healthy forest initiative?

[Greg]

Hi all,

I've been reading alot lately about federal forest land problems with the USFS losing money on timber sales due to beauracratical and environmental regulations. (Bigger picture is, I'm trying to really decipher what is going on with GW's healthy forests initiative...)

It seems to me the forest service mandate of "multi-use" of federal forest lands makes it impossible to anything well, either: a) timber production, b) provide recreational use and c) pure habitat conservation/restoration for future.

From a layman viewpoint like mine (woodworker, software developer) it seems to me two obvious things are needed. 1) Re-distribute federal foest lands to more local control and 2) map each property into a specific uses and abandon the multi use concept, which in reality seems impossible to implement. I don't know how practical that is, but it would solve some of the conflicts of multiple use.

There is a national forest close to me in Ohio - Wayne - that is right now in legal gridlock on a logging project. I try not to believe all the environmental rhetoric, but I am also concerned whether thinning is really motivated by "healthy forests" or just campaign "paybacks". I think I read only < 15% of all harvested wood products come from federal lands, so this source of supply is a small minority.

I realize this whole "heathy forests" thing is loaded question of a long debated topic. I am not trying to stir up politics, just understand better the reality of what is going on from people who are closest to the situation.

Thanks for reading this far,
Greg

[beenthere]

Greg
At best, it is a complicated mess, with the infusion of environmentalist activist types and politicians (local and national) meddling in the mess. If in the 60's, the federal judges were not so much looking to go down in the History anals as 'important' influences, there would (could) have been more sane decisions followed that would have perpetuated multiple uses (my experience was that the foresters working for the USFS had these things in mind along with the needs of local communities that had wood products as their base economy).
There are no easy answers. However, the environmental hype is, to me, the biggest flaw involved in the total picture. I wouldn't poo poo your suggestions, but would only add that they are (and have been) likely considered.  Even common sense management of any kind on the forests are stopped in the courts with nothing but a post card of protest.
It's a big problem. Local control would probably take it out of the hands of the federal govt. but the likes of the Sierra Club would still stir the pot into a 'brown' color.
My babbling won't likely convince you, but there are resources where you can learn what you want to know and want to believe, on either side of the coin.
I'll always believe that a tree is a renewable resource and using it sensibly as such will be the best direction we can take. Others argue that a tree isn't renewable 'in my lifetime' so they think a tree shouldn't be cut down.  I don't like to see a forest 'saved' just to rot on the stump. That's not smart, in my opinion.

[Greg]

I agree, its a judgement call. Everyone has their opinion of what "use" is the most appropriate. I thinks its possible to present valid viewpoints that a particular tract of federall forest land could be a) maximized for bd ft. volume, b) managed for recreation only, or c) restored for habitat/biodiversity and left completely unharvested

Seems reasonable to figure out a balanced approach/land division, and do one thing well per site, rather than do a poor job at all three.
IMO, trying to make a forest do all three at the same time - the "mulit-use mantra" - is a disaster that has already happened, and all stakeholders would benefit from a move away from it.

Greg

[Stephen_Wiley]

Often the most important  facts of a given area are not considered in the decision making process.

As you have already eluded too, it is because of  frivolous 'activist's opposition', political wrangling for position, *non-qualified person reporting on the conditions. Very seldom are all the complexitys of georgraphical, pathological, weather, structural issues addressed.

*Federal employed forest staff is not always educated in forestry.

[leweee]

Ron Wenrich's signiture comes to mind "never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups." :

[MemphisLogger]

Stirring . . .

Like most things in life, Nat'l Forest management isn't black and white.

The law that governs public participation in NF management--the National Forest Management Act (NFMA)--was created because in some areas the decisons made by local Forest Service managers were absolutely driven by industrial corruption.

In Southern and Midsouth National Forests, there was rampant abuse of broadleaf herbicides to maintain artificial loblolly plantations where nature wanted hardwoods. In the Midwest, National Forests like the Wayne were terribly high graded as local mills took all that was good and left the trash. Out west, clearcutting was being inappropriately used on steep mountain sides, causing major erosion, soil loss and landslides. In fact the NFMA was passed partly to head off clearcutting bans being imposed by state courts.

The first "environmentalists" to make use of the legal provisions of the NFMA were for the most part "inholders"--people whose land, safety and water supply was directly linked to management of the National Forests surrounding them. Later, the "National" environmental groups (read D.C.-based) recognized their ability to preserve NF land using NFMA instead of the traditional Wilderness Act.

As someone who has been extensively involved in forest issues from both an environmental as well as GOOD local economics perspective, I can tell you that there are MAJOR differences between the goals and approaches of locality-based forest protection groups and D.C. based organizations.

Currently, I am monitoring and "commenting" to influence the Holly Springs National Forest Plan in Mississippi. I hope to encourage them to adopt a plan that protects wildlife habitat, water quality AND local jobs by focusing on uneven-aged management for hardwood sawlog production as opposed to clearcutting and mechanical/chemical conversion to loblolly pine.    

[MemphisLogger]

Food for thought . . .

Environmentalists, Tree Farmers Unite

By GREG BLUESTEIN
.c The Associated Press

ATLANTA (AP) - Mark Woodall is an unlikely environmentalist. After all, he makes his living growing trees so he can cut them down.

But Woodall and other small tree farmers are aligning themselves with the Sierra Club and other ``green'' groups as the White House proceeds with its plan to open roadless forests to commercial logging.

While they care about the earth, Woodall and his counterparts care about their livelihoods, too.

They're expecting to get aced out of the massive government contracts by the timber, oil and gas goliaths. And if that happens, the ensuing lumber glut means lower prices for the little guys.

``It's bad for the environment and bad for the pocketbooks of the tree farmer,'' said Woodall, who grows about 6,000 acres of trees near LaGrange in west Georgia.

The Bush administration is reversing the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, a 2001 executive order by President Clinton, that prohibits road construction on almost 60 million acres of federal forestland. No roads has meant no logging, mining or oil and gas development.

The new policy, announced last month, calls for governors to decide in early 2006 whether to petition Washington to permit new roads in their forests or keep them untouched.

Although the decision affects more than 30 percent of national forests, the more than 700,000 acres in Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia are a relatively small portion compared to the huge tracts in the West.

Those forests are worrisome to farmers such as Woodall, who has enjoyed the rising price of sawtimber pinewood over the last 15 years. Prices now reach almost $40 a ton.

``The restrictions doubled our prices, so if you went back it could cut our prices in half,'' he said. ``A 50 percent cut in our paycheck could not be good.''

The logging business has not been all solid, though. Timber prices fluctuate with droughts, and beetle infestations can devastate acres of farmland. Products made from small wood chips melded together are draining the market demand for timber, and business is being exported to places such as China and South America where the climate encourages quicker timber growth.

The Southern Environmental Law Center, which has offices in Atlanta, Chapel Hill, N.C. and Charlottesville, Va., and similar groups are hoping to harness the power of concerned loggers before the two-month comment period on the roadless restrictions ends Sept. 14.

``We're trying to get the information out widely,'' said David Carr, the head of the center's public lands project. ``There are folks out there getting the information out to tree farmers and landowners.''

Foresters and environmentalists have allied in the past, particularly to fight encroaching urban sprawl, and both groups applauded the Clinton action.

Supporters of the reversal insist it will help preserve forest health by allowing forest thinning to clear out the potentially dangerous undergrowth that can fuel fires.

New roads, they also contend, will provide access to campers, bikers and firefighters.

Environmental groups, though, point to about 9,500 roads that already cut into forests in the South. ``There's already tons of access,'' Carr said.

The lobbying extends beyond tree farmers, of course. Critics don't expect responses to equal the hundreds of hearings and at least 1.5 million responses gathered over a two-year period that welcomed the 2001 executive order. They're trying to mobilize outdoorsmen as well as politicians to fight the rule. They point to protest letters from both houses of Congress addressed to President Bush.

Some tree farmers have already started to lobby governors, even though they couldn't appeal to the federal government until 2006.

``I think here in the South all the governors we've talked to have said this could be bad for the economy down here,'' said Woodall, a member of the Sierra Club.

[Ron Scott]

Local publics need to become knowledgeable and get involved in "their" National Forests' Planning process. Many National Forest Plan's are now up for revision.

It's good to see someone mention the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA).

[Tillaway]

HFI, I have been told, is a dirt forester up initiative to accomplish some real goals.  What has been done, and what I have been invovled with the past few years is best described as "feel good forestry".  We say we did something, spent allot of money, but show no real results afterward due to last minute court challenges that drastically change siliviculture at the last minute so a sale that would be profittable and accomplish some real objectives is turned into a expensive show.  

The roadless area, to my knowledge is only closed to road building.  One sale unit I layed out on National forest was in a roadless area.  It had a haul road existing leading to it.  Since this road had a tank trap preventing vehicles access then by definition the road did not exist.  It was considered a skid trail.  You can build skid trails in roadless areas since by definition they are not roads, so you can have three miles of skid trail to access a sale unit.  You just can't drive a truck to it.  Pretty stupid huh.  But thats what feel good forestry is about.

[leweee]

Tillaway....HFI and "feel good forestry " reminds me of our Health Care System.....run in a similar fashion. The polititions" feel good" about what they are doing ....but the people wait in longer lines every year  :(

[Ron Wenrich]

Seems to me that the #3 on your list has been addressed and called wilderness areas.  But, some politicos think they should be cut.  

You can do recreation in wilderness areas.  Just not dirt bikes and snowmobiles.  

I also think there are old growth forests that need to be protected.  In most areas, the mill technology no longer supports old growth.  So, there is poor utilization of that type of timber.

And, thanks for noticing the signature.   ;D

I don't agree that every tree has to be utilized.  There are certain ecosystems that thrive on a fallen tree.  I just don't think we need thousands of acres of them.  

[leweee]

that signature reminds me of the up coming elections in your country.