Dear netters:
I would like to announce the results of my survey regarding the
future of harvests in the National Forests. First of all, I apologize if
the choices were too simplistic or if my own opinion was a potential bias.
However, everyone who wrote back seemed to have very firm opinions on the
matter, so apparently not too much harm done.
I had about 26 people write back with their views, with the vast
majority believing that the harvest levels on the National Forests will
be reduced, if not eliminated. One person voted for no significant
change in harvest levels, eight voted for reduced levels, and four voted for
eliminated levels. Of course, as you can tell from the numbers, not
everyone actually voted. This may have been due to my over-simplified
choices. However, all offered opinions which gave many different
perspectives. The rest of this message is various opinions paraphrased.
I'm not sure about the proper Internet etiquette regarding repeating
professional messages which were not directed to the public, so I will
paraprase and not mention names.
A resident of the Pacific Northwest believed that the timber
companies in that region were too politically-powerful to allow the NW
Forests to be lost to timber production. The person believes that the
current Congress will be inclined to weaken the Endangered Species Act (ESP).
A fellow graduate student believed that the Forests are becoming
Parks due to public pressure, but questions whether or not the actual
majority of Americans really do support this move, or simply are not
getting envolved. He questions the relationship between the proximity of
a Forest to a major urban area and whether or not the suburbanites are
trying to turn near-by Forests into their recreation areas.
A important view was expressed that not all Forest lands were meant to
be used for timber production, such as, Tonto National Forest, the official
National Grasslands. The individual suggested that the book, Wild
Forests, by Alverson et al (1994), is a worthwhile perception on
evolving forestry. The person also suggested that the East coast seems
far less fragile than the West coast and that if the Forest service could
continue to harvest sustainably, it would probably be in the East.
Another view on the West is that the timber companies saw the
restrictions coming long ago and are no longer dependent on Forest
lands. The person did not believe that the government could convince a
company to rely on a steady supply without artificially-low prices,
which isn't likely to pass unnoticed.
A view from overseas was that the Forest Service's emphasis on
ecosystem management will also have a negative effect on timber
harvests. As this person mentioned, most Americans probably think
National Forests are National Parks anyway and may not be prepared for
the national changes brought about (if any) by the loss of Forests for
timber.
Another fellow graduate student pointed out that the minimum
protection for the Red-cockaded woodpecker in the Conecuh National
Forest emcompasses 70% of the land assigned for timber production.
While timber harvesting is not eliminated, going from a 20-25 yr
rotation period to one over a century may be tantamount to elimination.
As another writer pointed out, what will happen once the minimum area is
reached? Once there is enough land for 500 individuals, will policies
relating to that species change? For example, if 500 organisms are
present, why not manage for 1000? The person points out policy changes
regarding the American alligator once it was safely beyond the threat of
extinction.
A Forest Service employee believes that the Service is returning
to its conservation roots, noting that the National Forests were
initially set aside as reserves. The major increases in harvest
levels came about after the WWII, instigated more by politicans than
foresters.
A South African forester mentions that foresters in his country
are also under pressure to reduce harvests as well as planting trees
as the Eucalyptus are thought to affect the water table.
An ecological economist believes that harvest levels will
fall, moving close to elimination of harvests. However, the person
also believes that the public will shift their perseption on the
value of the Forests as non-timber parameters ("biodiversity value,
wildness value, and other environmental services") become more
important to the public.
Ms. Sigrid Resh at Michigan State University (USA) recently
completed a thesis which addressed future timber availability in the Lake
States through a survey to foresters, public and privite. Overall,
timber availability was predicted to decline on all public lands (County,
State, and Federal). Privite foresters felt the timber availability would
decline more than the public foresters indicated.
One person pointed out that the public perception on the
National Forests may change if the OMB (an independent arm of the
government which evaluates government policy) does a
cost-analysis on the economics of reducing or eliminating timber
harvests.
An individual pointed out that the Forest Service's move towards
ecosystem managemnt will entail a budget crisis as biologists salaries
will have to be paid from a fund that may decrease as ecosystem
management decreases revenues from timber. As the American public becomes
more unwilling to support money-losing agencies, will the Forest Service be
caught between conflicting public decrees?
One person questioned whether or not clearcutting really would be
restricted, recalling that in 1972, the Forest Service agreed to
restrict clearcutting, as it did again in 1992.
A person pointed out that if the Forests were producing timber at
reduced amounts, foresters would be helped as they are forced to hone
their intellectual skills defining such concepts as ecological integrity
and sustainability.
I hope these views were interesting. Clearly, the Forest Service is
in for some serious changes in its policies. What those actual changes
are will be a fasinating statement on American society and how people
act. I would like to thank everyone who expressed a view.
Doug Marshall
Douglas J. Marshall
108 W. Smith Building
School of Forestry The views expressed above do not
Auburn University represent the School of Forestry
Auburn, Alabama 36830 or anyone other than myself, or so I've
marshall@forestry.auburn.edu been told.
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0