Applegater Summer 2016
21
OPINIONS
Behind the Green Door: BLM flies the coop!
BY CHRIS BRATT
This past April, the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) cut loose its
formal ties with our greater Applegate
community and the US Forest Service
(USFS). The actual notice of this divorce
came to us in the form of BLM’s newly
“revised” forest Resource Management
Plan (RMP). This new RMP is no simple
revision of BLM’s existing plan. It is a
huge departure from their present RMP
and the forest management protections,
directions, and purposes mandated for
both the USFS and the BLM in the
region-wide Northwest Forest Plan.
BLM’s new RMP consists of four large
telephone-book size volumes with a
total of 2,008 pages weighing 14.6
pounds (see photo). It has generated
approximately 4,500 comments from
government agencies, organizations,
tribes, and members of the public.
Despite its giant size and
overwhelming, mind-boggling contents,
these four volumes contain virtually
nothing about BLM’s rationale for going
it alone in managing its public forestlands
in the Applegate or northwest-wide.
As partners for the past 20 years in
sharing a set of specific goals developed
collaboratively for managing these
forests in the designated 500,000-acre
Applegate Adaptive Management Area
(AMA), BLM has left us with only this
curt explanation: “BLM does not believe
that a separate land use allocation is
needed to support such collaborative
processes. Nothing in the proposed
acidity or hardness, on the other hand,
uses standard methodology. Repeated
results are commonly expected. But keep
in mind that significant co-occurrence
or correlation does not necessarily
imply causation. The number of storks
nesting in Europe, for example, was
often significantly correlated with the
human birth rate. Although much has
been written about the role of storks
in delivering babies, even storks do not
support such unreliable conclusions.
Regardless of the discipline, the best
way to evaluate what you read, hear, or
see is with a high degree of skepticism.
Mark Twain often said, “There are lies,
damn lies, and statistics.” Yet statistics in
science are expected to provide the basis
for understanding our world.
Although experimental design,
reporting results, analysis, and science are
more complex, there are a few basic tools
that can provide a strategy for skeptical
evaluation. Five basic tools or concepts—
(1) definition, (2) measurability, (3)
population stratification, (4) dispersion,
and (5) disclosure—can be used to sort
out spurious conclusions. These tools
will be discussed in the Fall 2016 issue
of the Applegater.
Tom Atzet, PhD
atzet11@gmail.com
Dr. Atzet spent 30 years with the US Forest
Service as an area ecologist in southern
Oregon. He has authored and reviewed
numerous peer-reviewed publications and
currently serves on the board of the Siskiyou
Field Institute.
The four volumes of BLM’s newly revised forest Resource Management Plan
boast 2,008 pages and weigh over 14 pounds.
RMP would preclude the continued
collaborative process that has been
developed associated with the Applegate
Valley Adaptive Management Area.”
I believe that without any specific
formalized direction from the BLM in
its new plan, our community will end
up with no long-term AMA plan for
the Applegate. Nor will there be a real
public/interagency/collaborative process
if BLM’s participation in community
planning is left solely to the discretion
of BLM field area managers. In that
case, the Applegate will no longer be
the “intended prototype of how forest
communities might be sustained” per
the Northwest Forest Plan. Is this the
end of working together to develop
and test innovative forest management
“approaches to integrate and achieve
ecological and economic health and
other social objectives”? I hope not.
Many residents considered that
our active Applegate community and
both federal agencies (BLM and USFS),
Science and truth—Part One
BY TOM ATZET, PHD
The opinion section of the
Applegater has sometimes included
several conflicting pieces relative to
scientific research. In this two-part
article, I would like to offer some ways
for readers to sort out science and truth.
For about 30 years I provided
federal agency managers in southern
Oregon and the Applegate Watershed
information for operational application
and decision-making. This required
digestion and critical reviews of
numerous scientific publications to
corroborate and validate various claims
and conclusions. Information related to
habitat, connectivity, macro and micro
climate, timber productivity, growth
and yield, fire frequency and effects, and
successional processes was frequently
requested. Conflicting and contradictory
data and results were common.
Honesty in scientific publications is
deteriorating (note the J.R. Duren article
mentioned later in this article). Yet,
we too often believe the written word,
particularly in scientific publications,
without applying vigorous critical
thinking. It takes less effort to mindlessly
accept and absorb what is presented.
After all, the requisite formal reviews
should have eliminated any bias or
agenda. But that is not the case.
It is increasingly imperative that
each of us be able to recognize when we
are being presented with garbage.
by working together, were capable of
restoring forest health and protecting
species while cutting a fair amount
of timber. Good work was being
accomplished through collaboration
rather than the need for extensive
revisions or litigation. In fact, many
of our joint accomplishments were
recognized nationally as the way to
maintain and improve forest health and
rural communities. The idea was to adapt
and revise our forest management plans
jointly as we gathered information about
which actions worked for achieving a
“desired future condition” for the land
and community in the Applegate.
Even more disturbing in these new
plans is the major shift back to cutting
and selling a higher volume of timber (75
million board feet more). Virtual clear-
cutting on thousands of acres is being
proposed. The BLM is returning to its
earlier interpretation of the Oregon and
California Railroad Revested Lands Act
of 1937 (O&C Act), the main law that
governs the BLM’s
management
Chris Bratt
actions.
Throughout the RMP, the BLM
claims that it “must provide a sustained
yield of timber annually.” The agency
further asserts that “timber production
is the primary or dominant use of
O&C lands in western Oregon.” This
means that all other forest resources—
unless protected by another law like
the Endangered Species Act—could
be harmed during logging operations.
It appears that real multiple use and
prudent forest management are fine with
the agency, unless they interfere with
cutting timber. These are unwarranted
and specious mandates being proposed
once again.
I believe the demands of the timber
industry, Oregon’s rural forested counties,
and many conservative politicians have
influenced and intimidated the BLM
for too long. Even BLM’s boss, Interior
Secretary Sally Jewell, calls for a “major
course correction…because healthy
intact ecosystems are fundamental to
the health of our nation.” It’s the O&C
Act that falls short and needs revision.
And the BLM should stick to its self-
proclaimed ongoing mission “to sustain
the health and productivity of these
public lands for everyone’s use and
enjoyment now and into the future.”
How can you not agree? Please let
me know.
Chris Bratt • 541-846-6988
The scientific method is an
intellectual and systematic approach for
testing what we think we know. It was
designed and refined over the years as a
process to uncover the truth and avoid
unfounded reasoning. The scientific
method can be generalized using five
universal steps: (1) doing background
research, (2) developing a hypothesis,
(3) gathering data, (4) analyzing, and (5)
presenting conclusions.
Published science is often touted as
providing validity and truth, but does
it really? Depending on the discipline,
recent studies estimate that from 40 to
60 percent of published, peer-reviewed
research is flawed; often reported
conclusions are neither valid nor useful.
The likelihood that every research
publication provides truth and validity
is not high.
In Science News in August 2015,
award-winning journalist J.R. Duren
reported on the “Reproducibility
Project” that found “most published
psychology research to be unreliable.”
Social and biological research, compared
to physical and chemical research,
i.e., “hard science,” can be difficult to
nail down. Definitions, behavior, and
temporal and spatial variability are
difficult to measure, define, and control.
For example, how do you measure
happiness? There is no consistent or
commonly accepted protocol. Measuring
OPINION PIECES AND LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Opinion pieces and letters to the editor represent the opinion of the author,
not that of the Applegater or the Applegate Valley Community Newspaper,
Inc. As a community-based newsmagazine, we receive diverse opinions on
different topics. We honor these opinions, but object to personal attacks and
reserve the right to edit accordingly. Letters are limited 450 words. Opinion
pieces must be relevant to the Applegate Valley and are limited to 700 words.
Both may be edited for grammar and length. All letters must be signed, with
a full street address or P.O. Box and phone number. Opinion pieces must
include publishable contact information (phone number and/or email address).
Anonymous letters and opinion pieces will not be published. Individual
letters and opinion pieces may or may not be published in consecutive issues.
•
Email opinion pieces and letters to the editor to gater@applegater.org,
or mail to Applegater c/o Applegate Valley Community Newspaper, Inc.
P.O. Box 14, Jacksonville, OR 97530.