Comments on: Forest Plan Summit - Draft Objectives - Your thoughts? http://www.ecosystem-management.org/dixie/blog/2006/03/22/forest-plan-summit-draft-objectives-your-thoughts/ Just another FS weblog Wed, 8 Sep 2010 13:51:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.2 by: Mary O'Brien http://www.ecosystem-management.org/dixie/blog/2006/03/22/forest-plan-summit-draft-objectives-your-thoughts/#comment-125 Fri, 24 Mar 2006 19:53:10 +0000 http://www.ecosystem-management.org/dixie/blog/2006/03/22/forest-plan-summit-draft-objectives-your-thoughts/#comment-125 Two additonal objectives: Clarify the role that protection of native biodiversity (plants, animals, habitat) will play in the coming decade. Clarify the issue of reciprocal responsibility for tracking the conditon of the Forests: the monitoring commitments of the Forest Service; and how the Forest will seek to involve the public and independent monitors of conditions and movement toward (or away from)desired conditions on the Forset. Two additonal objectives:

Clarify the role that protection of native biodiversity (plants, animals, habitat) will play in the coming decade.

Clarify the issue of reciprocal responsibility for tracking the conditon of the Forests: the monitoring commitments of the Forest Service; and how the Forest will seek to involve the public and independent monitors of conditions and movement toward (or away from)desired conditions on the Forset.

]]> by: Betty Stokes http://www.ecosystem-management.org/dixie/blog/2006/03/22/forest-plan-summit-draft-objectives-your-thoughts/#comment-114 Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:09:09 +0000 http://www.ecosystem-management.org/dixie/blog/2006/03/22/forest-plan-summit-draft-objectives-your-thoughts/#comment-114 I feel the objectives are fair, allowing input from all stake holders is important on our public lands. There are varying viewpoints in the scientific community relating to the roadless status and the concept of resource/watershed management. This is evident in the more current understanding of the use of fire in our forests. I feel the objectives are fair, allowing input from all stake holders is important on our public lands. There are varying viewpoints in the scientific community relating to the roadless status and the concept of resource/watershed management. This is evident in the more current understanding of the use of fire in our forests.

]]> by: James W. Thompson http://www.ecosystem-management.org/dixie/blog/2006/03/22/forest-plan-summit-draft-objectives-your-thoughts/#comment-111 Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:45:52 +0000 http://www.ecosystem-management.org/dixie/blog/2006/03/22/forest-plan-summit-draft-objectives-your-thoughts/#comment-111 I'd like to see included in the topics of "objective discussion" the values of roadless areas and how they protect resources, such as watershed, wildlife habitat, forest health. Quite frankly, I'm not sure if people understand that often letting nature take its course, even if it means "beetle die-off" or "fire", without human intervention is a good management approach. I'm not suggesting that every road- less area be absolutely "pristine", but those containing important and abundant natural resources-(i.e. clean water or suitable unfragmented habitat), should be kept that way as a "long-lasting" resource--even if it means wilderness designation for some portions. I’d like to see included in the topics of “objective discussion” the values of
roadless areas and how they protect resources, such as watershed, wildlife habitat,
forest health. Quite frankly, I’m not sure if people understand that often letting
nature take its course, even if it means “beetle die-off” or “fire”, without human
intervention is a good management approach. I’m not suggesting that every road-
less area be absolutely “pristine”, but those containing important and abundant
natural resources-(i.e. clean water or suitable unfragmented habitat), should be
kept that way as a “long-lasting” resource–even if it means wilderness designation
for some portions.

]]>