FOREST HEALTH



One dictionary definition of good health is: " The condition
when a system's inherent potential is realized, and when its
capacity for self-repair is preserved." Another definition is:
"That state of a living organism in which the parts are sound,
and well organized and disposed, and in which all organs perform
their natural functions without pain or disease."

Judging from these definitions, it may be easier to
recognize poor health than it is to arrive at a precise and
satisfying definition of good health. This is true for both
people and trees. When we use this approach to critically examine
the individual tree species that make up the eastern hardwood
forest, we find many examples of poor health. For example, trees
in high elevation forests throughout the Appalachians are in
general unhealthy, and Spruce and Fir are disappearing from these
forests due to atmospheric pollution. In Kentucky, widespread and
reliable evidence also indicates that many native species of
trees are declining or have been essentially exterminated:
American Chestnut and American Elm are gone as dominant canopy
trees; White Walnut and Yellow Locust, once widespread and
reasonably common, are rapidly disappearing; Sycamore and
Flowering Dogwood are being decimated by Anthracnose, and, in the
case of Dogwood at least, the virulence of the fungus seems to be
at least partly due to acid rain; in the past 3 years, Sourwood
in many parts of eastern Kentucky has suffered almost complete
early-season defoliation from the larvae of a previously-
insignificant Sphinx Moth; Oaks and Hickories are dying,
individually and in patches, and especially on stressful
landscape positions; exceptionally long intervals between good
seed crops of Oak, Hickory and Beech have been reported in parts
of the state; in some places, Mountain Laurel is gone; even
Yellow-Poplar, long considered to be especially hardy and pest-
free, has suffered over the last 3 to 5 years from widespread
foliage damage and premature leaf fall, and, in some places, from
fungal attack near the base of the trunk; and, finally,
intensively-managed hardwood and softwood plantations everywhere
in the state are being kept alive and growing, and protected from
insects and diseases, only through the application of pesticides.
The future looks even bleaker when we remember that the Gypsy
Moth will arrive soon in Kentucky, further weakening our forests
and predisposing trees to damage from insects and diseases.



This litany suggests that our forests are not healthy.
However, many people do not agree with this conclusion. Some do
not accept as reliable any observations or conclusions that are
not statistically-analyzable, and others suggest that present
tree mortality is part of a natural cycle - that this has all
happened before - and that the ill-health and decline of the
forest only seems unnatural because our period of observation is
so short relative to the length of the natural cycle. In
addition, some argue, given that eastern forests have been
intensely disturbed by human activities over the last 300 to 400
years, it is impossible to find reference areas in which to
measure mortality rates and other characteristics of healthy
forests, making the evaluation of forest health impossible even
in an relative sense. And, finally, even if individual species
are declining, the forest as a whole is not disappearing - better
adapted species are simply replacing less adapted species.

Where does the truth lie? Is the health of our forest good
or bad? Based on my own observations and study, and on my
evaluation of the observations and reports of others, both
scientists and non-scientists, I personally believe that our
forests are sick, and that the sickness is a symptom of a
fundamentally unhealthy and non-sustainable human lifestyle that
results in pollution, fragmentation of forests, over-consumption
and waste of forest products, use of careless and destructive
forest management techniques, and the introduction of exotic
species.

Almost 50 years ago Aldo Leopold stated in the Sand County
Almanac that:

"We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity
belonging to us. When we see land as a community to
which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and
respect."

This was a call for a land-ethics - for respect for natural
ecosystems and for appreciation of our place in these ecosystems.
This may be considered the first call for an 'ecosystem-
perspective' or 'ecosystem-approach' to land use and management,
one that recognizes that human societies and economies are
subsystems of the larger natural ecosystem, and that, in order to
survive over the long term, we must be concerned not just with
the health of trees that we find useful or interesting, or with
the health of trees in general, but with the health of the entire
ecosystem - the totality of the plants, the animals, the
microbes, and the physical environment of which we are a part.
This means that, although we may appear to be in control of
Nature, we are ultimately dependent Her - our health and
prosperity are tied to the health and prosperity of the ecosystem
which functions as our life-support system. This also means that
we must adjust our lifestyles and activities to ensure that the
ecosystems remain healthy, and that degraded ecosystems regain
health, that they operate to their "inherent potential," and that
they maintain their "capacity for self-repair." The future lies
with an ecosystem approach to land use and management, rather
than with the obsolete "sustained-yield and multiple-use"
approach. We must abandon, for example, our single-minded
attachment to the sustained yield of forest products as an
acceptable indicator of good stewardship: sustaining a constant
annual flow of product volume per acre is not sufficient - it
does not consider ecosystem components other than a single
commodity. Similarly, single-minded goals of regenerating a
preferred timber species, or protecting individual rare species,
or maximizing some index of biodiversity address the symptoms,
but not the disease; such goals are too restrictive in scope and
will not assure ecosystem health or the long-term health of human
societies and economies.

We in Kentucky must assure that future use of our resources
is sustainable rather than exploitive. To do this, we should
insist on an ecosystem approach to all planning and management,
and on adherence to the fundamental "best management practice"
that ecosystem health not be detrimentally affected by resource
utilization. Using this approach, development of forest resources
should only be permitted by society when the industries or
agencies involved have, sincerely and to the best of their
ability, and in consultation with local communities, planned for
the LONG-TERM sustainability and improvement of the natural
resource base and the health of the local ecosystem, including
the human communities and economies. Business investments in
mills that will exhaust forest resources over a time span of 20
to 30 years are exploitive and non-sustainable, and should be
avoided even though they may be economically and politically
attractive since they generate jobs and income over the short-
term. Such investments do not, however, contribute to the long-
term health, prosperity, and survival of the forests and the
human communities that are dependent on the forests, but rather
relegate local communities to a position of dependency and
powerlessness. When the exploitive industry is a major employer,
or the only employer, people have no viable choices - they must
join the exploitation, or starve.

An ecosystem-approach to land use and management is the
basis of what has been called the "new" forestry. New forestry
elevates the well-being of the Land and needs of the People above
economic profit, and draws upon the knowledge, experience, and
value-systems of all segments of society. I believe we now have
the scientific and experiential basis to begin our transition to
an ecosystem-based land-use policy that will lead to development
of innovative, dynamic, and, above-all, flexible methods for
living healthy and dignified human lifestyles within healthy
forest ecosystems.

How will we mobilize and organize our energy to establish
sustainable lifestyles and healthy ecosystems? In my opinion, we
are at a moral crossroads in the history of our society. Up to
this time, we have cast our lot with technology, competition, and
an insistence on continued growth in production and consumption
as a solution for all of our problems and as ends in themselves.
We raise our children to believe that greed and competition are
unchangeable characteristics of human nature, and to believe that
the amount and value of the artifacts a person accumulates is
good measure of the quality of a life. We base forest management
decisions on mathematical tools that are a disincentive to true
conservation and long-term planning, and that discount the value
of biologically-sound and socially-beneficial management
practices to such a degree as to discourage investments in such
practices beyond two to three decades. But the resources of the
earth are finite, and increases in consumption and pollution
cannot continue forever - this is a basic biophysical reality of
our world. Our survival over the long-term - or, to put it
another way - our ability to bequeath a wholesome and liveable
world to future generations, requires a radical change in
lifestyle and in the philosophical underpinnings of society. This
will be difficult, but not impossible. This is realistic, not
Utopian. We already have a start - we already have the beginnings
of an 'appropriate' technology, we have thousands of years of
accumulated human knowledge, experience, and wisdom; and we have
the conceptual frameworks for economic and political systems that
are environmentally and socially more rational than our present
systems.

Finally, where will we as a society get the strength to
make the sacrifices involved in the change to sustainable
lifestyles? I believe in Absolutes - right and wrong, good and
bad - and believe that, deep inside, we all recognize the same
Ultimate Goal. I further believe that our strength will come from
the large, but seldom tapped, moral reserves of our people; that
we will need to call on each individual to sacrifice, and to
accept personal moral responsibility to do the right thing to
guarantee a healthy existence for themselves and for future
generations. This will involve:
1. Moving in the direction of earth-based decision making as
regards land-use; our basic criterion for a socially-sanctioned
activities should be : Is this good for the Land?
2. Beginning to emphasize cooperation and community-oriented
ethical thinking in place of competition and selfish
individualism.
3. Beginning to emphasize sufficiency in place of greed; to
believe that more is not necessarily better, and that enough is
best.
4. Abandoning economic systems that view the Land only as a
source of raw materials and a sink for wastes, and that are
dependent on continued growth in resource use and consumption.

5. Moving in the direction of a steady-state, free-market
economic system that maximizes efficiency of resource use and
equitability of distribution, and that minimizes consumption and
pollution.

In closing, I believe that together we can make a
difference. Together we can assure the long-term health and
prosperity of forest ecosystems, including their dependent human
communities. I support the challenge recently issued by an
economist, Rita Bladt:

"Where do we stand? With the 'realists' who simply
acquiesce in a world which has programmed its own self
destruction? Or with those who are still daring enough
to dream of, and work at bringing about, a better
future?...Each of us has to decide which side we are
on. Not to do so is to support the status quo and
maintain the political economy of greed and destruction
rather than creating a new political economy of
sustainability and justice."



ADDRESS: Paul J. Kalisz, Forest Soils & Silviculture, Department
of Forestry, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 40546-0073