Citizens’ Call for Ecological Forest Restoration: Forest Restoration Principles and Criteria

These national Restoration Principles, released about ten years ago, were the result of a 4-year bridge building effort between conservation groups and restoration practitioners to develop agreement on a common sense, scientifically-based framework for restoring our nation’s forests.  I believe over 100 + conservation groups from around the country signed onto these Principles.

Citizens’ Call for Ecological Forest Restoration: Forest Restoration Principles and Criteria

16 thoughts on “Citizens’ Call for Ecological Forest Restoration: Forest Restoration Principles and Criteria”

  1. ‘It’s a shame that this blog is just turning into yet another “blame the enviros” forum (despite the facts) for some people. I’m pretty sure that’s not what Dr. Martin Nie had in mind when he created the thing.”-the above is a quote from Mathew from a year or so ago.

    “It’s a shame that this blog has turned into just another “pro-enviro” venue to post cut and paste propoganda. I’m still waiting for the industry representative to be recruited for this blog.I don’t think Dr. Martin Nie had this in mind when he created this thing.”–the above quote came from me today.

    Reply
  2. Thanks, Derek, for your very substantive comment regarding the “Citizens’ Call for Ecological Forest Restoration: Forest Restoration Principles and Criteria.” Oh, wait….

    Yes, that’s my quote Derek, and for the entire context of why I made that statement (and your role in it) people can check the whole exchange out here:

    http://ncfp.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/news-stories-on-collaboration-from-derek-weidensee/

    Sort of ironic, don’t you think Derek, that my comment that you posted here was in response to one of your posts on this blog? I mean, has Sharon not been very accommodating with allowing posts by yourself and others? Have you asked Sharon to be a contributor? I’m sure she’d say yes. Has anyone ever censored your comments here Derek? You are free to post til your hearts content in the comments section and if you want to contribute something to the front page, send it Sharon and she’ll put it up there, as she has done before with your stuff.

    In the meantime, if you have any substantive comments or critiques about the “Citizens’ Call for Ecological Forest Restoration: Forest Restoration Principles and Criteria” let’s hear ’em. Thanks.

    Reply
  3. I question a ten year old paper that seeks to dominate all public land issues. A LOT has happened in ten years, and I bet a similar endeavor, including respected icons like Dr. Stephen Pyne, Dr. Wes Covington, and Dr. Thomas Bonnicksen, today would yield very, very, very, very, very different results. All three substantially agree on the histories, current conditions and future recommendations of today’s forests. They know more about fire ecologies than anyone else, and I would eagerly abide by their vastly educated wisdom.

    Reply
    • Dr. Stephen Pyne, Dr. Wes Covington, and Dr. Thomas Bonnicksen … know more about fire ecologies than anyone else

      Hell of a claim, Larry. You wanna back it up? And isn’t it William Wallace (Wally) Covington?

      Reply
  4. Larry,

    Could you please provide:

    Specific, substantive examples of where the “Citizens’ Call for Ecological Forest Restoration: Forest Restoration Principles and Criteria” falls short in your mind.

    Also, one of your “respected icons” who supposedly “know[s] more about fire ecologies than anyone else” isn’t even a fire ecologist, fire scientists, biologist, etc. Doesn’t Bonnicksen have a PhD in political science or policy? And then there’s this: http://articles.latimes.com/2006/oct/21/local/me-bonnicksen21.

    Reply
    • Or maybe just read some of Bonnicksen’s PR stuff when serving on the “National Center for Public Policy Research Advisory Board”: http://www.nationalcenter.org/Forest.html

      PS.. The National Center for Public Policy Research is famous for ‘bashing’ environmentalists and democrats, and denying human influences in ‘global warming.’

      But I guess that doesn’t taint Bonnicksen too much. After all, I’m sort of famous for bashing Forest Service management. Does that make me less of an economist? I dunno. On the other hand, I was never much of an economist in the first place, although I played one in the Forest Service for over 20 years.

      Reply
      • I’d like it if our blog would try to be soft of people, hard on ideas. Which is to say that who you hang with should not be as important to talk about as your ideas.

        This is especially true for this blog that seeks to be a place where it is safe for one side to talk to each other. Regardless of who else they talk to, and how frequently.

        Reply
  5. Your attacks on Dr. Bonnicksen’s character, instead of his work, requires me to not answer your request. His papers have been peer reviewed by respected agencies, and they are based in solid science. Also, his views are shared by the other two, who you choose to not even mention. In fire dominated landscapes (much of the west), projects should follow their leads.

    Reply
  6. Larry, my question to you was regarding the “Citizens’ Call for Ecological Forest Restoration: Forest Restoration Principles and Criteria” and specific, substantive examples of where the document falls short in your mind.

    You are refusing to respond to that question because I simply point out that Dr. Bonnicksen isn’t even a fire ecologist, fire scientists or biologist, but more of a political scientist? That makes no sense, Larry.

    And by the way, I haven’t “attacked” his character. Pointing out that someone’s a political scientist and then providing a very relevant link to an LA Times article, in which other folks in the scientific community have issues with Dr. Bonnicksen, whom you characterize as a “respected icon” is not an attack. It’s a sharing of context.

    Reply
    • Matthew, we’ve had this discussion before about Bonnicksen. I posted it and reviewed the credentials of those who were disagreeing with him and questioning his credentials. Here’s the link to the previous post.

      Reply
    • Of course, I could also say that YOU have a degree in English, and that your beliefs are disputed by real scientists, and tainted by profits from lawsuits. Yes, I think I will!

      Reply
    • “Dr. Bonnicksen earned his B.S. (forestry), M.S. (forest ecology), and Ph.D. (“with distinction” in natural resource and environmental policy with special emphasis on the political and decision sciences) from the University of California-Berkeley. He is Professor Emeritus of Forest Science and a former Department Head at Texas A&M University, Research Scholar in Residence at California Polytechnic State University, and served for seven years as Visiting Scholar and Board Member of the California-based Forest Foundation.”

      His credentials seem QUITE impressive, to me! Gotta dig a lil deeper, Matt. AND he agrees with Pyne and Covington.

      Reply
  7. I looked at the authors and the groups they belong to and it’s rather obvious its advocacy, sprinkled with a little bit of selective science. The social and economic effects of ecological restoration are quite a bit fuzzy to me, it’s explained that mankind in general benefits. I don’t think this is selling very well. I’ve heard them speak of a restoration economy, but it has not trickled down to the rural communities or appear to be sustainable without massive subsidies. It’s a nice theory, but not not practical or implementable without the involvement of other non-enviormental groups and citizens.

    Reply
  8. I’ll take “advocates” for the public interest in forest conservation over advocates for the timber industry any day.

    Reply
  9. I remember reading this part-way and skimming the rest, just like now, 10 years ago. Look at the authors. Look at who they reference (other than themselves). Look at Larry’s list for some real expertise on this topic, and the vacuum these widely acclaimed experts create in this New Science promotion.

    This isn’t real science, it’s semantics: eco-babble at it’s most self-assured. The sorry thing is how much of this mumbo-jumbo has been blended into our environmental laws and policies over the past 30 years of federal landscape degradation; and how they’ve come to be used in agencies and universities as if they made sense — or at least could be measured in some kind of functional manner. To the authors’ credit, they do use the key terms “passive vs. active management,” however wrong or incomprehensible they may be in their assertions regarding these types of approaches.

    By contrast, and in diametric opposition to the claims and definitions of the DellaSala-science crowd, I will have an article on forest restoration appearing in the popular press sometime in the next few weeks. It is written for a fishing and hunting journal that caters to regional loggers, ranchers, and farmers, so there are two maps and a lot of big pictures (to illustrate key points), no Latin, no tables, no citations, and one acronym. Plain English for non-technical readers, but with concepts and principles based on peer reviewed science, and on common sense (“profitable”) approaches to prioritizing and conducting needed forest restoration projects throughout the west.

    I am willing to post my article here — once it is published — for Matt and other DellaSala advocates, if they are willing to criticize it. Cheap (and hopefully pointed) peer review, for one advantage, plus I’d like to smooth it out for future uses — and this group has an excellent balance of resource management perspectives and good writers.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Sharon Cancel reply