Spring 2003  Volume 12, Number 1

FOR PURPLE MOUNTAINS MAJESTY

by John C. Street

From this backwoods road, looking out over the northeastern tip of the 500,000 acre Allegheny National Forest, the view might have been the same as that witnessed by the first Swedish and Italian immigrants who settled here in the 1700s.Only this forest, primarily maple, beech and cherry, is vastly different. Every tree in the panorama has only eighty or ninety growth rings, literally a regenerating forest by 'old growth' standards. Still, with a morning fog melting under a rising sun, this might have been the scene that inspired the words, 'for purple mountains majesty.'

As a living infrastructure, this remarkable regeneration is a testament to the resiliency of 'them there hills.' And the species that need this infrastructure - no smaller number of which are catalogued as 'neotropicals' in the censusing dictionary of the avian world, the Breeding Bird Atlas, are thriving in this new, 'old growth.' Unfortunately, however, for many other species there is malice in this bucolic wonderland.

Within this little piece of the ecosystem that is inclusively referred to as the 'eastern forest,' an ideological war rages. Under the banners of many environmental organizations march the advocates of pristine, mature forests. The other side is peopled by a strange mix of bedfellows, some there for understandable (economic) reasons, others seem more logically associated with -and in fact could be refugees from - the opposing side. Oddly, as the battle hymns of the combatants reverberate in the print media, the disparate notes sound eerily similar to anyone who listens with an impartial ear.

For the proponents of mature forests - who shall hereafter be referred to, descriptively, as Forest Preservation Advocates (FPAS)- the issue of silviculturally managing public woodlands is comparable to the National Rifle Association's stance on firearms; there is no room to negotiate. To the FPAS, the only good forest is a mature, 'old-growth' forest.

From the FPA's perspective, there is good reason for being unwilling to compromise. As human population increases, they rightly point out, the number of truly wild places decreases indirect inverse proportion. The life-sustaining habitat for some species - grizzlies, wolves and mountain lions for example - dwindles or, worse, becomes isolated. In this context, the FPAs are perfectly correct.
The impact of dwindling habitat is easy to understand. The concept of isolation is harder to grasp. In essence, every species needs to have endless access to its larger gene pool. Without this access, inbreeding concentrates and magnifies undesirable genetic traits and the isolated community of that species eventually dies out. In biological - albeit very simplistic - terms this is the 'Island Theory.' Forest fragmentation, whether man-made or naturally occurring, just as surely as an ocean of water around a small spit of land, can isolate individual members of a species from their larger genetic family.
From the perspective of FPAS, there is currently enough natural forest fragmentation. Anything man-made that interrupts the travel of wildlife to interact with its larger gene pool is unacceptable. So, since there is already substantial man-made fragmentation (roads, pipelines, electric right-of-ways, stnp-mines and clear cutting) on private lands to provide habitat for those creatures who need forest openings, FPAs believe they have a moral imperative to demand there be no further human disturbance on public lands.

The Forest Management Advocates - hereafter, also descriptively, called the FMAs - in seeming contradiction to the position of the Forest Preservation Advocates, appear to be saying that the only good forest is a forest that is managed for the betterment ofone species; their own. In this camp are timber companies and silviculturists, but also - oddly? - an array of outdoor enthusiasts and public and private agency wildlife biologists. Collectively, they have had a voice in the management of these communal proper-ties since they were first brought into the public trust. Their ideological pathfinder, President Theodore Roosevelt, ordained these forests of the nation - they assert - "specifically for them. And they, at least by the letter of the law, are correct.

President Roosevelt said in a 1905 address that 'forestry will and does pay.' He believed strongly that forests should be preserved as both beneficial ecosystems and as renewable resources. 'I believe most emphatically in sentiment,' he explained, 'but I want the sentiment to be put in cooperation with the business interest.' For the FMAS, there is no ambiguity to these words.

If the ideological divide was no deeper than this, there might be reason to be optimistic that a peace accord could be reached. Sound biology and rational thinking have closed much larger chasms. As in most ideological struggles, however, there is an emotional bias to this disagreement that fuels mistrust. Managed forests, specifically clear cut treatments, are perceptually - hence ideologically - ugly. Besides, as one FPA asserted in an apparent effort to bring class warfare into the skirmish, logging on public lands does nothing but 'produce commercial items for the rich elite who can afford to purchase them.'

Aldo Leopold, considered by Managers and Preservationists alike to be the (God)father of forestry management, understood the fractiousness of this bias as for back as 1928. 'A public,' he admonished, 'which lives in wooden houses should be careful about throwing stones at lumbermen, even wasteful ones, until it has learned how its own arbitrary demands as to kinds and quantities of lumber help cause the waste which it decries.' It doesn't seem conceivable, however, that Aldo saw the production of wood products as a rich versus poor issue.

In an explanatory paper published in the December 2000 issue of the Journal of Forestry,  John Bliss (the Starker Chair in Private and Family Forestry at Oregon State University) clarified that 'many people associate clear cutting with deforestation ...and above all, (the) industrialization of natural landscapes."

Forest health and sustainability, he concludes from a series of Gallup polls that were conducted in the 1990s, are secondary to whether or not the silvicultural practices are 'socially acceptable.' If forestry management practices are unacceptable, even if the unacceptability is based on visual perception rather than sound science, 'it will be modified until it is acceptable - or it will be eliminated.' John's conclusion that, 'conditions that arise (within a forest) as a result of natural causes are generally accepted, whereas conditions resulting from management (of a forest) receive increased scrutiny,' is an unflinching portrayal of current conditions.

While there are a number of 'natural causes' that can produce forest patterns similar to clear cutting - wind events and forest fires for example - hurricanes are (unfortunately rare and fires are not allowed to burn. As a result, and in keeping with the apparent wishes of a majority of the polled population, not just those who consider themselves FPAS, the entire 'eastern forest' is maturing. A compilation of figures provided by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) confirms that only eight percent of the eastern forest land mass is in what plant physiologists refer to as a 'successional' - regenerating - stage.

The evidence of dwindling 'successional' habitat is hotly debated. How, the FPAs ask, is it possible for species dependent on forest openings to be in trouble when there are so many man-made disturbances available to them? Man-made openings, typically including electric right-of ways, pipelines and roads, are intentionally kept free of brush and regeneration for maintenance purposes. As a consequence, they become what biologists refer to as 'sinks'. By allowing easy access to both furred and feathered predators, the populations of forest opening dependent species, what wildlife researchers call 'obligates,' actually declines in these areas.

Regardless of the consequences, on this matter of 'old-growth' preference, the majority voice of public perception is very clear. However, majorities - perceptual and ideological majorities included - are not infallible measurements of good science. The earth, it is now accepted, is round and clear cutting, despite what the World Wildlife Fund claimed in a 1996 media conference, is not 'the main cause of ... 50,000 (species) extinctions.'

In his book, Green Spirit, Dr. Patrick Moore (one of the founders of Greenpeace and now on that movement's top-ten least desirable people list) addresses this misconception. 'Forests are home to the majority of living species,' he explains, and people believe that 'if the trees are cut down, the habitats ... will be lost and the species that live in them will die.'

But what of the 50,000 extinct "species? "They are in a computer model in Edward 0. Wilson's (the originator of the 'Island Theory') laboratory at Harvard University.' Despite numerous attempts by Dr. Moore to obtain the list of species that had become extinct due to logging, the World Wildlife Fund has been unable to offer even a single example as evidence. Through his own scientific research, Dr. Moore concludes that 'no species has become extinct in North America due to forestry.'

Despite the biological necessity and sound science supporting properly planned and managed clear-cut logging on public lands, no one argues against preservation of true 'Wilderness' areas or even thousands of contiguous acres of mature forests. These natural areas, as well as other unique ecosystems like swamps and meadows, are valuable beyond current understanding as both repositories for biotic stock and libraries of scientific information yet unread. As Leopold said, 'the first rule of a good tinkerer is to remember how to put things back together again.'

But there is a distinction to be made between the majority of public land holdings in the eastern forest and the substantial vestiges of true 'Wilderness.' As Robert Schwarzwalder, former Lincoln Fellow with the Claremont Institute, rightly states, this is not about 'pseudo-santification and the consequent non-use of resources.' We cannot, he explained, look at forest land 'as a sanctified entity to which man is a hostile intruder. This is a brand of pantheistic religion, not a philosophy of conservation.'

Tellingly, there is a pragmatic side to Robert's assertions as well. Old-growth monocultures (forest have a tendency to cluster by species or in symbiotic groups of species like the maple dominated, beech and cherry forest mentioned at the beginning), while inarguably beautiful scenery, may be a visual calm before an invading storm. 'The healthiest and most resilient forests, 'according to the United States Forest Service's Kathe Frank,' have a wide variety of both age and species of trees.' To promote this variety, the Allegheny National Forest permits logging on one to one and a half percent of the forest each year.

The value of this diversification seems obvious. "We don't want a monoculture on the Allegheny National Forest,' Kathe explained, 'because of the number of exotic pests and diseases like gypsy moth, beech bark disease, woolly adelgid and the Asian long horn beetle that prey on individual species.' When the calm of the purple mountains majesty is stormed by these invaders, whole forests can be lost at one time. And when these invasions coincide with drought conditions, such as that experienced in the east as a result of the El Nina weather pattern, the results - as anyone who traversed the breadth of Pennsylvania's Interstate 80 last year can attest - can be starkly dramatic. By mid-summer, entire oak dominated mountain ranges were reduced to the bareness of November by an invading horde of gypsy moth. What little greenery remained was festooned with tent worms.
The unfortunate part of these infestations, from the perspective of 'successional forest obligates', is that unless the leaf-hungry moths return the next year and maybe the year after, permanent defoliation doesn't take place. In these denuded conditions, the infested woodland is good for neither the mature forest species (because they need the overhead canopy) nor brush dependent species (because the undergrowth hasn't had a chance to start) and they become 'wildlife deserts' until they either grow new leaves or die off completely. In areas where the whitetail deer population is abnormally high, as it is in most of Pennsylvania, the 'volunteer' regeneration that would normally follow permanent defoliation may never - literally - get off the ground.

Rationally, given the arguments presented by both sides, wildlife research biologists should be the ombudsmen for the peace talks. These essential scientists, however, have an image problem of their own. In a white-paper published in Northeast Wildlife Volume 54, in 1999, a group of researchers (Litvatis, Wagner, Confer, Tarr and Snyder) explained this conundrum. 'Advocating early-successional habitats (clear cuts) may have become politically incorrect . . . because it hints of old-school game management.'
What these researchers are alluding to is the fact that many  species that benefit from clear cutting - for instance the eastern wild turky, the American woodcock and the ruffed grouse - are classified as 'game,' and hence huntable, species. To FPAS, any discussion of forestry management that centers around 'consumptive' uses of wildlife is immediately invalid.

This seeming callousness to 'game' species is perhaps explained in the seminal research tome, Wildlife and the American Mind, prepared and published by Responsive Management from Harrisonburg, Virginia. 'While fish and wildlife management programs across the nation, 'their massive advises, 'have brought back once depleted populations of prong-horn antelope, white-tailed deer, bald eagle, wild turkey, beaver, wood ducks and giant Canada geese, the American public remains remarkably uninformed on almost all aspects of fish and wildlife, including its conservation and management in the United States.'

Coupling this pervasive lack of knowledge about wildlife with the demographic statistic that only ten percent of the population (a percentile that remains remarkably constant from state to state) buys hunting licenses, explains at least one of the major battle zones of the timber wars. Typically, although there are rare exceptions, FPAs do not hunt and consequently - being 'remarkably uninformed' - have no empathy for 'game' species.

And that, for a lot of species besides those sought for consumptive purposes, is a shame. Science knows, and has amply documented, that many lessor creatures - butterflies like the frosted elfin (Incisolia irus) and the persius dusky wing (Erynnus persius) for example - as well as a host of more familiar species like the New England cottontail, the golden-winged warbler and the eastern towhee are also dependent on a 'thicket matrix' created by clear cutting segments of the forest. Even certain reptile species- the eastern hognose snake (Haterodon platirhinos) and the northern black racers (Coluber constrictor) being good examples- are dependent on thicket habitats for survival. In fact, 'in the Northeast," according to the squad of scientists quoted earlier, 'fifty percent of the bird species and almost sixty percent of the mammal species rely on a combination of early, mid and late-successional stands' of regenerating timber at some stage in their lifecycle.

Perhaps both sides should remember that nothing, especially good things, last forever. Clear cuts are no exception. 'A regenerating forest after a clear cut,' Dan Dessecker explains, 'is still a forest that will, through time, become mature again.' The Senior Biologist for the Ruffed Grouse Society is not playing with semantics when he adds, 'while (clear cutting) is habitat fragmentation, as in the fragmentation of mature forest habitats, it is not forest fragmentation.' It may sound like Dan is splitting a mighty fine piece of fire-wood when he concludes, 'this subtlety is lost or knowingly ignored.' However, to the successional forest 'obligates' there is nothing 'subtle' about the distinction. For many creatures in the eastern forest, it is a matter of life or death.

The complexion of the eastern woodlands, historically a constantly shifting mosaic of mature and regenerating forests, was the evolutionary spawning ground for all the species found there today, not just the mature forest dependent 'neo tropical birds' but everything that swims, flies, runs, slithers or crawls therein. Hurricanes, forest fires, blights and insect eruptions were a natural - necessary - part of this evolution as were the 'successional' forest areas they created.

But those successional forest areas, with forest fires banned, are disappearing, growth ring by inexorable growth ring, and regardless how beautiful the results, regardless of the perception of political correctness, and especially regardless the 'remarkably uninformed' majorities, many species can't get by on looks - the eye-appeal of a mature forest - alone. And unless the need and value of proper forest management is soon recognized, brush dependent species will continue to decline. There's nothing prescient in Dan Dessecker's conclusion that, 'the next poster child for the Endangered Species list may well be a successional forest obligate.'
 

John is a member of the Pennsylvania Outdoor Writers and the Outdoor Writers of America Associations. His newspaper columns and magazine articles frequentlycover current events in fish and wildlife research as we// as the ethical and societal issues that impact the outdoor life, He can be contacted at street@csonline.net.

Reprinted with permission of the author andthe Clarion News of Clarion, PA.

Home