Is the U.S. Forest Service greedy or reckless?

[extrapolate85]

Bryson is a gifted writer, but ignorant when it comes to timber harvest, forest policy, and forestry in general. He obviously beleives everything he reads; and we should not beleive everything he writes. I also read "A Walk in the Woods" and the statement he made, which you quote - "It allows [USFS] huge swathes to be clear-cut, including (to take one recent but heartbreaking example) 209 acres of thousand-year-old redwoods in Oregon's Umpqua National Forest". This statement is utter nonsense...and what is most laughable is that there are no redwoods in the Umpqua National Forest at all, period (their range stops far to the south of the Unpqua).

[Furby]

Yeah, because they already clear cut them all!

[Jeff]

Did you miss the part where it says their range is farther south then that Furby? DanG bet thats why we aint got any date palms. DanG clear cutters.

[Furby]

Ya know me well enough to know I was being sarcastic........... right

[Jeff]

Ya need to use the sarcastic smiley instead of the angry enviro smiley

[Furby]

 
Yeah, I know......... but I had to see who would respond first!
 

[Cedarman]

 I loved it when Bryson and Katz were hiking the trail and a big snow came and those 2 loud mouthed drunk couples from town forced them to leave the shelter and they had to pitch a tent.  In the middle of the night Katz snuck back and took the shoe strings out of the drunk's boots is just hilarious.  I think there is hope for Bryson.  He just needs educated.  He had to have been severely influenced by other hikers on the AT.

A step in educating the public is to have media days where reporters are invited to see clear cuts as time goes by.  Most are absolutely amazed at what takes place over several years and reported accurately the changes that took place.  Indiana is establishing experimental sections of its state forest to show the public what happens over time when different silva culture practices are used on the woods.

[OneWithWood]

One of my most enjoyable walks through the woods happened just a few months ago.  My neighbors accross the road have acquired 400+ acres of forested properties.  When they first moved in some years ago we had a conversation about forest management.  At the time they were of the opinion that no tree should be cut intentionally and gathered all there firewood from storm damage.  I listened politely and told them that I respected their right to manage their property as they saw fit and I suggested that they think about enrolling in our state's classified forest program to mitigate their property taxes.  They thanked me for the suggestion and also said that even though they disageeed with my managed forest philosophy that what I did with my woods should not be subject to unreasonable regulation.  Over the years we have visited each others woodlots, I have felled and milled a few of their trees for timber used to restore an old home on their property, They have helped pour concrete for my saw barn as well as helped put the tracks back on my crawler in a precarious position.  We have become good friends.
Anywhoo, a few months ago they decided to relocate north for a spell and invited a friend of theirs to stay at their place and watch over it.  The friend is from the west coast and even though he is what most would call an 'environmentalist' he has worked on fire crews and has some knowledge of forests.  By way of introductions we all spent an entire day walking both properties.  While we walked we discussed various management methods ranging from the do nothing approach to large group selections intended to encourage oak reproduciton.  The discussions were very good as everyone was interested in how each had developed their point of view and all were open to understanding and learning.  The thing that really made this so enjoyable was that as we walked their property and talked about the results of various harvest that had occured before they purchased the property the lack of any management was apparent as evidenced by the mishapen stems of the trees left and the overall low quality of the woods.  We then proceeded to walk my woodlot that has seen various management techniques applied over the past thirty or so years. I did not have to say much.  The friend went on and on about the difference in the properties and how my woods was much healthier looking and obviously had more evidence of wildlife and quality trees.  As we ended the walk he turned to me and said that he now had a much better understanding of what was possible through targeted management.  My neighbors vowed to rethink their management philosophy so that they might be able to reinvigorate their woods albeit with a less vigorous approach.  No problem there.
I relay this story not to pat myself on the back but to illustrate the principle Cedarman referred to about educating people through tactile demonstrations.  When I find someone who is misinformed about forestry practices but does not close themselves off to exploring the other side, I invite them out to my woods.  I rarely convert them but I do get them thinking and that is a start.  I will also be truthful and state that there are some people that I will not let close to my woods because they have ceased learning and cannot see a forest for the trees.

[beenthere]

Wouldn't it be great if we could give them all a 'walk in the woods' for a look as you've been able to do.
Have had similar responses, as well.

Thanks for the insight.

[jrdwyer]

I worked a summer job for the Forest Service in Oregon during college and the employees I met were generally friendly, honest, and concerned about doing the right thing for the environment. The employees themselves were not greedy or reckless.

That said, the Forest Service in the past attempted a one size fits all approach to forest management in many parts of the USA. Clearcutting was the main approach from the Doug-fir/hemlock forests in Oregon to the oak/hickory forests in S. Indiana.  The general idea was grow the most valuable trees (at that point in time) possible using the most effective silvicultural process and most efficient harvesting process. There was backlash by vocal segments of the public and timber harvesting stopped almost altogether in many National Forests. This is analogous to the way many large corporations operate with regards to producing a product. Today we are also seeing backlash against low cost/most efficient transnational product sourcing due to negative consequences.

No don't get me wrong, I think clearcutting should always be a viable management option for many stands of trees. I use it myself with clients that have severely degraded woods (cattle and fire history) or have bottomland hardwood forests that have poor regeneration and stem rot due to seasonal flooding. But I also use selection and group selection silviculture because that is what most of my clients want for their land.  The fact that the oak/hickory stands are slowly converting to more of a mixed composition is not a big concern for many private landowners here. It may be a larger concern for wildlife populations over a broad area though.

As far as efficiency, the Forest Service is probably no different than most government agencies. Is their waste? Yes indeed. Does the Forest Service get the highest possible return to the taxpayer for every board foot sold compared to privately sold timber? Definitely not. In their defense, the Forest Service is required to have many different  professionals do their work prior to ever selling a tract of timber. This is a cost that the environmental lobby wants, but then complains about it when tracts are sold below cost. 

Finally, I have used old logging roads on Forest Service lands for hiking, so I am somewhat divided on the whole issue of whether this should be a timber sale expense or ignored  because the road has multiple uses. If timber buyers had to shoulder all the expense of high standard access roads, then many Forest Service timber sales would not sell. This would help the private landowners in the region achieve more and/or higher bids for their timber sales.

The Forest Service should definitely maintain the roads they look after before building any new roads. If this means that less timber is put up for sale because there won't be enough money available for road maintenance, then so be it!

Unfortunately, very few people in government positions look at their organizaton from a frugal or no deficit standpoint. And worse are those in government who like to hide tax increases under the guise of privatization (Indiana's Major Moves).

[crtreedude]

Okay - as the token environmentalist here, (just kidding folks) I would like to chime in. As some of you know, my business is reforestation. Not plantations, but bringing back forest. I do it various ways but, it is what I am doing in Costa Rica. So far, we are getting close to 2 square kilometers that we have brought back with Finca Leola S.A. We do have plantations - but those are a means to an end. I don't have problems with pure plantations, but it isn't what we are doing.

I say that as my qualifications. Our small group (two families) has achieved a lot more than all the yelling and screaming that goes on - we figure out how to fund some of it ourselves, and how to build a business around it. We are not governmently subsidized.

First of all - Jeff is right, clear cutting is NOT deforestation. Logging is NOT deforestation. Changing the land usage from forest to something else IS deforestation. I hate to say it, but if you have a lawn and mow it in most parts of the world, you are practicing deforestation. Stop mowing your lawn and you will soon have a forest. (Please guys, if you stop mowing your lawn, don't use me as an excuse with your wives...  )

Clear cutting in my opinion is often better than high grading. Sometimes you actually have to clearcut to bring back a true forest, especially if the so called forest is full of leftovers from years of high grading. (high grading - remove the best, leave the worst)

Unfortunately often people use words like clearcutting because there have been very bad abuses of the technique. For example, I don't want to live below a hill that has been clearcut - it is liable to come loose and end up in my house! Too often, people have clearcut in areas that should never be clearcut because of danger from mudslides and destruction of creeks, etc.

[Jeff]

I learned a lot when i was in costa rica. I saw lots and lots of deforestation. We are not talking about logging off to sell high value timber. That dont count because it grows back. What you do see is miles and miles and miles of bananas and other fruit and exotic plant nurseries that grow those plants you love to by at the home depot.  The forests are removed and will no longer be forest.  I had my reservations about Fred right up until he brought me down to see whatthey were doing, and I can tell you that Fred is flat out growing trees and putting misused land back into forests. Were going to do some closer visitation on this subject after the first of the year so you can really see that, via the work Fred and Hector are doing, that positive things to do with Forestry happen all the time. Things that we can even get involved in.  I too became a believer not from being told, but being shown.

[crtreedude]

Thanks Jeff - it was good to have your observations while you were down here too.

I think one of the things that we really need is to understand that forestry people (like us) are not the problem with deforestation. Yeah, I know that doesn't sound like it makes sense, but it is true.

Saying forestry people wipeout forest is like saying vegetable farmers wipeout vegetables. It isn't the truth. Or that Bro. Noble endangers cows... (okay, if one kicks him I assume it is endangered).

Poachers endanger forest - but worse - housing devepments, ranches, cities, hotels, i.e. development endanger forest.

What Bryan doesn't realize is that he is the cause of deforestation more so than the Forestry Service. The Forestry Service is just an easier target than going after the homeowners.

[Cedarman]

My personal feeling on yards is that if you have to have something bigger than a power push mower, your yard is too big.  (Maybe, I'm just too cheap to buy a riding mower)

Now, I am going to duck for cover.  I think it would be a good idea to have an escalating yard tax.  The bigger the yard the more tax you should pay.  Legally you could have as big a yard as you wanted to pay the big bucks for. 

Development is the biggest cause of deforestation.  Once paved always paved.

Onewithwood, you have set a great example.  Seeing is believing.

CR, another good example.

How do we get more members in the congregation?

[PineNut]

I like my big yard (about 100 acres), landscaped with native shrubs and trees. Part of it was clear cut and planted in pines. The rest supplies me with firewood and logs from storm damage and culls. I hope I don’t get any extra tax on it. Oh yes, I do have a small area right next to the house maintained with a push mower.

[Jeff]

I have a big yard maintained by forum members.  Every year it gits trampled so bad at the pig roast that it doesnt come back until the following spring, so I dont have to mow any of it late summer and fall.   Love it!

[BrandonTN]

OneWithWood...nice story. Much appreciated; I'd actually like to walk on your neighbor's then yours to see the difference for myself. 

Thanks, CRTreeDude....I think I now understand why clear-cutting can be important..it just sounded reckless.  And thanks for the high-grading defintion:  take the best, leave the worst.  gotcha!

Thanks everyone!  I'm enjoying the responses I'm getting here.  I used to be pure "environmentalist"......until I came to the Forestry Forum.    What little I've learned is enough to let me know that cutting down a tree isn't always destructive for the forest. 

I love forests, and I think being knowledgable of forestry science and logging is the pathway to being a true enviornmentalist...not the ignorant, fanatical kind.  It seems that foresters and loggers are the quiet heros behind the woods...unthanked by the mob.  Keep up the good work, I say!

[Ron Wenrich]

I've been wanting to answer this thread for some time.  I"m a little more skeptical of clearcutting than a lot of the other members. 

Clearcutting can be a useful tool, if handled properly.  But, to watch large areas be put down and replanted really isn't much more than tree farming.  I think this is the aversion most people have to clearcuts.

The road issue is that when they build a road, it brings on clearcuts.  Something similar to putting in public sewers and watch how quickly houses spring up.  The thinking is if you stop road building you will stop clearcutting.  In a sense, they're right.

Now, when I talk of using clearcutting as a useful tool, I'm not talking about large expanses.  Small clearcutting is useful to opening up areas in a forest and adding different age structures in a stand.  As stated, it can be useful for regeneration of certain species.

But, the largest problem is that of monoculture and the even aged structure that accompanies the practice.  It manages a forest as a commodity and not a resource.  Trees are not the only product coming from the forest. 

We have a large monoculture in our state.  When the gypsy moth invaded, it walked across the ridges of oak, their preferred species.  They bypassed the mixed stands but wiped out entire stands of oak.  Why was it a monoculture?

Well, the previous predominant species was also a monoculture - chestnut.  When the chestnut blight hit, it walked from one side of the state to the other.  Seems that history repeated itself.  So, why was the chestnut stand a monoculture?

Well, we had a rather mixed stand of species that ranged from tulip poplar, beech, white oak, red oak, white pine and hemlock.  There were other species as well.  We cut them down to put in farms.  When the farms were depleted, they were abandoned and we developed our monoculture.

As for high-grading, just think of it as an economic clearcut.  Its the same as a regular clearcut, but it leaves behind a forest that is in many respects worse than a total clearcut.  In some other aspects, its not quite as bad.

[DanG]

I love forests, and I think being knowledgable of forestry science and logging is the pathway to being a true enviornmentalist...not the ignorant, fanatical kind. 

That's it in a nutshell, Brandon.  The key is education...not the kind where you listen to some professor, then pass a test, but the kind where you actually seek out the truth.

[Tillaway]

Bryson is spewing the usual drivel, not single a fact in it.  To start to understand environmentalists you have to understand that their views are faith based.  Facts and articles are cherry picked to support the cause and are presented without context. You have to understand that most folks like Bryson get virtually all their environmental knowledge from magazine and news paper articles written by people that got their information the same way.  I doubt the authors of these articles have managed a resource bigger than their back yard or perhaps maybe just a few house plants.

We have a local enviro that is heavily involved in sport fishing industry, he is fishing guide and on various governmental and industry boards, and he is becoming quite influential.  He happens to be a very good writer so he is able to convey misinformation with a certain panache.  The uninformed urban mass eats it up.  He really turns down the rhetoric when he knows the audience has experts that can make a mockery of him if he tries his usual stuff.  He will also insulate himself from any position where his beliefs will be proven wrong.  He will not tour our forest with any of our foresters although he writes about what we are doing on the forest without actually visiting it.  The other day he was trying to tell the city folks that the reason that we flooded here last month was due to timber harvesting in the upland areas of the watersheds.  He implied that the forests water up take is enough to prevent this.  The forest would have to up take over 13" of precipitation in a single day, in November no less,    to have prevented the flood.