Kootenai National Forest in the Purcell Mountains, northwest Montana.
A tSW community member suggested a joint fact-finding discussion around the question of how much logging old-growth and clearcutting still goes on in the FS (and perhaps BLM). One of the difficulties with this discussion is that the definitions are unclear, as we have seen, and different communities use different definitions. So, of course, it makes sense to look at specific projects that have been proposed or carried out. What I hope to be an enlightening journey for all of us from the generic to the specific.
When I worked on Capitol Hill, one of the perks was to attend free food and drink events put on by different groups (OK, and learn about their views as well). I remember attending a session of a nature writers’ group which was fascinating, as they talked about the same things we dealt with at work (trees, forests), but from a completely different perspective with different language.
This Orion article by a writer named Rick Bass, is a peek into that world.
When I sleep, I am not aware of the threat of doom. The thousand-year-old forest that well may not live to be 1,001. All of it, obliterated, shattered, bombed.
The fuse has been lit. The fuse is burning. The government, under the previous administration, but abetted yet by the current one, says it’s time for this thousand-year-old forest to become “resilient.” Says that logging it down to dust—effectively, a thousand-acre clearcut—is the way to teach it resilience. They’ve named this proposed project, this fever dream, a remnant zombie from the previous reign, “Black Ram.”
When a forest gets to be this old and untouched, it becomes something more than a forest. It becomes what we would think of as a mind, with history, knowledge, memory, and foresight. It has a pulse, and a spirit incomprehensible to us—but we can feel it when we’re in its presence. There aren’t many like this one left. Maybe none in Montana. Regional minor timber barons and public servants in the Forest Service’s timber shop will scoff at such an idea, but when you step into this ancient garden, you feel not just all that is above, but also so much of what lies below. It’s humbling, recognizing that, though we may be in the middle, we are not the center. Through the phenomenon of gap creation, the forest is in perfect balance, growing and rotting. Never burning. Though rot, of course, is but a slow gentle fire of its own. The circular amid the linear rot, the ancient geometry of the disassembly building a nest that is, before our eyes and all the other senses, a miracle of reassembly. Life, lived slowly; life, lived so large.
I will not tell you that the old and mature forests store 70 percent more carbon than do the monoculture plantations planned for these public lands. I will tell you instead that I can no longer go into this old forest without falling asleep. Maybe in that fashion the universe is, even now, seeking to balance itself, as it used to do once upon a time, before we broke so very many things. Maybe my sleeping creates a space for someone else to wake up. Please, God, let that person be the current president, himself but a grain of sand and gnat-blink to this forest, and to time.
The first think I notice is the writing is absolutely beautiful.. not like a forest plan, an EIS or even most posts on TSW. The beauty of the words might make us less inclined to poke at the basis for the knowledge claims. For example, “When a forest gets to be this old and untouched, it becomes something more than a forest.” It’s OK to be a mystic. I’m a mystic in the line of Hildegard of Bingen. But mystical knowledge claims are usually hard to make in our post-Enlightenment materialist society. Or, perhaps, sometimes they are OK and sometimes not (talking to angels). Something to watch.
It’s also interesting how science fits into this in the author’s view.
If science were still revered in this country, it would possess what scientists call baseline data. But we are not going to talk about science here. Science went away in the previous administration, and we are waiting to see to what extent the current one will bring it back. We’re still waiting.
This seems a bit of an overstatement to me (think Fauci and Collins) but OK that’s what polemicists do.
Through the phenomenon of gap creation, the forest is in perfect balance, growing and rotting. Never burning.
The idea of “balance” is one of many ideas about Nature. For other ideas check out our discussion of Dan Botkin’s book “The Moon in the Nautilus Shell.” Dan was also frustrated that “the science” wasn’t coming through in policy, in terms of acknowledging that ecosystems are dynamic, and nature is not in “balance.”
On the other hand, these specific claims should be able to be investigated by reviewing the decision documents “monoculture plantations planned for these public lands” “”thousand acre clearcuts” and “thousand year old forest.”
But this post has gotten too long, and so I’ll take that up in the next post. Plenty of philosophy and science claims to discuss here, and beautiful writing to read.
I read this and see yet more evidence that nature worship is clearly a religion for these people. And I can’t help but wonder, at what point does managing our public lands based on the religious beliefs of nature worshipers violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment?
That’s an interesting question, Patrick. I’ll post about a book that goes into that in more depth.
Patrick, Who decides if it is a religion? Does having an emotional connection to a landscape make it religious? Is a “spiritual” connection a religious connection? And then going a bit further, how does this apply to Indigenous people?
How exactly to define a religion and what qualifies as one is a major philosophical debate that’s probably a bit beyond the scope of this discussion. It’s a common observation though that more extreme versions of environmentalism take on a lot of the characteristics of a religion. And many environmentalists talk in blatantly religious terms, deifying nature, adopting neopagan terminology (Mother Earth, Gaia, etc.) and claiming to have a spiritual connection with nature.
Whether any of it is systematized enough to actually be called a proper Religion I don’t know, but I don’t think it’s unfair to to characterize such things as religious beliefs. And if that’s true, it’s fair to question to what extent we should allow federal land management policy to be guided by certain people’s religious/spiritual beliefs, and whether that runs afoul of the First Amendment.
Incidentally, I have the same concern about Native American beliefs. A great deal of attention is being paid these days to ingenious beliefs about “sacred landscapes,” and those are starting to translate directly into federal land management policy. A major factor driving the creation of the Bears Ears Monument was the fact that certain indigenous tribes believe that region to be sacred under their religion. I think there are potential First Amendment concerns there as well, since you are allowing the beliefs of a specific religion to dictate how federal lands are managed and what uses are allowed across an entire region. In my mind there’s a pretty strong case to be made that is unconstitutionally favoring a specific religion.
Patrick, I’m going to just respond to the Native American part of your comment as I feel I have already covered my opinion on the other part in other comments on this post. I want to preface this by saying my opinion comes from, among other experiences, listening to well over one hundred readings of writings by Native Americans at the Institute of American Indian Arts in Sante Fe where my wife teaches. In no way am I speaking for Native Americans, I’m just sharing my understandings as limited as they are. I apologize to any Native Americans who may read this if I am speaking out of turn. The first thing to understand is that European colonialists forcefully took the land in this country from Indigenous people and committed genocide in the process. Second, I’m not sure how any descendent of colonialists or newer immigrants to North America can make decisions on whether an area is sacred to Native Americans and if that means it is based on a religion versus a way of life. Third, if the US Government can preserve civil war battlefields, certainly it can preserve sacred grounds such as Bears Ears. If you have never spent quality time in the area, I encourage you to. Fourth, Native Americans have passed down life ways and how they managed the land through oral history. I think they have much to share with government land managers. Fifth, NEPA and NHPA requires the federal government to consult with tribes that historically used the area during environmental analyses.
Rick Bass is a beautiful writer and as writers of his ilk do, he writes to elicit an emotional response in the reader rather than fill their brains with perfect facts. Literary writers talk a different language than scientists. Human ego keeps all the sides from really trying to understand each other.
For more on Rick Bass, see https://www.rickbass.net/. I’ve read a few of his short stories — he’s a talented writer. I wonder if he’s written an essay on a burned forest or one filled with bug-killed trees.
Steve, I’m very familiar with the writing of Rick Bass and have read some of his work over a few decades. I love his writing style and I can relate to his emotional connection to the Yak – I have the same with the San Juan Mountains – but I also have a few degrees in natural resource fields and 41 year career with the USFS, so see the forest through a different lens. I like your question about writing about burned forest and bugged-killed trees. I bet he has as he is a prolific writer. I used to have a column in a couple local papers and have written about both and a local, internationally acclaimed painter did a beautiful show called “Finding Beauty in the Black” that incorporated charcoal from the Papoose Fire burned area.
I’ve been in burned forests and seen beauty there, and I’ve been if forests as they were burning and seen beauty there, too. And I’ve seen beauty in clearcuts a few years after the harvest where young trees, shrubs, and flowering plants have drawn myriad birds, deer, elk, insects, and other critters. I also see beauty when I imagine the homes built with the wood that was removed. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholders, as they say.
Steve, Kudos. I think that is a healthy way to be.
Mike, I don’t know if that’s the case, or whether there are not many places where both congregate and try to speak across the divide. I know there are lots of places where writers write, and scientists publish, and practitioners give talks, but not too many places that bring these groups together.
Sharon, Maybe I spoke in terms that seemed a little too absolute. I certainly know USFS employees who read work by people like Rick Bass (me, for one, although I’ve only read his essays and never one of his books) and can embrace their writing. Most of those people are wildlife biologists or work in recreation. I don’t know Rick Bass personally, but I would guess from some of his essays that he has attended a few USFS public meetings. And I’m also guessing Rick has done many, many public readings of his work that USFS folks could attend (and some may have). I married a well known writer/teacher a few years ago and have greatly enjoyed the world she has opened up to me. Since I’m now retired, I call myself her roadie and often travel with her to readings, speaking engagements and writing workshops all over the country. My observations have been that some writers are good at reading science and incorporating it into their writing and others not so much. My observations sitting in IDT meetings and FLT meetings is that many USFS foresters and other specialists have the attitude that their knowledge and opinions are far superior to those who understand/experience the land primarily through emotions. Working with a diversity of human egos is a challenging thing both inside the USFS and out. And, of course, it is always a challenge to recognize and work with our own egos.
Mike, I think that gets back to what Anonymous said about mysticism (and anything unprovable). It is difficult for emotions to find a place in public policy, because everyone has them, and it’s difficult or impossible to say that one person’s feelings are more valid or deserving of respect than another’s. Certainly some count more than others, through the exercise of political power.
If we turn to other professions, say health or engineers, I don’t think we’d want professionals who understand/experience diagnosing disease or bridge design primarily through emotions. So everyone has their roles. In my experience with many folks of the emotion/art/spiritual side, they can be unwilling or not wired to see the details of practice that make up the professionals’ world. That’s why I think talking together say a webinar on “different views of the natural world” with speakers from different perspectives and group discussion would be illuminating.
I’d only note that a few of the emotion/art/spiritual folks I’ve met seem to implicitly think that people who work with things .. are “less than” perhaps morally, or perhaps due to the fingerprints of classism in our culture.
Sharon, I understand what you are saying, but ultimately decisions are based on values. I think you have seen me say this before. Science informs but makes no decisions. Laws and politics are based on values. Line officers make decisions based on laws, politics and their personal values (or those values of people above in the organization). Values are based on emotions. I think it was in the book Emotional Intelligence that Daniel Goleman talks about a study that looked into brain injuries that damaged emotional centers of the brain. People with these injuries were not capable of making consistent decisions about the same problems. I think health professionals and engineers are doing their work with values supported by most people – cure me/make the bridge safe to travel.
When the USFS puts forward a proposed project on public lands, the project is based on a value that not all people agree with and for that reason values/emotions should be considered. The values expressed in NEPA comments will run the gamut, of course, but they should all be considered. As we have all said and heard many, many times, NEPA is not a vote, but since civil servants are paid with tax dollars, they need to really listen to the desires of the people paying their wages. There are ways to do this, but it takes time and money. Too many times I had to fight with project leads and line officers about public outreach for proposed projects. Too many times I heard, “I don’t want all those comments as it will slow me down.”
I like your idea about webinars. We did some of this on Rio Grande NF when working on the forest plan.
To your last point, “I’d only note that a few of the emotion/art/spiritual folks I’ve met seem to implicitly think that people who work with things .. are “less than” perhaps morally, or perhaps due to the fingerprints of classism in our culture.” My experience is that so many people, not just artists/spiritual folks, believe decisions are based on money (i.e., commercial interests). I have found that being open and really listening to all people develops respect. I have watched way too many civil servants launch into arguments rather than asking questions when faced with emotional comments. Deep listening leads to building relationships. Those relationships lead to listening to understand from the other side. This can lead to what Hans Bliker (did you take his class back in the early 90s?) called informed consent. Does it work with everyone? Of course not, but I believe it is the right way to operate.
Gosh, a book or two could come out of this before an adequate response was in place, but this is a forum, so somewhat more concise. The intersection of public policy, public lands, and epistemology, that’s fun. I’m torn between two responses, one more generous and one less so. Both jump off from, I think, the same general direction that Patrick points. Note: these comments are of course directed at the piece cited, not anyone here.
That direction as I read it:
The essay, bracketing for now the rhetoric, is not particularly informative other than an expression of disapproval. Public knowledge claims require publicly-sharable knowledge. Governance in a pluralist democracy requires discourse based on knowledge claims that can be understood by those that don’t share all the same views. Aside from the specific history of the national churches in europe and the founders’ break with that, one of the points of the establishment clause is that governance in a pluralist democracy is best served by containing and reducing the ability of that type of private conviction [unaccountable claims to superior, indefeasible knowledge] to influence decisions for the broader public.
More generous version of responding to this article based on the premise that : Obviously, writing an article is *kinda an attempt at sharing knowledge, but well short of sufficient due to the intensely contestable (and mystical) claims made here. Not to diss mystics per se, but it’s by definition an intensely internal type of experience, and the near-incommunicability of such experience makes for a poor basis for public policy. Also, to simply point out that if the author held science in such high position he might try to vet the claims he makes. But, alas, such is the current rhetorical cachet of “science says” that you can kinda append it to anything. There’s a whole rabbit hole there.
Less generous:
“the thousand-year-old forest that well may not live to be 1,001. All of it, obliterated, shattered, bombed.” <- the "biological desert" thing about clearcuts that's always trotted out, or otherwise put, the idea that only mature forest is ecologically valuable. Just one example worth considering: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3802179.pdf; https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1381&context=mpr
"The fuse has been lit. The fuse is burning. The government, under the previous administration, but abetted yet by the current one, says it’s time for this thousand-year-old forest to become “resilient.” Says that logging it down to dust—effectively, a thousand-acre clearcut—is the way to teach it resilience. They’ve named this proposed project, this fever dream, a remnant zombie from the previous reign, “Black Ram.”" <- a bit dangerous to assume history started in 2016, no?
"When a forest gets to be this old and untouched, it becomes something more than a forest. It becomes what we would think of as a mind, with history, knowledge, memory, and foresight. It has a pulse, and a spirit incomprehensible to us—but we can feel it when we’re in its presence." <- no, no we can't. you think you can, but you can tell yourself anything. More seriously, something borrowed to make a point about this kind of vague holism: "ecosystems simply change too often and too thoroughly to be easily described as wholes with obvious integrity. We think the concept is simply a poor fit for the thing it seeks to describe and should not be guiding our conservation actions.": https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.411
"It’s humbling, recognizing that, though we may be in the middle, we are not the center. Through the phenomenon of gap creation, the forest is in perfect balance, growing and rotting. Never burning. Though rot, of course, is but a slow gentle fire of its own. The circular amid the linear rot, the ancient geometry of the disassembly building a nest that is, before our eyes and all the other senses, a miracle of reassembly. Life, lived slowly; life, lived so large." <- why, pray tell, is the "miracle of reassembly" (assuming this is a fudge phrase for tree growth and the eventually resulting successional stages creating mosaics of vegetation on the landscape?) more inspiring when it goes slowly than when it occurs through young forest filling in behind a disturbance? Is it just because humans are involved? Kinda seems that way. Also, humans are part of nature, but that's a different rant.
"I will not tell you that the old and mature forests store 70 percent more carbon than do the monoculture plantations planned for these public lands." <- while this is a great copy/paste talking point, i will probably never understand why "plantation" is such a dirty word here and among a certain strain of ENGO. Silviculturally, it means a tree gets planted. Probably with irregular spacing using a native seed source. Maybe he's imagining tractor-planted crops of yesteryear? not sure.
"Maybe in that fashion the universe is, even now, seeking to balance itself, as it used to do once upon a time, before we broke so very many things. "<- right, again, humans aren't part of nature.
At the end of the day, beauty is fine but don't use it to cloak unsupported knowledge claims or shore up your position as unassailable, which is all this does.
In a great many drier forests, dead trees do not rot. They burn, first. Also, ignoring the fact that 85% of all US wildfires are human-caused is not scientific, at all. I guess there’s always “hopes and prayers”, but that never seems to work on careless humans who cause wildfires. Additionally, hoping for that rare ‘natural’ wildfire, at the expense of all else, is not a good pathway for at-risk forests.
Anonymous.. I think it’s great that there are at least two of us who think “the intersection of public policy, public lands, and epistemology, that’s fun.”
You reminded me that a few years ago during long drives I listened to Brad Gregory’s Great Courses course: “the History of Christianity in the Reformation Era.” I was surprised by how much the fingerprints of that complex history continue to be part of our lives today. What happens when ideologues take over government, even with the best of intentions? Nothing good in their experience. Asceticism ( a la “purity”)? You can practice, but don’t force others.. and so on.
I wish I had learned of that context for European settlement and early US history sooner.
That’s actually my photo, credit line should have been included with each photo along with the caption in the article. The project is located in the upper Yaak Valley close to British Columbia & Idaho where in between second growth clearcuts and thinned stands there is mature/old-growth forests that haven’t been logged before, even down on the valley floor. A decision was released in fall 2020 but is being held up waiting the final biological opinion from the USFWS. For this project the wildlife analysis for Grizzly bear is listed as May Affect, Likely to Affect Adversely. There is roughly 4000 acres of harvest treatment with volume estimated at 57 million board feet; including 623 acres seed tree clearcut, 1782 acres clearcut with reserves, 38 acres shelterwood cut, 1460 acres intermediate harvest and 36 opening over 40 acres. Included in that is 579 acres harvest in old-growth forest stands identified in the KNF Forest Plan as old growth, 123 acres harvest in stands identified as replacement old growth and 343 acres burning and understory slashing with no harvest in old-growth forests. Additionally, there are stands like the photo above that have been surveyed in the past and meet attributes for old growth but are fragmented and smaller than 15-20 acres, I think.
This is obviously a very large project. Much of the logging in old-growth forests is in old larch forests with understory components of lodgepole pine and spruce, semi-dry and wet forests, almost all with intermediate harvest. Around 15 years ago some of these stands were included in a project called NE Yaak that had very specific prescriptions for maintaining old growth, such as leaving clumps of islands and more understory trees and down woody debris that I supported. Those stands however were eventually dropped in the NE Yaak Project when resolving appeals. With the Black Ram Project prescriptions are basically leave all larch except take larch with blue paint and leave some selected larger cedar and Doug fir trees so I don’t believe they will qualify as old-growth forests post-harvest, at least for some time, but will be more open and what I would call parked out.
My biggest contention in this project is not with old-growth forests but rather mature forests with a recent fire history that have high quality huckleberry habitats that are proposed for seed tree and clearcuts with reserves, a few hundred acres. In the drainages where these units are proposed the last major project around 15 years ago, Garver, did some thinning units in huckleberry habitats that for the most part maintained or improved hucks, but I do not believe that huckleberry patches, some that I have been picking for over 20 years, will survive clearcut logging, slashing sub-merchantable trees, slashing and burning and replanting with conifers. I don’t know how to post photos here but would be happy to show examples of what I’m talking about.
Randy, thanks! Photos would be helpful, but I’d like to start a new post with your observations please send whatever you want to say and photos and I’ll turn it into a post. See email under “donations requested” on the widget to the right.
Okay, thanks Sharon!
Fact-finding (“it makes sense to look at specific projects that have been proposed or carried out”): I’m wondering how much information about which trees would be logged is typically available prior to a project decision. We’ve been hearing stories about cases where what the FS does doesn’t match what someone expected them to do. If this were condition-based NEPA, we might not even know that an old growth area would be logged.
Jon, interestingly we were having a discussion on Twitter about people planting species (not forestry people), that weren’t in the plan. Last week I was talking to people about prescribed fire escapes and they said that in many cases, people weren’t following the plan (when things go wrong). So I proposed that “not following plans” seems to be a facet of human nature that sociologists should look at.
To know exactly what trees would be cut in an area, you’d have to go by the description in the project. As to specific areas, most CBM’s I’ve seen say things like “if an area has these characteristics… old growth and so on.. they won’t be considered.”
Ummm, a clearcut means to cut every single tree. Using the term “clearcut” to depict a shelterwood or seed tree cut is disingenuous or, even downright lying. The included picture doesn’t show a clearcut.
Also, a 1000 acre clearcut seems pretty impossible in these times (the last 50 years?), due to streambuffers. (Unless you lie about it)