State of the State Forests
By Bill Botti

The nation is still buzzing about the last minute action of the Clinton administration that locked up millions of acres of public land as roadless areas and new national monuments. It seems to many folks to be a "no-brainer" - these lands are priceless and ought to be protected. They ought to be protected from commercial development, destructive fires, insects and diseases, etc. That's what public ownership is about. The trouble is, now they're also protected from management. The best tool for caring for the forest has been taken out of the managers' hands. Leaving natural systems to their own devices sounds good, but it can lead to problems. To illustrate the point I refer to an article written by Robert Snell on the front page of the Lansing State Journal from June 22, 2000. The headline says, "Lake Lansing visitors swimming in success of lake stewardship".

Lake Lansing had suffered from high E.coli counts periodically and was closed in 1994 because of this. E.coli is a bacterium that can cause illness in humans. Experts consulted on the Lake Lansing problem concluded that the major culprit was Eurasian Water Milfoil, an exotic weed probably introduced to the lake by accident from someone's boat or motor. Other problems cited were runoff containing goose feces and fertilizer residues from the many lawns surrounding the lake. A recovery plan was carried out which has led to the resumption of public use. The E.coli count has dropped to less than 10 colonies per hundred milliliters from over 130 back in 1994. Residents have noted increased clarity in the water. Boaters and swimmers are safely back in the water.

One of the major pieces of the recovery plan was reduction of the milfoil. Area residents hired a contractor to kill the weeds with a herbicide at a cost of $70,000. Today a newly formed Lake Lansing Assessment District collects about $75 annually from each owner to cover the cost of keeping the lake clean. Tom Page, president of the property owners' association, was quoted as saying, "We have to manage the lake to keep it nice. I don't think people realized that before." What a great success story! Now, consider how it might have played out under a slightly different scenario.

Instead of paying $70,000 to have the weeds killed, suppose someone had a use for the milfoil and came to the lake association with a proposal to harvest the weeds, promising that the removal would drop the E.coli count and lead to clearer water. And instead of charging for the procedure, he'd pay the association $70,000.

"What a great deal!," some would say. "We could use the money to establish a lake management fund."

But can you imagine how skeptical others might be? They might protest that it wouldn't be fair for this contractor to be lining his pockets with the profits from their lake. They'd complain of the interruption in boating while the harvest was taking place. They'd decry the pollution and noise from the trucks that hauled the material away. "Why can't we just leave the lake alone?", they'd ask. "Why does everything have to be done for a profit?"

That's exactly what has happened on the public lands. Managers, realizing the need for management and faced with low budgets, found that people would pay for the opportunity to harvest trees in the way that managers wanted it done. This would reduce the danger of catastrophic fires, maintain the forests in a vigorous condition and pay for itself in the process. What a great deal!

But detractors feel it is tainted by the p-word (profit). They don't like the thought of someone gaining from the forest that's owned by the public. Even if it is the cheapest and most efficient way to protect it. Most of these are not unreasonable people. We need to keep working at telling the management story. Crazy as it seems, it's complicated by the fact that it doesn't cost a lot of money.

To paraphrase Mr. Page: We have to manage the land to keep it nice. People often don't realize that...

Got any ideas as to what we might be able to use all that milfoil for?

A FOREST MANAGEMENT IMPERATIVE
By Bill Cook

At a recent Project Learning Tree Workshop, our group participated in one of the nearly 100 environmental education exercises related to trees and forests. The task was to discuss the merits of three scenarios dealing with a 200 acre forest tract donated to a small city.

One option was to keep the tract as a nature reserve.

Most of our group opted for the "manage wisely" scenario, which included timber production. One person said; "Why can't we just let nature be? Why do we have to do anything?"

I think these questions reflect an increasingly common perspective among Michigan's growing number of forest owners, especially folks acquiring forestland for the first time. This may be part of the reason why Michigan's private, non-industrial forest contributes the least per-acre harvest volume of any ownership in the Lake States.

My response to the "let it be option" is to imagine that everyone in your town has to derive all their forest benefits from local forests. The same could be said of an individual forest owner.

The lumber for your house must come from your land. All the hundreds of wood-based items that we use must come from nearby trees. That's about four pounds of wood per person each day. Your needs for clean water, healthy soils, wildlife viewing, and recreation must also come from the same forest.

What will you give up in order to maintain that forest as a nature reserve?

Nature reserves have an important role in our forest. But bringing our forest consumption close to home helps illustrate the tremendous need to manage most forests in a long-term, sustainable manner. Failure to manage wisely puts the burden of supplying our consumption on some distant forest and compromises the future of us all.

Out of sight, out of mind, maybe?

Dr. Bruce Sohngren of Ohio State University produced an interesting model that yields some insight into our "not in my backyard" attitude. His work suggests that each acre of productive forest in the USA removed from harvest results in many more acres harvested in lesser developed countries with much looser stewardship standards.

If you're concerned about tropical rainforests, you should probably be an advocate of forest management here in the Upper Peninsula.

The Sierra Club is trying to stop all commercial harvest on national forest lands. Nationally, harvest levels from national forests have dropped precipitously in the last ten years. The situation is much better in the Upper Peninsula, but environmental activist groups such as Heartwood and Wildlaw have recently set up offices in Minneapolis to target this region of the United States.

Failure to produce timber from our domestic forests, including those local resources, has significant negative environmental impacts.

Wood is the most environmentally friendly raw material we have at our disposal. It is renewable. Forest products such as wildlife habitat, clean water, ETC. can all be increased through scientific forest management.

For those of you interested in a compelling argument for forestry from one of the founders of Greenpeace, try reading Dr. Patrick Moore's essay found on the Internet. The address is: www. greenspirit.com/treesare.htm

Why would someone NOT want to practice good forestry?

As an MSU Extension forester, I provide educational programming for the entire Upper Peninsula. My office is located at the MSU Upper Peninsula Tree Improvement Center near Escanaba. The Center is the headquarters for three MSU Forestry properties in the U.P., with a combined area of about 7,840 acres.

Michigan State University programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status, or family status.

Bill Cook, Forester, MSU Extension, Upper Peninsula 6005 J Road, Escanaba, MI 49829 906-786-1575, voice 906-786-9370, fax

TIMBER HARVEST AND TREE HEALTH
By Bill Cook

Forest insect and disease outbreaks seldom result in a need for a salvage timber harvest. Be skeptical if you're asked to harvest your trees because of a forest health issue.

The Upper Peninsula has been, or will be, experiencing the effects of a number of pest attacks. Gypsy moth has a toehold. Forest tent caterpillar (FTC) will likely rage through the forests this spring. Beech bark disease has been discovered. However, none of these critters is a reason to jump start a harvest operation.

If you're concerned about forest pests, contact the MSU Extension office, the County Conservation District, the DNR, or other natural resource outfit. Be sure that you have reliable information before acting on reports of forest pest damage.

Many parts of the U.P. were defoliated by forest tent caterpillar, aspen tortrix, and cankerworms in 1999 and 2000, especially aspen. The central U.P. tamarack have been seriously munched by the larch casebearer. Trees that are otherwise healthy will usually weather these outbreaks. Few trees will die.

In the eastern U.P., there is a new exotic pest called beech bark disease (BBD). It's actually a combination of an insect and a disease. MSU Extension has a brand new publication about BBD. Over the few decades, BBD will kill a significant portion of the beech resource. Management guidelines are available. You do NOT have to clearcut your forest or remove all the beech. There's plenty of time.

In some cases, harvest may be legitimately prescribed due to either current or impending insect or disease outbreaks. Harvest and regeneration of older balsam fir stands may be prudent with the onset of a major spruce budworm outbreak. The same may be true with mature jack pine and jack pine budworm. Oak wilt in northern red oak may be stemmed with a carefully applied timber harvest.

However, in all of the instances you should be working with the advice of a forester or two. And, there is always enough time to properly consider a timber sale.

The timber resource can have high monetary values. Non-monetary values also have a high priority. Treat your forest as carefully as you would any other high-value asset. If you think your forest is experiencing a health threat, take the time to learn about it and have it investigated. Refrain from quick decisions based on a tidbit or two of information.

While timber harvest can be used as a tool to maintain or enhance forest health, don't be fooled into making a rash decision. There is usually ample time to figure out what the correct action is for your forest.