Submitted by Betony Jones on Tue, 2007-02-20 18:27.
Thank you for mentioning the Quincy Library Group. It is, in some ways, a model example of diverse members of a community coming together to develop and implement proactive solutions to forest challenges in the Northern Sierra. It is a model that I hope will inspire other forest communities throughout the Sierra to think creatively in order to influence local forest management and policy.
At the same time, QLG is not without its critics. The size and quantity of trees removed from National Forest Land are absolutely no different than if any other timber company was doing this work. They take as many big trees as any other operation. This is because the Forest Service marks the trees for removal, and the only way to pay for thinning is to sell some of the bigger (up to 30 inches dbh, I believe) trees. In effect, I have seen QLG projects (not the ones easily accessible or close to the road) that do not leave beautiful, mixed age, multi-story stands.
This is not because QLG has a bad model; rather it is because thinning for fire management is really expensive, and to get the work done in the current market, the Forest Service's solution to sell some of the bigger "medium" trees that have commercial value.
I might suggest a few conversations for the group to pursue from the posted comment.
1) Is the above "trade off" (i.e. selling bigger trees to pay for thinning) worth it? What other options exist to make thinning/restoration work financially viable?
2) Is the goal to create "fire resistant" forests? In pre-settlement conditions, fire was a very natural process that maintained Sierra forests in that state. Based on all the environmental, social, and economic factors, should we aim to re-integrate fire into these ecosystems? Or practice other management techniques in order to keep fire at bay?
Thoughts?
Betony Jones
Forestry Program Director
Sierra Business Council
530/582-4800 x.309
Quincy Library Group
At the same time, QLG is not without its critics. The size and quantity of trees removed from National Forest Land are absolutely no different than if any other timber company was doing this work. They take as many big trees as any other operation. This is because the Forest Service marks the trees for removal, and the only way to pay for thinning is to sell some of the bigger (up to 30 inches dbh, I believe) trees. In effect, I have seen QLG projects (not the ones easily accessible or close to the road) that do not leave beautiful, mixed age, multi-story stands.
This is not because QLG has a bad model; rather it is because thinning for fire management is really expensive, and to get the work done in the current market, the Forest Service's solution to sell some of the bigger "medium" trees that have commercial value.
I might suggest a few conversations for the group to pursue from the posted comment.
1) Is the above "trade off" (i.e. selling bigger trees to pay for thinning) worth it? What other options exist to make thinning/restoration work financially viable?
2) Is the goal to create "fire resistant" forests? In pre-settlement conditions, fire was a very natural process that maintained Sierra forests in that state. Based on all the environmental, social, and economic factors, should we aim to re-integrate fire into these ecosystems? Or practice other management techniques in order to keep fire at bay?
Thoughts?
Betony Jones
Forestry Program Director
Sierra Business Council
530/582-4800 x.309