A Commentary By Donald C. Gasper
"Shifting priorities," "social changes" and "cross currents" are noted as Mike Dombeck sets a "course" for the U.S. Forest Service. "A proud tradition of responding to new information and adapting to change," is claimed.
Today, as he notes, there is a greater interest in these forests for recreation. There is a greater value and concern for The Forest - its health and recovery. Because of this, citizens want responsible experts to answer their concerns. How badly damaged is this forest by its first logging? What is known about its status today? How real and robust is the fairly consistently reassuring "good looks" of this regrowing Eastern Forest? Does it look good everywhere, or are there signs of distress? What is their nature, extent and where? What are the causes? What dangers do experts foresee? What is known today, and what is not - and what seems unknowable? For the "fabric of the whole landscape must be addressed," even understood. There is no mention of what they do not know, and no mention of research (other than in forest products). Will our forest be managed conservatively until we know more? This is unlikely if ignorance is not acknowledged, and they proceed arrogantly rather than in humility. A reassessment and research are needed.
Simply put - if you care about someone, surely a living forest, you worry about it. Specifically, the concern may be about a stand of trees, or many stands, or a forest of trees, and wanting them to grow to become more impressive, with even greater recreational rewards, for hundreds of years. Of course, most would want them protected from fire, disease and insects, acid rain, and recreational impacts, etc., and from being intentionally cut down without justification. Some cutting may be necessary to improve the forest. This must clearly and specifically be explained to citizens. Again the U.S.F.S. may be listening because they will ask Congress to "provide stable and predictable state and county payments that support public schools and roads." This then would not have to come from timber income. Also the Chief claims, "The use of timber sales whose primary objective is to restore forest ecosystem health has increased by 70% in the last five years." Protecting the forest is what most [citizens] think foresters do.
Also today many citizens are aware of acid rain and some of its bad effects; nutrient loss by repeated harvesting without restoring anything to the land is another concern. In an unexploited natural forest the nutrients would be recycled when trees fall and rot. These considerations raise greater concerns, and as citizens learn more they are in no way reassured. They remain especially concerned about all those consequences of forest exploitation that are unknown to experts. Perhaps this is why U.S.F.S. plans to prepare a "report on the health of all forested landscapes across the nation by 2003." This could really help unless its purpose is just to allay public concern, rather than a demonstration of a true concern for the health of the Eastern Forest. A public relations greenwash effort will not work today.
It is perceptive of the U.S.F.S. to view this change of citizen attitudes and priorities as an "unfolding of national purpose." Today there is an enormous regard for, and concern for, the Eastern Forest. The U.S.F.S. recognizes that biodiversity is an indication of ecosystem health and stability. Citizens would like the assurance that all is well, or will be made well, by the agencies entrusted with their care. Citizens would want to be sure funds were adequate to do the job, and want to help any way they can. They want to safely assume forest ecosystem recovery as nicely manifested in the simple continued growth of trees that they care about. We will see how well the U.S.F.S. can "adapt" to "social change" and "new information."
The U.S.F.S. clearly restates they will "care for the land, and serve the people." They will "make maintenance and restoration of watershed health an overriding priority in future Forest Plans and provide measures of monitoring progress." This sounds like they might be listening. There might be fewer roads, less timbering, clearer streams, perhaps less flooding from an even more impressive, more probably recovering forest.
The U.S.F.S. commitment to "sustainability" and even "stewardship" is unmistakenly clear. Surely the experts in such an agency dedicated to "sound science" could be believed if they were to reassure us that everything is OK. Surely they could be trusted. ?
Editor's comments: there is a growing body of evidence that anything other than minimal human interference in many or the world's forests affects lowers the essential biodiversity for the respective forests to continue to make the claim of still being considered "forests" in the broadest sense. The consideration of maintainting biodiversity is critical. Clearcuts are devastatingly destructive of biodiversity in all but very unusual situations.