Summer 2002 Volume II, Number 2
Dear Editor:
After reading the smoke and mirrors in your Summer 2002 issue of Woodland Steward, I will now support Rep. Mark Kruzan's proposal to totally ban logging on the Indiana State Forests. I would plant them in Oak, hickory, walnut, and the other native trees, and leave them alone for 100 years. Public salaried forests have one objective in life, and that is to get out the cut. Biodiversity is the newest handle to hide the smoke. When administrators start using percentages instead of numbers, percentages instead of program expenditures, and report the benefits to their supporters based on totals over 10 or 20 years, I can smell the smoke.
Roughly, Indiana has 100 employees to manage 150,000 acres of Indiana State land, or one employee for every 1,500 acres. That is about $4 million, or $26 per acre per year. That is $260 per acre over ten years, and $520 per acre over 20 years. One of your writers mentioned 100 years, and that is $2,600 per acre. One of your writers stated that over the last 10 years, county governments and local volunteer fire departments have shared in about $100,000 per year from the forests. How many counties and local fire departments are there in Indiana? Well now, would they rather have a share of that $4 million per year, instead of $770,000, and just leave the forests alone? How about just leaving the State forests alone, and let the counties and local fire departments divide up the whole $40,000,000 over ten years? Has anyone ever asked them? If I were there, I sure would. Another way of operating is the way Idaho does with their veterinarians. We do not have a large number of State veterinarians. When there is a local problem, the State office deputizes a local veterinarian to provide forcible quarantine, or whatever, for a fee. I am very surprised that the private foresters in Indiana have not pushed for the following things. 1. Abolish the Indiana Division of Forestry except for a minimal number (probably 3 to 5 people including a couple of secretaries) in the central office who spend all their time on the road, watching what is going on in the forests, not cutting the forests down or letting the ATV's ravage them. They are the triage team.
Use local consulting foresters who are the closest for State Forest surveillance, not cutting down the trees. The State forests should not be used to compete with private forests and set the prices by competing with state resources. That will grow the private forests which will far outnumber the acres of State forests. State forests will then be their own examples of biodiversity by being let alone. Who ever decided that cutting trees down, and 'managing' was better in the long term? Only those who made money from the cutting or managing! Or using percentages instead of dollars. In my career I have managed divisions much bigger than the Indiana Division of Forestry, and I have abolished divisions as big with one stroke when they have outlived their purpose. I can tell when the smoke is starting to hide the problems.
Sincerely, Fritz R. Dixon, M.D., BA Indiana University,
Born and raised in Orange County
Dear Editor:
There were several articles in the Summer 2002 issue of the Woodland Steward in response to an editorial about logging on public lands. Before I begin my response I would like to state that I am a woodland owner who has spent numerous hours in my woodlot cutting grape vines, girdling trees, pruning, etc. Also, as a land surveyor, in the course of my work I cut down or maim more trees (albeit seedling and sapling size) than a room full of loggers. However, there were several comments made in defense of logging our public lands that I find I must take issue with.
One of the comments stated in effect that if a forest is not logged it will automatically revert to a useless Beech-Maple complex. First, the generalization that a Beech-Maple forest is worthless is obviously untrue. Hard maples consistently obtain high dollar values on sale. More importantly, all of our forests will slowly change composition over time. Generally shade tolerant species become more prevalent. However, even within a small woodlot there are enough microclimates to affect stand composition. Additionally, there are many natural calamitous events that can shape a forest stand with ice and wind storms and fire being examples. If all forests were to change to a Beech-Maple complex if left undisturbed, then you should be able to look backwards in time before European settlement and find nothing but Beech-Maple throughout our region as there was no logging to favor Oak-Hickory forests. Obviously this is not true. As a surveyor I research many of the original survey notes from the beginning of settlement. Beech and Maple trees make up only a very small percentage of the trees utilized as bearing trees. We also know from early accounts that our original forests were quite diverse in composition. As private woodland owners we have every right to manage our private forests for maximum timber value. The question is whether our public forests should be managed the same. Regardless of stated management goals, whenever logging occurs, there is a perception that the primary goal has been timber revenue.
Another comment regarding logging on state forests declares that logging increases species diversity. On the surface this is correct. Forest edges are magnets for many species of wildlife. Unfortunately, many of these species are already common or abundant in our landscape. Species such as raccoon, opossum, rat snake, blue jay, crow, brown headed cowbird, chipmunk, etc. Many of these species are predators. An easy explanation of this is that forest edges are abundant throughout Indiana. Just look at any aerial photo of any portion of Indiana, even the areas considered the most heavily forested, and you will see a mosaic of forest and field. Forest edges everywhere, these edge habitats are attractive to a wide variety of bird species from year round residents, such as cardinals and chickadees, to neo-tropical migrants, such as warblers, vireos and tanagers. It is the neo-tropical migrants though that suffer from their association with these edge habitats. In an unbroken forest, the concentration of predators is very low, giving these migrants a greater chance of successfully rearing broods. Near the edges though, the predator numbers are much higher and the chances of these migrants rearing broods diminishes drastically. So even though there may be a larger number and variety of species near these edges, many of these species are harmed by their association with these edge habitats. Therefore, the further away from an edge these species can breed, the better. For those species that truly need edge habitats, we don't need to be going out of the way to create edges as they are prevalent throughout the state and region. What is locking are large interior forest blocks.
Many of these songbird migrants have been monitored for decades via many different methods. The numbers of these migrants, numbering dozes of species, have declined by over 50% in the las five decades, many by as much as 90% with continued annual declines. Large unbroken forests are the one habitat type uncommon in Indiana and the Midwest that are essential for the survival of these species. In Indiana, the last best chances for maintaining these large unbroken forest tracts is on public property. Most private forests are just too small and fractured to offer much help for these migrants other than as buffers around the large public holdings. We can criticize third world countries for clearing their rain forests but the management of our forests contributes just as much to the decline of many migratory species. However, we can change the management of our forests much easier than we can change the management of rain forests.
While there are economic, social and political reasons offered fo rthe logging of our public lands, the arguments that claim forest and wildlife diversity are dependent upon logging are just not correct. Left to natural processes forests would sustain their own stand and wildlife diversity, not our vision of ideal stand and wildlife composition, often skewed towards resource value.
Sincerely, Jess A. Gwinn