This came in from Dan Binkley at Colorado State University as a response to Dave, but I think it deserves its own post.
I thought I’d mention an idea that Megan Matonis and I are trying to develop and advocate: undesirable conditions as a guide to forest stewardship. We’ll be presenting a webinar on Friday this week that might be of interest (and we hope you might join in) — here’s the announcement:
The Southern Rockies Fire Science Network (SRFSN) with presenters Dan Binkley (Professor of Forest Ecology at Colorado State University) and Megan Matonis (PhD student at CSU, and Intern with the Rocky Mountain Research Station) are pleased to present:
SRFSN Webinar: The Undesirable Guide to Forest Restoration
Forest management has a long legacy of successfully (and unsuccessfully) designing forests for well-defined purposes. “Command and Control” approaches work well for tree farms with the singular goal of wood production, but the nature of complex forests is not well suited to this type of forecasting and engineering. “Desired Conditions” is closely related to Command and Control, and probably not very suitable for restoration of complex forests for uncertain futures. Perhaps the most fruitful approach is to identify Undesirable Conditions, and then work collaboratively to move away from the risk of the most egregious futures, and accepting a wide variety of future forests that will develop ecologically on our landscapes.
When: Friday, May 11 from 10:00-11:00 mountain time.
Who: Fire and vegetation practitioners, conservation planners, landscape planners, GIS professionals.
How: Register at: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/352070905
You will then receive a confirmation email from “Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center” with information about joining the webinar.
SAF credit: The SRFSN will apply for SAF credit for continuing education by submitting the names of participants.
When I am out of the blogging loop for awhile, and read a load of stories, there seem to be strange juxtapositions. Here are two stories, one about “not enough” use; the other about “too much” use. The common denominator seems to be “not enough money.”
I think we should be able to do better. I would call it a “third-world” approach to recreation- except that that would be a disservice to the third world.
Here’s the “not enough use” story: Forest Service to cut some services at old camp areas, here.
And one on the Conundrum Hot Springs area, currently big in the press for the dead cows, here, “Forest Service: Conundrum faces bigger woes than cows: Popularity of hot springs is affecting the beautiful valley.”