we've internally called them "the evil empire", at times, with their monopolistic domination of the timber industry here. They can, and will call the shots, at times, by refusing to bid, if they don't like the bottom line. However, I was pleasantly surprised to see how many California Division of Forestry hoops that SPI now has to jump through in order to cut their own lands. I still would like to see them broken up into smaller components. Monopolies shouldn't be allowed to exist, especially when Federal timber is on the block.