Public Inputs on Preliminary Question SOCIO-1302

assessment of sustainability of our forests

Southern Forest Resource Assessment

Below is the original wording of one of the preliminary questions and public suggestions or concerns submitted about it--for details see our Public Input or Methods pages

"What is the demographic profile and attitudes of Southern citizens toward forests and their management and how have they changed?"

With additional restrictions being placed on forestry, there is a need for landowners to be able to manage their lands intensively, using more silvicultural treatments. It would be good to assess what is thought of the more intensive management, including shorter rotations. The public should have an explanation on how this can allow us to reach our wood needs while still preserving some places.
Most people from the city do not know that NF are logged and they do not support it. Many rural residents see NF as a way for them to make money and they do not care, long-term, if ecological degradation occurs as long as, short-term, they can make money from the forest. There is very little foresight and almost no long-term thinking. FS does not plan for continuing urbanization of the forest and the change from timber orientation to a recreation and wildlife protection orientation.
We would like to see a slow down of the cutting of trees and an incentive to encourage diversity in tree planting. It would be great to have some diverse and natural forests to hike through. There are innovative ways of growing and cutting timber. Those methods should be studied and taught to the people growing and cutting trees here.
I'm writing to put in my voice toward the preservation of diversity in the southern pine forests, and to urge the care of those few wild forests we have left on the public lands in the South, and to urge aggressive restoration of the old pine forests.
Thank you for realizing that Southerners are not going to sit back and watch every bit of our forests get cut from around us. Logging is a necessary thing, but in order to end our gross neglect of ecology and limit wholesale destruction o wild habitats, we should take action as soon as possible to prevent our greediness from getting out of hand.
People from throughout society want resources in the public domain--entire national forests, the water that comes from both public and private forests, and the biodiversity that is the legacy one generation passes to another-- to be managed according to principles of stewardship.
The American public has clearly and repeatedly expressed their opinion that they place a nearly infinite value on avoiding one type of irreversible outcome, the extinction of species.
What do people from the farmlands, urban settings, and cities think a forest is or should be? How would they pay for attaining this, their personal desire?
Whatever plan you come up with, it must focus on not just protecting the remaining species and diversity, but work to restoring the diversity. I believe that would call for less logging, fewer logging roads, larger roadless areas, and more sustainable harvesting. If that means a reduction in tree harvests, that is an acceptable price to pay.
I believe that large contiguous landscapes of actively managed forests provide the best opportunity to avoid fragmentation of the forest caused by development, land use change, and increasing human population. Forestlands must continue to return income to their owners and provide an economic incentive for keeping those lands intact in forestry.
What are the demographic profile and attitudes of southern citizens towards forest management and ecological sustainability, how have they changed, and how might they change?
In certain regions effected by urban sprawl the every ones who are moving into these areas, consuming the forested land for the space and the materials to erect their homes, are the same ones concerned about the loss of the forested land. These are conflicting attitudes and their concerns about sustainability should be discounted since they are the source of the problem as they see it. My point being you can't have it both ways.
I believe the practice of Forestry when left in the hands of those who own the land and have a vested interest n it will continue to be of great benefit to not only the economy of the South but the environment as well.
We recognize that there will be short term losses to harvest and conversion, but it is conceivable that, over the long term, a no net permanent loss of southern forests and their functional values could be achieved, or at lease realistically envisioned.
National Forests in the South, should be managed with an emphasis on maintaining those values that we can't rely on the private sector to maintain-old growth ecosystems and endangered species habitat. We are not advocating no logging on National Forests.
What is the demographic profile and attitudes of southern citizens toward forests and their management and if they have changed why?
Small landowners are usually interested in wildlife. But there is no information available about managing stands for mast production or understory components that are high quality wildlife food. They are often chided into clearcutting by state and private foresters.
The public as definitely shifted and does not want single purpose commercial tree forms on the public land.
Southern forests cannot sustain impacts of 1.2 million acres of clearcuts a year to feed the mechanized chip mills that only give jobs to an average of six people. Hundreds more jobs have in the past, and can in the future be filled by more sustainable jobs such as: reforestation, tourism (hiking, fishing, outdoor education, etc.), and furniture making.
Public opinion polls as well as Park Service Forest Service, and state visitor surveys might be used to quantify attitudes of the public and respective groups, toward commercial logging.
As residents in communities where chip mills are located, we feel that our concerns are valid and that many of these issues violate citizens' sense of safety, integrity, and tranquility. Some of these issues include: excessive truck traffic, overloaded logging trucks which place residents' lives in jeopardy, deterioration of roads and bridges at taxpayers' expense, local tourism that communities depend on to support their local economic and aesthetic base, compromised recreational areas as chip mills promote cutting of forestlands, excessive noise, compromised air quality, water degradation, decreased stocks of fish and other wildlife, reduced property values, a general disruption of people's sense of community and quality of life.
With regards to the expansion of the logging industry in the southeastern U.S.: We need to realize that within the amount of time it takes the SE to be logged to it's limit it will not give enough time for the western U.S. forest to reach a point where logging will be profitable. There are other ways to obtain the resources produced by trees then by actually using trees. Before we continue to add to something that once it reaches a certain point it will be irreversible.
Since National Forests belong to all US citizens wherever they may live, why should local economic demands dictate any decisions concerning the best management of the forest?
Tallaluah Gorge has transformed from the hidden grand canyon of Georgia to a potential Mecca for whitewater paddlers, bringing new-found prosper to the area. I love it both the way it was and the way it is now.
Impacts of harvesting and management practice on aesthetics, tourism, and local economies.
It is very dismaying to me to see the clear-cutters and chip mills preying on my home area, the beautiful Southeast. I am not fooled by narrow strips left at the edges to hide the devastation. The "beauty strips" will not protect our topsoil and water and simply illustrate that the companies doing this don't want the population of the Southeast to see what they are really doing.
We live in Hickman County, Tennessee and are seeing daily the destruction of our land and trees as loggers from out of state and in state are clear-cutting our trees. They leave just enough to hide their actions from the road, but when fall and winter approach, we can see their destruction. We are not against logging, but believe that selective logging is the best.
We feel good stewardship of what little forests we have left in the south doesn't mean the end of the timber industry. That's why your studies are so important and need to be as unbiased as possible and solutions be as creative and innovative as possible.
These chipmills are extremely detrimental to the communities in which they are located.
With regards to the expansion of the logging industry in the south eastern U.S.: We need to realize that within the amount of time it takes the SE to be logged to it's limit it will not give enough time for the western U.S. forest to reach a point where logging will be profitable. There are other ways to obtain the resources produced by trees then by actually using trees. Before we continue to add to something that once it reaches a certian point it will be irreversable. I know that is hard for someone who is sitting in an office in D.C., but it is ignorant to assume that what your views will ultimately decide is what is best for the country as a whole. We, as a country, should work to live side-by-side with nature instead of dominating it. When it is all said and done nature will inevitably get the upper hand and we will be sorry for the mistakes you made.
I understand there's an important meeting today and wish to convey to that meeting my feelings that the interests of the general public are not adequately considered in the administration of the National Forests. It seems that the forests are maintained for the profit of privately owned lumber interests and the employees of the forests are trained and focused on the production of lumber primarily.
Written policy does not appear to be reflected in practice. Conservation is subservient to industrial dollars. The primary goal of governmental forestry managers is to "get the cut"--conservation and wildlife be damned.
As citizen of a southern state, I have grown up with many wonderful experiences of enjoying the peacefulness and beauty of the forests. I know from travel to other parts of the country, that the Appalachian landscape is known and remembered as the best part of the region. I believe that wilderness areas are an essential part of human existance, not only for our region. I think that forrests are valuable their natural states and efforts should be supported to increase natural areas. Keeping forrests healthy is beneficial to our local economies, as well as our air and water qualities. As a taxpayer and active contributer to my community, I am expressing my entusiastic support of all efforts to protect forests and their wildlife ecosystems.
Would payment in lieu of taxes create a more stable local economic impact and promote better forest management on public lands? What is the value of intact forests? What s the value of "bits and pieces" forest? Is recreation and tourism effected by increased clear-cutting? Is the trade-off worth it? What management plans are successful...voluntary, regulated, combinations of the two plans? Has any level of government reglation increased or stabalized the economies of forestry? What is the projeted and present impact of over harvesting now occuring in the South? How does the shift to value-lessoned industry effect the forest now and in the future
The Bryan proposal was overruled today, that would have saved taxpayers money which goes toward tearing up fish and wildlife habitats, as drinking water, solitude, etc. These areas that I want to protect, I have to pay for by working because the government thinks "forest" means timber and pork? Wrong.
Since National Forests belong to all US citizens wherever they may live, why should local economic demands dictate any decisions concerning the best management of the forest?
Impact of tourism on timber availability.
Water degradation due to clearcutting and how degradation affects local tourism and aesthetics.
Effects of clearcutting on water quality and impacts on local tourism.
Examine role of public forests in light of more public.
General concern about ability to gauge changing attitudes.
Distinguish between geography, regions and urban vs. rural.
Track attitudes related to different ownerships (e.g. public, private…)
Look at length of residency as determining factor.
Recognizing three constitute groups: general public, landowners, and visitors.
Address formative factors behind attitudes.
Look at role of short-term residents in forming pubic opinions, (e.g. college, military). Why have these changes occurred?
Influx of non-southerners on forest use attitudes.
Distinguish between attitudes re: public and private forest.
How are attitudes influenced by urban vs. rural perspective?
Public view of forestry profession esp. foresters (professional vs. other)
What baseline studies can be used to document attitudinal change?
Generational differences in attitudes and values.
General review of attitudes toward environmental protection and private property rights.
Address conflicting demands for uses.
Clarify interests that the public has in forest management (land use).
Address how improved knowledge of management has influenced attitudes.
Influx of non-Southerners, lack of exposure to forestry (attitudes). “Flushing” into southern America.
Distinguish between public and private forestlands (attitudes toward) in this question.
What is the general public’s view of forestry, foresters - school-graduated foresters?
Generational differences (age groups), where especially young people are getting attitudes.
Useful to review surveys of attitudes toward environmental protection. And, to be fair, towards private property rights as well.
How does urbanization of South affect attitudes?
Link attitudes re: forest management to attitudes re: the products of the forest and consumption patterns.
Citizens believe forests have a greater intrinsic value
Citizens are less willing to live under environmentally stressful conditions, such as air pollution, which may affect forest health.
How have attitudes re: forest recreation and tourism changed?
Consider attitudes toward reduced resource consumption, alternatives to forest products, and willingness to pay.
Contrast attitudes of rural and urban citizens.
Contrast forest landowners with non-forest landowner’s attitudes re: private property rights.
Examine public’s willingness to compensate for loss of property rights (value).
Compare attitudes of natives vs. transplants.
Encourage a broad, scientific sampling of rural residents; include level of interest and concern by general population.
Landowners now look at more environmental or aesthetic character of land than economics.
What is the trend & attitude of people who reside in “chip mill” communities?
Assessment needs to solicit comments from all strata of population. How do we preserve agriculture and forestry?
Define attitudes in a measurable way.
Significantly less appreciation for less economic value and somewhat greater appreciation for forest ecological values is a trend to be examined.
Look at concern of city dwellers - attitude toward timber management and results of legislation and regulation.
Review last part of Question 2 - it is superfluous. Change to, if attitudes have changed, why?
It seems there’s a lack of appreciation for rural producers, products. Look at city dweller attitudes.
Protect the culture and people who reside in rural areas.
Consider economic and personal interests.
Recognize intergenerational change and consequent change in attitudes.
What motivates a landowner to convert forestland?
I don’t know how you’re going to measure attitudes of people. How do you document?
There’s a wide diversity of information between rural and urban folks. How can you address/ document/measure it?
What’s going to happen with results of the information when you compile it? It needs to be filtered through free enterprise. Private property rights - the foundation of our country.

Question as revised in response to these comments
Previous Question | Next Question
Public Input Home | Methods | Assessment Home

modified: 1-MAR-2000
webmaster: John M. Pye