While I also tend to agree with Warren too, I must admit I cringe a bit every time I hear "the old Forest Service multiple-use mission" saw. When I was "in" the Forest Service almost fifty years ago, the reality did not fit the "spin." I continue to find no good reason to think that that giant bureaucracy can pull it off, and over the years I have seen and experienced too much graft and, as John Gardner once put it, ". . . the regrettable burdens of a free society" to have much confidence that "forest managers" can accomplish much and keep their jobs at the same time. This is not to say that there are not highly dedicated people who would like very much to carry out that mission--many are quite heroic to stick with it and do their best. But the bottom-line ends up being more promise than performance, more farce than truth.
This, perhaps more than anything else, is solid enough justification for Liesel's work. However, one does almost have to have a 100-year span of experience to see the changes. Nature is such a "forgiving" phenomenon that even grievous error is quickly covered up in some way, and "forest health" can be used to rationalize almost anything. I hope Liesel's work can change that. Regrettably but hopefully, WT At 10:38 AM 10/19/2007, Warren W. Aney wrote: >Liesel, I've been thinking about your request for National Forest ecological >health indicators. To me, it would seem obvious that many could be related >to the old Forest Service multiple use mission, e.g., water, timber, >wildlife, minerals, and recreation. So you would have indicators such as >high water quality maintained in streams and lakes, stable production of >timber and other forest products, productive and stable populations of >utilized wildlife, etc. Then there are factors such as keystone species, >indicator species, ecosystem engineers, biodiversity (particularly species >and structural diversity), complexity and stability, listed or sensitive >species, etc. These would support a more holistic evaluation. > >I wonder if you've considered two particularly practical approaches to >defining and selecting ecological health indicators? One is to try looking >at what the National Forest ecosystem looked like pre-settlement. Another >is to ask the National Forest managers to describe what they would like the >forest ecosystems to look like in 100 years -- what they would hope to see >if they could visit the forest 100 years from now and see some results of >their management. In either case, you could then select indicators that >would portray that condition. And, of course, you could use both of these >approaches since they can be seen as complementary. > >There is a practical advantage for involving National Forest managers -- it >gives them some ownership in your research and its results. > > >Warren W. Aney >Senior Wildlife Ecologist >9403 SW 74th Ave >Tigard, OR 97223 >(503) 246-8613 phone >(504) 539-1009 mobile >(503) 246-2605 fax >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Liesel Turner >Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 12:26 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Question: Ecological indicators for National Forest Health > > >I am doing research on forest level policy outcomes and am wondering if >anyone is aware of, or can suggest any, long term outcome measures for >ecological health indicators of national forests (as close to 100 years as >possible). I am looking for actual ecological outcome measures versus >management application measures. > >Any input would be appreciated. > >Liesel Turner >Ph.D. Applicant >Drexel University >Philadelphia, PA
