Thursday Thoughts

Jamie posted some very thought provoking questions:

How do you think ecosystem services change before and after wildfires on federal public lands?  

How should land management agencies like ths USFS prepare for how ecosystem services will likey change in North Idaho's forests under climate change?  

What stakeholders should these managers make sure to consider in these types of decisions?  

One of the constants in life is change. To that end, organizations seldom have the luxury of perpetually managing the status quo. Circumstances inevitably change. We have a favorite camp spot that burned several years ago. It was a bummer that we had to skip one of our annual rendezvous because of the fire danger and thick smoke. We returned the following year seemingly devastated by the destruction. We were black with soot after hiking through the burnt timber. The amazing energy of rebirth unfolded over the next few years to the point that most of our group is so thrilled with the current conditions that few of us remember what the site was like before. It was good before, and it is good now. Fewer big trees and shade, but more elk coming in to eat the supple green grasses that have the chance to grow without a canopy cover of trees and shade. 

From a management perspective, we should appropriately use our resources for sustainability. If that means no recreational use or timber harvesting until a region rehabilitates from a fire, then so be it. Climate change or any other major shift in available ecosystem service should be managed in a similar way - sustainable. It is only by involving all stakeholders in a democratic process will all of the desired services be known. After the input period, however, our USFS resource managers must stick to the guiding mission:

To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations." Its motto is "Caring for the land and serving people."