[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Simple solutions may not save complex ecosystem; Editorial Asheville Citizen Times 12/28



Derb is right on, here. This is not sound wildlife science; to destroy one habitat and the species which inhabit it, to replace it with a different habitat with different species.

There are ways to manipulate habitats without wholesale logging. Game biologists know this.
The Roadless Initiative affects only a small percentage of National Forest.

Learn more about the Roadless Initiative and the USFS Strategic Plan by visiting 
http://www.fs.fed.us/  

Don Hendershot - B.S. Wildlife Conservation Louisiana Tech University
A Walk On The Wildside - guided nature tours
Outdoor writer for the Smoky Mountain News
Waynesville, NC (828) 452-4569

-----Original Message-----
From:	Derb Carter [SMTP:DerbC@selcnc.org]
Sent:	Thursday, December 30, 1999 10:44 AM
To:	carolinabirds@duke.edu
Subject:	FW: Simple solutions may not save complex ecosystem; Editorial Asheville Citizen Times 12/28

The following editorial appeared in the Asheville newspaper this week.
It reflects an interesting debate on the Clinton policy to halt timber
management in roadless areas on the national forests as it relates to
birds in the southern Appalachians.  The nongame biologist with the US
Fish and Wildlife Service criticizes the roadless policy arguing the
need for timbering and clearcuts for some declining/rare bird species.  

I find myself generally in the camp of the scientists supporting the
Clinton roadless area policy.  It only applies to roadless areas, will
preserve some large tracts of forest for future old growth, and other
areas within the forests remain available for timber harvest and
resulting early successional habitat.  Plus, we can count on the timber
companies to maintain a steady supply of clearcuts on their properties.


Derb Carter
Chapel Hill, NC


> Simple solutions may not save complex ecosystem 
> 
> 12/28/99
>  President Clinton's decision to ask the U.S. Forest
> Service to devise a plan to prevent logging in about
> 40 million acres of federally owned land by
> permanently designating it roadless and undeveloped
> has spawned a lively debate among scientists. At issue
> is whether it will improve or diminish diversity of
> plant and animal life to completely stop cutting trees
> in the specified areas. 
> Environmental groups praise Clinton's initiative. They
> are justifiably reacting to years of forest management
> that focused too heavily on timber harvests without
> adequate regard for the effect on plants and animals
> whose habitat was disturbed or destroyed or on streams
> impacted by siltation. 
> 
> But earlier this month, state wildlife directors from
> Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee and
> Virginia met with the Forest Service's southern
> regional forester, Elizabeth Estill, to express
> concern that setting aside more area that must remain
> undisturbed will further harm some declining species
> that need newly cut, young forest habitat. 
> 
> A group of university scientists responded to that
> meeting by writing an open letter to the public and
> the Forest Service arguing in favor of preserving the
> remaining 750,000 acres of roadless areas in the
> Southern Appalachian national forests. They contend
> that while there's no evidence that too little logging
> is causing decline of any species, there's abundant
> evidence that too much logging in national forests is
> harming many wildlife species. 
> 
> In a lengthy response to the scientists' letter, Chuck
> Hunter, Southeast Region Nongame Migratory Bird
> Coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
> agrees that their points are worth strong
> consideration in some areas, but don't necessarily
> apply to the largely forested Southern Blue Ridge.
> There, he says, he agrees wholeheartedly with the
> state wildlife directors. 
> 
> Hunter argues that the massive clear cutting earlier
> in this century has left too much even-aged forest.
> That creates a problem for many species of birds
> because in a mature old-growth forest, the forest
> canopy - the tops of the trees - would be uneven with
> open spaces created by wildfires, the death of large
> old trees that sometimes opened up as much as a
> quarter of an acre, and other natural occurrences.
> Many warblers and other forest birds depend on those
> open spaces, where undergrowth occurs, for food.
> Even-aged forests have simple, closed canopies with no
> understory. 
> 
> "Obviously, these forest conditions are not very good
> forest bird habitats for canopy and understory
> associated species," Hunter says. He believes they may
> in part explain the decline of species like the
> Appalachian Bewick's Wren, which is all but extinct,
> the Appalachian yellow bellied sapsucker and the
> Golden wing warbler. 
> 
> Hunter argues that it will take decades, even
> centuries, for old-growth conditions to occur
> naturally and without some management in the meantime,
> species dependent on an understory will continue to
> decline. He also points out that in the Nantahala
> forests of 1775, before the advent of disturbance by
> European settlers, there were extensive grassy open
> areas. We know this from "The Travels of William
> Bartram," by the renowned botanist, whom Hunter
> quotes: "I descended the pinnacles, and again falling
> into the trading path, continued gently descending
> through a grassy plain, scatteringly planted with
> large trees...." 
> 
> It would be ironic indeed if our efforts to preserve
> the remaining diversity of our great forests were to
> result in diminishing that diversity. The fact is that
> we have massively disturbed the majestic woodlands
> that existed before European settlement. We can't even
> be exactly sure what those forests were like. But as
> scientists continue to learn more about how plant and
> animal species interact, depend on and relate to one
> another, they must be free to implement the best known
> management practices for a diverse and healthy forest.
> If that includes some culling of trees to preserve
> habitat for species dependent on an understory while
> we wait for the forest to reach old-growth maturity,
> so be it. 
> 
> The Clinton administration is right to try to protect
> these areas from development, but regulations should
> not prevent forest management practices, including
> timbering, if that's what is needed to preserve
> declining species.