Editorial off-track

American Forests, Spring, 2005

Editor: As a retired professional forester, I take umbrage with the editorial by Ms. Gangloff (Winter 2005). The values she speaks of were installed in forest management over a half a century ago and labeled "multiple uses" by the U.S. Forest Service.

Certainly forest products have to be produced and harvested. That is the only way a manager can justify forests and pay for management and the taxes. She states "Forest management has quite literally, failed to see the forest for the trees." What poppycock. I have spent over 50 years planting, growing, protecting, and caring for forest land and was carefully taught to take into consideration all of the values of forest land. This is called "proper use."

Managed forests:

* Produce more and cleaner water and air without erosion and clogged streams.

* Because of their vigor, reduce diseases, insects and produce more oxygen than old-growth trees. Old-growth trees are rotting faster than they are growing.

* Preserve and produce more wildlife habitat with openings, groundcover, and selected den trees.

* Create a better quality of life in urban and rural areas by producing worthwhile jobs and establishing a economy that can be taxed and used to increase the management of forest land.

Parks and Wilderness Areas provide forests that harbor insects that then spread to forests (see "Trouble in Pinon Country, Winter 2005, pg.14) that are not classified as commercial and have no value to harvest. This also happens in rural communities where ignorant homeowners keep susceptible trees and infested trees until the tree is dead and want someone to do something. But the bugs have flown.

It is my experience that rural homeowners are the biggest threat to forest-land. They create fire hazards and insect hazards by retaining "old-growth." Trees that are not vigorous enough to resist disease and insects. Trees that remain as damaged trees, burned at the base so that interior rot soon outgrows the tree. Damaged trees like these are also the result of "prescribed burns."

There is no scientific evidence that forest management by professional foresters has devalued the forests. Here in California the yield has been reduced by 65 percent, when once it was the second largest producer of forest products. Now these products have been replaced by Canadian, Chilean, and New Zealand logs. And, forests are managed by lawyers and judges acting at the direction of nonproductive environmentalists who haven't a clue as to the value of forests.

Urban forestry is not forestry, it is park management or arboriculture, which have no economic value--only costs to the taxpayer.

Richard Wheeler, Life Member

Sacramento, California

Editor: In reference to the "True Value of Forests" in the Winter 2005 issue of American Forests, timber harvesting is an important phase in the timber management cycle and should not be derided.

Old, over-mature trees become decadent and subject to insect attack. Dead trees later fall down and become fuel for devastating wildfires. Timber harvesting reduces this threat, provides wood fiber products, and helps maintain a healthy vigorous forest.

It is hard to understand that people can subscribe to conserving fuels, water, etc. but allow wood fiber to go to waste. This is what happens when trees are not harvested.

Openings left by timber harvesting (like meadows) create an "edge effect" and provide new young vegetation for wildlife habitat and food. Also, openings in the forest collect more snow (especially on north-facing slopes), and therefore increase soil moisture and extend the spring runoff period.

Grasses and brush also absorb carbon dioxide as part of the photosynthetic process. Grasses and brush are more effective for erosion control than trees, especially on steep slopes.

The so-called "Forest Primeval" is not very pretty, dead trees, wind falls so thick that it is difficult to walk, and lacks wildlife numbers and diversity.

By the way, the above observations are related to 40 years field experience and walking through many national parks and wilderness areas along the Pacific Crest Trail between Mexico and Canada.

William M. Lane, forester

Groveland, California

Deborah Gangloff responds: AMERICAN FORESTS always has and always will stand for good forest management. Nothing in our position suggests that forests should not be managed or harvested--or that timber is not an ecosystem value. On the contrary, we believe timber harvesting is a necessary ingredient in good forest management. But how do we pay for good forest management in a time of decreasing timber harvest and should timber harvest be the only source of funding for good management?

The challenge facing forest managers is that global trade liberalization has resulted in the loss of markets for timber raw materials. For example, much of southern California's forests burned in the fall of 2003 and many more acres have been killed by beetle infestations. The overstocked condition of many of these stands, partly because of their low market value and a lack of processing facilities to use the raw materials, has not been addressed because there is no cost-effective way to bring them to market.