Pinchot Institute Outlook Forum 2014 Webinar Feb. 20

pinchot_logoHere’s the link for registration. It’s this Thursday.

Outlook Forum 2014 – Natural Resource Management and Accelerating Environmental Change: Challenges, Opportunities, and Questions
Moderator: Al Sample, President, Pinchot Institute

Presenters will include:
David Cleaves, Climate Change Advisor, US Forest Service

Meeting environmental with institutional change – unfolding new and more resilient arrangements for sustainability – President’s Climate Action Plan and Nov 2013 Executive Order
From actionable science to science in action – regional science coordination systems and science/management partnerships
Connected risks – stressors intensified and connected by climate and social change – risk management at the landscape scale
Ecosystem service values in management decisions – integrating carbon sequestration (mitigation) with other services in flux (adaptation).
Realigning institutions – Implementing a new land management planning rule and supporting restoration for resilience.

Stephen Pyne, Professor, Arizona State University; author of Fire in America

Historic wildfire policy/management and evolution as it relates to climate change
What we can learn from the past in a no-analogue future

Carlos Carroll, Science Advisor to Wilburforce Foundation; Klamath Conservation Research Center

Resilient sites as strategy for conserving biodiversity resources in western US and Canada
Characterization→identification/mapping→planning

Chris Topik, Director, Restore America’s Forests, The Nature Conservancy

Collaborative, science-based forestry to accelerate forest restoration and enhance resiliency
Enhancing community and agency capacity to work with fire and changing environments
Broadening coalitions to increase the federal and non-federal funding base for active forestry

Steve Hamburg, Chief Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund

Role of forests in climate change mitigation (emissions reduction, sequestration)
Forest land conservation on private lands; maintaining forest carbon stocks
Optimal role of wood bioenergy within broader sustainability/climate strategy

Carlton Owen, President, US Endowment for Forestry & Communities

“Moving the needle”; big-picture, long-term strategies to make meaningful progress in sustaining forests for water, wildlife, wood, biodiversity, renewable energy
Active management of public and private forests; stable community economic development based on sustainable use of natural resources

Sally Collins, Co-Chair, MegaFlorestais; Rights & Resources Initiative

This century will bring unprecedented changes to the world’s forests. Public forest agencies can positively influence this future or be casualties of it
Regardless of the differences in public forest agencies around the world—institutional age, organizational structure and even the political system in which they operate—some principles are emerging that can help guide the future of effective forest governance in the twenty-first century

Peter Pinchot, President, EcoMadera; Director, Milford Experimental Forest

Community forestry in the agricultural frontier: Rural development and reducing emissions
Industry and government role in reforming commodity supply chains to conserve tropical forests

Indicted for “All Lands, All Hands”

conspiracy

A federal grand jury has indicted a Forest Service fleet manager and a retired police officer Forest Service volunteer for their alleged conspiracy to patrol the Los Padres national forest boundary to prevent trespassing onto a private ranch in-holding. The local news story is here.

The fleet manager, Scott Alguire, served our nation for 20 years as an Air Force mechanic before being hired by the Forest Service four years ago. Although the alleged conspiracy occurred in 2011 and the indictment issued in September of last year, Mr. Alguire continues to work as the Los Padres fleet manager, which suggests the Forest Service has not seen fit (yet) to take any administrative personnel actions.

The case is going to trial next month.

If I were a juror, the first thing I’d want to know is how much did Mr. Alguire and the volunteer profit financially from their alleged crimes?

Wildfire: Study questions U.S. policy of forest ‘restoration’

Please consider this article from E&E a companion to this February 10th post on this blog. – mk

WILDFIRE: Study questions U.S. policy of forest ‘restoration’
By Phil Taylor, E&E reporter, 2/14/14

Western forests today experience fewer high-severity wildfires than they did more than a century ago, depriving some fire-dependent species and stifling biodiversity, according to a new study.

The study challenges conventional wisdom held by politicians and the Forest Service that the West is experiencing an unnatural burst in uncharacteristic wildfires as a result of a century of wildfire suppression.

In fact, some Western forests are experiencing a “deficit” in high-intensity blazes and in some cases should be encouraged to burn, said the study published this month in the journal PLOS ONE.

It questioned the government’s policy of mechanically thinning, or “restoring,” backcountry areas to ensure fires stay low to the ground and create “park-like” conditions. Thinning to reduce high-severity wildfire can reduce habitat for the imperiled black-backed woodpecker, often requires new roads and can introduce invasive species into the forest, the study authors said.

It’s bound to spark some controversy considering high-severity wildfires threaten lives and property and drain billions of dollars in taxpayer money each year. Moreover, aggressive forest thinning and restoration policies are politically popular because they create rural jobs and seek to mitigate wildfire threats to communities.

“Given societal aversion to wildfires, the threat to human assets from wildfires, and anticipated effects of climate change on future wildfires, many will question the wisdom of incorporating historical mixed-severity fire into management goals,” the study said. “However, a major challenge lies with the transfer of information needed to move the public and decision-makers from the current perspective that the effects of contemporary mixed-severity fire events are unnatural, harmful, inappropriate and more extensive due to fire exclusion — to embrace a different paradigm.”

The study was funded by Environment Now, a nonprofit foundation in California whose goals include “preserving and restoring coastal, freshwater and forest ecosystems.”

It was independently conducted by 11 scientists from several Western universities, the Canadian Forest Service, the Earth Island Institute and Geos Institute.

The study used U.S. Forest Service data and other published sources to explore the historical prevalence of “mixed-severity fire regimes” in ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer forests in western North America and to try to determine whether mixed-severity fire patterns in those forests had changed as a result of the past century of fire suppression.

On the latter question, it concluded that the past century of fire suppression has not “greatly increased the prevalence of severe fire,” even though fuel levels in Western forests are believed to be much higher.

Since 1930, the rate of young forest establishment fell by a factor of four in the Sierra Nevada and Southwest, by a factor of three in the Klamath, and by half in the eastern Cascades and central and northern Rockies, it said.

The study recommends the government focus its fire mitigation work adjacent to homes in the wildland-urban interface instead of in the backcountry, where managed wildland fires could promote ecological benefits.

“The need for forest ‘restoration’ designed to reduce variation in fire behavior may be much less extensive than implied by many current forest management plans or promoted by recent legislation,” the study said. “Incorporating mixed-severity fire into management goals, and adapting human communities to fire by focusing fire risk reduction activities adjacent to homes, may help maintain characteristic biodiversity, expand opportunities to manage fire for ecological benefits, reduce management costs, and protect human communities.”

But other scientists and policymakers have argued that the societal benefits of taming mega-fires often trump whatever ecological benefits they may produce. In addition, climate change is expected to intensify droughts that create dangerously dry fuel conditions. Fire seasons are more than two months longer than in the 1970s, the Forest Service has said. (Editor’s note: using 1970s as the starting point is disingenuous–the 1950s-1980s were cooler and moister)

A study commissioned by the Interior Department and led by Northern Arizona University last spring found that although hazardous fuels treatments near communities can reduce wildfire risks to homes and people, backcountry fuels treatments are important to prevent mega-fires that can scorch watersheds and drain federal wildfire budgets (E&ENews PM, May 28, 2013).

While fire in the backcountry can be beneficial if it stays low to the ground, landscape-scale “crown” fires can damage watersheds, tarnish viewsheds and threaten communities, NAU’s Diane Vosick, one of the study authors, said last spring.

“In order to get ahead of the cost of large and severe fire, more treatments will be needed outside the wildland-urban interface,” Vosick told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last June.

The Forest Service and Interior Department also face political pressure to restore backcountry areas.

In December 2011, Congress inserted language in its appropriations report ordering both agencies to halt policies that direct most hazardous fuels funding to the wildland-urban interface, spending it instead on the “highest priority projects in the highest priority areas.”

For now, “restoration” across the National Forest System remains popular policy in Congress and in Western states.

According to the Forest Service, the states of Florida, Georgia, Utah, California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado have all experienced their largest or most destructive wildfire in just the last several years. Wildfires burn twice as many acres annually compared with the 1970s, and the number of wildfires annually that cover more than 10,000 acres has increased sevenfold.

Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell last week told Congress there are nearly two dozen landscape-scale collaborative forest restoration projects underway that seek to “re-establish natural fire regimes and reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire.”

“Our findings are sure to be controversial as each year federal agencies spend billions of dollars in fuel reduction costs in the backcountry based on the assumption that we have more high-severity fire now than we did historically,” said Dominick DellaSala, chief scientist at the Geos Institute, one of the study’s authors. “Fuel treatments are best targeted immediately adjacent to where people live, given that the increasing costs of suppressing fires is not ecologically justifiable and may, in fact, produce artificially manipulated landscapes that need more fire to remain healthy and productive.”

GOP attack on ESA fueled by “Tea Party Fantasies” by Bob Berwyn

You can read Bob’s entire article over at the Summit County Voice.  Apparently the House GOP report also failed to cite any peer-reviewed science.

Below is the first paragraph of Bob’s article.

Anti-environmental Republicans in the House are once again twisting the facts and distorting science in their efforts to dismantle the Endangered Species Act on behalf of various extractive and environmentally harmful industries.

Also, last Thursday, Rep Doc Hastings (R-WA), the GOP Chair of the House Resources Committee, announced that he will not seek reelection this year.

Of Wolves and Wilderness

The following guest column was written by George Nickas, executive director of Missoula-based Wilderness Watch, and one of the nation’s leading experts on  Wilderness Act policy and management.  Please consider this opinion piece a follow-up to this January 8 post. – mk

Of Wolves and Wilderness
By George Nickas

“One of the most insidious invasions of wilderness is via predator control.” – Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac

Right before the holidays last December, an anonymous caller alerted Wilderness Watch that the Forest Service (FS) had approved the use of one of its cabins deep in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness (FC-RONRW) as a base camp for an Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) hunter-trapper. The cabin would support the hired trapper’s effort to exterminate two entire wolf packs in the Wilderness. The wolves, known as the Golden Creek and Monumental Creek packs, were targeted at the behest of commercial outfitters and recreational hunters who think the wolves are eating too many of “their” elk.

Idaho’s antipathy toward wolves and Wilderness comes as no surprise to anyone who has worked to protect either in Idaho. But the Forest Service’s support and encouragement for the State’s deplorable actions were particularly disappointing. Mind you, these are the same Forest Service Region 4 officials who, only a year or two ago, 
approved IDFG’s request to land helicopters in this same Wilderness to capture and collar every wolf pack, using the justification that understanding the natural behavior of the wolf population was essential to protecting them and preserving the area’s 
wilderness character. Now, somehow, exterminating those same wolves is apparently also critical to preserving the area’s wilderness character. The only consistency here is the FS and IDFG have teamed up to do everything possible to destroy the Wilderness and wildlife they are required to protect.

Wilderness Watch, along with Defenders of Wildlife, Western Watersheds Project, Center for Biological Diversity, and Idaho wildlife advocate Ralph Maughan, filed suit in federal court against the Forest Service and IDFG to stop the wolf slaughter. Our suit alleges the FS failed to follow its own required procedures before authorizing IDFG’s hunter-trapper to use a FS cabin as a base for his wolf extermination efforts, and that the program violates the agency’s responsibility under the 1964 Wilderness Act to preserve the area’s wilderness character, of which the wolves are an integral part. Trying to limit the number of wolves in Wilderness makes no more sense than limiting the number of ponderosa pine, huckleberry bushes, rocks, or rainfall. An untrammeled Wilderness will set its own balance.

The FS’s anemic defense is that it didn’t authorize the killing, therefore there is no reviewable decision for the court to overturn, and that it was still discussing the program with IDFG (while the trapper was in the field killing the wolves). Unfortunately, the district judge sided with the FS and IDFG, so we filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Rather than defend its action before the higher court, Idaho informed the court that it was pulling the trapper out of the Wilderness and would cease the program for this year. In the meantime, nine wolves are needlessly dead.

We will continue to pursue our challenge because the killing program will undoubtedly return. The Forest Service can’t and shouldn’t hide behind the old canard that “the states manage wildlife.”  Congress has charged the FS with preserving the area’s wilderness character and the Supreme Court has held many times that the agency has the authority to interject itself in wildlife management programs to preserve the people’s interest in these lands. Turning a blind-eye is a shameful response for an agency that used to claim the leadership mantle in wilderness stewardship.

Wilderness Watch expresses its deep appreciation to Tim Preso and his colleagues at Earthjustice for waging a stellar legal battle on our behalf and in defense of these wilderness wolves.

George Nickas is the executive director of Wilderness Watch. George joined Wilderness Watch as our policy coordinator in 1996. Prior to Wilderness Watch, George served 11 years as a natural resource specialist and assistant coordinator for the Utah Wilderness Association. George is regularly invited to make presentations at national wilderness conferences, agency training sessions, and other gatherings where wilderness protection is discussed.

Selective Harvest as a Balanced Approach?

I have come across a web ad several times in the last week or so. Against a forest-stream photo background, the ad text reads, “Balance at last for our OC lands?” OC meaning the 2.4 million acres of Oregon and California Railroad (O&C) lands managed by the BLM in Oregon. Clicking on the ad leads to The Coalition for Our O&C Lands, http://oclands.org. Its members include green groups, fishing and river-guide services and groups, along with assorted others, including, for what it’s worth, “Chef Kim Reid.”

What Does Balance Mean? The coalition says Vibrant Economies, Responsible Timber Harvest, Clean Water, Land & Water Protections. “Responsible Timber Harvest” means selective harvesting, rather than clearcuts:

A balanced approach on O&C lands, while including protections of special places, clean drinking water and wildlife habitats, must also include responsible timber harvest. Timber is an important contributor to our state’s economy and any plan for the O&C lands should recognize that reality.   

For decades in the Northwest, we clearcut our ancient forests, believing that we could reestablish our forests and the species that lived there.  As we learned more and realized more of the damaging impacts that our actions had on our forests, wildlife, and clean water, we learned to change.  We can harvest more selectively and preserve habitat while still economically harvesting trees.   Responsible timber practices can ensure a predictable, sustainable supply of timber and forest products while also protecting our natural heritage.  We have examples of these types of practices throughout the state and we need to replicate them on the O&C lands.

The great thing about our timber industry is that it is adaptable.  It is managed by people who care for the land.   Many of them are hunters and fishermen.  They enjoy the outdoors and cherish the wild areas of our state.  They want wildlife to flourish and clean water for everyone to drink.  The industry has adapted to severely reduced timber harvests and survived.  But there is a better way to manage our timberlands, somewhere between “no harvest” and “clearcutting.”  Working together, we can find that careful balance.

At the end of the day, any plan must ensure a predictable, sustainable supply of timber and other forest products to help maintain the stability of local and regional economies, and contribute to supporting healthy, vibrant communities.

I’ve lately heard several green-leaning folks suggest that selective harvesting would work perfectly well on the O&C lands and elsewhere in western Oregon. Maybe so, if an economic return is low on your priority list. What do you think?

Snow Bike Controversies

Photo by Josh Spice
Photo by Josh Spice

Steve Lipsher in an op-ed in the Denver Post..

And the fiercest debate today is over whether the new breed of winter bikes — which rely on bulbous, low-pressure tires to float over the snow — belong on the trails. The fear is they will gouge out ruts in soft snow, making the skiing treacherous.

On MTBR, a popular mountain-biking chat site, writers discussed whether fat bikes should be allowed on specifically groomed cross-country ski trails, which already prohibit hikers for the sake of keeping the track smooth.

“I tried to ride on a groomed trail once in Wyoming,” wrote one biker. “It was on public open space land, and the trail was probably 40 inches wide. I actually thought I was going to be lynched. I got on my bike in the parking lot and was surrounded by a bunch of XC skiers. They were actually shouting two inches from my face.”

“Skiers are a testy, testy bunch. Avoid them at all costs,” wrote another.

But even in sticking to multi-use trails on public lands that officially are open to all users, “fat bikers” are encountering hostility from unsuspecting snowshoers and skiers, similar to the complaints that hikers have expressed in the summer when bikers swarm past on their favorite treks.

Communities, public-lands agencies and user groups now are grappling with how to keep peace among the different interests. In Aspen, fat bikes for the first time this winter are being allowed on Pitkin County open space groomed by the Aspen Snowmass Nordic Council as a trial run. Two years ago, Idaho started hosting a “fat bike summit” that brings land managers and bikers together to discuss ways of alleviating conflicts. And the International Mountain Biking Association is imploring its members to be sure that fat bikes are permitted on the lands where they want to ride.

Because the number of fat bikes is doubling every year, doing nothing is no longer an option, and some regulation is needed. The problem is that land managers have been unable to keep up with the evolving uses and demands.

The U.S. Forest Service was slow to recognize the explosion of summertime mountain biking in the 1980s, and the ensuing user conflicts and braids of illegal, poorly designed user-created trails created a management nightmare. Similarly, ATVs have intruded into untrammeled places, forever altering their character.

Many of those routes have grown so popular that forest managers begrudgingly have been forced to include them in their updated trail networks.

Another issue is that bikers, as well as many other groups, always are looking to expand their territory, threatening to change the nature of … well, nature.

This time, it’s fat bikes. Next, powered bikes. Before that, mountain boards. Every new fad and craze competes for more space, resources, management on the trail, and each creates its own bitter divisions on who belongs.

Is there an answer?

I particularly noted this:

The U.S. Forest Service was slow to recognize the explosion of summertime mountain biking in the 1980s, and the ensuing user conflicts and braids of illegal, poorly designed user-created trails created a management nightmare. Similarly, ATVs have intruded into untrammeled places, forever altering their character.

It sounds like Lipsher thinks there wouldn’t have been user conflicts and illegal trails if the FS had… ??? developed a separate system? Had more folks out there giving citations??

Which is important, because as he says, there seems like there will always be conflicts.

Also, “forever” is a long time as in ATV’s “ATVs have intruded into untrammeled places, forever altering their character.” But I am growing accustomed to op-ed adjectives and adverbs which seem to respect no boundaries of definition or common usage ;).

Beware of Zombie Lawsuits: Reporting by the Fairfield Sun Times

I am not sure I understand all this, but I really like the fact that the writer, Darry Flowers, took the time to delve below the surface and do some digging ;). A curious story. I also liked how he explained the legal terms (the people on this blog can check if he’s correct). My favorite sentence is italicized. The whole story is here and an excerpt below.

The meeting was cordial. When Mark Bodily presented a slide in his presentation that implied that the Blackfeet were present when the Rocky Mountains were created, Lease operator Joe Large, with RPM Geologic, challenged the assertion. Large stated that the Rockies, from a geological standpoint, were created “54 million years ago” and pointed out that no humans were present at the time of their formation.

After a brief exchange, Bodily told Large he was applying “Western” science, with Large responding that there is no such thing as Western science, only science.

During the presentation by a Forest Service staffer, the reason for the continued suspension of the leases in the Badger – Two Medicine area were said to be the result of a “pending lawsuit” by several environmental groups against the Forest Service. The lawsuit challenged the process by which the lease was granted.

After the meeting, the Sun Times asked for, and received, confirmation that a 1993 lawsuit was the reason for the current suspensions.

Finding it odd that a lawsuit in a Federal Court would still be pending after 21 years,
the Sun Times searched legal databases for any current litigation regarding the lease. Other than the current suit before the D.C. District Court filed by Sidney Longwell, no cases were found. The Sun Times asked Ms. Strathy, via email, to provide details on the case. She responded with a copy of the original complaint: National Wildlife Federation, et al v. Dale Robertson, Chief, United States Forest Service, et al. Filed in the U.S. District Court in Great Falls, the case was heard before Senior Judge Paul G. Hatfield.

While the Sun Times is still working to acquire a complete copy of the case, the litigation appears to be a tactic by the plaintiffs and defendants to delay the drilling of the approved well.

The Sun Times was able to obtain a copy of a fax that was sent from the “USDA FS Lewis & Clark NF,” according to the heading inserted by the fax machine at the Forest Service office in Great Falls. The 21 page fax was sent at 14:20 (2:20 p.m.) on February 20, 2002.

Pages 20 and 21 of the fax are the dismissal, with prejudice, of the lawsuit. The dismissal was signed on March 10, 1997 by Judge Hatfield.

Judge Hatfield’s order reads, “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the [Court] Clerk administratively terminate this action in the records, without prejudice to the rights of the parties to reopen the proceedings for good cause shown, for the entry of any stipulation or order, or for any purpose required to obtain a final determination of the litigation.”

The order continues, “If, within SIXTY (60) days of a determination by Congress as to whether the properties involved in this litigation should be included in a wilderness designation for the area, the parties have not reopened for the purpose of obtaining a final determination herein, the action shall be deemed dismissed with prejudice.

DATED this 10th day of March, 1997.”

While the Forest Service claims the case is pending, the cover letter of the fax, in a handwritten comment from a Forest Service staffer, reads “…here is probably the most pertinent correspondence since ’96 or so…” Another faxed page uncovered by the Sun Times seems to indicate that the office for Lewis and Clark National Forest received the Judge’s dismissal on March 20, 1997.

The judge’s order has two parts, both dismiss the environmental groups’ case, but the first part of the order states the dismissal is without prejudice. To dismiss a suit without prejudice means that the plaintiff in the case may bring the matter before the court again.

In the second part of the order, Judge Hatfield has given Congress sixty days to begin the process to make the properties a wilderness area. Congress did not approve the request by Senator Baucus. As a result, the case – after the sixty days – became dismissed with prejudice, the legal concept of res iudicata, meaning that the matter cannot be raised again by the same parties.

Whether the case was dismissed with or without prejudice has no bearing on the fact that the case itself no longer has any legal bearing on the suspension. Sun Times contacted the Clerk’s office at the Federal Court in Great Falls to further confirm the case’s status. According to that office, the case is closed, and has been moved to the Federal Court Archives in Denver, Colorado. The office did confirm that the case was dismissed in 1997. Asked if, within the sixty days after this judge’s order any subsequent complaints were filed that are affiliated with the case, the clerk said that the case was closed. Since the judge’s order in 1997, “there has been no activity with this case.”

If the case was closed in 1997 and no litigation has been undertaken since, this may raise questions about the statute of limitations and how it may affect any further legal challenges to Mr. Longwell’s drilling permit.

John Leiberg Reports on SW Oregon “Natural Fire Regimes” in 1899

Last February I posted a somewhat lengthy discussion of lodgepole pine bug and fire history that included several quotes from John Leiberg’s 1899 report titled “Cascade Range Forest Reserve from Township 28 South to Township 37 South, Inclusive, Together With the Ashland Forest Reserve and Forest Regions from Township 28 South to Township 41 South, Inclusive, and from Range 2 West to Range 14 East, Willamette Meridian, Inclusive”: https://forestpolicypub.com/2013/02/28/lodgepole-pine-ecology-1899-2013/

A more comprehensive selection of his observations in this report can be found here: http://www.orww.org/History/SW_Oregon/References/Leiberg_1899/

Several of these quotes were also posted as a Comment about a week ago, but WordPress won’t let me search those files or list more than 18 of my past comments for some reason, so I am reposting them here, based on current discussions of wet vs. dry forests, natural fire regimes, and wildfire severity patterns and history.

Leiberg was a Swedish immigrant who did much of his botanical field work from his base near Lake Pend Oreille, in Idaho Territory, including the 19th and 20th annual reports of the US Geological Survey, which encompassed most (or all) of the current Bitterroot National Forest. He was meticulous in his observations, including counting the tree rings of several tree species at small sawmills that had just entered the region (“virgin forests”), and using land surveys, photography and personal interviews to build detailed maps and tables for several different forested areas in the western US, mostly in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Montana, and Minnesota.

I believe him to be one of the very best forest scientists of his era for these regions, but his work has been sadly neglected — likely beginning with the politics surrounding the formation of the National Forests in 1906 and the transfer of the Forest Reserves for the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture. It was to Pinchot’s advantage to ignore Leiberg’s work because it directly contradicted his assertions that the federal reserves were not being properly studied or managed. Leiberg died in Leaburg, Oregon (near Eugene) in 1913.

I would be very interested in the thoughts of other Commenters on this blog regarding the following quotes:

(p. 245) The duration of the forest type is indefinite.  While undoubtedly subject to evolutionary changes, its modifications or transitions to other types are so slow as to be quite imperceptible to us.  Not so with subtypes, They frequently change, sometimes two or three times in a generation.  Forest fires are fertile causes for inducing such rapid changes.  But even when left undisturbed a subtype rarely persists in any particular locality for more than 250 or 300 years.  Such at least is the rule on the eastern and immediate western slope of the Cascades and in the basins between the Cascades and the Rocky Mountains.  The only exception to this rule in the region named that is known to me occurs in pure yellow-pine and western-juniper growths. 

(p. 248) But the open character of the yellow-pine type of forest anywhere in the region examined is due to frequently repeated forest fires more than to any other cause.

(p. 249) The forest floor in the type is covered with a thin layer of humus consisting entirely of decaying pine needles, or it is entirely bare.  The latter condition is very prevalent east of the Cascades, where large areas are annually overrun by fire.  But even on the western side of the range, where the humus covering is most conspicuous, it is never more than a fraction of an inch in thickness, just enough to supply the requisite material for the spread of forest fires.

(p. 268) In other places fires have destroyed a certain percentage of the forest.  The damage may vary from 10 to 60 per cent or higher. The destruction has not been all in one place or body.  The fire has run through the forest for miles, burning a tree or group of trees here and there.

(p. 274) The age of the timber utilized in sawmill consumption varies from 100 to 350 years.  Most of the yellow pine falls below 175 years; the higher limit is reached chiefly in the sugar pine.  Most of the sugar pine in the region is of great and mature age.  Comparatively little red fir is sawn.  It varies in age from 100 to 500 years, and some of the very large individuals seen were doubtless even older.  The noble fir and white pine of mill-timber size varies in age from 100 to 350 years, most of it falling below 180 years.  The alpine hemlock of mill size runs from 80 to 250 years, 120 to 140 years representing the age of the bulk of the standard growth.  The white fir, with sufficient clear trunk development to come within the limit of these estimates, varies in age from 75 to 120 years.

(p. 277) The aspect of the forest, its composition, the absence of any large tracts of solid old-growth of the species less capable of resisting fire, and the occurrence of veteran trees of red fir, noble fir, white pine, alpine hemlock, etc., singly or in small groups scattered through stands of very different species, indicate without any doubt the prevalence of widespread fires throughout this region long before the coming of the white man.  But, on the other hand, the great diversity in the age of such stands as shown clearly their origin as reforestations after fires, proves that the fires during the Indian occupancy were not of such frequent occurrence nor of such magnitude as they have been since the advent of the white man.

(p. 277) The age of the burns chargeable to the era of Indian occupancy can not in most cases be traced back more than one hundred and fifty years. Between that time and the time of the white man’s ascendancy, or, between the years 1750 and 1855, small and circumscribed fires evidently were of frequent occurrence.  There were some large ones.  Thus, in T. 37 S., R. 5 E., occurs a growth of white fir nearly 75 per cent pure covering between 4,000 and 5,000 acres.  It is an even-aged stand 100 years old and is clearly a reforestation after a fire which destroyed an old growth of red fir one hundred and five or one hundred and ten years ago.  A similar tract occurs in T. 36 S., R. 5 E., only that here the reforestation is white pine instead of white fir.

(p. 277) The largest burns directly chargeable to the Indian occupancy are in Ts. 30 and 31 S., Rs. 8 and 9 E.  In addition to being the largest, they are likewise the most ancient.  The burns cover upward of 60,000 acres, all but 1,000 or 1,100 acres being in a solid block.  This tract appears to have been systematically burned by the Indians during the past three centuries [ca. 1600 to 1855].  Remains of three forests are distinctly traceable in the charred fragments of timber which here and there litter the ground.

(p. 278) Along the summits of the Cascades from Crater Lake to Mount Pitt are very many even-aged stands of alpine hemlock 200 to 300 years old.  These even-aged stands may represent reforestations after ancient fires dating back two hundred and fifty to four hundred years, but there is no certainty on this point.

(p. 278) It is not possible to state with any degree of certainty the Indian’s reasons for firing the forest.  Their object in burning the forest at high elevations on the Cascades may have been to provide a growth of grass near their favorite camping places, or to promote the growth of huckleberry brush and blackberry brambles, which often, after fires, cover the ground with a luxuriant and, to the Indian, very valuable and desirable growth.  The chief purpose of the fires at middle elevations and on the plains or levels probably was to keep down the underbrush in the forest and facilitate hunting.

(pp. 282-283)  There is little doubt that a very large proportion of the many rocky level tracts which occur east of the Cascades in the region under consideration are wholly due, as to the character of their present surface, to frequently repeated fires.  The pumice originally laid down at the bottoms of shallow lakes would be evenly spread out.  As the lakes were being gradually drained thick masses of marsh vegetation would preserve the pumice surface from wastage.  The marsh vegetation was finally supplanted by forest; then man came on the scene and with fire as an ally made some profound changes.  The entire series of phenomena here detailed, not omitting the part played by fire, are in full operation at the present time in the region bordering Klamath Marsh, and in various other localities, such as Sycan Marsh and tracts bordering the Klamath lakes.

(p. 288) These grassed-over places are, and have been, of commercial importance since the upper plateaus and summits of the Cascades began to be utilized as sheep pastures.  All of these pastures and meadows which owe their origins to fires are merely temporary affairs. If suffered to remain undisturbed by further fires they will return to forest cover.  Around Diamond and Crater lakes the grassy places are slowly giving way to stands of lodgepole pine as the primary reforestation.  On the lava plateaus flanking the crest of the range in Ts. 34 and 35 S., R. 5 E., grassy places created by fires before the advent of the white man have, in course of time, become covered with thick stands of lodgepole pine, now mature and giving way to stands of noble fir and alpine hemlock.

p. 290-291) The custom of the Indians of peeling the yellow pine at certain seasons of the year to obtain the cambium layer which they use for food, is in some localities a fruitful contributory cause toward destruction of the yellow pine by fire.  They do not carry the peeling process far enough to girdle the tree, but they remove a large enough piece of bark to make a gaping wound which never heals over and which furnishes an excellent entrance for fire.  Throughout the forests of the Klamath reservation trees barked in this manner are very common.  Along the eastern margin of Klamath marsh they are found by the thousands.

(p. 298) The southern and central portions are covered with stands of lodgepole pine, all reforestations after fires and representative of all ages of burns from one hundred fifty years ago [ca. 1750] up to the present time [1899].  There is no portion of these or the heavier stands of alpine hemlock and noble fir in the northern sections of the township that have not been visited by fire within the past forty-five years [since 1855].  Reforestations consist wholly of lodgepole pine as the first growth.  In some places on warm southern declivities brush growth comes in after fires.  In other localities a grass and sedge sward covers the ground.  It is clearly evident that many of the fires have been set for the purpose of promoting these grass growths and enlarging the possible sheep range.  It is also noticeable that wherever fires have been kept down for four or five years there is gradual return to forest and a disappearance of the grass.

(p. 305) This region [T. 29 S., R. 5 E.] was burned periodically during the Indian occupancy, as the many different ages represented in the lodgepole pine stands prove.  But when the white man came into the region the areas in this particular township was covered with a uniform stand of the species.  During the past forty or forty-five years [1855-1899] the timber has been burned in many locations and the subsequent reforestations have again been burned.  The region is too high in altitude to permit the growth of much brush.  After a fire one of three things happens: either lodgepole pine comes in as the first forest growth, or grasses and sedges form a thin, interrupted sward, or the ground remains bare of all vegetation.  It is impossible to predict beforehand which one of the three phases will appear.

(p. 395) The forest is of the alpine-hemlock type throughout [T. 35 S., R. 5 E.] .  Fires of modern origin have ravaged it extensively.  The great burns which cover the eastern areas of the adjoining township and wrought great havoc among what must have been heavy stands of noble fir.  The forests in the eastern areas have suffered no less, and there are scant signs of reforestation.  Most of the young growth now standing is overwhelmingly composed of lodgepole pine.  The bottom and eastern slopes of the South Fork Canyon have escaped fairly well and carry a forest in a state of tolerably good preservation.  Much of it has not experienced a fire for 300 or 400 years,  and in consequence it contains a vast amount of litter, consisting chiefly of the original lodgepole pine growth which followed a fire that occurred between three and four centuries ago [ca. 1500 to ca. 1600]. The lodgepole pine has had time to mature, die, and fall down, and a new forest 150 years old has taken its place since that time.

(p. 457) The Pokegama Lumber Company operates here, sending the logs to their mills at Klamathon, on the southern Pacific Railroad, by way of the Klamath River.  They cut pine exclusively, and cut all pine clean as they go, leaving great accumulations of debris behind them for future fires.  They take all trees far into the crown, trimming off the limbs and making the last cut on a basis of 7 to 8 inches in diameter at the small end.  In consequence they realize about 40 per cent higher yield than the customary cruisers’ estimates provide for.

 

Dwight D. Eisenhower: Science Research Visionary

In about 1955 or 1956 President Dwight D. Eisenhower came to Portland, Oregon for some reason or another. At that time I was attending Fernwood Grade School in NE Portland and our teacher walked us down to Sandy Blvd., where Eisenhower drove by in a convertible as he was traveling from the new airport to someplace downtown to meet with other politicians, waving to the crowd. Our teacher thought it was a great experience for us, but at that age the President was not as popular with us kids as Heck Harper, a local cowboy with a Saturday morning cartoon TV show, or Mr. Moon, who had a similar show and later got busted for being a pedophile. TV was a real fad among young Americans at that time, similar to how Twitter or iPhones are perceived today. However, some of my classmates soon began to wear “I Like Ike” pins on their shirts and most of the rest of us were kind of envious because we couldn’t afford such buttons, and because our parents didn’t have — and couldn’t give us — any.

Forty years later I finally read his “beware of the military-industrial complex” speech and came to realize it had a “Part 2”: “beware of government funded science” that really struck home with me, and explained a lot of what concerned me regarding scientific research and academic rewards at Oregon State University as I was completing my graduate research studies:

“In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

— Dwight Eisenhower, Farewell Address, January 17, 1961