PREFACE
The Symposium on the Ecology, Management, and
Utilization of California Oaks held in June 1979 at
Claremont, California, was the first to take a comprehensive
look at California's native oak resource. At that time,
interest in several species of California oaks was rapidly
growing with particular concern about their regeneration,
preservation, and wildlife relationships. Urbanization and
loss of oak woodlands was beginning to focus a new facet of
concern on hardwoods, and regulations to monitor their use
were established or seriously considered by a number of
county governments. Until that time, hardwood research was
extremely limited, mostly in a few specialized areas, and
probably more time and effort had been spent to control
hardwoods than to grow and manage them.
What has happened with hardwoods in the 7-1/2 years
after the first oak symposium? A comparison of the numbers
of papers and participants between the two meetings indicates
the interest that has developed in hardwoods during this time.
In 1979, about 200 people heard 52 reports. In 1986, there
were 73 technical reports plus 2 keynote addresses and 12
poster presentations and over 500 participants. In addition to
this large increase in symposium participation, a number of
other hardwood-related developments have occurred including
these:
trees in existing plots and used to calculate growth and cubic
volume by species. In addition, several hundred new plots
were established in hardwood forests that were formally
classified as "non-commercial."
5. Five new University of California Extension
positions were established at the end of 1986 with
responsibility for hardwood-range and related wildlife research
and educational input.
All in all, interest and concern about hardwoods has
increased dramatically in the last 7-1/2 years. Potential use
and value of the hardwood resource for all types of forest
products-energy to wildlife-will continue to grow as the
population increases, the resource diminishes, and new uses
for hardwoods develop.
The 1986 Symposium was hosted at Cal Poly, San Luis
Obispo, by the Natural Resources Management Department
and Forestry Club (Student Chapter of the Society of
American Foresters). Major sponsorship for the Symposium
was provided by the California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection; and the Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture; with additional support by the California State
Board of Forestry; Society of American Foresters; University of
California Cooperative Extension; Pacific Southwest
Region, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; and
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the
Interior.
The tenor for the Symposium was set by the two
keynote speakers, Zane G. Smith, Regional Forester, Forest
Service Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco; and
Harold R. Walt, Chairman of the California State Board of
Forestry, Sacramento. Walt's presentation specifically
identified the policy aspects of hardwood resources in
California, a facet not identified or obvious in 1979.
We are grateful to the Technical Chairpersons who
provided encouragement, admirably managed the eight
technical sessions, and who provided first-line review of the
Symposium manuscripts:
1. A workshop on "Hardwood Inventory and Utilization"
was held February 12-13, 1982, at California Polytechnic
State University, San Luis Obispo. The conference featured
18 invited speakers and a field trip to central coast hardwood
stands by 100 persons.
2. Two hardwood task forces were established by the
California State Board of Forestry to study the growing
concern about hardwood utilization, regeneration, and
regulation of hardwoods, and hardwood rangelands in
particular. In fact, the last of a series of public input
meetings on oak hardwood regulation was held in
conjunction with this Symposium.
3. Research on California hardwoods has increased
greatly. A recent survey by researchers at University of
California, Berkeley, indicates that there has been "an almost
logarithmic increase in research studies" since the 1979 Oak
Symposium. More than 85 research studies have been started
and the University of California and California Department
of Forestry and Fire Protection budgeted in excess of
$600,000 for 1986-87 for an "Integrated Hardwood Range
Management Program."
Ecology-Silviculture:
4. The Forest Inventory and Analysis Unit at the Forest
Service's Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Portland, Oregon, recently completed a statewide
hardwood inventory to obtain information necessary for
policy decisions. Increment was measured on thousands of
Protection and Damage Factors:
Urban Forestry-Recreation:
v
Susan Conard, Pacific
Southwest Forest and
Range Experiment
Station, Riverside.
James Griffin,
University of California,
Natural History Reserve,
Carmel Valley.
Robert Martin,
University of California,
Berkeley.
Bailey Hudson,
California Urban Forests
Council, Santa Maria.
Wildlife:
Wood Products-Utilization:
Range:
Inventory-Measurements:
Policy and Regulation:
J ared Verner, Pacific
Southwest Forest and
Range Experiment
Station, Fresno.
Pete Passof, University
of California, Ukiah.
We also thank the many individuals at Cal Poly who
made the Symposium go, especially Tim O'Keefe and other
members of the Natural Resources Management Department,
our many students, other University officials who provided
the various physical requirements for the Symposium, and
finally Julie Oxford (Conference Coordinator) who had the
onerous task of day-to-day Symposium planning and
supervision.
John Menke, University
of California, Davis.
C
harles Bolsinger,
Pacific Northwest Forest
and Range Experiment
Station, Forest Service,
Portland
Timothy R. Plumb
Norman H. Pillsbury
Symposium Co-chairmen and
Professors, Natural Resources
Management Department,
California Polytechnic State
University
Robert Ewing,
California Department of
Forestry and Fire
Protection, Sacramento.
vi
Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-100. Berkeley, CA. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1987.
California Hardwoods: A Professional
Challenge to the Resource Community1
Zane G. Smith, Jr.2
There are four reasons why I'm especially
pleased that Norm Pillsbury asked me to speak at
this Symposium.
environment and society, compares favorably with
similar efforts in the private sector.
And finally, this Symposium represents a
partnership among researchers, managers, and
policymakers that is essential to achieving
EXCELLENCE in resource management in the decades
ahead.
First, many of you are researchers in the
field of natural resources and this is my
opportunity to thank you for the help you
provide the Forest Service in doing its job.
Resource managers have a lot of questions, and
you are the people we turn to for answers.
I believe that Hal Walt, Chairman of the
State Board of Forestry, will agree that this
kind of partnership is necessary for sound
policy making. I know it is necessary for sound
management on the ground.
Second, this Symposium is about a resource
that calls for a lot more attention from all
of us--managers, researchers, and policymakers
alike.
With these thoughts in mind I'd like to
review the potential for multiple-use management
of hardwood resources for economic and
environmental benefits and then discuss three
challenges I believe California hardwoods
present to us as resource professionals.
Consider a few facts about hardwoods in
California. They grow on about 10 percent of the
land area and make up 25 percent of the forest
and woodland in the State. About one fourth of
the hardwoods are on public land, including the
National Forests. The rest are on private
lands.
ECONOMIC POTENTIAL OF CALIFORNIA HARDWOODS
A resource that is so widespread makes
hardwood management a matter of interest to both
private and public landowners. Yet in spite of
the extent and volume of hardwood resources, we
know as little about managing them as we did
about managing chaparral brushland 20 years ago. I
think it is fair to say that hardwoods are now
the most important unmanaged renewable resource
in California.
California has more than 30 species of
hardwoods. The most common are black oak, canyon
live oak, tanoak, Pacific madrone, blue oak, and
coast live oak.
Individual trees grow to considerable size.
For example, the largest Pacific madrone in
California has a diameter of 122 inches and is
79 feet high. Trees more than 3 feet in diameter
are not unusual in older hardwood stands.
The third reason is that this Symposium
represents what I call resource
entrepreneurship.
Of the 9.5 million acres of hardwoods in
California, about 2.2 million acres are in
northern parts of the State and commonly
interspersed with softwood timberland. The rest is
mostly in foothill woodlands throughout central
and southern California.
We hear a lot about private sector
initiative in developing new products and new
sources of economic growth. I think that
initiative in exploring a "lagging" natural
resource, which has just begun to reveal its
potential contribution to the California
Currently the State has an estimated 25
billion board feet of hardwood sawtimber
inventory, as compared with 236 billion board
feet of softwood sawtimber inventory. Hardwood
timber production remains largely undeveloped.
About 25 million board feet of hardwoods are
harvested in California each year, compared with
more than 3.5 billion board feet of softwoods.
1
Presented at the Symposium on Multiple-Use
Management of California's Hardwood Resources,
November 12-14, 1986, San Luis Obispo,
California.
2
Formerly Regional Forester, Pacific
Southwest Region; now Special Assistant to the
Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
One reason hardwoods have been neglected as a
resource is the "softwood mentality" common
throughout the Western States. Abundant
1
I don't claim to know how to organize an
expanded hardwood products industry in
California. I am suggesting that we need not
only scientific and technical research to
develop silvicultural practices and wood
processing technology, but also economic
research in partnership with the woods products
industry to develop markets and adapt the
methods for economic production as well.
commercial grade softwoods and a strong market
for them make hardwoods much less economically
attractive.
Under current milling and marketing
conditions this preference for softwoods is
economically justified. California hardwoods
have characteristics that make them difficult to
mill for sawtimber or furniture grade lumber.
In the timberlands of northern California, it is
more economical to clear hardwoods and plant
conifers.
ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE OF HARDWOODS
Apart from economic considerations,
hardwoods occupy a critical niche in the natural
environment of California. Since European
settlement, three prime wildlife habitats have
been drastically reduced: wetlands, riparian
areas, and hardwood forests.
Many attempts to utilize hardwoods have
failed because we tried to work hardwoods with
softwood methods. Hardwoods vary more than
softwoods and processing must be adapted to that
variability. Hardwoods require a cottage
industry approach--smaller production and more
selective processing and use of the log
material. However, the added costs of production
can be distributed over a wide range of
products--from firewood to pallets to furniture.
Early settlers described dense oak forests
extending as much as 5 miles from either bank
along streams throughout the Central Valley.
Songbirds used the extensive hardwood woodlands
as flyways during migration, and deer, bear and
other wildlife thrived on the acorns and browse
provided by hardwood habitat. These riparian
forests decreased from an estimated 700,000
acres to 19,000 acres in 1986.
For example, Cal Oak located in Oroville,
the only volume manufacturer of products from
California hardwoods currently in operation,
produces paneling, flooring, quality doors, and
furniture wood as well as pallets, firewood, and
chip.
Dense stands of hardwoods also grew
throughout the foothills of California, but were
gradually removed for structural timber,
firewood, and to clear land for crops and
cattle.
We now use most of our California hardwoods
for firewood. Apart from use as biomass for
fuel, improved utilization of California
hardwoods will depend on developing appropriate
milling techniques that can produce a reliable
supply of quality material that meets the
requirements of the wood products industry.
Traditionally, farmers, ranchers, and
timber producers considered hardwoods as a pest
vegetation to be reduced or eliminated. In
recent times the acreage of hardwood woodland,
especially in parts of the Sierra Nevada
foothills and the Sacramento Valley, has
declined as much as 20 percent due mainly to
urban development.
For example, California's furniture industry
is second in the nation, yet it buys most of its
hardwood from eastern States and from abroad.
High quality eastern hardwoods are available,
but they are getting scarce and expensive.
Utilization of lower grade hardwoods looks
increasingly attractive.
In many areas of Central and Southern
California, only isolated stands remain as
habitat for Acorn woodpeckers and other birds
and wildlife that use hardwoods for nesting and
feeding. The rate of loss of hardwood stands
makes research on the dependency of wildlife on
hardwood habitat an especially urgent concern
for resource managers if they are to meet the
wildlife management objectives of State and
Federal law. For this reason, National Forest
plans call for retaining areas of hardwoods in
parts of the forest managed for softwood timber
production.
Over the last decade the Forest Service
Forestry Sciences Laboratory in West Virginia
worked with furniture manufacturers to find away
to utilize lower grade eastern hardwoods. They
developed a process called SYSTEM-6 that
manufactures furniture blanks from hardwood logs
7 to 16 inches in diameter and 6 to 8 feet long.
Boards milled from short logs are glued into
furniture blanks of standard dimensions.
These furniture blanks have markets in the
furniture industry, and SYSTEM-6 makes it
possible to utilize small logs that otherwise
would be burned as firewood.
The first Symposium on California Oaks was
held in 1979 to review the condition of oak
woodlands and how to manage them. In 1983, the
Hardwood Task Force of the State Board of
Forestry launched a program to protect oak
woodlands used for grazing, firewood, and
wildlife habitats. This Symposium is the latest
California hardwoods commonly yield short
sawlogs. Developing a similar processing system
to provide a reliable supply of quality
California hardwood for our furniture industry
may be worth investigating.
2
private sector manage hardwood resources and
develop commercial uses that benefit the public
at large.
effort to review the condition and prospects for
multiple-use management of hardwoods throughout
the State and mobilize the resource community in
a concerted effort to manage them.
Research on hardwood management and on
processing and marketing hardwoods may
eventually provide the climate of information
and practice in which a hardwood industry can
grow. The work done in West Virginia to develop
a method for utilizing hardwood short logs is an
example.
CHALLENGES TO THE RESOURCE COMMUNITY
It is clear from these few indications that
hardwoods have considerable importance for
multiple use resource management, yet we are
just beginning to conduct research and develop
methods for managing them. With this background
in mind I would like to mention three key
challenges I think California hardwoods present
to the natural resource community: achieving
holistic management, working with the private
sector, and balancing public demand and limited
resources.
This is a logical extension of the "resource
entrepreneur" role I mentioned earlier. We are
in a position to obtain and distribute the
information needed to develop a hardwood
industry and to insure responsible management of
hardwoods for wildlife, scenic quality, and
other purposes.
Working closely with private landowners is
especially important because hardwoods grow
predominantly on private lands. The State
program begun in 1983 offers a constructive
framework for protecting hardwood resources
through cooperation with and assistance to
private landowners.
Holistic Management
First, given the extent and volume of
hardwoods in California, resource professionals
have an obligation to manage them.
This obligation reflects one of the most
important changes in resource management since
1960--the move to holistic management. The term
refers to considering the whole environment and
ecological system when making resource
management decisions.
Narrowing Decision Space
The third challenge that particularly
concerns me as a resource manager is the
narrowing "decision space" between available
resources and public demand for them. As use and
management of resources intensifies, the
shrinking decision space reduces both the range
of choices available for meeting public demands
and the margin of safety in resource decisions.
A familiar example of the change to holistic
management is the practices in chaparral
brushland. Early attempts to suppress or
eliminate wildfire in chaparral were socially
sanctioned but environmentally unsound. We left
the ecology of brushlands out of the equation
and consequently created an impossible goal. In
fact, suppressing wildfire tended to allow fuel
to build up to even more hazardous levels--an
example of how failure to apply holistic
management can lead to greater environmental
risks.
Past generations could transfer the
consequences of their decisions to the future.
The extent and abundance of resources meant they
could leave their mistakes behind and simply
move to new ground. But the margin of safety
provided by abundant space and resources is
gone.
Through research in chaparral management and
the role and effects of wildfire in the
chaparral environment we have moved from fire
suppression to chaparral resource management. We
learned to use prescribed burning and other
chaparral management methods to achieve social
and environmental objectives within an
environment where fire occurs naturally.
The most dramatic example of this trend is
threatened and endangered species of plants and
wildlife. Managers are expected to accommodate
concern for these species within the ongoing use
and management of forest and range resources. To
do so, managers preserve as a minimum what are
called viable population levels determined by
wildlife biologists and other experts.
Research is essential if managers are to
meet the challenge of holistic management. We
need to know about the entire ecosystem if we
are to enjoy the full benefits and calculate the
full range of likely effects of our management
decisions. That certainly includes hardwoods.
We allow for a margin of safety. But demands
for other goods and services require us to keep
that margin at "reasonable" levels. In such
cases managers need to be sure that the "viable"
population levels do indeed assure survival and
recovery of such species. Miscalculation could
lead to an irreversible slide below the point of
recovery.
Partnership with the Private Sector
Another challenge to resource professionals
in the public sector is to help people in the
3
CONC LUS ION S CO MMI TME NT T O T HE LAND ET HIC
I mention this extreme case to illustrate
the kind of situations and the dilemmas that are
likely to multiply in regard to many resource
tradeoffs as the State's population increases
from 27 million in 1986 to to more than 32
million by the year 2000.
Initiative in studying hardwoods, whether or
not the subject presently receives emphasis in
our management and budgets, will contribute to a
better understanding of our environment and
improve the quality of resource management.
Developing methods for managing hardwoods
for wildlife, scenic quality, wood production,
and watershed values will provide managers one
more tool for balancing competing claims on
forest and range resources.
I think your initiative reflects the ethical
commitment that underlies the work of
researchers, managers, and policymakers in the
field of natural resources.
This raises the question of what role land
management and regulatory agencies should play
in the preservation, management, and utilization
of hardwoods in California. This question needs
to be addressed so that the "margin of safety"
remains.
Dedication to the land ethic is an aspect of
the resource professions that needs to be more
widely emphasized in the years ahead. In the
public mind in recent years, we have become too
much associated with the purely scientific and
technical side of managing resources. To reach
the public we serve, we need to speak to the
commitment to the land that all of us share.
This symposium is a step in that direction.
Thank you very much.
4
Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-100. Berkeley, CA. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1987
Policy Paradigms and California's
Hardwoods1
Harold R. Walt2
I am pleased to be here to welcome you to this
symposium. The organizers and sponsors,
Professors Pillsbury and Plumb in particular, are
congratulated for bringing together such an
impressive array of scientists, managers,
landowners, citizens and policymakers to evaluate
what is currently known about one of California's
most valuable resource systems.
As I observed the planning of this
symposium, I was curious to see the title go
through something of an evolution. I believe the
proposed first title was: "Symposium on
California Hardwoods." This became, of course:
"Symposium on Multiple-Use Management of
California's Hardwood Resources." What are we to
make of this change?
As many of you know, the Board of Forestry has
taken a keen interest in hardwoods over the past
6 years. Our concern stems from a recognition
that hardwoods, while largely outside the scope
of our Forest Practice Act, grow on lands where
we have fire and watershed protection, resource
assessment, and other responsibilities. In
addition, beginning in the late 1970's, county
governments, environmental groups, citizens, and
the State Department and Commission of Fish and
Game have asked us to consider the need to place
some restrictions on hardwood harvesting and
conversion as these activities occur throughout
California's timbered and nontimbered regions.
On the surface, the change would appear to
be a pragmatic improvement. The broader scope of
the current title seems apropos in light of the
various forces acting on the state's hardwood
lands. Clearly, as policy makers, landowners,
and scientists, we have an obligation to view
hardwoods in terms of the various uses to which
they are now put and to seek to design management
and institutional approaches to sustain their
productivity for the future. While biological
and botanical information of individual hardwood
species is a key, such information alone provides
too narrow a focus. Thus, I think, the broadened
concern for multiple-use management and hardwood
resources is good.
Our considerations of these requests will
have a formal hearing during this symposium, when
the Board meets to adopt an interim policy on
hardwoods. Each of you is invited to attend this
meeting and to testify if you so please. We
expect to hear from many people with strong
emotional ties to this natural resource. After
all, since childhood most off us have heard
hardwoods described as the standard of quality in
many fields. For example, who can forget the
stirring words from "Death of Nelson" by the poet
Samuel James Arnold..."Our ships were British
oak. And hearts of oak our men."
On the other hand, the application of the
term multiple-use to current discussions on
California hardwoods makes me a little nervous.
This nervousness results from a recognition that
"multiple-use," a term popularized by the Forest
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, can be a
value-laden term derivative of a well-developed
and comprehensive philosophy of resource
management. The philosophy is the so-called
progressive conservationist approach, which
became part of the American mainstream through
the work of Gifford Pinchot and others during the
Teddy Roosevelt administration.
Today, not wanting to prejudge the outcome
of the Board's hearing, I want to talk in more
general terms about alternatives for developing a
California hardwood policy. In this regard, I
will discuss the role that scientific information
and technology, and landowner, professional, and
agency action can play in the development and
implementation of such a policy.
Pinchot's genius was to take Jeremy
Bentham's tenet of "the greatest good for the
greatest number over the longest time" and to
apply it to forestry and resource management. As
a vision or an overarching goal, the greatest
good approach is superb. However, as a guide to
action and in practice, the perspective is not
without fault.
As a noted economist (Zivnuska, 1979) has
argued, the conservation period has been "an era
of happy platitudes filled with ethically loaded
ambiguities." This also has been a time when
certain practical strategies have been relied on,
often without question to their efficacy or
appropriateness in particular settings.
1
Presented at the Symposium on Multiple-Use
Management of California's Hardwood Resources,
November 12-14, 1986, San Luis Obispo,
California.
2
Chairman, State Board of Forestry, Sacramento,
California.
5
development. People want more recreation
space and firewood. They also come to
appreciate the aesthetic qualities of oaks
and, especially in urban areas, pass laws to
protect these trees. And, as with any
resource, hardwoods can only tolerate so much
use and conversion before some effects are
noticed. Thus, it is not surprising to find
questions being raised about the loss of
wildlife habitat, degradation of soil and
water quality, and even if hardwoods are
regenerating."
More specifically, progressive
conservationism has had at its core three
principles to guide the development of any
resource program:
1. Government, not the market place, is the
preferred institution for management
implementation;
2. Professionals acting alone are best positioned
to make resource use and allocation decisions;
and
To this discussion, I submit, we need to add
the problems that have befallen the people with
the highest responsibility for our hardwood
lands--California's private livestock and
landowner community. These private owners hold
over 80 percent of the state's so-called hardwood
rangelands, and recent problems in the nation's
livestock markets have left many of these
individuals and firms with limited economic
options. I would argue that any state policy on
hardwoods must address the economic condition of
this important landowner group.
3. Science and technology can extend resource
supplies and are the basis for a better future.
Let me assure you that I consider myself a
conservationist, and that I believe there is an
important role for government, professionals, and
science in resource decisionmaking [sic]. But
enough for the early 1900's. We are now living
in an entirely different environment. The
mission of this conference is to look at
tomorrow. I simply want to make the point today
that any solution to California's hardwood
problems must be more broadly based, free of
ideology, and much more appropriate to the issues
at hand.
Based on this problem review, we can see
that our solution must be cast in terms that
transcend disciplinary boundaries and go beyond
the landscapes of rural California. In many
ways, we face a problem similar to the one faced
by the state's agricultural community. David
Pierpont Gardner, President of the University of
California, noted recently in announcing the
appointment of the respected agricultural.
economist Kenneth Farrell to be the new
University of California Vice President for
Agriculture and Natural Resources:
To make these points more clearly, let me
turn to the excellent discussion of current
hardwood concerns recently prepared by Board and
Department of Forestry staff (California State
Board of Forestry, 1986). They define,-I think
correctly, the current status of our hardwood
resources as a function of several broad trends
generated by the evolution of California as an
economic, social, and political entity. The
paper begins:
"The future of California agriculture will be
increasingly influenced by national politics,
international trade agreements and other
economic and political occurrences well beyond
the boundaries of traditional agriculture."
"In a general sense, the problem faced by the
Board of Forestry [and indeed the problem
faced by all of us in this room] is that over
time the state's hardwood forests have been
modified to accommodate other uses, with very
few people asking what is the effect of this
conversion. Removal of hardwoods has been an
accepted way of life. They often have been
unwanted vegetation in the path of
agricultural crops, range improvement, and
construction of freeways, dams, and houses.
Like our agricultural friends, we foresters
must learn to deal with the many new pressures
that affect California's rural areas. Under such
conditions, can we afford to look only to the set
patterns that have guided the roles of
government, science, and professionals in the
past?
"Almost ironically, no significant hardwood
sawtimber or furniture grade lumber industries
have emerged. California species are hard to
mill for these uses. On timberlands of
northern California, it is more profitable to
clear hardwoods and plant conifers.
Traditionally, California's furniture
industry, the nation's second largest, has
relied on imports from eastern states or
abroad for lumber.
The answer to this question, I think, is:
no, not entirely. Rather, we need to adopt an
approach that takes the strength of our
traditional experience, but mixes in new elements
appropriate to today's California.
In this light, the goals of any state policy
on hardwoods should not depend, just on the work
of professionals and scientists, but must include
a broader political-type process. In essence,
the Board of Forestry has taken the lead in such
a process over the past several years and I think
we have identified an effective set of goals to
guide future activity. Of course, these goals
"At the same time, the state's population
continues to grow and its values change.
Demands not related to timber or livestock
production expand. There is pressure to
remove more hardwoods for residential
6
remain open to public comment, but as laid out
they set a reasonable vision for the future
(California State Board of Forestry, 1986).
other authorities over time. But the policies
adopted need to employ a variety of means.
Likely to be required are research, monitoring
and assessment programs, strategies to relieve
pressures for hardwood removal, improved
management information, and perhaps even some
form of regulation. While not a preferred
choice, I feel_ personally that some limited form
of regulation may be required to protect
sensitive and threatened areas if landowners fail
to heed voluntary controls.
This vision, which has been developed from
discussion with a variety of groups and from a
reading of existing state laws and policies, is
as follows:
1. The hardwood resource, whether on conifer or
hardwood rangelands, should be protected and
enhanced. This means that all hardwood species
are regenerating, soil and water quality are
preserved, and sufficient habitat diversity is
achieved statewide to protect the viability of
critical wildlife species;
Whatever means are involved, we must work
closely with the professional and scientific
communities represented at this symposium. As
the conservationists understood, science and
technology have an important function in natural
resource programs. California hardwoods are no
exception. But the partnership between the
people, government, and the scientific and
professional community on hardwoods has to be an
open process. On the one hand, researchers need
to try to be socially responsible and to design
studies and perform research that helps solve the
hardwood management problems of today and
tomorrow. On the other hand, the broader
hardwood community needs to appreciate the time
and support required to produce scientifically
verifiable results and to stand willing to
experiment with new ideas as they become
available.
2. Range and timber stand improvement can
continue--but such activities should take into
account sensitive environmental areas and serious
wildlife damage. Additional sources of income to
landowners need to be available through improved
utilization, new markets for products from
species that are regenerating well, and programs
to compensate landowners for leaving hardwoods;
3. Land can still be converted to intensive
agriculture and residential/commercial
development--but it should be directed away from
environmentally sensitive areas, avoid serious
damage to wildlife, and not interfere with the
ability of landowners to manage their land
economically;
In this regard, I am impressed with the
cooperative spirit. that has emerged in the new
University of California-Department of Forestry
"Integrated Hardwood Management Program." It is
now sponsoring over 15 studies in the first year
of a 10-year basic and applied research program,
and may be just what we need to bridge the
traditional gap among researchers, landowners,
and the public on hardwoods.
4. Government involvement in land management
decisions of private landowners should be minimal
and, insofar as is possible, supportive of their
needs. Public agencies, federal through local,
should understand and coordinate with each other
and with private landowners their management
goals and practices.
This last goal offers a particularly
important perspective because it defines a
partnership between government and the private
sector. The problems of maintaining hardwood
resources in California are not well suited to
control by a single government. A reasonable
answer is not having the state purchase
properties for public ownership, nor an
autocratic enactment of restrictive, land use
controls save the day. Rather, we need to employ
a set of programs that allow the state to ensure
long-term environmental health while allowing the
landowner as full use as possible of his or her
property. No one would be served if we create
the conditions the biologist Garrett Hardin so
aptly described as "the tragedy of the commons."
We do not want to constrain private initiative to
the point that the motivation and wherewithal for
productive management is absent. Hardwoods won't
be saved if landowners are driven from their
property.
This symposium can also help to bridge this
gap: all nine members of the Board of Forestry,
two members from the Fish and Game Commission,
and several other state, federal, and county
officials are attending. The willingness of
these policymakers to familiarize themselves with
the full array of information which the state's
scientific community has to offer may be
unprecedented. I know I am impressed and proud
that my colleagues on the Board of Forestry have
agreed to attend this symposium. While their
actions at the policy hearing and in succeeding
months must be based on a wide number of factors,
it is important that we take advantage of all the
technical papers presented here.
So as we begin this 3-day conference on
hardwoods, let me wish each of us full. attention,
an open mind, a pragmatic bent, and an eye toward
the future. Let us take advantage of the things
that connect us and put. aside our differences.
We are not: here for ourselves; we are here to
consider means to protect. and extend one of
California's most distinctive and important
This said, I do see a role for government in
hardwoods. The exact specification of this role
will be worked out by the Board of Forestry and
7
resources--the natural, human and social complex
that constitutes California's hardwood heritage.
Thank you.
REFERENCES
California State Board of Forestry. Policy
Options for California's Hardwoods. Sacramento,
CA. September 1986. 25 p.
Zivnuska, John. The Case for Dominant Use. In:
proceedings of the Society of American Foresters,
1979: 49-53.
8