Spring 2002 Volume II, Number 1
LOGGING SIMPLY A TOOL TO ENSURE ECOSYSTEM HEALTH
by Andrew R. Gilespie, Professor of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University
I am compelled to respond to David Haberman's opinion piece in the Sunday, January 6 edition of the Indianapolis Star because of the large number of factual errors. I have been studying eastern hardwood forests for over 20 years, and my research and experience paint a different, larger picture.
Foresters today manage public and private lands to sustain our ecosystems, to meet the needs of today's society, and to ensure a healthy future for our children. The timescale is hundreds of years rather than human lifetimes, and in this context, state forest lands are managed. State forests are protected lands. Indiana statute reads: 'It is the declared policy of this state to protect and conserve the timber, water resources, wildlife, and top soil in the state forests for the equal enjoyment and guaranteed use of future generations.' To accomplish the task of maintaining the health of forests and associated wildlife and water resources, foresters and wildlife managers often use timber harvesting as a management tool.
Why is timber harvesting used? There are many reasons, but the primary purpose is to create the right kind of growing space for different types of new trees and plants to grow. And by creating adverse array of trees and plants of different ages, a range of habitats for animals is created too. Without disturbances such as timber harvesting, hiking/horse trails, or prescribed fire, we would lose habitats needed to sustain the diverse plant and animal life found in the forest today.
Knowledge of the ecology of plants, animals, and microbes is more sophisticated today than it was even five years ago. Some bird species require mature, interior forest to nest. We know too that some of these some species need adjacent openings or gaps to survive as young birds. Research also shows many birds require immature forests and shrublands too. Foresters manage state forest lands to ensure a healthy balance, including bio-diversity reserves and old-growth forests, because we agree with Haberman that 'a healthy forest depends on a wealth of bio-diversity.'
But Indiana forests are changing. Forests are not created by nature,' they grow in concert with humans that also inhabit the landscape. Our oak-hickory forest, some of the most diverse in the country, is moving toward a forest composed of a single, dominant tree: sugar maple - simply because humans have removed disturbances like fire and livestock.
Without tools like harvesting, the right kind of growing space can't be created. If harvesting and active management of our forests is precluded, what will live in the sugar maple forests that will exist 300 years from now? Certainly not the diversity of trees and wildlife we have now. Revenues from timber harvesting are an important source of monies to offset the costs of maintaining our ecosystems and to run the many IDNR programs including state nurseries, state forest camp-grounds, the insect and disease protection program, and the net-work of district foresters that work with private landowners. Harvesting is not subsidized, and its contribution to markets and sup-ply is irrelevant. It is done to maintain bio-diversity and ecosystem health.
IDNR's planning and management, with public input, improves am compelled to respond to David Haberman's opinion piece in the Sunday, January 6 edition of the Indianapolis Star because of the large number of factual errors. I have been studying eastern hardwood forests for over 20 years, and my research and experience paint a different, larger picture.
Foresters today manage public and private lands to sustain our ecosystems, to meet the needs of today's society, and to ensure a healthy future for our children. The timescale is hundreds of years rather than human lifetimes, and in this context, state forest lands are managed. State forests are protected lands. Indiana statute reads: 'It is the declared policy of this state to protect and conserve the timber, water resources, wildlife, and top soil in the state forests for the equal enjoyment and guaranteed use of future generations.' To accomplish the task of maintaining the health of forests and associated wildlife and water resources, foresters and wildlife managers often use timber harvesting as a management tool.
Why is timber harvesting used? There are many reasons, but the primary purpose is to create the right kind of growing space for different types of new trees and plants to grow. And by creating adverse array of trees and plants of different ages, a range of habitats for animals is created too. Without disturbances such as timber harvesting, hiking/horse trails, or prescribed fire, we would lose habitats needed to sustain the diverse plant and animal life found in the forest today.
Knowledge of the ecology of plants, animals, and microbes is more sophisticated today than it was even five years ago. Some bird species require mature, interior forest to nest. We know too that some of these some species need adjacent openings or gaps to survive as young birds. Research also shows many birds require immature forests and shrublands too. Foresters manage state forestlands to ensure a healthy balance, including bio-diversity reserves and old-growth forests, because we agree with Haberman that 'a healthy forest depends on a wealth of bio-diversity.'
But Indiana forests are changing. Forests are not created by nature,' they grow in concert with humans that also inhabit the landscape. Our oak-hickory forest, some of the most diverse in the country, is moving toward a forest composed of a single, dominant tree: sugar maple - simply because humans have removed disturbances like fire and livestock.
Without tools like harvesting, the right kind of growing space can't be created. If harvesting and active management of our forests is precluded, what will live in the sugar maple forests that will exist 300 years from now? Certainly not the diversity of trees and wildlife we have now.
Revenues from timber harvesting are an important source of monies to offset the costs of maintaining our ecosystems and to run the many IDNR programs including state nurseries, state forest camp-grounds, the insect and disease protection program, and the net-work of district foresters that work with private landowners. Harvesting is not subsidized, and its contribution to markets and sup-ply is irrelevant. It is done to maintain bio-diversity and ecosystem health.
IDNR's planning and management, with public input, improves the forest. Oversight prevents pollution. If sought, IDNR lands would receive international environmental certification for being managed in a biologically, economically, and socially sustainable manner, just like Pennsylvania and Vermont state forests. IDNR foresters and staff do an excellent job. And it is only on these state lands that environ-mentally responsible forestry can be demonstrated. Private lands do not provide the size or long-term ownership required.
All foresters agree we must 'appreciate these wonderful gifts today and protect them for future generations.' After all, we are tree-huggers too. It is our job to balance the many conflicting needs of people and forest plants and animals every day, every decade, and every century as we manage Indiana's forest resource.
RESPONSE TO THE HABERMAN ARTICLE
by Dennis C LeMaster
I am compelled to respond to David Haberman's opinion piece in the Sunday, January 6 edition of the Indianapolis Star because of the large number of factual errors and unfounded, erroneous
assertions. They are addressed below in order of their appearance in Haberman's article. Statements from his article are shown in italics.
1. I had assumed that the state forests in Indiana were protected lands, but I discovered that ... DNR operates a commercial logging program on our state forests.
State forests are protected and harvesting of timber from them is specifically authorized by statute. The basic statute reads: 'it is the declared public policy of this state to protect and conserve the timber, water resources, wildlife and top soil in the state forests for the equal enjoyment and guaranteed use of future generations. It is recognized, however, that by the employment of good husbandry, timber which has a substantial commercial value may be removed in such manner as to benefit the growth of saplings and other trees by thinnings, improvement cuttings, and harvest process and at the some time provide a source of revenue to the state and local counties and provide local markets with a further source of building material.' If Haberman does not want logging on state forests, he should persuade members of the State Assembly to change the law.
2. (T)he DNR has repeatedly ignored the voice of the people in deciding how to use this public land.
Haberman is making an assertion unsubstantiated by fact. I know of no valid poll that indicates the citizens of Indiana wish to eliminate timber harvesting from state forests. The Division of Forestry of DNR commissioned Purdue University scientists to conduct an 'Indiana State Forest Recreation Visitor Study,' which yielded 1902 valid responses. It did not indicate 'the citizens of Indiana wish to eliminate timber harvesting from state forests.'
Furthermore, where is Haberman's evidence that DNR has repeatedly (emphasis added) ignored public opinion on the use of state forests? Indeed, DNR conducts numerous public hearings on forest management where public opinion is actively solicited. For example, a strategic plan for the state forest system was prepared in1997 by the Division of Forestry of DNR, which included input from a large cross section of stakeholders, including many environmentalists.
3. When a forest is logged, these valuable services (clean air and water, wildlife habitat, and wonderful recreational opportunities) are degraded in order to benefit the private interests of a few people. Commercial logging is simply not compatible with other uses of this land. Haberman's assertion that harvesting degrades services provided by the forest is time dependent, but stating it is not compatible with other uses is not true. Harvesting generally does reduce the recreation value of the harvesting site until the forest restores itself, which it will. Harvesting, properly planned and executed, will not affect air and water quality and would enhance wildlife habitat for many species. But over the longer term, its purpose is to enhance these services. State forests have been managed with harvesting for nearly a century in some cases, and they are providing more clean air and water, more recreation, and more habitat than ever before!
4. (T)he market does not need to be supplemented with subsidized timber from public lands. Haberman suggests that timber from state forests is subsidized. The fact is that timber from state forests is sold at public auction and at prevailing market prices. As for where the money goes, it goes into the State Forestry Dedicated Fund, where, if appropriated by the State Assembly, it can be used to fund DNR Division of Forestry pro-grams and projects. Approximately 80 percent of the funding for Division of Forestry programs comes from the State Forestry Dedicated Fund as opposed to the General Fund. If it weren't for revenues from timber sales from state forests, DNR Division of Forestry programs would be both fewer and number and smaller.
5. Logging fragments a forest, decreasing the ecologically important interior forest habitat that many migratory birds need to survive in our region. Some bird species require mature, interior forest to nest. We also know that some of these some species (e.g., the wood thrush) require nearby openings with dense vegetation for young birds to survive. Further, we know other avian species require early successional forests or shrubland habitat for their existence, and that their populations appear to be declining even faster than those species that require mature, interior forests to nest. The point is there are tradeoffs here, and any categorical statement such as that made by Haberman is simplistic and should not be the basis of eliminating timber harvesting on state lands.
6. The gas, oil, and hydraulic fluid that leak from this equipment seriously comprise the forest environment, Haberman implies that this routinely occurs in environmentally significant amounts on state forests. The fact is that gas, oil, and hydraulic fluid leaks are routinely monitored by DNR foresters and, should they occur, which rarely happens, corrective action is taken before environmental degradation is caused.
7. The DNR typically marks the large, commercially valuable trees for sale, not the sick or overcrowded smaller trees. This assertion is contrary to fact. DNR uses timber harvesting to accomplish several management goals including changing the species composition of the forest, increasing forest health and vigor, and providing habitat for certain desired wildlife species. In so doing, they cut many trees other than those that are large and commercially valuable. Research has conclusively shown that biological diversity is best achieved when an array of forest successional stages are present, and timber harvesting is a very effective economically efficient method of achieving such a condition.
8. Educational programs could easily be carried out by the DNR on select private lands. This is another assertion by Haberman that is not founded in fact. There are few large private land holdings in Indiana. None of them are of the scale of the state forests. The Hoosier National Forest would be an alternative, but timber harvesting as well as virtually any other method of vegetative manipulation has been foreclosed on that forest.