G'day Jim (and everyone else who's listening in because I've included you), your questions were forwarded to us in forest@funet.nic.fi, and I thought I'd like to have a bash at one or two, and also ask if you'd be kind enough to post the address for subscribing to CONSLINK, as I'm interested in it and maybe some others would be as well. I've taken the liberty of extracting the bits of your message that I'd like to refer to. > 1) It has often been said that we don't want to have to use the Endangered >Species Act (ESA) to often. If we do, and we are as strict as the ESA >stipulates, the "public" will get tired of the ESA and bring pressure on the >legislature to change or nullify it. Given the the ESA appears to be set for >legislative overhaul anyway, how much of a concern is this issue? I think the key question is: which way it will go. It seesm to me that this issue is of concern to those who are concerned about how the legislation *could* be used if someone had the agenda. It's kind of like a double edged sword: if it's strong enough to reliably protect something as hard to pin down as an 'endangered species', there will probably be fallout: what aren't you allowed to do in your backyard if an owl occasionally sits in your tree? Now you might not mind about that (and I wouldn't either) but many voters do, and will continue to do so whilst the dominant culture here (I regretfully quote an anonymous (fortunately) student's comment: "Never forget that the rights of the individual are more important than the rights of society.") remains the dominant culture here. Want to disagree with it? By all means do - thank heavens we have that option! But watch which way they vote. Want to change their minds? By all means try - thank heavens we have the chance! But watch which way they vote. When it all comes down, I suspect that the voting public will not empower the legislators to protect species given the perceived costs in personal freedom. And then what? > 2) The article cites the timber interest's claim that the forests of the >southwest need to be managed for the health of the forests. "They contend >that the failure to cut enough trees, combined with nearly a century of fire >suppression, has allowed too many small trees to stifle the growth of >larger ones, encouraged the spread of insects and disease; and enabled the I have never heard of small trees suppressing large trees. That sounds like rubbish to me. Does anyone have any evidence of that happening? Insects, disease, and fire suppression make much more sense as being bad things. >accumulation of fuel that could result in catastrophic forest fires. But a >recent study conducted by Northern Arizona University shows the owls prefer >forest areas that have not been logged and tend to avoid areas that have been >cut." Of course! But was it on an equal area basis? Or on a tree for tree basis? And what does 'tend' mean? If owls roost in trees, then they'll roost where trees are. But where do they hunt? I wouldn't mind (intuitively) betting that the owls would stick near to the edges, because it's easier to catch dinner in the open. To my mind, the key question is not which system they prefer (I really couldn't care less; logging happens while we want forest products) but whether they can cope with proximity to logging sites. Does anyone have a pointer to that study? >Do these forests need to be managed? I think (and I assert it without proof) that any forest which experiences human impacts needs to be managed - if only to ameliorate the effects. Mother Nature gets on fine without us, sure, but there isn't much space left that we don't touch in some way. Do you believe that even a camping site wouldn't create havoc if there weren't someone around to enforce decent behaviour? I don't. >What happens if we set up 7 >million acres of critical habitat for spotted owls, but over the next 20 >years, 75% of it burns? Right! Excellent question. I'll bet nobody knows. This is a fantastic example of the type of question forest managers have to cope with annually. Aren't we lucky they're trained! > Who is the best entity to manage the forests? The forest service, using >government-funded management plans? or the Forest Service, regulating >cutting by the timber industry--which could presemably, maybe, be operated at >a profit? Or is the best way to manage the forests to have controlled, >periodic burns? What would happen to owls during these burns? An excellent set of questions without ready answers. A small point: there really is no such thing as a controlled burn. The label of currency is 'prescribed burn'. As to who is the best entity to manage the forest - may I broaden the scope a little? What do you mean by 'best'? best regards ;-), Andrew. Andrew Robinson, Phone : + 1 612 625 5765 (work) Graduate Student, : + 1 612 644 5512 (home) Dept. of Forest Resources, FAX : + 1 612 625 5212 University of Minnesota, 115 Green Hall "I'll see it 1530 North Cleveland Ave. when I believe it." St Paul, 55108-6112, Mn, USA Disclaimer: I'm a graduate student. I'm *supposed* to make mistakes.
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0