Audit report out of MN...PR grant misuse

[Bonasababy]

My experience with the current timber harvest programs in Northern MN is that it results in a wide variety of secession and maturity and creates solid habitat. Would I love a little more selective harvest, of course. Aside from wishing more selective harvest (leaving mature oaks and thermal cover in place), i'll take the current timber management over leaving it alone and preventing wildfire every time.

You must be looking at national forest management? They could be cutting more in some places--some of that ain't their fault the industry won't buy their wood in places--but they generally do a good job.

County lands are hit and miss, but generally they are managed fairly intensively for income for the counties.

The state has regressed to being worse than counties and far worse than the feds.

And this is on all lands, not just WMA's.

Just one example.

Aspen has to be cut at an age the industry wants--it's not allowed to get older than 40 except in rare cases or where it has been offered for sale but no one would buy it. Wildlife managers would like to manage some aspen that young, but most of it they want to hold for another 15 years or more before cutting. It will still have value for the industry then--and that value will include more trees than aspen in the stand.

When you cut aspen at or by 40 that means the diversity that comes with age in the aspen cover type--more conifer, canopy gaps and lower structural diversity, and more--never evolves.

And if there is diversity? Say there's a nice patch of cedar in that aspen stand. Cedar that has been used by wintering deer for decades. Nope, other than a tiny amount left (because BMP's require them to) it goes too. We have lost tens of thousands of acres of winter cover and with the current plans we'll never get it back--and even if things change and we try, it will take a long human lifetime to get it back.

The other thing with timber harvesting in forests for wildlife is it's all about the local landscape as to whether it makes sense to cut it for wildlife purposes.

The way it used to work--and the way it works now on state lands is far different. Foresters and wildlife managers used to be able to look at an area (using the aspen example again) and plan what they want to cut soon versus what will come later. Many wildlife species thrive with different age classes of timber in close proximity. What you put off today can be cut in the future--AND is needed so you have something to cut in the future!

So today if there is an area where most everything has been clearcut in the last 20 years and few older stands left--the state won't leave those stand for a better future time for wildlife. They go now if they are near or over 40 years of age.

Spatial distribution of harvest for both wildlife habitat purposes and a sustainable local supply of wood are out the window.

 

[Bonasababy]

My experience with the current timber harvest programs in Northern MN is that it results in a wide variety of secession and maturity and creates solid habitat. Would I love a little more selective harvest, of course. Aside from wishing more selective harvest (leaving mature oaks and thermal cover in place), i'll take the current timber management over leaving it alone and preventing wildfire every time.

And wildfire danger is incredibly overblown. Popular thing for the timber industry to complain about though. No one stops to think that the places that have had severe wildfires recently have a lot of dead timber--because the industry would not buy that wood when it was offered to them! They still won't now either--it's a market need and desire issue, and to some extent cost of extraction and moving it. Balsam fir demand is exceptionally low after mill closures in the Duluth area and Sartell. Dead balsam fir fueled much of the fires that occurred in recent years in NE MN.

And that's not even talking about there being no way to prevent fires when climate change so frequently creates red flag conditions.

And lets also not forget that while uncontrolled wildfires aren't the desire or ideal by any means, many of MN's forests were historically influenced by fire--and many critters respond well to it's effects. The Moose in MN for example--not doing well, but the greenwood fire recently and potential the fires closer to Duluth this year will soon see a strong moose response.

Now if you'd say I'd much rather have controlled fire and use tactfully located and timed timber sales than wildfire for habitat creation, I agree completely--except on state lands the timber sales program is lost in that regard, just not going to happen without major changes.

 

[BrentD]

You must be looking at national forest management? They could be cutting more in some places--some of that ain't their fault the industry won't buy their wood in places--but they generally do a good job.

County lands are hit and miss, but generally they are managed fairly intensively for income for the counties.

The state has regressed to being worse than counties and far worse than the feds.

And this is on all lands, not just WMA's.

Just one example.

Aspen has to be cut at an age the industry wants--it's not allowed to get older than 40 except in rare cases or where it has been offered for sale but no one would buy it. Wildlife managers would like to manage some aspen that young, but most of it they want to hold for another 15 years or more before cutting. It will still have value for the industry then--and that value will include more trees than aspen in the stand.

When you cut aspen at or by 40 that means the diversity that comes with age in the aspen cover type--more conifer, canopy gaps and lower structural diversity, and more--never evolves.

And if there is diversity? Say there's a nice patch of cedar in that aspen stand. Cedar that has been used by wintering deer for decades. Nope, other than a tiny amount left (because BMP's require them to) it goes too. We have lost tens of thousands of acres of winter cover and with the current plans we'll never get it back--and even if things change and we try, it will take a long human lifetime to get it back.

The other thing with timber harvesting in forests for wildlife is it's all about the local landscape as to whether it makes sense to cut it for wildlife purposes.

The way it used to work--and the way it works now on state lands is far different. Foresters and wildlife managers used to be able to look at an area (using the aspen ex ample again) and plan what they want to cut soon versus what will come later. Many wildlife species thrive with different age classes of timber in close proximity. What you put off today can be cut in the future--AND is needed so you have something to cut in the future!

So today if there is an area where most everything has been clearcut in the last 20 years and few older stands left--the state won't leave those stand for a better future time for wildlife. They go now if they are near or over 40 years of age.

Spatial distribution of harvest for both wildlife habitat purposes and a sustainable local supply of wood are out the window.

Thank you for posting that. I agree with almost every word you said. You saved me a lot of hunting and pecking on my cellphone for an hour or 2 write it.