Talk:Sustainable forestry

What is "Single Tree Management"? I've never heard of it. Lotusduck 16:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This page has a heavy north-American bias. Fire IS fundamental to sustainability in some north American forests, but not to rainforests (and other forests) elsewhere in the world. There's some very good material contributed here, but I'd prefer to see it in an entry on "Fire and sustainable forest management in temperate zones" (sorry, big mouthfull), and leave this topic a bit lighter, at a more generic level. 203.2.32.27 03:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The contribution on fire suppression is very North American centric, I agree. However, the statement that fire is a fundamental disturbance in boreal, temperate, sub-alpine and chaparal forest ecosystems is true and applies as much to those ecosystems in North America as it does to those ecosystems in Russia, China, Northern Europe, Australia, New Zealand, South America and some Mediterainean countries. The principle reason for the apparent North American bias is two-fold. Firstly, and most simply, that is where most of my knowledge base lies. Secondly, with the exception of Australia, North America is where most of the large fire research occurs and where much of the controversy over the impacts of fire suppression has emerged in recent years. European countries tend not to study large wildfires simply because they don't happen very often in their highly managed forest landscapes. Russia and China have tended not to study the impacts of large fires too much, probably because the lack the funds to do so, even though both countries often have extremely large forest fires. Still, that said, your suggestion for a seperate entry on fire and SFM in boreal and temperate zones, or something along that line, is a good one, in order to keep this article more generic.

Forestry articles
This article and {wood management]] suggest that traditional forestry ignores all factor with the exception of wood production. However one of the main arguments for management of the forest (in the United States) in the first place was protection of water resources. If a forest is managed simply for maximum wood production it is because that is what the owner wants. (in the situation of a forest owned by the public, politics play a complicating role) The role of forest management for protection of wildlife and water resources has been long known. It may have been first called multiple-use by Gifford Pinchot and others, but the concept itself is very old. Even before principles of forestry and ecology were explicitly understood it was called "the balance of nature" More recently: "Except in limited areas where production of game animals and birds is the primary objective of forest management, wildlife is usually produced in accordance with the concept of multiple use, the concept of multiple use, whereby the forest is made to yield water, wood, wildlife, recreational benefits and other products and services." This is from the Society of American Forester's Forestry Handbook",in 1955, fifty years ago. I suggest, perhaps merging this with wood management and boreal forest. The boreal forest article is short on information concerning the role of fire in that forest. KAM 12:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Old Growth Section
First, sustainable forestry is not an experiment, it is a science. Okay, after that, is there anything in that section that is actually true for anyone else in some other part of the world? I don't want to be to California-centric. This section doesn't seem to belong at all. Beyond that, it is just wrong for conifer forests. Wow the forestry articles need a lot of help. SierraSkier 04:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Natural Regeneration
I agree, sustainable forestry may not include natural regeneration. I have several stands that are pure white fir in areas that historically sustained fire resistant Jeffrey pine, sugar pine and incense cedar. If I am going to get back to a historic composition it is going to require planting seedlings.SierraSkier 06:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

How does sustainable forestry differ from sustainable forestry management?SierraSkier 06:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good question. But people seem to think that it is an important difference.  When you find the difference, you might compare it to Sustained Yield to see which of the three are closer to the others.  -Gomm 16:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

harvest methods content not in forestry section?
Why is there Harvest Methods content on this page that is not in the Forestry page? Isn't this basic forestry? Does it have any particular link to sustainable forestry instead? -Gomm 05:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Sustainable Forest Management
An argument has been made on the talk page of Sustainable forest management to replace this article with a redirect to Sustainable forest management Some suggestions have also been made to clean up sustainable forestry as follows:


 * much of the content on Sustainable forestry is either covered already or could be added to existing articles. I agree with SierraSkier's suggestion to move the text on harvest methods to silviculture.  In addition to this, I think that the text on fire suppression is already captured under Success of fire suppression in northern forests; the text under "highgrading" could also be added to silviculture, since it is essentially a silvicultural technique; the text on fragmentation is already captured under Habitat fragmentation; Under "Specific Cases", the text on "Old Growth Forests" is already captured under Old growth forest, and the text under "boreal forest" is probably better situated in the article on Taiga, which currently has scant discussion about resource extraction.

Does anyone else agree with these suggestions? Sbridge 19:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree for the most part, many parts of this article either are already or belong elsewhere. Perhaps dump everything in this article, and the other strays into forest management and work on it from there. I think it makes sense to have forest management be the main article. The only article that can stand alone is the one at SFM as it is about the FAO (I think you may have pointed this out elsewhere.)KAM 23:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think having a forest management article could work, although I think it should strive to be brief and generic (e.g. it is the manipulation of forest ecosystems to achieve certain societal goals). Form there, the article could briefly mention that there are several different forms of forest management with widely different goals.  Sustainable Forest Management could then be one type of forest management (i.e. management of forests according to the principles of sustainable development).  Other types of forest management might be sustained yield management (i.e. management to maintain a constant supply of fiber over time) and multiple-use management.  Note that not all forms of forest management involve harvesting.  Parks and protected areas routinely manage their forest areas to maintain wildlife populations, aesthetic values, water quality, wildfire regimes, etc, but this is still forest management. Sbridge 13:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, Forest Management is a broad term and might best be a short "gateway" article. Your point that forest management does not have to include a harvest is a good one. What is being called eco-forestry etc all fit under the term "Forest Management.  On a related note I think that perhaps the  Sustainable forest management article should be renamed "FAO forest principles" or the like  as that is what it is about. KAM 15:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would have to disagree with renaming the article of sustainable forest management to something like "FAO forest principles". SFM is a concept in its own right, a type of forest management that has evolved largely since the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 through discussions and actions by and among the international academic and forest policy community.  It's a term that is widely used and a concept that is widely recognized. Therefore, I think deserves its own article in Wikipedia.  The FAO, while both an active participant in the discussions through its secretariat and a forum for discussions among countries, is certainly not leading the development of this concept and cannot claim ownership of it.  Instead, I would argue that leadership is being exhibited by a few key countries, organizations and scientists who then influence the FAO and others to follow suite (The FAO, like other UN organizations, rarely moves forward on new initiatives it has thought up, but prefers to act on initiatives that have been proposed by and are widely accepted by the international community).  Calling the article on SFM "forest principles" may also be confusing with the Forest Principles adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1995.  While those forest principles laid the groundwork for what is today know as SFM, the term SFM did not really exist in 1992 and the concept has evolved immensely since then.Sbridge 19:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see your point and I agree. KAM 00:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal essay tag
I've tagged this as a personal essay. That seems an apt way to describe the broader problems.


 * There's much language here which is "preaching to the converted" or Politically Correct. This language needs to be rephrased, not only because it's contrary to Wiki style guidelines, but because it doesn't explain sustainable forestry in terms which will impress readers. Examples are "humans have come to expect", "human use is ultimately subordinate", "Any harvest method can be biologically appropriate", "these papers simply suggest", or "direct empirical evidence".  There are quite a few others. Wiki is an encyclopedia, and articles suitable for a term paper for a forestry class are generally not suitable, here. Wiki is not a place to discuss personal opinions, whereas term papers may be.


 * Statements like "Numerous subsequent studies have presented the same information, often in a different format", are poor exposition. Firstly, it doesn't make a difference whether the studies were later or not. This is a stock phrase lifted from papers without consideration. Secondly, "presented the same information" is subjective and vacuous, especially since it's unclear exactly what "information" is being written about. That something is presented in a different format is obvious in one sense (any change in information is a change in format, in some way), and suspicious in another (what gives you the authority to determine that two different formats are somehow "the same"?)


 * There are many statements which are unqualified, uncited, and dubious. Other editors have only tagged a few of them. Editors of this article would be well advised to step back from the subject, and view it from the perspective of an outsider. What is stated as fact in this article may be extracted from current academic vocabulary, however that does not make it true, it simply makes it academically acceptable. Phrases such as "under modern forestry conditions" and "long discredited in some jurisdictions" need to disappear entirely.

67.180.48.127 (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The argument has already been made that this article should be replaced with a redirect to Sustainable forest management (see above). The discussion has been open for quite some time now and those who have contributed seem to agree.  I propose that we are now in a position to follow through on that suggestion. Sbridge (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)