Feedback on:
"Human Influence on Landscapes (E-W 2/10/94)
============================================================================
Your chance to cuss and discuss
ongoing topics at the interface between ecology
and economics-- that is, just about anything to do with public lands management.
D.Iverson:R04A
============================================================================
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Much of the preservation v. development debate is based on deeply
held convictions -- about forests and various roles played by
indigenous peoples in shaping landscape patterns and processes, for
example -- that are under attack on many fronts. In "Understanding
the Role the Human Dimension Has Played in Shaping America's Forest
and Grassland Landscapes: Is There a Landscape Archeologist in the
House," Doug MacCleery (W01C) helps us better understand what
some of these convictions are, how they came to be, and how they need
to be addressed in ecosystem management planning and practice. In
order to begin to develop shared vision and desired action, we need
to pay much more attention to this subject.
Dave.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Bradley G. Smith:R06F08A
Date: Feb 11,94 11:22 AM
One phenomenon happening on many NFs is the search for a magic Historic Range of Variablility (or Range of Natural Variability). Often implicit in the the development of these HRVs is the assumption that they represent a "good" benchmark for ecosystem management. In many cases historic photos (or historic air photos!) are used to develop and describe HRVs. Aside from the "historic" nature of these photos, they represent at best 1 slice in time; hence no "range" or "variability". We need to understand where these ecosystems have been in order to understand extactly where they are now. By better understanding the forces and influences that have shaped these ecosystems we can make rational decisions on where to go with them in the future. Any action (fire suppression vs active fire intervention) will have ecosystem consequences. Some will be favored by society (e.g. better deer habitat with fire suppression) while others will not (increased fire risk with suppression). "Historic" conditions need not be the desired benchmark. These conditions may well have risks and costs we cannot fully evaluate. Brad
I agree. What is "good" vs. "bad" is a subjective human construct. What we do need to ask ourselve, as you suggest, is where things were, where are they now, and why. Seems like basic stuff before we decide where we want to go. Unfortunately, we haven't asked ourselves those questions enough. We are also burdened by some quasi-religious baggage surrounding the concept "natural," as I described in the paper.
From: Dan Ritter:R01F17A
Date: Feb 11,94 1:33 PM
This is an interesting look at the problems associated with defining words like "primitive" and "natural". Those of us in the wilderness game are often faced with the same dilemna. The framers of the Wilderness Act used the term "primeval character" and further complicated our work by saying these areas should "...appear to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature". A philosphy that humans are not a part of "nature" underlies this impossible definition of wilderness. I don't think we need be concerned, as Doug suggests, with hiring landscape archaeologists to understand the role that humans have played in shaping the landscape. The challenge that lies ahead for society is to understand the effects and tradeoffs of our actions. My hope is that we (FS) don't spend a lot of time trying to define a "healthy ecosystem" but spend time helping each other understand the connectivity of everything we do to everything else. What some segments of society are telling us now is that they are not willing to accept the tradeoffs. Science will play a role in the process of defining these acceptable tradeoffs but ultimately politics will set the limits.
From: JEREMIAH INGERSOLL:R08F09A
Date: Feb 12,94 3:48 PM
Absolutely wonderful! MacCleery should get this published outside as well as inside the agency, in either professional or popular journals. I'm keeping this one!
From: Paul Rogers:S22L02A
Date: Feb 14,94 1:54 PM
MacCleery's paper is very thought provoking. We need to be realistic in stating our goals for management. It should be pointed out that a more significant discussion of scale is critical to this topic. What is the difference in ecosystem, bioregion, continental impact of 18 million people living at near subsistance level versus 250 million people employing modern technology on a global scale? Resource extraction is vastly different given either of these scenarios. I worry that someone may read this article and rationalize that human manipulation of environments is "good" and "alright", afterall, the native Americans did it all the time without deleterious affects. Given the amount of change to "natural" processes that 20th century humans have inflicted, I would opt for an observation of nature's processes rather than another round of human MANagement, where those choices are available. --Paul
From: Alex Bourdeau:R06F01D01A
Date: Feb 14,94 12:39 PM
[To MacCleery]: Just read your article on human dimensions in eco management and wanted to applaud loudly. Quite seriously, this insightful treatment of a complex political issue makes me proud to be an archaeologist/ anthropologist. I have been making these same points for the last couple of years and was particularly pleased to see that you made use of Dobyns' work - one of my personal favorites. Have you read Anne Ramenofsky's "Vectors of Death"? Great title for an equally great treatment of the effects of disease on early post-contact Americans. I would just like to add to your treatise that we can't manage for the "benefit" of nature, because there is no such thing. We can only manage for people, and then only imperfectly in the long run.
From: Lew Becker:R06F01D01A
Date: Feb 15,94 2:40 PM
I still have questions about the length of time which landscapes were "managed" be native americans. If their populations and management were most extensive at 1500 (500 years ago) how much time did it take their management to become extensive --300 years, 1000 years, or 5000 years. This question relates to range of variability. Were goshawks common east of the Cascades 2,000 years ago? or had burning already reduced their habitat, or did their range expand as glaciers retreated, then contract as burning (done by Indians) reduced the extent of closed canopy forests? My point is that the idea of "healthy" forests itself has a value placed on it; why isn't a forest of dying trees healthy? There are lots of insects and predators of those insects, so those populations are "healthy;" the understory vegetation is increasing. Why is a stand replacement wildfire "unhealthy?" At some point in pre-history, prior to native American occupation of North and South America, stand-replacement fires probably were in the "natural" range of variability.
From: Norm Michaels:R06F15D03A
Date: Feb 17,94 7:05 AM
I enjoyed this paper, it points out that we have not thought about what we are calling "natural". There is one point I feel I need to make in response to how "the public" relates to fire. The inference in the article is that fire is now accepted - I dont believe it is. Out here in the wild west of Oregon, we are experiencing greater constraints on our use of fire - people dont want to smell smoke or have their views even partially obstructed. We have not begun to do any systematic burning to reduce "natural" fuels, and our state's smoke management program is calling for reduced amounts of smoke. The media/public reaction to Yellowstone is still alive and well, they dont want to see more burning, they want to see all fires put out.
I hope I did not give the impression that the "public" accepts burning (smoke). That will be one of the toughest challanges we will deal with under EM. Historic accounts from the West dating to the 1500's document palls of smoke from indigenous burning that lasted for weeks at a time ( see Pyne's "Fire In America" Chapt 6 - "Fire and Water: A Fire History of the Northwest"). It would be futile to expect the public to accept historic smoke levels. But we are going to have to find some constructive ways to address the ecosystem health/fuel build-up problem that includes human intervention involving mechanical treatment plus some burning under controlled conditions. Public understanding of the need for some smoke has got to be a key part of our strategy.
From: WILLIAM G. REED:R04F02A
Date: Feb 15,94 5:13 PM
As one who claims to be a landscape archaeologist but who has been stymied by the FS management attention to "sites" rather than landscapes, I am thrilled to see your recent article! Landscape archaeology is an old and rather common field of study in the British Isles and on the Continent, but the American concern for discovering and conquering seems to have obscurred any sense of the landscape as an artifact - produced by thousands of years of human interaction with and modification of ecosystems. The British form of landscape archaeology has evolved into "human ecology" during the last few decades. I continue to think in terms of landscape archaeology because it has an immediate tie to land features which has been lost in most of human ecology. The analysis of land-use patterns through time enables the study of human ecology in respect of certain landforms, landtypes, and landscapes and their cultural contexts. Larger questions about human behavior become more focused and specific geographic regions are seen as the setting for technological and sociological innovations. As specialists dealing with the day-to-day grind of forest management, most of the Forest Archaeologists simply don't have time to back off and take a good look at landscapes ... but there are a few of us out here! Thanks
Thanks for your encouraging thoughts. In the FS, archaeology has traditionally been in Recreation and has focused on sites. I would hope that under EM, your role will expand to address the issues I touched on in the paper.
From: Zane J Cornett:R10F04A
Date: Feb 17,94 4:39 PM
This is a very important paper in the development of our understandings of what EM needs to be and what it can be. It also points out a number of the hurdles we'll have to get over -- I appreciate the way that Doug has raised these issues, because we certainly can't avoid them if we're to be successful stewards. There is one subject area that I'd like to reinforce -- the questions of what are we "restoring" and to what time period are we "restoring" it to? Dan Botkin's contributions to this subject area are superb. Not only do we need to decide what our future conditions are going to be, and then lay out a strategy to get there -- we should also separate ourselves entirely from the nostalgia of "restoration". Given the inherent chaos in ecosystems, the condition that existed at any selected point in the past may have had as much to do with chance as it did to process. The bottom line is we need to go through a participatory decision making process to decide what our DFCs are going to be and then get on with it. --zane
From: Paul Hart:R06F17A
Date: Feb 22,94 10:15 AM
Doug, just wanted to thank you for your thought-provoking paper on the human dimension of landscape development. I do have one additional observation after 20 years as a forest public affairs officer. Not only did the public support our aggressive fire suppression...they continue to support it with enthusiasm. There are a lot more folks living in and adjacent to the woods now than there were in the l940's and '50's. I have been 16 years on the Wenatchee Forest, which has a rich wildfire history. This forest is 40% wilderness, and about 2/3 unroaded. Still, there are new homes up every valley leading to the forest, and more being built every year. In these areas and in our local communities, there is little enthusiasm for letting fire play a more natural role...even assuming it can be done without filling communities with smoke or endangering private property. These same constituents accept wildfires as an act of God, so long as land management agencies do all they can to put them out. The political implications of such a situation are tremendous. We have a very large selling job ahead if we hope to use fire across the landscape. The first time we lose a prescribed fire and burn homes, the public will ring up a "no sale". We have yet to define an ecosystem management that the public will accept. --paul
From: Paul F. Hessburg:R06F17A
Date: Feb 24,94 4:19 PM
doug-- enjoyed your ecowatch piece of 2/10/94. we just completed an assessment of the effects of management in eastern OR and WA. you might be interested in reading vol3 of the Everett report, especially Robbins and Wulf 1993, Lehmkuhl et al 1993, Hessburg et al 1993, Agee 1993. i agree with your premise. am working on the team in walla walla and see your notion of dispelling inaccurate images as the single-most difficult hurdle to cross in deriving a strategy that people will cooperate with to conserve species and processes yet allow for sensible and sustainable use. i expect we won't be successful in the first few cuts because the mythology is so ingrained in our culture. i expect we'll come up with strategies to cooperate with ecosystems and people,but they won't coincide with the images and they'll be rejected. politics will take over and strategies will be negotiated that more conform to the images but are not acheivable. the irony is, i am concerned we'll loose the chance to steward while recommending legitimate strategies. anyway, thanks for the piece.
From: Dick Artley:R01F17A
Date: Feb 14,94 11:03 AM
I just finished reading (via Eco-Watch 2/10/94) your excellent paper giving a historical summary of human intervention in our forests and grasslands. We truly do have a paradox. I like the idea of looking at "range of historic variation"...rather than natural variation. I think there is also another perception alive and well in our society that should be explored that relates to the magnitude of human intervention. I'd guess there are many who would say the break between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" intervention should be based on whether it was done with "primitive" or "modern" means. These same folks would argue that the fact that man was involved is irrelavlent. They would likely tend to throw all "pre-steam engine" intervention into an "acceptable" category and call it "natural"...or maybe say that what can be done by hand is OK and what is done with internal combustion engine is not. We both know that the 'primitiveness' of the treatment is not necessarily a good measure of the magnitude of the impact (good or bad). Fire is s good example. On page 9 you ask what should the ecosystem be restored to (good question) and give several historical alternatives. I think we'd both answer "none of the above". Future mgt emphasis should respond to current and predicted needs of society...including wood fiber and clean water.
There is no magic to "primitive" vis a vis "modern" or industrial. "Primitive"
technologies, if applied by a large number of people, can be very damaging --
witness our own history, when we cleared much of the eastern forests in the 19th
century using hand tools; and witness as well, what is going on in many less
developed countries. On the other hand as fossil fuels replaced wood fuels, and
crop yields increased due to modern technologies, much of that eastern cropland
was abandoned and reverted back to forests. Wildlife has returned as well, even
though we have twice the people as in 1920. On your point on the options for
ecosystem restoration listed on page 9, you make a good point that none will
likely be desirable. If that is the case, why are we hearing so much about
"ecosystem restoration?" According to Webster, restoration means "bringing back
to a former condition or original state." If we really want to do that, we owe
it to the public to explain what it means, and what condition or state we will
bring the ecosystem back to. I'm not sure we've really thought through all of
the implications of what is rapidly becoming an ecosystem management buzz-word.
Thanks for the comments.
From: Douglas MacCleery:WO
Postmark: Feb 18,94 11:47 AM
Subject: Humans & Landscapes
Comments:
Dave, Here's an interesting note about my E-W paper in "Heritage Times,"
an internal FS newsletter (Vol. 5, No. 5, 2/15/94).
--------------------------------------------------------------
Doug MacCleery's recent article in the Eco-Watch newsletter, titled "Understanding the Role the Human Dimension has Played in Shaping America's Forests and Grassland Landscapes: Is there a Landscape Archaeologist in the House?" voiced an interesting question.
I say, "Of course what we need is landscape archaeology!" Doug MacCleery is in the WO Timber Management shop and his article hit me about three different ways - a real thrill that somebody finally figured this out, real shock that the realization came from a Timber Planner, and genuine dismay that the Heritage Program is perceived as so narrowly focused on site management.
To carry this to the next level of awareness it would be nice to point out situations where we have been doing "landscape archaeology" but I can't think of one. Please, if you are doing a landscape archaeology project, send me a quick description and include some info about the genesis of the project.
If you haven't seen the article, drop me a note and I'll be glad to forward a copy! (W.Reed:R04F02A)