House Committee on Agriculture
Agriculture/Resources Committees Joint Hearing
Forest Health Panel Science Report
April 9, 1997
Opening Statement
For more than a decade there have been growing public concerns
about the health of America's forests and its associated values.
There are in excess of 200 laws that govern the management and
protect the resources of our National Forests, and yet these policies
are failing to achieve their intended results and public expectations.
Whether it is healthy populations of wildlife and fish, or commodity
production, the current laws and regulations are not meeting the
desired goals.
In the history of this country, our uses, as well as the values,
goods and services we want from forests have changed. As Europeans
first began colonizing America, eastern forests were cut to clear
land for crops and livestock. Timber harvest increased dramatically
in the 1950s to fulfill the post-World War II building boom. In
recent years, public values have shifted toward non-commodity
values such as species diversity.
All of these factors, and more, influenced the way our forests
developed and the condition they are in today.
In the early 1980s, eastern Oregon and other western forests first
began experiencing some of the same health, or rather sickness,
problems we face today. Overcrowded forests, weakened by drought
were left vulnerable to attacks by insects and disease. Tragically,
much of this wood was not removed and has created a fire hazard
of disastrous proportions.
Last year wildfires claimed 600,000 acres in Oregon, of which
95 percent burned on federal and other non-private land. Resources
were damaged, habitat was destroyed, air and water quality were
impaired and homes were lost. Hundreds of thousands of acres more
remain exposed to a similar, or worse, catastrophe.
Americans expect a wide range of values from forests: robust,
productive forests, clean air and water, viable wildlife and fisheries
habitat, recreational opportunities, beauty, solitude, and wood
products. Healthy forest ecosystems are important for ecological,
social, and economic reasons.
Achieving all of these values from forests is no small feat. We
want it all, and all of us have had difficulty compromising
at one point or another. Each time we favor one value over another,
it affects a piece of this very complex puzzle. One component
suffers at the expense of another.
This hearing is a scientific status report on the health of America's
forest ecosystems. As policy makers representing various regions
of the country, we are often inclined to focus on regional forest
health issues without regard to the impacts of local policies
on the nation as a whole. In order to achieve the largest number
of values across America's forests, it is crucial that we look
at the whole, rather than the parts.
It is critical that citizens and decision makers are informed
about how America's forests as a whole are doing, the impact of
current forest practices and policies on forest conditions throughout
the country, and how those forest conditions are meeting the public's
demands for goods and services nationwide.
I would like to emphasize the phrase, "scientifically-based
public policies." This report represents the best science
available on forest health, and yet, there is no perfect science.
We welcome an open, thoughtful, constructive discussion on this
scientific report in the months ahead.
Governor John Kitzhaber of Oregon and I, in cooperation with Forest
Service Chief Mike Dombeck, have begun a process to restore the
forests of southern, central and eastern Oregon through actively
managing forest ecosystems.
The Chief will be briefed on the report later this week, and we
will be sending a copy to Governor Kitzhaber as well. Today's
report will add significantly to the sound scientific work that
has already been done in Oregon and build a stronger basis for
the need to act quickly and decisively.
I would like to thank the scientists for the tremendous amount
of work they have done in compiling this report. There were 13
drafts of this report prior to the publication of the final document.
There is no question that this document will invite intensive
scrutiny, and that the scientists will be called upon to engage
those with differences of opinion.
Quoting from the report, "This panel feels the results are
quite robust; however, as with any analysis, the panel welcomes
refinements or critiques done with similar care, expertise, study,
analysis, and conscientiousness."
Amen to that.