The Forestry Forum is sponsored in part by:

Draw for handbuilt acoustic guitar get your name in


Forestry Forum
Sponsored by:


TimberKing Sawmills



Toll Free 1-800-582-0470

LogRite Tools



Norwood Industries Inc.


Sawmill & Woodlot Magazine



Your source for Portable Sawmills, Edgers, Resaws, Sharpeners, Setters, Bandsaw Blades and Sawmill Parts

EZ Boardwalk Sawmills. More Saw For Less Money!

STIHLDealers.com sponsored by Northeast STIHL


Woodland Sawmills

Peterson Swingmills

 KASCO SharpTech WoodMaxx Blades

Turbosawmill

Sawmill Exchange

BRUTE FORCE Authorized Dealer

Woodshax Outdoor Vending Solutions

FARMA


Council Tool

Baker Products

ECHO-Bearcat



Author Topic: comments on Mark Twain forest plans  (Read 7014 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Greg

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
  • Location: SW Ohio
  • Gender: Male
  • Hi mom!
    • Share Post
comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« on: May 04, 2005, 11:30:54 AM »
I got an email to send in my support for the following letter. As I am not a forestry professional, I don't feel real qualified to make a sound judgement.

I am curious what forestry professionals think of the following "action alert", in response to seeking public input to the 15 year management plan for Mark Twain forest in the Ozarks.

http://www.heartwood.org/alerts.php

A complicated issue, no doubt. Bottom line is USFS is pursuing an agressive thinning and logging program here, in efforts to restore forest health.

Seems to me there is a middle ground between aggressive harvests and "don't cut down a single tree". The USFS plan seems to lean heavily on the former option from my quick read...

Not trying to stir up trouble, but as a woodworker and a conservationist, just better understand the issues. Please share your comments,

Greg

Offline beenthere

  • Senior Member x2
  • *****
  • Posts: 26964
  • Location: Southern Wisconsin, USA
  • Gender: Male
    • Share Post
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2005, 01:01:55 PM »
I would lean towards the professionals who have the same interests at heart that you do, and likely have studied the forest that they are talking about.
I have heard all too often where the 'guy on the street' and the 'judge in his chamber' have prevailed in forestry decisions that they know nothing about.
Let the trained foresters do their thing that they were trained for. They are not interested in overcutting the forest but instead managing it for the most good in the region where the forest is, as well as having a forest to brag about in the future.

Don't fear, someone will send a post card to a judge and put a stop to doing anything in the way of managing the Mark Twain. It's been happening for the last 30 or so years.

Off my soap box now. No offense to your feelings on the issue here Greg.  :)  Your concern is important, no doubt in my mind.
south central Wisconsin
 It may be that my sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others

Offline Greg

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
  • Location: SW Ohio
  • Gender: Male
  • Hi mom!
    • Share Post
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2005, 02:02:18 PM »
I would lean towards the professionals who have the same interests at heart that you do, and likely have studied the forest that they are talking about.
I have heard all too often where the 'guy on the street' and the 'judge in his chamber' have prevailed in forestry decisions that they know nothing about.
Let the trained foresters do their thing that they were trained for. They are not interested in overcutting the forest but instead managing it for the most good in the region where the forest is, as well as having a forest to brag about in the future.

Don't fear, someone will send a post card to a judge and put a stop to doing anything in the way of managing the Mark Twain. It's been happening for the last 30 or so years.

Off my soap box now. No offense to your feelings on the issue here Greg.  :)  Your concern is important, no doubt in my mind.

No offense taken. I agree the lawsuits are a problem, but isn't doing nothing better than doing it wrong? A compelling argument IMO is that mother nature doesn't always require our constant intervention (thinning, harvesting) to achieve a healthy forest, only time.

Yes I would agree get the wackos and politicos out of it, and let the local USFS foresters do their job. A valid concern with that is - in reality - what if any industry pressure is there on pushing a mangement plan towards excessive harvesting and more roads. Does the timber industry greatly influence the USFS management policy to improve their bottom line, or is this mere fantasy from the greenpeacers?

Another thing, as the letter describes, the decision between 3 alternative management plan seems dubious, from a laymans perspective. So either harvest 100,000 acres or 120,000 or pick the compromise and harvest 110,000. What choice is that? Quoting from the letter, "Alternative 1, the “non commercial alternative,” even while projecting  53,600 acres of even aged logging, is given short shrift in the analysis and not seriously considered."

Personally I think the USFS folks are in a no win situation. Their charter is to provide mulit use of our forest resources, including timber production. But then the system is such they can be held hostage by protesters/wackos and lawsuits by even other well intentioned people that unfortunately have no "domain expertise".

I think life could be much simpler and we'd have healthier forests and more output from them if the "multi-use" development language was dropped, and forest lands would be intelligently parcelled out for pure recreational areas, pure natural/no cut areas, and pure maximimizing of harvest areas.

Off my soap box, too  ;)

Greg

 


Offline maple flats

  • Senior Member x2
  • *****
  • Posts: 1849
  • Age: 71
  • Location: Oneida, NY
  • Gender: Male
  • Life is what you make it!
    • Share Post
    • Dave and Joan's sugarhouse web site
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #3 on: May 04, 2005, 05:57:16 PM »
My view is that the call for a response is from a group who does not want any management, just let nature do it. We as loggers, sawyers and just people of common sense (not real common anymore, except for us) know that for a forest to be healthy it NEEDS ATTENTION. Logging, thinning and planning must be done. Young stands always grow too thick and need thinning for optimum growth and done properly involves species selection. Maintain diversity and thus have the best health while promoting higher growth, higher grade trees and better health. Let the pro's do a stewardship plan, using a team of pro's to get diverse ideas. Let some areas go totally wild, let some be managed for recreation, some for wildlife and most for higher timber production.
OK, I'm off my soapbox now, any one else got any ideas? 8) 8)
    8) 8) 8) Managed forests are the real producers in the world!!!  8) 8) 8)
logging small time for years but just learning how,  2012 36 HP Mahindra tractor, 3point log arch, 8000# class excavator, lifts 2500# and sets logs on mill precisely where needed,  Peterson ATS upgraded to WPF mill, maple syrup a hobby that consumes my time. looking to learn blacksmithing.

Offline Larry

  • Senior Member x2
  • *****
  • Posts: 5787
  • Age: 69
  • Location: NW Arkansas
  • Gender: Male
    • Share Post
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #4 on: May 04, 2005, 07:50:54 PM »
Bids opened in March for two salvage timber sales in Mark Twain due to the red oak borer.  Guess they are trying to get out the fuel load before it gets worse.

The Mark Twain along with the Ozark, and Ouachita Forests in Arkansas are on the verge of an ecological disaster.  Fire suppression, little management, and now the red oak borer is killing the trees.  The prediction is for a change to a maple forest unless something is done.

Our tax dollars pay for the USFS to manage the forests for public good...let em do there jobs.

If you want to see good management, up close and personal, take a look see at the  160,000 acre private Pioneer Forest in the same region as Mark Twain.  It is managed for timber production (profit), natural area preservation, and recreation.  It is pretty impressive...some looks like old growth.

 http://www.pioneerforest.com/PF_Home.html

Most of the land in these national forests was worthless 70 to 100 years ago because it had been cut over, and over grazed.  To steep and rocky for crops.  Some was so rough the government couldn't even get homesteaders to try it.  Now some people are calling this land pristine...let the foresters do there job.

I’m glad to see Greg started this thread as I’m just an interested bystander.  Hoping to see more comments.
Larry, making useful and beautiful things out of the most environmental friendly material on the planet.

We need to insure our customers understand the importance of our craft.

Offline Ron Scott

  • Forester
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7793
  • Age: 82
  • Location: Cadillac, MI
  • Gender: Male
    • Share Post
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #5 on: May 04, 2005, 09:15:11 PM »
Yes, let the professional judgement of the US Forest Service resource professionals manage for "The Greatest Good".

It is helpful to read the book The Lands That Nobody Wanted  :P and get involved in the Forest Service planning process. Most National Forest Plans are now up for revision. I'm currently reviewing the Plans for the 3 Michigan National Forests. "Doing "Nothing" should not be the preferred alternative. :'(
~Ron

Offline Texas Ranger

  • Forester
  • *
  • Posts: 6532
  • Age: 77
  • Location: Livingston, Texas, God's Country
  • Gender: Male
  • Texan, by God and by choice.
    • Share Post
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #6 on: May 04, 2005, 10:25:41 PM »
40 years ago we studied forestry in the Mark Twain, and in the Pioneer Experimental, forests.  15 years ago I did a survey of southern Mo (from Missouri River south to Arkansas) for a client that was going to put in a chip mill at Cape Geraudeau for shipping down the Mississippi to a Japanese fiber plant in Louisiana.

40 years ago the land was recovering from a century of fire and over cutting, 15 years ago the species left were those that had no commercial value back in the bad old days.

If the USFS wants to improve the MT, they will have to convert to productive species.  Des that mean I favor a clear cut and plant?  No, but, bring back the pine to the Trail of the Lonesome Pine, bring back the grand hardwoods that show up on the Pioneer, bring back the Green Hills of Missouri (Earth, if you read the book).
The Ranger, home of Texas Forestry

Offline Gary_C

  • Senior Member x2
  • *****
  • Posts: 6207
  • Age: 76
  • Location: Blooming Prairie, MN USA
  • Gender: Male
  • Sunrise on the Prairie
    • Share Post
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2005, 01:41:48 AM »
It would be very difficult for me to support the ideas of an organization whose historic goals are:  " to demonstrate broad-based, mainstream support for ending logging in the region's public forests".  As others have pointed out, that idea of letting nature create the old growth forests that everyone desires simply does not work. The forests that were here when out ancestors arrived were actually created by long term fire management by native americans.  We have now seen what results from fire supression and a hands off approach to forest management.

Another thing that I would take issue with is: "that the majority of the public, for whom the Mark Twain National Forest is managed, believe that commercial logging is inappropriate on public lands".   When the Healthy Forest Restoration Act was being debated in congress, many of the senators asked their constituents what they thought of this act.  What they found was there was absolutely no support for maintaining the status quo and in fact many were angry with the congress for allowing this neglect of our national forests continue for so long. That pretty much doomed the opposition to the Act and the only thing that could be done at that point was to try to minimize the impact.  From what I see, the public is divided into one group that wants to totally leave the forests as wilderness area, another group that wants a snowmobile or ATV trail into every corner of their playground, and another that wants to develop the forests into housing tracts.  There is no consensus opinion.

The problem the Forest Service is going to struggle with now is logging economics.  Even if they now have the tools to overcome the court delays, how many acres of the millions and millions of acres that need attention are you willing to pay to clean up and cut out the junk and dying trees?  One of the ways to minimize the impact has been to try to put maximum diameter limits on the trees that can be logged.  I think they have resisted that because it will guarantee that loggers will not make a profit. Of course if the loggers or sawmills made a profit, that would be EXPLOITATION of our resources.

Another idea that is false is: "the agency loses money on every timber sale on the Mark Twain." They go on to assert that: "the Forest Service should work to find creative ways to redirect the money lost on the timber sale program to employ local individuals in non-commercial restoration activities.  Since the logger is PAYING the Forest Service to do the work, where does this money actually come from to hire local individuals?  Another part of this false assertion is that large timber companies has promoted this Act when the truith is that most of them were not really interested as they have moved on to other sources of wood.

The real question now is knowing that there are still groups out there trying to throw a monkey wrench into the Forest Service plans, would you as a  sawmill owner/operator invest the millions of dollars in computer controlled, thin kerf sawing technology to enable you to profitably saw small diameter logs and be assured that the supply of logs will be continous?  I believe the large companies are watching from the sidelines and the small loggers and mills, particularly in the west went out of business some time ago, and even if they are still around, their trust of the Forest Service is very low.

While it is very unclear the outcome of this effort to restore out national forests, it is clear we should not support those who are still trying to halt logging altogether.

Now I will get off the soap box.     8)
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

Offline UrbanLogger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
  • Age: 47
  • Gender: Male
  • Don't trash that tree . . . TREECYCLE!
    • Share Post
    • Midtown Logging and Lumber Co.
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #8 on: May 05, 2005, 10:27:04 AM »
I'm getting on the soap box now.

I'm a member of Heartwood and was a member of their board of directors in 1995-96. The members of Heartwood are for the most part ecologists, naturalists and/or National Forest inholders.

The history of USFS management has been up and down in terms of "good" management. It all depends on the agency goals established by the politically appointed Chief Forester. Thus management goals and/or plan implementation tends to change with each President.

As with any natural resource debate, reality lies between extremes. It's been this way in regards to our National Forests since it's beginnings' with John Muir and Gifford Pinchot defining the spectrum of debate.

The National Forest Management Act was passed in 1975(?) to address the problem of constantly changing objectives. It called for comprehensive management plans to be drawn up for each forest with public input as well as provisions for citizen appeals.

Unfortunately, the seated majority in Congress held up funding for many of the outdated and/or overdue Forest Plans while Mike Dombeck was the Chief (Mike was an excellent Chief) because he wasn't apponted by their president. (Partisan politics doesn't make for very good longterm planning).

Now that one party has the Congress and the White House, they are trying to go ahead quickly with new Forest Plans that favor their goals of increased extraction.   

It is NOT inaccurate for Heartwood to claim that the USFS timber sale program loses money on timber sales--by the time you account road building/maintenance, sale preparation and post harvest site preparation, the receipts generally don't cover the costs. This is well documented by the GAO (Government Accounting Office).

This effectively results in taxpayer subsidized logging and that's why the public has a right/responsibility to become active in local NF management issues. Another issue that arises with USFS timber sales is that it effectively puts private forest landowners in competition with the federal government. Why should private landowners have to compete with below-cost federal timber sales?

In Missouri, USFS land makes up a realatively small amount of the total forest base. Cutting or not cutting on public lands won't effect the forest products industry in Missouri like it might in a western state where a larger percentage of the forest is in public ownership.

It is my humble opinion that National Forests in the eastern US serve their highest value by providing blocks of undisturbed habitat for wildlife, particularly migrant songbirds, that can't find suitable habitat in the fragmented mosaic of farm, field and forest found on private land. This also serves to meet the original mandate for the National Forests which is to protect favorable flows of water.

I have yet to see the USFS manage a forest as well as Clint Trammel at Pioneer Forest. If the USFS were to choose to do so, it would likely diminish much of the current public opposition to their plans and sales. 

Me and Chief Dombeck in Colorado in 1995 . . .






                 
Scott Banbury, Urban logger since 2002--Custom Woodworker since 1990. Running a Woodmizer LT-30, a flock of Huskies and a herd of Toy 4x4s Midtown Logging and Lumber Company at www.scottbanbury.com

Offline Cedarman

  • Senior Member x2
  • *****
  • Posts: 6003
  • Age: 70
  • Location: Marengo In
  • Gender: Male
    • Share Post
    • Cedarusa
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2005, 10:52:03 AM »
Two little questions:
1) If there is no logging in our eastern national forests, how will the american chestnut be reestablished when a blight free variety becomes available?

2) When the EAB hits the south, will the ash trees be left to succumb or will they be logged ahead of time?

The problem with government control of woodlands is that reaction is based more on political needs then the forest's needs.

I am in the pink when sawing cedar.

Offline Greg

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
  • Location: SW Ohio
  • Gender: Male
  • Hi mom!
    • Share Post
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2005, 11:43:17 AM »
Thanks for all the replies thus far. (Please bear with another longwinded reply)

Its nice to have a rational discussion about this stuff with people with their boots on the ground, actually living and working in the forest, and know from experience what they are talking about...

Specific to the letter I received which started this thread, It sounds pretty clear from what I've read that due to prior failures, the Mark Twain is in serious need of management and aggressive thinning to get it back anywhere close to a healthy or productive state. I am convinced more now than ever, that turning a blind eye and bogging down the process and doing nothing is clearly not a wise choice.

Having said that I'll stick my neck out again. There are a couple recurring themes I am picking up from several of the replies, that I still have a real hard time swallowing.

First, the notion that nature cannot create healthy forests without our/USFS constant management and attention. Clearly, management techniques of harvesting, thinning and stewardship plans are certainly warranted to correct serious imbalances and past human induced failures (like in the MT), as well as to optimize timber production. But I still contend a mature forest ecosystem doesn't need to be actively managed by man. Forests have been doing just fine without our assistance for eons.

Second the notion that the only healthy forest is one that uses "productive species" and is optimized for pure boardfoot production. National Forests are not supposed to be glorified tree farms. Of course, there needs to be some allowance for timber production of species that economically make it worthwhile for free enterprise to take over and do its thing. If people can't make a profit, the work won't get done.

Sorry for repeating myself, but I think this get back to permantly mapping out public forest into parcels dedicate to serve a particular purpose - timber production, natural succession & biodiverstiy, and then recreational. What is an appropriate percentage for each to satisfy all the stakeholders? Now thats the $64 question!

The more I experience managing my own wood lot, walking various other woodlands public and private, listening to foresters and those in this industry, I am convinced trying to make public forest land serve all three masters simultaneously simply can't work.

Cheers,
Greg

Offline Ron Scott

  • Forester
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7793
  • Age: 82
  • Location: Cadillac, MI
  • Gender: Male
    • Share Post
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2005, 02:03:08 PM »
We need to understand why National Forests were established and the difference between them and National Parks.

This year is the Forest Service Centennial. The newly released DVD
 "The Greatest Good: One Hundred Years of the Forest Service" is well worth viewing if one gets the chance.
~Ron

Offline Tom

  • In Memoriam
  • *
  • Posts: 25854
  • Age: 75
  • Location: Jacksonville, Florida
  • Gender: Male
    • Share Post
    • Toms Saw
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2005, 02:07:55 PM »
Greg,
I think most are of the same mind of you, even the foresters who are presented with solving the problem. 

Quote
Forests have been doing just fine without our assistance for eons.

While it's a strange analogy, humans have done pretty well for millenia as well.  I guess one could say we have survived without too much hands-on.  Still when we get a leg lopped off, it's in our best interest to have an "educated" person, if possible, stop the bleeding and encourage the healing of the wound,  That dosn't necessarily mean that our other leg has to be chopped off or our arms raised over our heads or our hair braided in pigtails too.  That is what the foresters are supposed to do, guide the development toward the desired results.   As Forestry becomes more sophisticated and we understand more and more about the biology, we will experience less unwanted and intrusive medicatios.

It's the segment of the population that measures Forests in human time-frames that confuses the issue so much.  There are some who are so busy spouting off about the doom and gloom caused by humans that they ignore the fact that, not only are humans part of the eco-system, but they are needed to design on-going procedures to retain the "status-quo" in an ever changing world.  The alarmist seldom have answers or constructive plans.  It's very easy to "condemn", and human nature to listen to a squeeky wheel.  We need to give the guys in the trenches the benefit of creating and using their education.

 
Quote
National Forests are not supposed to be glorified tree farms.


I know what you mean when you say that.  But, if we pay any attention to land, whether tilled or ignored, we are creating a Tree Farm of sorts.   Even a wilderness must have the attention of someone.  A fire could decimate it, disease could kill or change it and there would still be people out there that would blame it on "The Government" or the "Forester".   Doing nothing is a form of management if it is deliberate and we understand what is going on.  To not pay attention and ignore the situations is doing neither Nature or us a favor. 

Kudzu is not native here, I know.  If we ignore it, it won't go away.  Some folks look at the green carpet and say "what a beautiful sight nature has provided", when actually, the life of the land is being choked out.   We are gardeners whether we like it or not.  Control can't be taboo.

It may even be a misnomer to call a monoculture a forest.  I have pines planted on my property for the purpose of making money.  They are a crop the same as a grove of orange trees.  Unfortunately it also falls into some peoples idea of a forest and land that has been abused.  They are concerned that the rabbits and the foxes and the coons, possoms, snakes and song birds aren't going to be happy.  All of this while they live in a house built in a development consuming thousands of acres of what used to be Forests.  It's hard to be objective when your world ends at the tip of your nose.  There are so many that fall into that catagory.  They are followers, joiners, lost souls looking for a bandwagon.   They get so wound up in there own short-sighted, short-term views that they don't acknowledge the exisance of people who have dedicated themselves to the sciences of Nature.

Those who are best in the know are the ones that we should trust to get the job done. As a member of the population I feel it is my duty to suggest what I would want the world to look like.  But, to rag the foresters into doing my bidding is a blind man leading the parade.
extinct

Offline Texas Ranger

  • Forester
  • *
  • Posts: 6532
  • Age: 77
  • Location: Livingston, Texas, God's Country
  • Gender: Male
  • Texan, by God and by choice.
    • Share Post
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #13 on: May 05, 2005, 02:38:32 PM »
Yeah, Tom, and we foresters are a persnickety lot, wouldn't many of us follow a bug man! ::)
The Ranger, home of Texas Forestry

Offline Tom

  • In Memoriam
  • *
  • Posts: 25854
  • Age: 75
  • Location: Jacksonville, Florida
  • Gender: Male
    • Share Post
    • Toms Saw
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #14 on: May 05, 2005, 05:14:00 PM »
Even a slow one?  :D
extinct

Offline dave7191

  • Full Member x2
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
  • Age: 70
  • Location: Humansville MO
  • Gender: Male
  • I need to edit my profile!
    • Share Post
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #15 on: May 05, 2005, 06:30:11 PM »
I've spent some time in the mark twain forest having had three or four timber leases for fire wood and a few logs  one was a clear cut but the rest were select cut    they are trying but a big operation can't do a select cut it is to labor intensative and the service doesn't have enough man power to go in and take out just the trees that need to be harvested whats need to be done is to burn so you can at least have have an open floor to work with this is just my opion and it doesn't amount to much just some that has work there
Dave

Offline Ron Scott

  • Forester
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7793
  • Age: 82
  • Location: Cadillac, MI
  • Gender: Male
    • Share Post
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #16 on: May 05, 2005, 07:30:17 PM »
Dear All,

The Forest Service Centennial Film "The Greatest Good" will soon be
available in a 3-DVD set. As well, the Forest History Society Historian,
James Lewis, is putting the final touches on THE companion book to the film
entitled "The Forest Service and the Greatest Good: A Centennial History."
An advanced order form is attached where you can save by ordering both the
film and the book.  Many are ordering a copy for their own use but many are
also ordering copies for members of their family or friends who should know
more about the history of the agency you worked for and its contribution to
conservation.

The Forest Service centennial film, the "Greatest Good" shows that "From the
timbered shores of the Pacific Northwest to the marble halls of Washington,
D.C., the fate of the forest is constantly challenged by the constraints of
democracy. This breathtaking documentary commemorates the centennial of the
Forest Service with the epic story of the struggle to manage the nation's
resources amid global change."  The first DVD in the set will have the final
film.  The two bonus disks will contain numerous featurettes of topics that
did not make it into the film or that were only briefly discussed, and will
have a variety of old moving footage including Lassie clips and Smokey Bear
advertisements.

The Companion book with a Foreword by Char Miller, Gifford Pinchot
Biographer, will be a 250-300 page well-illustrated book that generally
follows the film but will include deeper discussion on some topics as well
as some topics that were not discussed in the film.  It will be attractive
for the general reader, as well as a resource for national forest
enthusiasts, the natural resource professional, and for the teacher/educator
looking for curriculum background.

In addition to the companion book you can order the CD of original MUSIC
from the film.  It's great listening and brings you right back to what you
remember about the film.

For descriptions of the DVD set and the Companion book as well as other
centennial related books you can go to the Forest History web site at:
http://www.foresthistory.org/Publications/new.html.  The additional books
being offered include:


The Chiefs Remember: The Forest Service, 1952-2001
(by Harold K. Steen)
The Chiefs Remember presents excerpts from interviews with Forest Service
chiefs whose tenures span fifty years: Richard E. McArdle, 1952-62; Edward
P. Cliff, 1962-72; John R. McGuire, 1972-79; R. Max Peterson, 1979-87; F.
Dale Robertson, 1987-93; Jack Ward Thomas, 1993-97; and Michael P. Dombeck,
1997-2001.

Jack Ward Thomas: Journals of a Forest Service Chief
Jack Ward Thomas (1934-    ), an eminent wildlife biologist and US Forest
Service career scientist, was drafted in the late 1980s to head teams of
scientists to develop strategies for managing the habitat of the northern
spotted owl. That assignment led to his selection as Forest Service chief
during the early years of the Clinton administration. It is history's good
fortune that Thomas kept journals of his thoughts and daily experiences, and
that he is a superb writer able to capture the moment with clarity and
grace.

CENTENNIAL EDITION of The U.S. Forest Service: A History
With a new preface by the author, this edition of Harold K. Steen's classic
history (originally published in 1976) provides a broad perspective on the
Service's administrative and policy controversies and successes. Steen
updates the book with discussions of a number of recent concerns, among them
the spotted owl issue; wilderness and roadless areas; new research on
habitat, biodiversity, and fire prevention; below-cost timber sales; and
workplace diversity in a male-oriented field.


As a reminder, the 3-DVD set is expected to be available in the next few
weeks while the companion book is expected to be available in August.  They
will be sent to you as soon as they are available.  Other books and the CD
orders can be shipped right away.

If you have any questions, please contact us at 919-682-9319.   Andrea and
Carol will be pleased to take your order.   And please feel free to forward
this note to anyone who might be interested.

Sincerely,

Steve

-----------------
Steven Anderson, President
Forest History Society
701 Vickers Ave.
Durham, NC 27701
(919)682-9319 (Office)
(919)682-2349 (Fax)
stevena@duke.edu
http://www.foresthistory.org
~Ron

Offline jrdwyer

  • Forester
  • *
  • Posts: 210
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Evansville, IN
  • Gender: Male
    • Share Post
    • Dwyer Forestry Consulting
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #17 on: May 06, 2005, 12:39:27 AM »
As a consultant working for private landowners, I flip back and forth on the issue of timber harvests on National Forests. On the one hand I want high timber prices for my clients and I know that the Forest Service could easily unload a lot of timber on the local markets and depress timber prices if that mandate was passed. On the other hand, as just a forester, I believe in active forest management for a majority of Forest Service land because it is the most productive, least wasteful use of the land and can result in awesome results. You must admit, we are truely a wealthy (at least in thought) nation to even be having this discussion of not actively managing our National Forests. 

I suppose a comprimise might be less intensive harvests like what has been done on the Pioneer Forest and on thousands of acres of managed private forestland thoughout the US. We will just have to live with less oak and more maple and adapt.

I have to take issue with many environmental groups using the whole below-cost idea as a basis for not managing our National Forests. We tell the agency to do all this additional work prior to, during, and after a timber sale to take into account other resource values and then complain when the sale dosen't make a profit. Give me a break! If these environmental groups really want National Forest timber sales to make a profit, then they should insist that we hire private forest consultants to manage all future timber sales and believe me, we will eliminate costs and maximize value on even the worst 1,000 acres you can throw at us! And you won't even have to pay us a penny until the check is in the Treasury.

Offline Gary_C

  • Senior Member x2
  • *****
  • Posts: 6207
  • Age: 76
  • Location: Blooming Prairie, MN USA
  • Gender: Male
  • Sunrise on the Prairie
    • Share Post
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #18 on: May 06, 2005, 02:03:44 AM »
It's good to see an excellent discussion and see the views from all sides of this issue.  Thank you Ron Scott for posting that information on the USFS. We all owe a debt of gratitude for the men and women of the USFS for their efforts over the past 100 years. It reminds me of a quote from a speech by Teddy Roosevelt.

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."


"Citizenship in a Republic,"
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910

The other thing I will add is about the Boundary Waters Canoe Area in Northern Minnesota. Some years ago, there was a Fourth of July storm that devastated this pristine area that planes are not even allowed to fly over. There were terrifing accounts of campers in their tents with huge trees crashing down all around them. There was great anguish about the destruction from all who knew of the area. In the days after the storm, the private land owners in the path of this storm started their clean up work with tears in their eyes. Within about a week the counties with lands in the path of the storm hired logging contractors and started their cleanup.  Within a month or so, the state of Minnesota took bids and let contracts and started their clean up tasks. I saw a report at the University of Minnesota Forestry Center in Cloquet, MN that was written about five years after the tragic event and the private, county, and state land had recovered very well. It was difficult to even see where the storm path went thru the area.  However the US government land was still waiting for an exemption from congress to salvage anything and the ground photos showed a real mess of dead, decaying, and twisted trees that no longer had any salvage value.

Should we hold the USFS  or whatever agency that is in charge of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area responsible for this failure to manage this precious resource? They had certainly tried, but the whole system of submitting a plan, public comment period, and public and organizations that raised objections stopped them cold and they had to wait for congress to act on a special exemption. I do not know if they ever did anything other than clear the campsites of downed trees. I do know the area is included in the high hazard area for fire danger because of the large amounts of biomass on the forest floor.
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

Offline UrbanLogger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
  • Age: 47
  • Gender: Male
  • Don't trash that tree . . . TREECYCLE!
    • Share Post
    • Midtown Logging and Lumber Co.
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #19 on: May 06, 2005, 09:32:55 AM »
As I'll always say . . . reality lies somewhere between extremes.

I agree that some stands in our National Forests need management.

In Mississippi, for example, all the Loblolly monocultures should be heavily thinned and encouraged to revert back to the mixed hardwood/pine that originally inhabited the sites--the Loblolly has served it's soil retention purpose and needs to go before it breeds borers that impact private treefarms.

When it comes to salvage though, I have problems with the rational. Some will say that we should "recover" valuable timber intead of letting it "go to waste" or that we should reduce fuels or hazards. These are all anthropocentric sentiments that negate the reality trhat nature has evolved a plethora of species and processes that thrive in blown down or burnt forests. Studies show that biodiversity is higher in a forest that recovers naturally after "disaster".

Maybe I'm overly ecocentric, but I do believe that as stewards of God's Kingdom, we have a responsibility to accomodate ALL of God's creatures, even the lowliest beetles and grubs--if not for their own sake, at least for the sake of the songbirds that eat them.

Despite heartwarming and encouraging news like the discovery of the continued existence of species once thought extinct (Ivory Billed Woodpecker), many species of migrant songbirds are still in decline. Many of these species are clearly suffering due to loss of viable large tracts of native forest and barring government enforced management on private lands, our National Forests offer the best opportunity to manage for needed habitat to preserve these species.

When St. Peter asks me how I "treated the least of these", I'll be able to tell him that I tried my best to shelter my feathered friends(breathren). I do so on my own property (thrushes singing in the background) and submit my comments to my public land managers, ebcouraging them to do the same.

The question is "what is the best use of our public lands?" and I don't think that the answer has anything to do with making money--that's the job of the private sector on private property.       
 
Scott Banbury, Urban logger since 2002--Custom Woodworker since 1990. Running a Woodmizer LT-30, a flock of Huskies and a herd of Toy 4x4s Midtown Logging and Lumber Company at www.scottbanbury.com

Offline beenthere

  • Senior Member x2
  • *****
  • Posts: 26964
  • Location: Southern Wisconsin, USA
  • Gender: Male
    • Share Post
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #20 on: May 06, 2005, 10:12:11 AM »
jrdwyer
Very well said (meaning I believe you are right on). I think there are (at least were) well-managed National Forests until outside forces started treating them like they were National Parks. Big mistake, IMO.

Gary_C
The BWCA had similar treatment (i.e. lack of) the Mt St. Helens disaster. Private lands cleaned up, but nothing done to salvage on Forest Service land. "Let's do nothing to see what it will look like" and now another "Park" is created.

Not mentioned yet in the good discussion here, are the large areas of National Forest lands isolated as "Wilderness Areas".  Or the Alaska NF forests closed to cutting, except what was turned over to the "Indians" so they could clear their land, only to then exchange their cleared land for un-cut FS land, and now are clearing that.

We have National Parks (good idea) and National Forests (good idea) and both have their place (IMO), and then add the Wilderness areas that some feel no one else should visit.  Let the foresters manage (and I like the privatizing idea here real well). I like to see a well managed forest, and don't like to see the disaster areas that result from no management. But until we are not the "rich" nation, we will go elsewhere for our timber needs, making other nations the better for it until they decide otherwise.

south central Wisconsin
 It may be that my sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others

Offline Rocky_Ranger

  • Forester
  • *
  • Posts: 537
  • Age: 64
  • Location: Booneville Arkansas
  • Gender: Male
    • Share Post
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #21 on: May 06, 2005, 06:12:33 PM »
I’ll give you a short perspective from a District Ranger’s (USFS) point of view, look at the discussion thread and the variability of thoughts on a pretty easy topic.  Now expand that to include all things “forest” (like recreation, wildlife, forage, water, & timber) management with 270 million clients. 

I manage about 375,000 acres (yeah right – my people mange it) and deal with these very issues on a day by day account.  Like “The Greatest Good” asks, whose greatest good?  I try to manage to everyone’s (and it seems at times no ones) wishes.  Forest Plans are a way of getting your voices heard.  If you don’t respond to these outreaches and you don’t like the outcome, it’s your own fault!
RETIRED!

Offline beenthere

  • Senior Member x2
  • *****
  • Posts: 26964
  • Location: Southern Wisconsin, USA
  • Gender: Male
    • Share Post
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #22 on: May 06, 2005, 06:29:38 PM »
Rocky_Ranger
And what do you think the National Forest should be managed for?
Seeing as that it can't be equally managed for everybody, IMO.

I say timber #1, water #2, forage #3, wildlife #4, and recreation bottom of the list. A cascading priority with timber and water near equal at the top. No wild horses. No saving of endangered species.  Now, this is just one opinion that I have.  :)
south central Wisconsin
 It may be that my sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others

Offline Larry

  • Senior Member x2
  • *****
  • Posts: 5787
  • Age: 69
  • Location: NW Arkansas
  • Gender: Male
    • Share Post
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #23 on: May 06, 2005, 07:40:39 PM »
I met a Rocky Ranger from Colorado while back...great big guy with white hair.  Your not him are ya?

Beenthere, I never noticed you had an opinion. ;D

If we could agree on what a healthy forest is, wouldn’t be a bit hard to figure out when a forest needs management help.  IMHO if the forest is healthy everything falls into place.  Timber production, water, forage, and a good home for the critters.
Larry, making useful and beautiful things out of the most environmental friendly material on the planet.

We need to insure our customers understand the importance of our craft.

Offline Cedarman

  • Senior Member x2
  • *****
  • Posts: 6003
  • Age: 70
  • Location: Marengo In
  • Gender: Male
    • Share Post
    • Cedarusa
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #24 on: May 07, 2005, 08:11:59 AM »
We need to get rid of the notion good or bad.  That is a human way of thinking.  Good or bad for what? A gun is neither good or bad. It can be used for good or bad, right. But again just what is the meaning of good or bad. Many people just assume that nature does nothing but good. Mount Saint Helens blowing up, just natural, therefore good.  Humans clearcut a mountainside, bad, because humans did it.

Nature does not give a squat about good or bad. Physical and chemical and living processes go on based on laws set in motion at the time of the big bang or creation of our universe.

Our forests are going to react to the things that happen in them. If we cut trees, new ones will take there place. If a disease goes through, there may be a fire and new ones will grow.  If it is a super hot fire, the ground may not return to its present condition for 10,000 years, but the underlying rock will decay, dust will be blown in and new soil will form.

A forest management plan will definitely not please everyone. There is really no rush for most of the forest except where diesease and insects are running rampant if we want to salvage the timber. IMHO is really doesn't matter what the plan is, so long as there is a plan.  Nature is going to adapt to any human plan the second it is implemented.

Humans are part of nature, it is just that we remember the past.
I am in the pink when sawing cedar.

Online Jeff

  • Fearless Leader
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 46606
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Harrison MI
  • Gender: Male
  • Proverbs 13:20
    • Share Post
    • THEE Forestry Forum
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #25 on: May 07, 2005, 09:12:08 AM »
Cederman, I love that post.
Just call me the midget doctor.
Forestry Forum Founder and Chief Bottle Washer.

Commercial circle sawmill sawyer in a past life.

Offline Cedarman

  • Senior Member x2
  • *****
  • Posts: 6003
  • Age: 70
  • Location: Marengo In
  • Gender: Male
    • Share Post
    • Cedarusa
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #26 on: May 08, 2005, 07:13:01 AM »
Thank You, Jeff.
I am in the pink when sawing cedar.

Offline Rocky_Ranger

  • Forester
  • *
  • Posts: 537
  • Age: 64
  • Location: Booneville Arkansas
  • Gender: Male
    • Share Post
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #27 on: May 08, 2005, 11:52:55 AM »
No I ain't the Ranger you met.  I'm kind'a medium build and not gray headed yet, but stunningly good looking <grin>. 

As for my placement of resources I'd have to qualify it by saying where you are talking about.  For the most part, everything in this Region with the exception of the Black Hills, I'd rate #1 Recreation, #2 Water, #3 Wildlife,#4 Range, and Timber #5.  In the South I'd rate #1 Timber, #2 Wildlife, #3 Recreaton, #4 Range, and Water #5.  In the Pacific Northwest - # 1 Timber, #2 Wildlife, #3 Recreaton, #4 Range, and # 5 Water unless you were east of the Cascades and then I'd put Range as #1.  I can't speak to anywhere else.

Someone mentioned the economics of this stuff and the need to not consider it in long range planning.  I disagree, we have a new "Boss Hog" in the White House and I really like his emphasis on turning - if not profits, at least to break even stance.  I'm talking Federally here, individual rights for managing ones own property is sacred, but we should be looking out for the taxpyer.  We are surrounded by ski areas - Aspen, Vail, Copper Mountain, Brekenridge, and Monarch, just to name a few.  These things rake in more revenue in a year than timber would in 20-30 years.  We take in on this District over $250,000 in the three summer months just on camping an picnicing.  Manage toward the best return in demands and returns on investments, with regards to the natural environment and ya can't go wrong!
RETIRED!

Offline beenthere

  • Senior Member x2
  • *****
  • Posts: 26964
  • Location: Southern Wisconsin, USA
  • Gender: Male
    • Share Post
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #28 on: May 08, 2005, 12:25:18 PM »
Rocky_Ranger
Thanks for your thoughts. I can handle them, and have no problem with what you said.
You get my vote.  ;D
south central Wisconsin
 It may be that my sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others

Offline farmerdoug

  • Senior Member x2
  • *****
  • Posts: 2127
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Fargo, MI USA
  • Gender: Male
    • Share Post
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #29 on: February 20, 2007, 10:22:59 PM »
This thread is an interesting read.

I only have one thing to say, when it was said that mother nature can take care of the forest by herself, I agree.  But that means no intereference at all as in no spraying and no fire fighting.  A healthy forest needs fire too.  We like to stop forest fires but then expect a status quote on everything else.  Eventually nature will have those fires anyways and they will burn it all down to the ground with the built up fuel load we let accumulate on the floor.

Farmerdoug
Doug
Truck Farmer/Greenhouse grower
2001 LT40HDD42 Super with Command Control and AccuSet, 42 hp Kubota diesel
Fargo, MI

Offline snowman

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 357
  • Location: idaho
  • Gender: Male
    • Share Post
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #30 on: February 21, 2007, 09:28:43 AM »
I hesitate to comment on forest management in the east, it's a different ecosystem than out west but out here fire was the natural thinner. When white man got here and started controlling fire, stems per acre went from 20 too 200. A thick forest isn't the norm here but people have seen that so long they think it is and freak out when a logging job leaves 20 trees per acre.Just my 2 cents on the issue.

Offline UrbanLogger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
  • Age: 47
  • Gender: Male
  • Don't trash that tree . . . TREECYCLE!
    • Share Post
    • Midtown Logging and Lumber Co.
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #31 on: February 21, 2007, 11:47:07 AM »
Since this whole thread started because of a Heartwood "action alert" regarding the Mark Twain NF, I thought it would be appropriate to let y'all know that Heartwood will be holding its annual "Forest Council" at a camp on the Black River near Lesterville, MO over the memorial day weekend.

The theme for this year's Heartwood meeting is "Localism: Answering Globalism".

Confirmed presenters at the gathering include:

Clint Trammel - Forest Manager, Pioneer Forest

Russ Kremer - President, Missouri Farmers Union

Charlie Stockton - Loan Fund Manager for FORGE (Financing Ozarks Rural Growth and Economy)

Marti Crouch - Ph.D. Biologist and Consultant on Biotechnology and Agriculture

Gary Anderson – The Forest School/ Integrated Forest Management. Gary is a horse breeder, horse logger, sawmiller and shitake grower Rough Creek Farm

Nancy Smith – Board President of Ozark Quality Hardwood Cooperative

I'll be there and hope some of you "show mes" will come, too. Feel free to PM me for more info.

Scott Banbury, aka UrbanLogger

 
Scott Banbury, Urban logger since 2002--Custom Woodworker since 1990. Running a Woodmizer LT-30, a flock of Huskies and a herd of Toy 4x4s Midtown Logging and Lumber Company at www.scottbanbury.com

Offline Bill

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 677
  • Age: 68
  • Location: SE Penna
  • Gender: Male
  • Why Not ?
    • Share Post
    • Photos
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #32 on: February 21, 2007, 12:46:52 PM »
Being mostly a firewood cutter from the east while visiting and traveling the country I have precious little to base an opinion on - 'cepting hopefully some (un)common sense. I also have grown very distrustful of mega-corporations/big business of late. So I have a couple questions which may or may not be worth answering . . .

Why does the USFS build the roads into the forest for the logging companies ? ( I've seen huge tracts - you know like bigger than Rhode Island - of private forest in Maine that had their own built roads ).

Why doesn't the USFS auction off many smaller tracts instead of a couple large tracts ? ( Seems when you auction off a large tract only people with large pockets - spell that beaucoup cash - can play that game - spell that big business with big lobbyists ? ) ( I could have a big problem with rules that let only big business play while the average Joe is "locked out" )

My own note : when you "lock out" the little guy you also prevent him from bidding the price up - certainly doesn't hurt that big corp methinks - I always thought more buyers and sellers made for a fairer/healthier market for all ?  ?  ?

Is there a reason these lands have to all be multiple use ? ( It might make sense to divvy the land into areas for snowmobiles/horses/mtn bikes/hunting and logging and something wild ? ? ? - just asking here since maybe giving each purpose its own space was one way Mom used to stop us kids from fighting  ;D  )

Good thread - very interesting reading


Offline jim king

  • In Memoriam
  • *
  • Posts: 1661
  • Age: 73
  • Location: Iquitos-Peru
  • Gender: Male
    • Share Post
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #33 on: February 21, 2007, 01:02:08 PM »
Being originally from NW Wisconsin and traveling back there ocasionaly from here in the Amazon I find it quite impressive how the DNR and associated govt. groups are managing both the flora and fauna.  I think you can say it is world class.

Here we have  dogooder movements such as the WWF  that feel gooder  everytime they get another donation on the basis of some lie and do NOTHING positive.

The choice is clear, let the USFS do its work.


Offline Greg

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
  • Location: SW Ohio
  • Gender: Male
  • Hi mom!
    • Share Post
Re: comments on Mark Twain forest plans
« Reply #34 on: February 21, 2007, 01:24:16 PM »
Thanks Scott for the update on Heartwood, I am beginning to think you and I think WAY too much alike ;-)

Its funny, after I started this thread almost 2 years ago, the discussion went dormant for months and months, and now all of the sudden spark of new posts. I'd forgotten completely about it...

Greg
Since this whole thread started because of a Heartwood "action alert" regarding the Mark Twain NF, I thought it would be appropriate to let y'all know that Heartwood will be holding its annual "Forest Council" at a camp on the Black River near Lesterville, MO over the memorial day weekend.

The theme for this year's Heartwood meeting is "Localism: Answering Globalism".

Confirmed presenters at the gathering include:

Clint Trammel - Forest Manager, Pioneer Forest

Russ Kremer - President, Missouri Farmers Union

Charlie Stockton - Loan Fund Manager for FORGE (Financing Ozarks Rural Growth and Economy)

Marti Crouch - Ph.D. Biologist and Consultant on Biotechnology and Agriculture

Gary Anderson – The Forest School/ Integrated Forest Management. Gary is a horse breeder, horse logger, sawmiller and shitake grower Rough Creek Farm

Nancy Smith – Board President of Ozark Quality Hardwood Cooperative

I'll be there and hope some of you "show mes" will come, too. Feel free to PM me for more info.

Scott Banbury, aka UrbanLogger

 


Share via delicious Share via digg Share via facebook Share via linkedin Share via pinterest Share via reddit Share via stumble Share via tumblr Share via twitter

xx
M. Twain quote

Started by dgdrls on Sawmills and Milling

9 Replies
763 Views
Last post May 08, 2015, 06:53:58 AM
by zopi
xx
How do I Un-Mark the "Mark as Read" topics?

Started by Jasperfield on General Board

2 Replies
555 Views
Last post September 09, 2011, 10:48:14 AM
by Jasperfield
xx
Forest Inventory from USDA Forest Service

Started by alecs on Ask The Forester

10 Replies
1225 Views
Last post December 17, 2015, 06:58:00 PM
by SwampDonkey
xx
Comments please

Started by Happycamper on Chainsaws

34 Replies
2176 Views
Last post October 20, 2013, 06:09:42 PM
by Happycamper
 


Powered by EzPortal