Abstract

Most federal legislation and policies (e.g., the Wilderness Act, Endangered Species Act, National Forest Management Act) fail to speak directly to the need for old-growth protection, recruitment, and restoration on federal lands. Various policy and attitudinal barriers must be changed to move beyond the current situation. For example, in order to achieve the goal of healthy old growth in frequent-fire forests, the public must be educated regarding the evolutionary nature of these ecosystems and persuaded that collaborative action rather than preservation and litigation is the best course for the future of these forests. Land managers and policy makers must be encouraged to look beyond the single-species management paradigm toward managing natural processes, such as fire, so that ecosystems fall within the natural range of variability. They must also see that, given their recent evidence of catastrophic fires, management must take place outside the wildland—urban interface in order to protect old-growth forest attributes and human infrastructure. This means that, in some wilderness areas, management may be required. Land managers, researchers, and policy makers will also have to agree on a definition of old growth in frequent-fire landscapes; simply adopting a definition from the mesic Pacific Northwest will not work. Moreover, the culture within the federal agencies needs revamping to allow for more innovation, especially in terms of tree thinning and wildland fire use. Funding for comprehensive restoration treatments needs to be increased, and monitoring of the Healthy Forest Initiative and Healthy Forest Restoration Act must be undertaken.

Highlights

  • Understanding the history of forest management and attitudes toward forest resources are a prerequisite to understanding the changes needed in current policies to promote old growth

  • Land managers and policy makers must be encouraged to look beyond the single-species management paradigm toward managing natural processes, such as fire, so that ecosystems fall within the natural range of variability

  • Advocates used a number of policy tools to advance preservation, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Goshawk Guidelines in Region 3 of the Forest Service, and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Understanding the history of forest management and attitudes toward forest resources are a prerequisite to understanding the changes needed in current policies to promote old growth. It was the intersection of these three policies that created the pathway for concerned organizations and individuals to challenge forest management decisions (Keele et al 2006) It was the concern about endangered species listed under the ESA and the relationship of those species to forest practices (in particular, the removal of old growth) that mobilized the environmental community to take legal action whenever the Forest Service appeared to have ignored administrative procedure or noncommodity values. Using these laws as the primary tool for challenging land-management decisions has generated controversy. The fact is that both sides have won and lost cases, and legal actions have had a significant effect in terms of changing the process of decision making used by the Forest Service (Manring 2003)

A CASE STUDY
Findings
CONCLUSION
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call