Subject: Forwarded: FS & Competing Interests
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments:
From: Dave Iverson:R04A
Date: Jul 26,91 10:09 AM
Author Alston Chase ("Playing God in Yellowstone" (1987)) pondered
the current plight of the Forest Service in a recent article for
the Oregonian. Chase believes the current trend toward ecosystems
management may become just another "meaningless preservationist
catchword." Still, if done correctly says Chase, ecosystems
management would be a good thing. The key is to tie ecosystems
management to sustainability - to "both conservation and sustainable
use of natural resources." Two pages follow...Dve.
Previous comments:
From: ALAN DOHMEN:R01F12D02A
Date: Jul 25,91 10:52 AM
FYI. An interesting and, I think, fairly objective viewpoint on the
FS from outside the agency. Alan
Previous comments:
From: KENNETH M. KESTNER:R06F18D05A
Date: Jul 24,91 5:07 PM
OREGONIAN Newspaper article; FYI, per chance you've not seen.
Interesting article (column) printed in the Sunday Oregonian on July
21, 1991. Written by Alston Chase, author of "Playing God in
Yellowstone" (1987). He sees the FS in a very criticial era.
-------========X========-------
"FOREST SERVICE PULLED BY COMPETING INTERESTS:
Agency Trying to Please Everyone Pleases No One"
Column by
Alston Chase
The Oregonian, July 21, 1991
Last month in Cody, Wyo., the U.S. Forest Service [actually the National
Forest System] celebrated its 100th birthday. It was a gala occasion, featuring
a parade, rodeo, art exhibition, Indian powwow and competitions for mule trains,
conservation essays and design for the Forest Service Centennial stamp. Many
big bureaucrats were there, from Smokey Bear to Woodsy Owl.
But despite this gaiety, these are dark times for the Forest Service.
Stung by public demands for less logging and grazing on public lands, and facing
a rebellion from its own rangers who want more emphasis on conservation, the
agency is experiencing an identity crisis.
Long dedicated to sustainable development of forest resources, it is now
tilting uncertainly toward protectionism. But while breaking with the past, it
has no clear vision for the future. The result is confusion that will be bad
for both wildlife and people.
Forest Service policies have always reflected American priorities about
economics and nature. And these attitudes have shifted profoundly since the
agency was born. A century ago Americans put economics first and nature second.
Today it may be the other way around.
Made law in March 1891, the Forest Reserve Act--establishing the national
forests system--was intended to secure an uninterrupted supply of timber by
ensuring careful management. The nation's first forester, Gifford Pinchot,
molded the Forest Service into an agency devoted to the ancient science of
"silviculture"--managing forests for sustained yield.
It is hard to imagine a more desirable conservation goal than promoting
sustainable use of renewable resources. But the Forest Service often preached
sustainability as it practiced resource depletion. It wrote 10-year plans for
trees that took two centuries to mature. It built thousands of miles of
unnecessary roads into wilderness. It fell years behind in reseeding efforts.
It sold timber faster than trees could grow. It sometimes allowed stock to
overgraze the range.
This depredation justifiably raised the ire of environmentalists--most
of whom never liked the Forest Service emphasis on commerce anyway. So for a
century they waged political warfare to curtail economic activity within
national forests.
And they succeeded. A flood of legislation during the last three decades
dramatically reduced areas eligible for logging. Concurrently, Congress has
progressively demanded that the Forest Service shift its priorities from
economics to outdoor recreation and preservation.
And while these laws have forced foresters to take conservation
seriously, USFS abuses--and concomitant activist anger--continue. Watchdog
organizations, such as Forest Watch, rightfully criticize the service for
selling timber below cost. A renegade group, the Association of Forest Service
Employees for Environmental Ethics, remains a persistent gadfly.
Reeling from controversy, the Forest Service appears hopelessly confused
about what its real mission is. This bafflement is reflected in the tortured
semantics of a joint Park Service-Forest Service group called the "Greater
Yellowstone Coordinating Committee." Intended to coordinate management between
various government agencies around Yellowstone Park--an area that includes six
national forests--the committee has been unable to articulate a clear statement
of purpose for guiding management in the region. The first draft, which called
for preserving a "sense of naturalness," was widely criticized. So, soon, the
committee reportedly will issue a new definition, suggesting management devoted
to maintaining "functioning ecosystems."
This would replace one foggy notion (naturalness) with another buzzword
(ecosystems management). And it would represent de facto adoption, by the
Forest Service. of what is already National Park Service preservation policy.
The Park Service, which rightfully has no obligations for economic
development, adopted ecosystems management in 1968. Since then, everyone has
jumped on the bandwagon, touting the concept as the best thing since organically
grown peanut butter. In its annual report, the president's Council on
Environmental Quality urges "the ecosystem approach." A plethora of bills
touting "ecosystem preservation" are working through Congress.
And is done correctly, ecosystems management would be a good thing. Its
original meaning, as described by the U.N. Environmental Programme, is aimed at
"both conservation and sustainable use of natural resources"--i.e., real
ecosystems management is multiple-use, which activists dislike.
Thus, U.S. preservationists, while finding "ecosystem management"
politically sexy, don't like its meaning. Consequently, they are rewriting the
definition. Rather than using the expression to signal sustainability, they
employ it to foster a political agenda that calls for minimizing human
activities in ill-defined "ecosystems."
If it embraces ecosystems management, therefore, the Forest Service would
be abandoning multiple use in favor of a meaningless preservationist catchword.
Instead, it should try harder to make "sustainability" a reality. Otherwise,
its next century could be an even less happy birthday.
@ 1991, Universal Press Syndicate