I'd like to reply to Brett's comment that management can be controlled, but
natural disasters cannot. First, not all disturbances are "disasters" and what
is or is not a disaster has a strong anthropocentric component that is not
within the scope of this discussion (or maybe it is - but I'll leave that to
others to debate and stick to disturbances). And some disturbances that might
be classified as disasters are the result of management activities - some very
well-intentioned, such as suppressing fires.
The 1994 Tyee Fire (Wenatchee NF) burned 142,000 acres. The burn spanned
vegetation from shrub-steppe to subalpine forest, but most of the area burned
was in dry pine forest that (excuse this - I don't know how to format the DG)
historically burned every 3 to 6 years for the past 500 years (determined from
tree ring analysis of wedges cut from these trees), with the exception of the
last 100 years during which fires were suppressed. The change to the natural
disturbance regime, while initiated by timber interests, led to vegetation
characteristics that made spotted owls (and many wildlife biologists and
environmentalists) happy. Open stands of pine were converted to multi-layered
stands of pine, Douglas-fir and true firs. Just before the fire, stands had a
2 to 7 fold increase in density over historical conditions. Fuels were
connected vertically and horizontally across the landscape. Yes, the weather
conditions were somewhat anomolous - but over several centruies, the PNW DOES
have those "blocking highs" in the Pacific that make for severe fire years.
Anyway - the Tyee burned and so did 9 owl nests and the ecosystems that the
nests were in. The resulting landscape will not support owls for al long time
(and maybe didn't historically...).
All this background to explain why I think we need to evaluate inherent
disturbance regimes *and the vegetation characteristics that resulted* before
we determine through the courts just how big a clearcut should or shouldn't be.
In some forests, perhaps clearcuts are not appropriate, but perhaps they ARE in
other forests - some of our biodiveristy (not just game animals, but
butterflies too) requires open areas. And, this diversity evolved under
vegetation characteristics that resulted from the disturbance regime.
By the way, the Hubbard Brook study you referred to indicated, I think,
that about 3% of site nutrients were stored in the *boles* of trees - that part
usually taken off-site during harvesting. If branches, needles/leaves, bark
can remain onsite (not at a landing) loss of nutrients is significantly
reduced. And the loss of nutrients by fire *can* be very high - both from the
burn itself (it goes into the atmosphere and doesn't remain on site) and from
erosion following rain on devegetated slopes. If you want to challenge
harvesting effects, I suggest that soil compaction, not nutrient depletion, is
a more appropriate target in *some, not all* temperate forests (the tropics are
another story).
AND - I would be the last person to condone logging significant old growth
forests west of the Cascades crest, even though I strongly support the use of
timber (a renewable resource) over steel and other building materials that, to
me, pose a greater "threat" to the health of the planet.
Ann Camp
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0