Lately, I have been receiving several news articles concerning activities proposed by the U S Forest Service which are being challenged in the courts. The Northern Region was concerned that so many of their proposed projects wind-up in court and this is preventing or delaying needed treatments to improve forest conditions. I am afraid I must suggest that much of the problem rests with the leadership of the Forest Service and their willingness to identify and involve the potentially affected interests. I also continue to observe that most of these debates focus on the tools and techniques to be used, rather than the management goals and objectives for the site specific units. Leadership requires the methodical identification of the potentially affected interests as the first step. Failure to properly complete this step, will allow interest to lay in the weeds and surprise you when they feel the time is right. The next requirement is to reach out to these interests and involve them in discussing the goals and objective for each forest community. The discussion begins by describing the current condition and the problems with the "Do Nothing" alternative. You are working to describe a desired future condition we can agree on. Do not allow the discussion to include tools and techniques! Remember all of your potential goals and objectives must offer improvements over the Status-quo or "do nothing" alternative. Following this formula will provide the best opportunity to achieve some degree of acceptance so you can begin to discuss a variety of procedures to accomplish the goals and objectives. Remember timber harvesting is a tool not a goal! If a timber sale becomes the preferred treatment, the products produced are the by-products of proper scientific management!
Another issue, involves the Forest Service effort to reduce fuel loading in Colorado to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire, by clear-cutting mature stands close local communities. It will certainly reduce the risk in the short term,but I suggest it will exacerbate the problem in the long term. We can not bomb-proof our forests, but can reduce the risk by maximizing diversity. Rather than clear-cutting large areas that will encourage single age class and single pioneer species to regenerate, we should be focused on identifying the unique forest communities and treating them to encourage health and vigor of each unit. Diversity is our best tool. Catastrophic events are encouraged by loss of diversity! It is time to become true forest scientists, our future demands nothing less!
Another issue, involves the Forest Service effort to reduce fuel loading in Colorado to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire, by clear-cutting mature stands close local communities. It will certainly reduce the risk in the short term,but I suggest it will exacerbate the problem in the long term. We can not bomb-proof our forests, but can reduce the risk by maximizing diversity. Rather than clear-cutting large areas that will encourage single age class and single pioneer species to regenerate, we should be focused on identifying the unique forest communities and treating them to encourage health and vigor of each unit. Diversity is our best tool. Catastrophic events are encouraged by loss of diversity! It is time to become true forest scientists, our future demands nothing less!