Dear Editor,

Jack Spaulding’s recent article, “Environmentalists, start your chainsaws” dated March 5, 2008 makes a singular good point. As a private consulting forester, I have long considered myself an environmentalist, despite having turned many trees into saw timber and veneer.

As one of these unlauded environmentalists, however, I must challenge his notions concerning the management of state forests. One such notion is that state forests have been managed by popular opinion. On the contrary, state forests have long been managed using multiple-use, an approach that incorporates recreation facilities, backcountry areas, hiking and horse trails, long-rotation old forest, and nature preserves. Carefully planned timber harvests complimented these other forest uses.

This changed abruptly with the introduction of the 2005 DNR Forest Plan. The Division of Forestry was told by the new administration to pay for itself, or face massive budget cuts. The foremost solution to balance Forestry’s budget was to cut more trees, from 2 –3 million board feet to as much as 17 million board feet per year.
This of course causes problems. Indiana state forests are employed by the citizens of Indiana. A change in management from multiple-use towards maximum sustained yield predictably causes conflicts with the public. Citizens brought up the Indiana Environmental Policy Act (IEPA) as an avenue for public input into state forest management.

This law mandates all Hoosiers, not just resource professionals, have a say in management of their state forests. Ex post facto legislation was drafted by DNR management to remove themselves from IEPA oversight, an action currently being challenged in court.
There are other issues. Evidence suggests that inventory data, used to determine harvest levels, has been inflated to allow larger harvests. In one state forest, the property manager estimated that inventory data was overstated by 18 percent.

State timber sales, because of their large size, may have the effect of reducing bids and generating lower prices than private sales.
State sales in 2007 averaged $ 0.26 per board foot, far less than the $ 0.36 median received for average-quality private sales in 2006.

An issue of interest to private landowners is the effect of dumping large amounts of timber on the market. Dr. Hoover of Purdue University notes the increase of state sales may depress timber values by as much as 4 percent. This money comes out of the pockets of Indiana landowners competing against massive state timber sales.

And what about opening up the forest canopy 10-15 percent, mentioned in Mr. Spaulding’s article? Indiana remains a mere 20 percent forest, down from the original 85 percent. I would say that the forest has been opened up spectacularly on private lands. Let’s manage public lands in a more environmentally and socially responsible manner.

Steve Krecik,
Consulting Forester
Freetown, Ind.