Logging and Global Warming in California

It's an interesting article. The Center for Biological Diversity is ornery, but I am not sure this theory, that doing some selective logging will increase green house gases in the atmosphere, is going to fly. First, it's ecologically wrong. And second, by filing litigation in five different counties, it's clear the Center is using one of it's favorite tactics: litigate them to death.

I think the collaborative spirit that other environmental organizations have embraced when it comes to decisions about logging is welcome relief from the antagonistic hyperbolic rhetoric that happened in the last part of the 20th century. Without some forest management on these and many other forests, particularly in the west coast, these forests really will be of no help in altering global climate change. Logging, in the ways sought here, will help rural communities, who are already suffering from this current recession. Plus, the forests probably will be healthier. It's a win-win and the other environmental organizations know this.

The Center is using very little foresight.

Across Boundaries

Last week, Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, announced a "new way" of managing our nation's forests. Rather than viewing lands by ownership patterns: private, state, federal, the United States Forest Service will be charged with managing all our forests. In other words, viewing lands as a landscape.

While this has been a much advocated position through academia, it's a welcome relief to see the federal government recognize that one of this nation's most valuable natural resources, our forest ecosystems, must transcend boundaries. The wealth of knowledge, research dollars, and plain common sense that the federal government has and can share with private land owners and state natural resource departments, much less the common boundaries between each of these stakeholders, mandates this type of management scheme.

From protecting water supplies to addressing pests, boundaries are false barriers to good management.

I have been, frankly, a little worried about the Obama Administration's goals for rural areas. This announcement, at least, mitigates some concern.

Forests and Obama

President Obama batted 1000 on his Supreme Court nominee.  But when it comes to our national forests, he may have been a little quick.  Homer Wilkes is a career bureaucrat with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, which happens to be part of the Department of Agriculture (where the US Forest Service also resides).  But to the chagrin of foresters, forest activists, and more than likely the employees of the US Forest Service, Wilkes was nominated to be the Undersecretary for natural resources and the environment.  

Certainly westerners, who believe the Forest Service belongs in their domain, are upset because the nominee is not a westerner, much less any experience in forests.  In fact, his role with the NRCS has been strictly focused on urban issues.

While President Obama seems enamored with the big environmental issues of the day, such as global climate change, he seems disinterested in land based controversies, as if he can simply throw a little attention toward oil and gas leases, forest issues, national park management conflicts, and they will go away simply by the force of his charm.  It's curious that when President Obama signed the credit card reform act he mentioned nothing about the rider allowing loaded guns into National Parks, which according to Park employees, could be a potential problem (although I am not sure it will be given we probably don't have a clue how many loaded guns already went into the parks anyway).

To turn the huge ship around on global climate change will not only require modifications on greenhouse gas emissions, but also a long and thoughtful look at how we manage our natural resources, particularly forests.  Appointments dealing with national forests and other resource based lands is not a throw-away.