Forest Ecology, Wildlife Experts Say: Reject the GOP House Farm Bill

It’s been my observation that many of the pro-logging folks that participate on this blog seem to like and agree with much of what Dr. Jerry Franklin has to say.

Well, today 16 leading experts in forest ecology and management, including esteemed professors Norman Christensen of Duke University and Jerry Franklin of the University of Washington, sent a letter to members of Congress who will conference on the Farm Bill describing their concerns on the Forestry Title of H.R. 2, The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, the House of Representative’s version of the Farm Bill.

Here are some excerpts from the letter:

“Many of the House bill’s forestry provisions are not supported by science. For instance, the bill seeks to aggressively expand post-fire ‘salvage’ logging on public lands to prevent wildfire, when in reality post-fire logging occurs primarily for economic reasons and rarely contributes to ecological recovery in the disturbed area. Post-fire logging of dead or dying trees is appropriate near roads where standing dead trees pose a safety hazard but should generally be avoided in areas where maintaining natural ecosystem processes is a priority. However, the House language does not recognize this key distinction.”

“By exempting controversial projects from meaningful evaluation and public engagement, the House farm bill runs counter to basic principles of science-based forest management, including the use of best available science and the application of robust decision-making processes. If they were to become law, the House farm bill’s forestry provisions would result in poorly planned, ineffective and harmful management actions that fail to address the vital need to improve the climate and fire resiliency of our national forests and the safety of our communities.”

More information and details can be found here.

17 thoughts on “Forest Ecology, Wildlife Experts Say: Reject the GOP House Farm Bill”

  1. At the risk of telling old stories again, I have much respect for Jerry Franklin as he has always taken the time to be with and listen to people on the ground (in my personal experience). Many of you may recall that Jerry and Chad Oliver were both forest ecologists at U W for awhile. My point is that Congressfolk knew that scientists in the same field disagreed about certain things and would invite different ones to hearings based on that knowledge. Even they knew that scientists in the same field did not agree about many things including public policy.

    Just because Franklin’s an expert on forest ecology, though, I don’t think he’s an expert on NEPA, CE’s and so on. And this is even more true of the others I saw on this letter.

    And I don’t agree with the House Bill of course, which is, as usual, a theatrical effort to ask for things that will never fly. But I really question scientists of various unrelated disciplines weighing in on policy issues and claiming that “science” tells us this.. like “application of robust decision-making processes” here as being a “science” claim.

    There are experts on public involvement.. but I don’t see them listed on the signatories here. House Republicans attempt to throw their weight around, scientists engage in overtly political acts under the veil of giving expertise, interest groups cite the end of the world. It’s a good gig for all but totally theater. IMHO.

    Reply
    • 1) Congress would give no credence to experts on public involvement. I honestly can’t think of any heavyweights in that field.
      2) It does not take a lot of training and expertise to read the bill and see that its proponents are trying to make it easier for economic interests to trample over ecological goals that remain under-represented in legal system.

      Reply
      • 1) But Congress doesn’t give credence to these folks either.. they are same people, as I’ve said before, who knew if they wanted to ask Jerry Franklin or Chad Oliver to testify at a hearing. So that isn’t really an argument (they won’t be listened to).
        2) Not really. People want projects around their communities. Is not burning your house, animals and powerlines up an “economic interest”? I suppose so. I don’t have any objection to ecological goals, but you have to admit that prairie dogs, ferrets, and different species of fish and trees all may have different goals. Who decides which of these is most important is, of course, a human judgment. Best made openly IMHO.

        Reply
    • Wait.
      What, Sharon? What does his opinion even have to do with NEPA?
      Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t “exempting controversial projects from meaningful evaluation and public engagement” mean he’s objecting to the fact that the science doesn’t;t even get a fair shake before the public because it doesn’t even get as far as the NEPA process?
      How does “Hey, I’m a scientist! Your Bill sucks because it uses politics to avoid science” have anything whatsoever do with expertise on public involvement?

      Signed,
      Perplexed in Idaho.

      Reply
      • I’ve looked at previous Farm Bill CE projects and even posted the few I found up under the tab. I don’t see these going anywhere but…

        Some of the CE’d projects so have what I call “meaningful evaluation and public engagement” for the scale of the project, as you can see from the project record. We all may legitimately differ about what is “meaningful” but I don’t think that some of these folks are familiar with reading project documents or the real differences in practice between a CE project and an EA project.
        Unfortunately, I was unable to get a list of these projects from the FS (ones which had used the new CEs) to look at them all. That’s one of my pet peeves, I think the PALs database should be public.

        And one more point.. for previous CE’s, the FS has been slow to adopt new ones for various cultural reasons. None of the “potentially bad” physical or biological effects can happen until the CE’s are used in practice. I remember our timber industry rep saying he didn’t want the districts to use the new ones, because he’d rather have more of a sure thing. In short, it’s a long winding path, not trod by the folks who signed this letter.

        Reply
  2. “If they were to become law, the House farm bill’s forestry provisions would result in poorly planned, ineffective and harmful management actions that fail to address the vital need to improve the climate and fire resiliency of our national forests and the safety of our communities.”

    Here, let me fix that sentence so that it’s context becomes more clear:

    If they were to become law, the House … bill’s … provisions would result in poorly planned, ineffective and harmful management actions that fail to address the vital need[s] of our nation[ ] … .

    There you go. Now it can be applied to 99% of all the political actions coming from D.C. these days.

    Reply
    • Eric Anderson: “There you go. Now it can be applied to 99% of all the political actions coming from D.C. these days.”
      ====

      Yup and it’s true irrespective of the political affilation. You know, leftwing, rightwing, middle-wing, no-wing, buffalo-wings, whatever-wings. All are inept at any sort of responsible policy making and when things don’t turn out well, the strategy is for one side against another to do nothing more than name call and fingerpoint towards the opponent. Larry mentions this all the time and no one pays attention. In any event, this post was not about protecting nature, wildlife, proper management of forests, etc, etc, etc. It was nothing more than the usual political jab at a much hated opponent. Yawn!

      Reply
      • “It was nothing more than the usual political jab at a much hated opponent.”

        No. It was more than that.
        Gil brushes up against what “more” it was, but fails to hit the actual target.
        The truth is that it merely highlights the complexity of the issues we deal with here, and given any particular context, that those views are subject to change.

        We’d all do well to keep that in the forefront of our minds when communicating on these issues.

        Reply
  3. Seems that Dr. Jerry Franklin is now St. Jerry to certain enviros.

    A couple of years ago he was Demon Jerry to certain enviros when he and Norm came up with their cluster harvesting concept which was a viable approach in certain situations.

    Maybe that’s progress in that the enviro’s recognize that not everyone will be consistently right except them.

    As to the house bill, let’s see how things settle out after the house and senate reconcile their differences after getting more input. But frankly the house bill is better than the destruction currently taking place on our federal forests. The current plan, if not improved upon, will take the black back woodpecker out of harms way for a while but endanger everything else including humans living down wind.

    Reply
    • FWIW: I certainly don’t consider Dr. Franklin to be St. Jerry…and I don’t know anyone in the forest protection movement that I’m involved with who does.

      As I already stated, it’s been my observation that many of the pro-logging folks that participate on this blog seem to like and agree with much of what Dr. Jerry Franklin has to say. That’s just a simple observation based on paying attention to what people say and post on this blog over the past almost 10 years.

      Reply
  4. Of course, when you assume that salvage logging is merely “Industrial Logging” and “clearcutting”, you might reach such a conclusion. But, it is a wrong conclusion, since it is based on lies. Nowhere does the Forest Service use clearcutting as a salvage logging method. Stop pretending that they do, please.

    Reply
    • 100% for certain the U.S. Forest Service does currently use “clearcutting” as a salvage logging method when it comes to beetles. I also believe the U.S. Forest Service in the northern Rockies uses “clearcutting” and “regeneration” and “sanitation” – type practices when it comes to post-fire logging.

      Reply
        • Sure thing Larry.

          For starters, how about 3,458 acres of new clearcuts in the East Reservoir Project on the Kootenai NF for post-beetle ‘salvage?’

          https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/74837_FSPLT3_1423853.pdf

          Or look up info for the following timber sales, which also included “clearcut” logging as part of a “salvage” operation.

          • Clancy-Unionville, Cabin Gulch, Ten Mile, Telegraph on the Helena NF.

          • Rat Creek, Basin Creek, Fleecer in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF.

          • Lonesomewood in the Gallatin NF.

          • North and South Pioneer in the Boise NF.

          Reply
          • Areas where dead trees are hazards do not count. I spent 15 minutes looking at the North Pioneer salvage and found no mention of clearcuts, either in the media, nor in the Forest Service scoping documents. What was fascinating (for about 5 minutes) was a collection of official comments and their Forest Service responses. There were about 80% of them about Monsanto, although no weed treatments were planned.

            Also, even if you cut every dead tree, the green healthy trees not affected remain. You cannot label such areas as “clearcuts”, when green trees still remain. There is no such thing as a ‘virtual’ clearcut. The clump strategy is acceptable to USFS Wildlife Biologists.

            Remember, that there still is a standard set of fire salvage guidelines in effect, as well. It is based on live crown still left.

            Reply
  5. There is nothing wrong thinking about economics. We all need a pay day. Turning burnt timber into something useful for society is not a bad thing. Right now we harvest less than 1% of what burns on federal lands. Just doing roadside hazard tree removal doesn’t make much sense either when viewed from the ground. I hope we do more logging, maybe we will get a few more jobs created in our local ranger districts too.
    I have not witnessed any permanent harm done to the landscape done by post fire timber salvage. I just wish it hadn’t burned in the first place.

    Reply
  6. More than 200 scientists called on congressional leaders yesterday to reject provisions in the House farm bill that would worsen wildfire conditions in the West and weaken protections for endangered wildlife.

    The scientists, with expertise in wildfire ecology and natural resource management, sent a letter to House and Senate conference committee members who are meeting to iron out differences between separate versions of the farm bill.

    More information at: https://www.forestlegacies.org/images/scientist-letters/scientist-letter-wildfire-signers-2018-08-27_1.pdf

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Webstir Cancel reply