The following editorial was published in today’s Roseburg News-Review: https://www.nrtoday.com/opinion/guest_col/guest-column-manage-our-forests-or-continue-a-losing-battle/article_071441fc-4525-11ef-8e8b-1fa173a2b1ad.html
In April 2022, the Biden Administration issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14072, “Strengthening the Nation’s Forests, Communities, and Local Economies.” This order instructed federal agencies to “scientifically define” old-growth trees and to take appropriate steps to protect them for future generations.
The last time the government attempted to achieve these tasks was in the 1980s, resulting in widespread rural business failures and ever-increasing losses of public forests — including old-growth — to catastrophic wildfires, bugs, and disease that continue to this time. This E.O. promises similar results, but on a national scale, rather than just regional.
Biden’s E.O. affects all 128 of the nation’s forestlands managed by the Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM); whereas the 1994 Clinton Plan for Northwest Forests (NWFP) only affected the highly productive Douglas fir forests of Oregon, Washington, and California.
And, whereas the NWFP developed a single “scientific” definition of “old-growth,” the E.O. computer modelers have come up with more than 200!
Different types of trees in different environments live different lengths of time. For most of the past century, Douglas fir — the most valuable timber tree in our public forests — were considered “old-growth” if they were at least 200-years-old.
This has not always been true. Jerry Phillips, Elliott State Forest manager and historian, always maintained old-growth was a “logger’s term” and referred to the deep furrowed bark and change in color from “red fir” — or mature second-growth — to “yellow fir,” or old-growth. On the Elliott, that would be a tree about 250-350-years-old.
In the 1940s, OSU forest scientists attempted to quantify the “logger’s term” and postulated old-growth were 350-450-years-old. In the meantime, field foresters in Coos County were doing the most detailed analysis of native Douglas fir forestland ever conducted — and they said old-growth might only be 191-years-old.
From 1945 to 1947, Weyerhaeuser foresters systematically bored 1466 trees on 1576 1/4-acre plots over 125,000 acres, lying immediately south of the 80,000-acre Elliott. Neither forest had ever been logged by that time, and 90% of both were covered with even-aged stands of native Douglas fir, corroborating observations by noted Douglas fir scientist Thornton Munger (1940):
“The paths of the great forest fires of the last century or two are plainly marked by even-aged stands, consisting to the extent of at least 90 per cent of Douglas fir (if within the preferred habitat of this tree).”
Weyerhaeuser documented 31,650 acres of old-growth, with the oldest tree being 380-years-old, and some were 300-feet tall; among the largest Douglas fir ever measured. These even-aged stands dated at least three “great fires” from 1565 to 1755, averaged 225-years-old [1720], and contained 40% defect from fire, bugs, and decay.
Half of the area (61,870 acres) was 166–190-year-old mature second-growth, averaging 180-years-old [1765] with only 6% defect and dating at least two major wildfires from 1755 to 1790.
In 1945, the Elliott’s 80,000 acres were mostly 60-year-old Douglas fir that had followed ca.1845, 1868, and 1879 catastrophic-scale wildfires.
The remaining 32,480 acres of Weyerhaeuser land was “very lightly timbered” with even-aged stands 10-40-years-old, dating from the 1902 fires through 1936.
These 200,000+ acres of virgin Douglas fir forestland during WW II reflected a minimum 10 — likely more — major wildfires from 1565 to 1936, or on average, a major wildfire every 35-40 years. These lands were subsequently actively managed, have supported more than three generations of hundreds of local families, and haven’t had a major fire in more than 80 years.
In the 1980s forest ecologists developed the first “scientific definition” of old-growth for Douglas fir. It included big, old trees, large snags and dead wood throughout, and a multilayered canopy of ladder fuels. The scarcity of this unusual timber type was blamed on logging, rather than nature, and active management of our nations’ forests was mostly ended.
The current Biden E.O. report states for 25 years, since 2000, only 9,000 acres of public old-growth were logged, while insects and diseases killed 182,000 acres and wildfires killed 700,000 acres more.
Two points in this article that I disagree with:
1. That our forests exist for the purpose of fueling local economies and rural businesses.
2. That an old growth tree with “40% defects” is a problem. This is a highly anthropometric view of a forest, viewing it as a lumber plantation. But should we also view this as nature at work in a functional ecosystem?
Ah, Bobby will just tell you he has a PhD in science (sociology.anthropology), and how the world revolves around the 80a/early90s and how climate change has nothing to do with anything happening now, how it is all about needing more clearcuts and needing less gov’t and more money for private sector.
He worked himself out of a job, went to school for a PhD, and worked himself into a new job. Oh, and modelers suck unless their findings align with his agenda, no different from how the enviro side works.
Two peas in a pod…without Twitter at least.
Hi Anon: It’s immature idiots like you that make me long for the day when newspapers required a name and address before they’d publicly print your letter. I won’t call you a “Cowardly A-hole” here as I did on the Subject line of the private email I sent you, because it’s a public forum. But I will say that you must be leading a sad, pathetic little life if this is your idea of worthwhile discourse. What a loser. I’d feel sorry for you, but I have no idea who you are. Just another cowardly troll — all potty mouth and no huevos.
Bob, thanks for the background.. I had no idea, always thought western Oregon was fire-proof. I understand Glenn’s concern about defect, and sometimes I notice the similarities between growing trees for carbon and growing trees for timber on the West side.
Like growing faster is better, so I wonder if the defect of the past (bugs, rot and decay) could/should be modeled appropriately to reduce projected future carbon estimates?
Hi Sharon (and Glenn): I have never understood the idea of managing a forest for carbon. I can guarantee there is no actual “science” that can demonstrate how this has anything at all to do with global climate. Just biased modeling so far as I’ve been able to determine.
Regarding local economies, I would go to the Organic Act of 1897 and the Bible, where it says to “tend and keep” this wonderful garden. For thousands of years, a primary consideration of a “healthy” forest is one inhabited by, or adjacent to, a safe and healthy human population.
So far as Indian burning in New England, no, they did not burn the plains as in the midwest because they didn’t live there. But they used fire every day, like everybody. And they used wood instead of buffalo chips for the same reason. Did they grow berries or camas? Population centers and sources of wood? Trail networks?
Finally, my idea of “nature at work in a functional ecosystem” is based strongly on my perception that people are part of nature. Take them out of the picture through geography or circumstances, and dying and defective forests follow until a fire, windstorm, volcano, landslide, etc., triggers a new beginning.
With apologies, you lost me with the Bible and the Organic Act, and the “thousands of years”. I just don’t buy the concept that God put everything here primarily for our benefit.
Hi Glenn: I’m not sure how caring for our wildlife and for future generations is “primarily for our benefit,” but I will concede that almost everyone views things that way when it comes to themselves on a personal level.
The Organic Act wasn’t written or dictated by God, but it was the principal foundation for the formation of our National Forests, and was specifically adopted to: “improve and protect the forest within the reservation, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of the citizens of the United States . . .”
The God part is from Genesis 2:15 in the Christian and Jewish Bible: “Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.” Some translations say “watch over” or “cultivate,” or words to that effect. After Eden it was thorns and vicious wildlife, but the responsibility to care for others and the environment seems to have remained, or at least strongly implied.
The “thousands of years” part is based on archaeology and palynology.
No fires for 80 years – maybe humans putting fires out played a role?
I’m curious why foresters even cared what got called “old growth.” They only needed to know when it would produce more money to cut the trees down and start over. Or on federal lands, the culmination of mean annual increment maximized volume growth. Now that the Forest Service is trying to take its “sustained yield” (of everything) mandate more seriously, they should be focusing on when certain rare but important ecological functions are provided, which we should expect to be variable (and really should represent a continuum rather than labels like mature or old). And their ability to absorb and sequester carbon is relevant today.
I don’t understand the attempt to disparage “modelers” here for trying to figure out meaningful functional definitions to guide land management.
Hi Jon: Yep, people working in the woods put out the fires — most of which they likely started themselves in the first place. They also removed the fuels and built the roads to make that possible.
I’m curious where you get such negative and inaccurate information regarding foresters “only needing to know when it would produce more money” — which is total biased crap in my experience — or why you think most modelers are just “trying to figure out meaningful functional definitions to guide land management.” Word play is lawyer work, not something modelers typically get involved in.
You obviously don’t like foresters and have a soft spot in your head for modelers, but your generalities are silly and don’t actually reflect reality. Doesn’t seem as if you’ve had much contact with either, or what your actual point might be. Apparently you think these folks “should be focusing on when certain rare but important ecological functions are provided,” but I’m not too sure what that actually means. Or who among us decides what “rare” means, and why such “functioning” is “important.” I’m guessing this might be one of your “functional definitions” that modelers are wrestling with.
I have been a forester, modeler, economist, planner, wildlife policy analyst and attorney (and I’ve even been on a couple of fires).
Foresters should be taking orders from the landowners about what their goals for forestry are. Information needed about trees is different if the goal is volume or dollars (as in private commercial forests) compared to plant and animal diversity and ecological sustainability (as in national forests). For public lands, the public (and science) helps answer the questions of what is rare and what ecological functions are important.
Ecosystem function: “Ecological processes that sustain composition and structure, such as energy flow, nutrient cycling and retention, soil development and retention, predation and herbivory, and natural disturbances such as wind, fire, and floods.” 36 CFR §219.19