The Hellbender Chronicles

The Bradford Era did a real disservice with this article. Citing Peterson's opinions without calling those who would disagree is irresponsible journalism. But stating Peterson's opinions as fact, as they do in the first line, is not journalism at all. Mr. Schreiber should be embarassed for this opinion piece.

Jim Apgar of the Forest Service said recently on the Martin Run Project public tour that the Allegheny is referred to as the "asbestos forest" because of its inability to catch on fire. Peterson clearly knows nothing about forest ecology.

Here's a recent press release from Penn State that puts the role of fire in the East in perspective. Of course, much of this will not apply to the Allegheny NF, where oak was, I believe, 5% or less of original canopy composition, but the point about the relative abundance of white pine is certainly germaine.

Dec. 2, 2003

PENN STATE OUTDOOR NEWS SERVICE

UNLIKE VOLATILE WEST, PA. FORESTS HAVE GROWN LESS FIRE-PRONE

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. -- After watching raging wildfires devour
wide swaths of California last month, a forest expert in Penn State's
College of Agricultural Sciences points out that Pennsylvania forests
have actually become less likely to burn.

"Ironically, both our situation here and the one in California
have been caused by forest fire suppression," says Marc Abrams,
professor of forest ecology and physiology who has earned a number of
awards and honors for his 25 years of forest fire research. "Forest
fires, often caused by lightning and Native American burning in the
past, have been a natural factor in forest ecology across North America
for thousands of years, and when we suppress fire, we change the natural
order. The eastern forests have become less flammable; out West, they
have become infernos waiting to happen."

In California and other western states, where the weather is
dryer and forests consist of a higher percentage of more flammable
species such as conifers, fire was a frequent occurrence before humans
began to suppress the blazes, resulting in the accumulation of litter
and deadwood on the forest floor. Now buildup of that tinder-dry fuel
makes fires burn hotter, faster and sometimes explosively. "That,
coupled with a decade-long drought, made this fall's fires in Southern
California especially devastating," says Abrams.

Through his research, Abrams has established that fighting
forest fires has contributed greatly to an ongoing change in the
dominant tree species in Pennsylvania forests from oak to red maple and
other shade-tolerant tree species.

Maple was a tree that grew primarily in swampy areas that rarely
burned, and oaks -- which have thick bark and deep roots that protect
them from fire and the ability to sprout seedlings from the blackened
forest floor shortly after a blaze -- grew in the open forests.

"When forest fire was suppressed," Abrams explains, "red maples
became more common in the open forests away from the swamps.

"In my opinion, suppression of forest fire is the major reason
for species change in Pennsylvania forests, but it is not the only
reason," adds Abrams. "Timbering practices, selective deer browsing and
acid rain are also factors."

He points out that loggers took more high-value oaks in the last
100 years or so. Herds of white-tailed deer, which prefer oaks to maples
as a food source, grew dramatically. And Pennsylvania soils became more
acidic because of acid rain (oaks don't thrive in acidic soils).

Another reason Pennsylvania forests are less likely to burn now
than they were 200 years ago is the disappearance of white pine,
according to Abrams. Historically, this species was abundant in
Pennsylvania's forests, which were a much more coniferous environment
than today's more hardwood-dominated woods. But the pines were heavily
logged by our ancestors, who valued the soft, straight timber for
building, and they still have not obtained their former level of
dominance. Pitch pines also were common, Abrams notes, and those trees
suffered a similar fate.

"Litter from hardwood trees is less flammable," says Abrams,
"and fires, when they occur in eastern forests, tend to be surface fires
rather than tree-crown fires. Western forests are more coniferous in
nature, with more flammable foliage. They tend to burn from top to
bottom.

"Historically in Pennsylvania we had more pines and oaks, both
species that are more flammable," Abrams adds. "They have been replaced
by maple, birch, cherry and beech, species that don't burn as well."

(Contact Marc Abrams at (814) 865-4901 or by e-mail at agl@psu.edu.)

For more news from Penn State's College of Agricultural Sciences, visit
http//aginfo.psu.edu.

Jeff Mulhollem
Writer/Editor
Penn State Agricultural News & Information
135 Agricultural Administration Building
University Park, Pa. 16802
(814)863-2719

A corollary to Dave's post: It is unlikely that Dr. Abrams is referring to the Allegheny High Plateau when pointing out the historically high levels of oak in PA. The pre-settlement forest of this area was largely hemlock/northern hardwoods, with pockets of oak and white pine. Oak appears to have been limited primarily to the ridges above the larger river systems (Allegheny and Clarion.) Additionally, many industry folks in the area have been making the assertion that fires were historically common in this area and therefore we need to increase clearcutting. Even had fires been more prevalent, clearcutting does not mimic wildfire, as seen in the utter failure of the Forest Service to regenerate oak through clearcutting in the Allegheny National Forest.

The sentence in the article, "Peterson's Communications Director Paul Feenstra said the blown down timber has been assessed at somewhere between $50 million and $100 million." points to thr truth behind Peterson's push for more logging. If he wants to talk about economic value, fine, let's debate that. But trying to justify salvage logging to decrease fire risk is simply an effort to stoke an emotional response to an emotional issue--it has nothing to do with science.

Keep the reputable science coming, whatever it shows. Congressman Peterson apparently made his statements in the face of or, at best, ignorant of the ANF's particular forest ecology. I'm sure the economic value of the fallen timber was his only justification for his statements and that is only one facet of the entire issue. Rachel is absolutely right. The debate, if he wants to start one, should be about the economics of the timber recovery vs the ecologic cost of doing so. The debate does not need scare tactics unsupported by science (vis a vis the global warming debate).

I like trees and think they are very useful when camping. We need the trees to burn on our campouts so save the trees and keep it real man. Remember when you take a tree down use the whole tree.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: