Seeing the Forest for the Trees

Russell Sadler

In the twilight of an epochal career as a forest scientist, Dr. Jerry Franklin can still cut through the fog of rhetoric to the heart of a controversy.

Near the end of last week’s Medford hearing of the U.S. House subcommittee on forests and forest health, chaired by Rep. Greg Walden (R-Oregon). Franklin, now a professor of ecosystem science at the University of Washington’s College of Forest Resources, quietly urged lawmakers not to legislate salvage logging as a cure for every forest fire.

Salvage logging, said Franklin, was useful only if the goal was to replace a burned forest with a tree farm for commercial logging. If the goal was to encourage ecologically sound recovery of a natural forest, the weight of scientific research suggests that “salvage logging is not going to be appropriate.”

And the difference between those two goals -- a tree farm for commercial logging or the ecologically sound recovery of the natural forest -- is at the root of the controversy over salvage logging vs. more limited regeneration methods.

A study published by Oregon State University graduate student Daniel Donato in the journal Science, contradicting a study by veteran OSU faculty members on the effects of salvage logging after the 2002 Biscuit Fire, was the specific trigger for this controversy.

Forest management, the concept that human intervention in natural processes will actually create a better forest, is little more than 100 years old. The “father” of American forest management was Gifford Pinchot, who became the federal government’s first Chief Forester in the early 1900s following the establishment of Forest Reserves.

The concept of tree farms developed in the 1930s as private timber owners sought tax laws that would reduce their taxes until trees were actually cut, rather than pay annual property taxes like other property owners.

The Weyerhaeuser Timber Company began a marketing campaign entitled “Timber Is A Crop” in 1937. The first private “tree farms” were certified in 1941.

So the agricultural metaphor for industrial foresters is just a little over 60 years old. Many industrial foresters and academics in colleges of forestry are still very invested in the notion. These veterans, and many of the lawmakers they have influenced, are still believers in aggressive human intervention in forest management.

Old growth forests were regarded as “dead, dying and decadent, biological deserts” and needed to be clearcut to make way for “vigorous, young forests.” In the 1960s the emerging science of ecology began the serious research that would challenge this article of faith of industrial forestry. Jerry Franklin was one of the pioneers.

More than 40 years ago, working for the U.S. Forest Service and later Oregon State University, Franklin and his colleagues began studies in the Willamette National Forest east of Eugene that demonstrated that freshly replanted clearcuts were biological deserts and old growth forests were the most biologically diverse parts of the forest.

Industrial foresters were aggressively liquidating their old growth forests and replanting them only with trees that had a commercial value -- just like farmers growing a single commercial crop, fence row to fence row. Industrial foresters assumed the federal forests would be managed the same way.

Public opinion began to change in the 1960-70s as the lessons of ecosystem science and the importance of biological diversity began to creep into the popular imagination through such books as Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring.”

The issue became whether national forests would become national tree farms or would be managed to protect whole ecosystems rather than just produce lumber. Public opinion decided they would remain National Forests and logging was dramatically reduced. Technological and economic changes in the timber industry make it unlikely logging in the National Forests will return to the levels of the 1970-80’s.

Now we are witnessing much the same thing happen to the idea that aggressive intervention after wildfires will “help restore the forest” better than a more limited approach.

Donato was supposed to be the sacrificial lamb at Walden’s hearing. Despite boorish bullying by Rep. Brian Baird (D-Washington), Donato refused to play the role.

Baird, a former psychology professor, read a litany of Donato’s alleged character flaws, professional inadequacies, inadequate understanding of statistics and lack of humility that would constitute libel in any other forum but a congressional hearing. Donato competently -- if nervously -- defended his work.

In an age where more work and more decisions are made collaboratively in groups, task forces and committees, the bullying tactics of the authoritative “sage on the stage” are becoming obsolete whether its the seminar room or the congressional hearing.

Daniel Donato and Jerry Franklin emerged from that hearing with quiet dignity. After more studies are done, I suspect that Donato’s views on fire restoration, like Franklin’s views on forest diversity, will come to dominate the field.

By Russell Sadler
March 05, 2006
  • elee (unverified)
    8:36 a.m.
    Mar 6, '06
    (Show?)

    In case anyone wants to see "forest management" up close, go take a ride in the Coast Range. But don't just zip through on one of the main roads, they do most of their "managing" out of sight of the big highways.

  • ned (unverified)
    3:42 p.m.
    Mar 6, '06
    (Show?)

    As a former OSU Forestry major, it has long been obvious to me that the College of Forestry at my alma mater was the handmaiden for Oregon's logging industry. If you wanted to cut roads, cut trees, and make boards or paper out of former forests, they had the cirriculum for it.

    Given their dependence on both harvest taxes and endowment support from industry, I would expect no less. Maybe they just ought to change the name to the College of Logging. That would be more academically honest.

    Kudos to Sadler for bringing this to Blue Oregon's attention. Maybe now at least our Democratic legislators will scrutinize OSU and Oregon Forest Resources Institute budgets more closely. Perhaps those funds could be used to prop up the K-12 budgets instead of buying more logging commercials.

    On most other matters, Go Beavs!

  • John Bromley (unverified)
    4:56 p.m.
    Mar 6, '06
    (Show?)

    Russell,

    As always, you hit the sweet sport with this column on the forest and the forest managers. Thanks for keeping us informed on this and other important issues.

  • Rosalind Peterson (unverified)
    5:07 p.m.
    Mar 12, '06
    (Show?)

    AGRICULTURE ALERT / FORESTLAND & WATERSHED - MARCH 12, 2006

    EXPERIMENTAL WEATHER MODIFICATION BILL FAST TRACKING FOR PASSAGE IN U.S. SENATE & HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    By Rosalind Peterson

    U.S. Senate Bill 517 and U.S. House Bill 2995, a bill that would allow experimental weather modification by artificial methods and implement a national weather modification policy, does not include agriculture or public oversight, is on the “fast track” to be passed early in 2006.

This bill is designed to implement experimental weather modification. The appointed Board of Directors established by this bill does not include any agricultural, water, EPA, or public representatives, and has no provisions for Congressional, State, County, or public oversight of their actions or expenditures.

Weather Modification may adversely impact agricultural crops and water supplies.  If the weather is changed in one state, region or county it may have severe consequences in another region, state or county.  And who is going to decide the type of weather modification experimentation and who it will benefit or adversely impact?

    This experimental weather modification bill will impact residents across the United States not just in California. Many current and ongoing weather modification programs (47 listed by NOAA in 2005), including the one in Wyoming that is designed to increase the snowpack, may be diverting rainwater away from Oklahoma and Texas, two states that are currently fighting fires caused by a lack of rainfall. We have no idea what the unintended consequences of the Wyoming action or other experimental weather modification programs might be now or in the future.

    In addition to the experimental weather modification programs listed by NOAA, there are both private and ongoing government sponsored atmospheric testing and heating programs underway in Alaska and across the United States. Alaska Senator Stevens recently received $50 million in funding for Alaska’s atmospheric heating program.

    All of these unregulated, private, government, and public weather modification programs, may also have unintended synergistic effects. Senate Bill 517 does not address these issues but intends to implement more experimental weather modification programs without a national debate or public oversight.

    Artificial weather modification can impact all of us by reducing water supplies, changing agricultural crop production cycles, reducing crop production, and water availability.  Since most experimental weather modification programs use chemicals released into the atmosphere the public could be subjected increasingly toxic or unknown substances that could adversely impact agricultural crops and trees.

Trimethyl Aluminum (TMA) and barium are just two of the toxic chemicals used in recent atmospheric heating and testing programs according to NASA.  The Alaska H.A.A.R.P. atmospheric heating program may have the capability of changing the Jet Stream which could also change our weather.

Many private weather modification companies admit that precipitation effects may be positive or negative.  Fog dispersal programs, using dry ice, liquid nitrogen, liquid propane or silver iodide may improve visibility while adversely impacting Redwood Trees along the California coast by depriving them of needed water they derive from the fog.
The increasing use of varied chemicals like aluminum (coupled with increasing air pollution), can severely impact tree health by depriving trees of water and nutrients normally absorbed through their root systems.

    The December 2005 Popular Science Magazine discussed a plan to use an oil slick to stop hurricanes without noting the adverse environmental impacts of the oil used to cover the ocean.

    Popular Science also noted that a private company, Dyn-O-Mat, plans to purchase jets to drop thousands of pounds of a water absorbing chemical powder (unknown substance), into hurricanes to absorb moisture that may dissipate hurricanes. There is no agriculture oversight or public hearings to determine the consequences of this and other actions or to monitor or prevent adverse impacts of this chemical once it falls on the surface of the ocean or on land.

Alaska and other areas across the United States are beginning to feel the impacts of climate change.  Enormous changes are being seen in the declining health of native plant and tree communities in many areas across the United States.

NASA noted in an October 2005 newsletter that increasingly persistent contrails are “…trapping warmth in the atmosphere and exacerbating global warming…” NASA goes on to note that: “…Any increase in global cloud cover will contribute to long-term changes in Earth’s climate.  Likewise, any change in Earth’s climate may have effects on natural resources…”

Global dimming and the persistent contrails, that produce man-made clouds, may have serious impacts on crop production.  A recent corn crop study in Illinois shows that cloud cover reduces corn crop production while direct sunlight increases production.  In addition, increasing man-made clouds may reduce the effectiveness of solar panels.

    Gil Smolin, an Avian Bird Flu expert, noted on the Ron Owens Show on KGO Radio (January 5, 2006), that the flu was spread more quickly in the winter when there was a “lack of sunlight”. Would man-made clouds be contributing to the lack of sunlight which might cause the Avian Bird flu to spread more quickly at other times of the year? Experimental weather modification programs could also exacerbate this problem by changing climate patterns, increasing man-made cloud cover, and changing our weather and climate patterns.

    Senate Bill 517 does not address any of these important issues.  Its sole purpose is to establish an experimental weather modification policy without any agriculture or public oversight of private, military, and government programs.  Without oversight or public hearings agriculture, our natural resources, and watersheds may be negatively impacted.  And who will be responsible to determine the synergistic effects of these programs or pay for unintended disasters created by this experimentation.  If these programs change growing seasons and interrupt the pollination process crop losses could be substantial exacerbating economic losses.

Please contact all of your elected local, state and federal officials to stop this bill in its present form.  This bill needs to have appropriate agriculture and public oversight, with public hearings included, prior to any more experimental projects.  We need a national dialogue on this subject before more experimentation takes place.

    For more information please contact:

    Rosalind Peterson Post Office Box 499 Redwood Valley, California 95470 (707) 485-7520 E-Mail: [email protected]

    Rosalind Peterson was born and raised on a working farm in Redwood Valley, California. The weather was the foremost factor in determining whether or not our tree crops produced fruit and nuts.

    Between 1989 and 1993 Rosalind worked as an Agricultural Technologist for the Mendocino County Department of Agriculture. After leaving Mendocino County she took a position with the USDA Farm Service Agency as a Program Assistant in Mendocino, Sonoma, and the Salinas County Offices. 

    In 1995, she became a certified U.S.D.A. Farm Service Agency Crop Loss Adjustor working in more than ten counties throughout California.  Many crop losses throughout the State can be attributed to weather related causes.

    Rosalind has a BA degree from Sonoma State University in Environmental Studies & Planning (ENSP), with emphasis on agriculture and crop production.

    Recommended Book: The Dying of the Trees, by Charles Little 1995

    Associated Reference Articles:

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=36105#

    http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-12-19-wyoming-cloud-seeding_x.htm

    http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/c955700641f87010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

    http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/Count/Oct2005/ConEdNews_p1.pdf

    http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/Count/Oct2005/ConEdNews_p2.pdf

    http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/Count/Oct2005/ConEdNews_p3.pdf

    http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/Count/Oct2005/ConEdNews_p4.pdf

    http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/Count/Oct2005/ConEdNews_p6.pdf

    http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/Count/Oct2005/ConEdNews_p7.pdf

    http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/Count/Oct2005/ConEdNews_p8.pdf

    PROTEST DEMONSTRATION

    THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 2006

    TIME: 9 A.M. – 2:00 P.M.

    LOCATION: 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012

    ACROSS FROM: Senator Barbara Boxer’s Office (Corner of Spring & Temples Streets – Downtown Los Angeles)

    PROTECT AGRICULTURE!

    STOP

    EXPERIMENTAL WEATHER MODIFICATION WITHOUT AGRICULTURE & PUBLIC OVERSIGHT

    U.S. SENATE BILL 517 & U.S. HOUSE BILL 2995

    CONTACTS:

    Rosalind Peterson E-Mail: [email protected] (707) 485-7520 Post Office Box 499, Redwood Valley, California 95470

    Bridget Conroy E-Mail: [email protected]

    K. Ornstein “Right to Breathe Healthy Air” E-Mail: [email protected]

More Recent Posts

Albert Kaufman

Georgia

Guest Column

A history of radical and racist Portland

Kari Chisholm

Sign the petition: We need vote by mail for all

Kari Chisholm

Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat

Albert Kaufman

Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America

Guest Column

Ensuring access to Oregon's 2020 DNC delegate process

Albert Kaufman

Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list?

Kari Chisholm

Reapportionment: Stay on target, stay on target

Guest Column

A Punch from the Left

Kari Chisholm

Tell Republicans: Reject the NRA

Dive into our archives.

connect with blueoregon