by Don Healy, B.S. Forest Management, Oregon State University, 1968 Part 2 of 2
Section 8
Modern Fuel Loads, Insects, Disease, and Fire Severity
The forests of the United States today bear little resemblance to the forests of 1600–1850 and before. They are denser, more homogeneous, more stressed, and far more flammable. The combination of fuel accumulation, species shifts, and climate stress has created a perfect storm of ecological vulnerability.
A. Fuel loads
In many western forests, fuel loads are now 4–10 times higher than historical levels. This includes dense thickets of small trees, heavy surface fuels, continuous ladder fuels, and dead and dying trees from drought and insect outbreaks. These conditions make low-severity fire — the kind that historically maintained forest health — almost impossible without prior mechanical thinning.
B. Insects and disease
Dense, stressed forests are highly susceptible to bark beetles, root diseases, defoliators, and fungal pathogens. Historically, frequent fire reduced these threats by removing weak or diseased trees, reducing stand density, and promoting species diversity. Today, insect outbreaks kill millions of acres of trees each year, adding even more fuel to already overloaded forests.
C. Drought
With the Indigenous People maintaining the forests at much lower densities, the water resources available to each tree would have been considerably increased, resulting in healthier, more vigorous individuals more capable of withstanding drought conditions. Today, drought conditions pose much greater risk to forest health, with decreased vigor leading to less resistance to fire as well as to insect and disease issues. A significant problem currently are various bark beetles, with the mountain pine beetle and the Douglas-fir bark beetle currently causing devastation across much of North America. The primary defense for trees is having sufficient sap pressure to repel beetle attack, and this requires that the tree not be water stressed.
D. Fire severity
The most important distinction between historical and modern fire regimes is not how often fires occur, but how they burn.
Historical fires were frequent, burned at low severity, removed fuels, and maintained forest structure. Modern fires are infrequent, burn at high severity, kill entire stands, destroy soils, and threaten communities and watersheds.
Although contemporary fire extent is not unprecedented when compared against the deepest paleoecological record, unprecedented contemporary fire severity is now driving irreversible forest loss. This is the core of the wildfire crisis: not too much fire, but the wrong kind of fire.
Section 9
Old Growth: Myths, Realities, and Actual Threats
Old-growth forests occupy a central place in public imagination, often portrayed as ancient, untouched ecosystems that must be preserved at all costs. While old growth is ecologically valuable, the modern narrative surrounding it is frequently disconnected from historical reality and current ecological risk.
A. Historical old-growth extent
Old growth was never the dominant condition across most western landscapes. It existed as part of a dynamic mosaic shaped by frequent fire. Large, old trees were common, but continuous expanses of dense old growth were not. The open, park-like forests documented by early explorers — dominated by large ponderosa pines, western larches, and oaks — were a product of this fire-maintained dynamism, not of protected stillness.
B. Modern old-growth vulnerability
The obvious need to reduce the fuel load in our nation’s forests to reverse the upward trend in wildfires is met with resistance from the environmental community. The focal point of this concern generally involves old growth forests. In the past 60 years, the definition of old growth has changed considerably. In forestry school in the mid-1960s we were taught that an old growth forest was a mature forest in which the amount of growth was slowing to the point that it was equaled by the amount of mortality. Currently, the old growth label is applied to stands as young as 150 years old.
While old growth forests are important for numerous reasons, carbon sequestration is frequently mentioned as a top consideration. However, when discussing a fully mature old growth forest, this is questionable. In individual trees, and even-aged forests such as the Douglas-fir common to much of the western United States, the growth pattern follows that of a sigmoid curve: very slow growth in the early years, followed by a sustained period of consistent growth, followed by a decline to a static condition before death. In a typical old growth forest, we see downed timber and a much greater incidence of decay. Obviously, an old growth forest, while storing a large amount of carbon, has less utility as a carbon sink than does a vibrant, middle-aged stand.
“With all the recent attention being paid to climate change and decarbonizing our atmosphere, which takes more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere — 100 hectares of mature old growth forest, or 100 hectares of young forest?”
Gregory Paradis, a forester, engineer, and assistant professor of forest management in the Faculty of Forestry at the University of British Columbia, has an answer:
“Trees capture carbon from the atmosphere by converting sunlight to cellulose through photosynthesis. When trees die and fall to the ground, they gradually emit most of this captured carbon back into the atmosphere. Young vigorous stands grow and sequester carbon at maximum speed. As stands get older, the tree canopy closes and individual trees begin to die off from self-thinning and other causes. Very old forest stands can reach a sort of carbon neutral equilibrium state where trees are dying and decaying at approximately the same rate as they are growing back. So, taking into account both growth and mortality, 100 hectares of young forest will generally speaking have a higher net carbon capture rate than older but otherwise identical stands.”evergreenalliance.ca — “Do new forests or old ones capture more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?”
Again, the perception and the reality vary considerably. While timber harvesting is recognized as the historical cause for loss of much of the nation’s mature and old-growth forests, current data show that in recent decades the leading cause for losses on forestlands managed by the Forest Service and BLM is from wildfires:
Source: Mature and Old-Growth Forests — Analysis of Threats on Lands Managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, in Fulfillment of Section 2(c) of Executive Order No. 14072.
Old-growth forests are also deemed important for the diversity of animal and plant species that they support. Again the reality differs from the perception. Plant species diversity changes predictably during ecological succession. It typically follows an inverted U-shaped curve, peaking in the mid-successional stages before stabilizing or slightly declining as a mature, stable “climax community” is established.
1. Pioneer / early stage
Conditions: Harsh, exposed environments (bare rock or disturbed soil) lacking topsoil and nutrients. Species type: Opportunistic, fast-growing species (e.g., lichens, mosses, annual grasses). Diversity: Low — only a few highly specialized or hardy species can survive the initial conditions.
2. Mid-successional stage
Conditions: Improved soil structure, increased nutrient availability, and more shade. Species type: A dense mix of fast-growing herbs, shrubs, and pioneer trees. Diversity: Peak — the highest total species diversity occurs here, as early pioneer species still linger while longer-living, competitive species successfully establish themselves in the increasingly complex habitat.
3. Late / climax stage
Conditions: Deep soils, stable microclimates, and strong competition for light and resources. Species type: Long-lived, shade-tolerant canopy trees and understory plants. Diversity: Moderate to high — total species diversity slightly drops or levels off compared to the mid-stage, as highly competitive dominant trees outcompete less hardy species.
Understanding these changes is foundational for ecological restoration and forestry management. As we see here for most habitats, the mid-successional stage supports the greatest diversity of life forms. But the reality is that all the inhabitants of all stages of succession are important, and to emphasize one — old-growth over all others — is inappropriate. Additionally, if one focuses on those successional stages that provided the bulk of the material and dietary needs of the Indigenous People, and does the same for modern civilization, the mid-successional stages are the heavy lifters. Ecologists generally find that the landscape has the greatest biodiversity when multiple successional stages coexist rather than when everything is old growth or everything is young forest.
C. The management paradox
Current efforts to protect old growth by prohibiting thinning or prescribed fire often increase the very risk of losing it entirely. Without reducing fuel loads, old-growth stands become tinderboxes. The solution is not to abandon old-growth protection, but to actively manage the surrounding landscape so that old growth can survive long enough to fulfill its ecological and cultural value. With this in mind, perhaps the ideal course for mature and old growth stands would be a very light thinning to remove trees with declining growth rates while preserving the more vigorous members of the stand. Were the harvested trees to be converted into lumber and engineered products, the already sequestered carbon would remain sequestered while the remainder of the stand would continue absorbing carbon at maximum efficiency.
Section 10
A National Forest Allocation and Management Strategy
The United States cannot continue managing its forests under a one-size-fits-all model. The ecological diversity of our forest types, the historical role of Indigenous stewardship, the modern wildfire crisis, and the competing demands placed on public lands all require a more nuanced, science-based approach. Also, the current system — in which every proposed management action is litigated, delayed, or blocked — is not sustainable. It results in paralysis, fuel accumulation, and ultimately the loss of the very forest values we seek to protect.
A national forest allocation and management strategy must begin with a clear understanding of how our forest resource has changed in the past century and what we want our forests to look like 50, 100, and 200 years from now. Returning to Mark Twain’s quote at the top of the paper, let us review common perceptions versus the reality, starting with forested acres during recent history.
The pertinent data necessary to create a management plan
“The U.S. Census Bureau reports the total land area of the continental United States and Hawaii (excluding the Caribbean Islands and U.S. territories) as 2.3 billion acres. Forests and woodlands combined occupy 822.5 million acres of the U.S. land base. Of those, 93 percent (765.5 million acres) meet the international definition of forest, with the remaining 7 percent recognized as woodlands. Thus, forests comprise 34 percent of the American landscape, and forests combined with woodlands comprise 36 percent.”
| Year | 1920 | 1938 | 1953 | 1963 | 1977 | 1987 | 1997 | 2007 | 2012 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thousand acres | 721,415 | 737,572 | 741,652 | 752,786 | 742,345 | 732,553 | 741,937 | 752,272 | 766,234 | 765,493 |
From Table 3, USDA, Forest Resources of the United States, 2017 — A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2020 RPA Assessment.
The perception by most is that our forested acreage has diminished. The reality is that we have gained 44,078,000 acres since 1920, a gain of 6.1%.
Owners of forest land
There are numerous owners and administrators of the forested lands within the United States. Here is just a fraction of the major players:
| Ownership | Acres | % of total forested |
|---|---|---|
| Total acreage of the United States | 2,260,000,000 | — |
| Total forested acreage in the United States | 818,814,000 | — |
| U.S. Government (total) | 238,400,000 | 29.1% |
| USFS | 145,200,000 | 17.7% |
| BLM | 38,100,000 | 4.7% |
| Nat’l Park Service & Dept. of Defense | 55,100,000 | 6.7% |
| Bureau of Indian Affairs | 19,200,000 | 2.3% |
| State, county and municipal | 82,700,000 | 10.1% |
| Private — corporate | 147,400,000 | 18.0% |
| Private — non-corporate | 297,600,000 | 36.3% |
| Other | 33,514,000 | 4.1% |
| Total | 818,814,000 | 100% |
Sources: stateforesters.org/timber-assurance/legality/forest-ownership-statistics · edit.doi.gov/ocl/tribal-forest-management
Timber volume trend in the United States
Again, the perception of many is that our timber supply has diminished as well. The chart below shows just the reverse.
| Volume | 1953 | 1977 | 1987 | 1997 | 2007 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Softwood | 431,794 | 466,960 | 467,575 | 483,842 | 531,600 | 560,526 |
| Hardwood | 184,090 | 266,096 | 314,080 | 351,828 | 402,894 | 424,712 |
| Total | 615,884 | 733,056 | 781,655 | 835,669 | 934,494 | 985,238 |
Source: USDA, Forest Resources of the United States, 2017 — Tabs 18 and 19.
With the dramatic reduction in harvesting on federal lands commencing in the late 1970s, we have watched the volumes of merchantable timber increase by 60%. On federal lands, we quit harvesting, but the trees kept growing. U.S. wood products needs have been met in large part with Canadian imports, which in recent years have reached $40 billion per year and provide about 70% of our nation’s wood products needs. During the past 45 years, with very little forest management occurring on federal lands, we have seen an increase in insect and disease issues, stagnation in some stands, and the resultant increase in wildfires.
Inventory of old growth, mature, and younger stands
Currently, on federal lands administered by the USFS and the BLM, we have the acreages in the following forest classifications:
| Classification | Acres | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Younger stands | 64,671,733 | 36.2% |
| Mature | 80,756,003 | 45.3% |
| Old growth | 33,070,350 | 18.5% |
| Total | 178,498,091 | — |
Source: Mature-and-Old-Growth-Forests.pdf
So currently, 63.7% of the forested acreage managed by USFS and the BLM is currently old growth or mature stands.
Climate change
For the past several decades, climate change has been a primary focus, and one that needs to be considered in establishing a national forest management plan, with serious consideration given to the wildfire issue. The following graph spells out in graphic detail the relative relationships between the two most frequently cited causes of the recent increase in wildfires: fuel load and climate change. The increase in timber volumes mentioned above is used as a proxy for fuel load in this chart, although it probably understates the issue considerably due to two factors:
- With very little management of federal lands for the past 45 years, the volume of grasses, shrubs, and smaller timber classes, of which we have no measure, have probably grown even more rapidly.
- The CO2 fertilization effect has impacted all vegetation. As an example, the birch tree in my yard is growing 20% more rapidly today than it was in 1960.
Yes, the scientific maxim that “correlation does not prove causation” is true, but science has already proven that fuel load is one of the three requirements for fire.
Additionally, from a study in Fire Ecology (Springer Nature) on bottom-up controls on fire severity during extreme events: the authors note that although top-down effects (climate, fire weather) were important, they were not always the primary influence on wildfire behavior. Their models identified conditions under which bottom-up factors — topography and fuel load — were influential in regulating fire severity, with fuels acting as a central factor driving fire severity patterns. While severe wind speeds and fire weather increased severity, actual fire severity depended on the fuels available for burning. The study also provided empirical support for the efficacy of ecological forest management, particularly treatments combining mechanical thinning with prescribed burning, which proved most effective at mitigating fire spread and severity even under extreme fire progression conditions.
Goals
With the charts and graph above we have a foundational base upon which to commence creating a management plan. Without explicit goals, management becomes reactive, inconsistent, and vulnerable to political swings. The following framework outlines a practical, ecologically grounded approach to allocating federal forest lands into functional categories, each with its own management objectives and tools. Since current forest densities have increased considerably during the past century and are substantially greater than they were when managed by the Indigenous people, virtually all forest types will require thinning and harvesting to return fuel loads to fire-safe levels. Currently, the annual increase in fuel loads and density far exceeds our meager efforts during the past 45 years. We have a great deal of catching up to do, but there are solutions and steps that should at least be considered:
- We currently do not have the mill capacity necessary to meet our own forest products needs, nor do we have enough mills (buyers of logs) to create a competitive marketplace to make harvest operations economically viable at the scale needed. We must reconstruct a modest forest products industry in the United States. Ideally this would include a focus on engineered wood products. Buildings in excess of fourteen stories are now being constructed using engineered wood products with two monster benefits: long-term sequestration of carbon, and a carbon footprint that is one-fourth that of the concrete and steel approach we commonly use, since the production of both steel and concrete are very energy-intensive.
- To bring our fuel loads down to acceptable levels it will be necessary to remove a great deal of non-merchantable material. This material is biomass and can be burned to generate electricity. While not economically feasible in remote areas, there may be many locations in which a financial return is possible. It would be far better to get a return here and reduce the need to obtain electricity from other sources.
- The public needs to become fully educated in the entire process. This has been the biggest roadblock for the past 45 years.
A. For old growth reserves
Old-growth forests are ecologically valuable and culturally significant. They provide habitat for specialized species, store carbon, and represent a living connection to the continent’s ecological past. However, we must realize that it is simply one stage in the successional path of plant communities and does not generally have the greatest diversity, nor is this stage the most efficient at removing CO2 from the atmosphere, although it does store a very large amount of carbon. Judicious removal of the less vigorous trees in the stand and achieving better spacing would improve the overall health and reduce fire risk, and would sequester the carbon if the harvest were used for lumber production.
As discussed in the preceding section, old growth is now more threatened by high-severity wildfire than by any other factor. This approach was mentioned in a 2007 paper: “A purely preservationist strategy of excluding human influences altogether appears to be an untenable strategy for old-growth protection in frequent fire forests. The conservation and restoration of frequent-fire old-growth forests may depend on fostering a relationship between humans and forests that avoids the pitfalls of both utilitarianism and preservation.”
I find it interesting that we venerate old-growth forests far more than it appears the Indigenous People did. They tended to focus on maintaining the mid-successional stages upon which they were dependent for sustenance and material needs, very few of which were obtained from old-growth forests. Is there not a strange dichotomy in considering the aversion that most of us have to residing in nursing homes, assisted living, or long-term care facilities — which would be the human equivalent of an old-growth forest in nature for a tree?
Management objectives:
- Protect existing old growth from catastrophic fire
- Maintain or restore historical stand structure
- Reduce ladder fuels and surface fuels
- Promote fire-resistant species
Management tools:
- Mechanical thinning of small-diameter trees and less vigorous larger individuals
- Establish spacing of trees suitable to the site class
- Removal of diseased or insect-infested trees
- Prescribed fire (after thinning)
- Strategic fuel breaks around old-growth stands
Protecting old growth requires active management, not passive preservation. Without intervention, many old-growth stands will be lost within the next few decades.
B. For mature forests with old-growth potential
These are forests that, if properly managed, could become the old growth of the future. They are often the focus of litigation because they contain large trees or late-successional characteristics. However, without thinning and fuel reduction, these stands are at high risk of being destroyed before they ever reach old-growth status.
Management objectives:
- Reduce stand density to historical levels
- Promote large-diameter, fire-resistant trees
- Restore frequent, low-severity fire regimes
- Create structural diversity
Management tools:
- Commercial thinning
- Non-commercial thinning
- Prescribed fire
- Managed wildfire where safe
We cannot grow old growth in a high-severity fire regime. Fuel reduction is essential if these forests are to survive long enough to mature.
C. For fire-adapted forests and frequent-fire landscapes
Large portions of the western United States — including ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and oak woodlands — evolved with frequent fire. These landscapes historically burned every 5–25 years, often due to Indigenous ignitions. Restoring this fire frequency is essential to reducing fuel loads and preventing catastrophic fires.
Management objectives:
- Restore historical fire return intervals
- Reduce fuel continuity across the landscape
- Increase resilience to drought and insects with basal areas proportionate to the site class
- Maintain open, park-like structure
Management tools:
- Mechanical thinning
- Prescribed fire
- Managed wildfire
- Biomass utilization
Fire must return to these landscapes — but only after fuel loads are reduced to safe levels.
D. For timber production zones
The United States will continue to need wood products, and relying heavily on imports is neither economically nor environmentally sustainable. The Canadian forest products industry is currently in decline. The Canadians have been high-grading their lands while we ceased virtually all harvesting on our federal lands. In the very near future we will need to ramp up our harvesting and wood products production to fulfill our own needs. The Canadian mills have been nearby and provided relatively inexpensive wood products, providing 70% of our requirements for the past 45 years. There are no other suppliers convenient to our shores, and importing from abroad will be much more expensive. We must become more self-sufficient.
Well-managed timber production zones can provide a steady supply of wood while maintaining ecological health and improving our economic well-being.
Management objectives:
- Produce sustainable timber yields
- Maintain soil and watershed health
- Reduce fire risk through active management
- Support rural economies and forest products infrastructure
Management tools:
- Even-aged and uneven-aged silviculture, preferably selective harvesting
- Regeneration harvests where appropriate
- Thinning
- Reforestation with climate-adapted species
Active timber management reduces fuel loads, supports local economies, and provides the raw materials needed for housing and industry.
E. For wildlife emphasis areas
Some forest lands should be managed primarily for wildlife habitat, especially for species that depend on early successional or mixed-age conditions. Ironically, many wildlife species decline when forests are left unmanaged and become overly dense.
Management objectives:
- Maintain habitat diversity
- Create a mosaic of age classes
- Support species dependent on open or early successional habitat
- Reduce risk of habitat loss due to high-severity fire
Management tools:
- Thinning
- Prescribed fire
- Regeneration harvests where ecologically appropriate
- Meadow and riparian restoration
Wildlife habitat is dynamic, not static. Active management is often required to maintain it.
F. For community protection zones
Forests adjacent to communities require special attention. High fuel loads near homes and infrastructure create unacceptable risks, as recent fires in California, Oregon, and Washington have demonstrated.
Management objectives:
- Reduce wildfire risk to communities
- Enact and enforce fire-wise building and landscaping codes
- Create defensible space at landscape scale
- Protect evacuation routes and critical infrastructure
Management tools:
- Aggressive thinning
- Fuel breaks
- Prescribed fire
- Removal of hazard trees
Protecting communities is non-negotiable. Fuel reduction in these zones must be prioritized.
G. A national strategy requires clear targets
One of the most significant problems in current forest governance is the absence of explicit targets for old growth, mature forests, and other forest conditions. Without targets, every management proposal becomes a political battle.
A national strategy should include:
- Target percentages for old growth, mature forests, and early successional habitat
- Fire return interval goals for fire-adapted landscapes
- Annual acreage targets for thinning and prescribed fire
- Reestablishment of a modest forest products industry
This approach mirrors successful forest management systems in countries such as Finland and Sweden, where clear goals and active management have produced resilient forests and stable wood supplies.
H. The cost of inaction
If the United States continues on its current path of litigation, paralysis, and fuel accumulation, the consequences will be severe:
- Loss of old growth
- Loss of wildlife habitat
- Increased carbon emissions from catastrophic fire
- Declining water quality
- Destruction of rural communities
- Further collapse of the forest products industry
- Irreversible ecological change
The choice is not between “management” and “preservation.” The choice is between active management and catastrophic loss.
Section 11
Conclusion: Restoring Balance Through Active Stewardship
The forests of the United States are at a crossroads. For more than a century, our management policies have been shaped by misconceptions about what these landscapes once were and how they functioned. The prevailing image of a “pristine,” untouched wilderness — dense, ancient, and self-regulating — has never aligned with ecological reality. As the evidence presented throughout this paper demonstrates, the forests encountered by early European explorers were not the product of natural processes alone. They were the result of thousands of years of intentional, skillful, and continuous management by Indigenous peoples.
These original stewards used fire as their primary tool to shape the environment, maintain open and resilient forests, promote wildlife abundance, and support hundreds of plant species essential to their survival. Their burning practices were frequent, widespread, and ecologically sophisticated. They prevented fuel accumulation, limited insect and disease outbreaks, and created the park-like landscapes repeatedly described in early journals. The forests of 1600–1850 were not wild in the modern sense — they were cultural landscapes, maintained through knowledge passed down across countless generations.
The collapse of Indigenous populations due to disease and displacement abruptly ended this stewardship. Within decades, prairies filled with trees, understories thickened, and forests grew denser than at any time in the previous 10,000 years. The subsequent federal policy of total fire suppression accelerated this shift, creating the unprecedented fuel loads, species imbalances, and ecological vulnerabilities we see today. The catastrophic fires of recent decades are not a return to historical norms — they are a direct consequence of removing fire from fire-dependent ecosystems.
At the same time, the United States has seen a steady increase in forested acreage and timber volume over the past century. Contrary to popular belief, we are not running out of forests. We are, however, running out of healthy forests. The combination of overstocked stands, accumulated fuels, drought stress, and insect outbreaks has created conditions in which high-severity fire is now the dominant disturbance agent across much of the West. These fires are destroying old growth, degrading watersheds, threatening communities, and releasing massive amounts of carbon — outcomes that would have been unthinkable under historical fire regimes.
The path forward is clear. We must adopt a management strategy that reflects the ecological realities of our forests, the historical role of Indigenous stewardship, and the modern risks posed by climate and fuel accumulation. This strategy must include:
- Active fuel reduction through thinning and prescribed fire
- Protection of old growth through strategic management, not passive preservation
- Restoration of frequent, low-severity fire in fire-adapted landscapes
- Support for a sustainable, competitive forest products industry with a focus on new engineered wood products technology
- Clear national targets for forest structure, age classes, and fire return intervals
- A diversified allocation of forest lands that balances ecological, economic, and cultural values
The choice before us is not between management and preservation. It is between active stewardship and catastrophic loss. If we fail to act, we will continue to see the destruction of old growth, the decline of wildlife habitat, the collapse of rural economies, and the loss of forests that once defined the American landscape.
“Although the management situation for western North American forests is daunting, our review of the scientific literature offers clear guidance. In seasonally dry western North American forests that were historically dominated by fire-resistant species, restoring open, fire-tolerant canopy structure and composition, favoring larger tree sizes, and reducing surface fuels can effectively mitigate subsequent wildfire and stabilize carbon stocks. In many instances, these adaptation actions, with ongoing maintenance, will also enable future wildfire events to continually reinforce resilient structure, composition and fuels.”“Adapting Western North American Forests to Climate Change and Wildfires: 10 Common Questions,” Ecological Applications, 31(8), 2021, e02433
But if we embrace a science-based, historically informed approach — one that honors the knowledge of the continent’s first land managers and applies modern tools with precision and care — we can restore resilience to our forests. We can reduce wildfire severity, protect communities, support biodiversity, and ensure that future generations inherit forests that are healthy, diverse, and capable of withstanding the challenges ahead.
The forests of the United States have always been shaped by human hands.
The question now is whether we will shape them wisely.
About the Author
Don Healy graduated from Oregon State University with a B.S. degree in Forest Management in 1968. His efforts towards a master’s degree were curtailed by the Vietnam War, and he spent three years in the U.S. Army serving in military intelligence. In 1971 he returned to the field of forestry, working as an Acquisition’s Forester for the Boise Cascade Corporation in La Grande, Oregon.
With legal actions impeding the company’s purchase of timber from federal lands, the company wanted to create a program to assist private timberland owners in their management of forested property. The project became Don’s responsibility. The result was the Private Landowner’s Forest Management Assistance Program. A detailed management plan with maps, inventory, values, survey, and prescriptions was provided to the landowner in exchange for a first right of refusal. The program was very well received, and Boise Cascade soon added two additional foresters to handle the workload.
However, the total cessation of harvesting timber from federal land that resulted by the end of the 1970s was not anticipated, and since between 80% and 90% of the raw materials for Boise Cascade’s mills in the region came from federal lands, most of our mills shut down or were severely curtailed and a large percentage of our nation’s forest products industry was eliminated, including our own jobs.
While our program was short lived, our team members felt very pleased about the results of the harvest operations we did complete. Following our commercial thinning operations, we left properly spaced stands of trees free of mistletoe, pine beetle, or other insect and disease problems — more resistant to fire and poised to grow well and be ready for another thinning on a regular basis thereafter, while providing the landowner with a reasonable financial return.
It should be pointed out that in Northeast Oregon, which is comprised of mixed species and mixed age forests, selective harvesting techniques were utilized exclusively. The author feels that this method could and should be utilized to reduce fuel loads on much of our nation’s forested area.
You can take the forester out of the forest, but you cannot take the forest out of the forester. While the author was forced to go into another profession, he is still greatly concerned about the inability of both the federal government, and the government of Washington State, to properly apply sound forest management principles.