March 24, 2004

New Pennsylvania Conservation Blog

The Pennsylvania Wildlands Recovery Project (PWRP) has set up a new blog on wildlands conservaton and recovery in Pennsylvania. The PWRP news blog already has a great post up by Dave Bonta on the DCNR's "Action Plan" for PA's state forests. Check it out!

Posted by jkleissler at 09:23 PM | Comments (0)

February 18, 2004

Scientists Condemn White House

The Union of Concerned Scientists spoke out today with a clear condemnation of the White House's blatant attempt to manipulate science to fit their political agenda to do nothing about global warming. Getting the Administration to take meaningful action on global warming may be very important to our forest's future.

The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad, a group of about 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement issued today.

The sweeping charges were later discussed in a conference call with some of the scientists that was organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization that focuses on technical issues and has often taken stands at odds with administration policy. The organization also issued a 37-page report today that it said detailed the accusations.

Together, the two documents accuse the administration of repeatedly censoring and suppressing reports by its own scientists, stacking advisory committees with unqualified political appointees, disbanding government panels that provide unwanted advice, and refusing to seek any independent scientific expertise in some cases.

Posted by jkleissler at 07:20 PM | Comments (4)

November 25, 2003

Peterson celebrates destructive forest legislation

Congressman John Peterson is celebrating the recently passed Healthy Forests Initiative - however, it is clear the Congressman has no knowledge of what constitutes a healthy forest and who makes the decisions to log.

"Does it make sense to have trees rotting on the ground because the Forest Service has it's hands tied by bureaucratic red tape?" Peterson asks.

Why yes, John, it does. I suppose that is why the Forest Plan mandates a certain percentage of coarse woody debris to remain on the ground, though it is not nearly enough. I wonder how the Congressman thinks rich soil is developed?

"We don't need judges and environmental activists managing our forests. We need soil scientists, fish and wildlife biologists, and other professionals who manage forests for a living making these decisions" Peterson continues

Maybe if the Forest Service allowed soil scientists and fish and wildlife biologists to make decisions, rather than relying so heavily on silviculturalists to increase timber production, there wouldn't be so much "bureaucratic red tape". Besides, isn't judicial review part and parcel of the democratic process?

*Note - above link only good through today as the Bradford Era does not archive articles online.

Posted by Ryan at 12:21 PM | Comments (0)

November 03, 2003

Oak trees losing grip on Forest Domination??

The Warren Times Observer reported this morning that oak trees, particularly valuable red oak, are losing ground to less desireable species such as red maple.

However, the article fails to mention that red oak, and for that matter the oaks in general, never really accounted for much of the forests in the Allegheny Plateau, particularly where it is unglaciated as in the national forest.

Oaks only increased in abundance due to the rampant logging of a century ago much in the same way as black cherry. Many burned over lands were ripe for the growth of certain oak species.

Many are now trying to link oak forest with burning practices of Pennsylvania's native American population but I think this is disingenuous. Certainly, burning practices did occur, but it was limited in scope -- particulary around rivers for agriculture and settlment. The vast majority of the plateau was not affected by fire.

This is how the article is misleading - saying that a lack of forest fires is parlty to blame for the loss of oak -- as if Pennsylvania naturally had regularly occurring forest fires to select for oak. This is not California!

Posted by Ryan at 11:30 AM | Comments (0)

September 24, 2003

Original Forest Composition

The original forest composition on the Allegheny Plateau is believed to have been hemlock-northern hardwood and I've also seen hemlock-white pine-northern hardwood.

Right now, there seems to be a major squabble over how much disturbance existed in the pre-European settlement forests, particularly from Native Americans for the development of oaks.

I accept that Native Americans had an influence but I do not believe it was that widespread simply because the population in what is now Pennsylvania was so small at that time. Sure, there were clearings for homes and agriculture, particularly along rivers and burnings for berry production, etc. But the overall ecological imprint, I believe was very small.

Whitney placed black cherry and oaks (both disturbance dependant) at 0.8% and around 5%, respectively. This does not suggest widespread disturbance, human or natural. I think it is only the folks who want to increase logging on public land that are pushing forth this notion that there was widespread disturbance from Native Americans.

Now, the DCNR has redefined the vegetative classifications for PA forests and is listing 'Allegheny Hardwoods', defined by being 50% or more black cherry, as a distinct forest type, even though if not perpetually disturbed by man, this so-called 'forest type' would mature to become a northern hardwood forest.

I asked my advisory today in my botany class why Allegheny hardwoods is being classified as a distinct forest type and not an age-class, which is really what it is. He tended to agree with me saying it is not a closed argument and that certainly if not for perpetual human influence (logging), Allegheny hardwoods would not exist, except for natural windthrows. This would be very localized and not constitute a distinct forest type.

Posted by at 01:26 PM | Comments (7)