In Defense of Tom Forest
October 22nd, 2006
Our American forests are fortunate to have a champion in Dr. Thomas M. Bonnicksen, PhD, Professor Emeritus of forest science at Texas A&M University, Visiting Scholar at The Forest Foundation, and the author of the greatest book ever written about our forests, America’s Ancient Forests – From the Ice Age to the Age of Discovery (2000, John Wiley).
We reviewed his landmark book last year (here). We called him “Tom Forest” and described him as “a brilliant forester, forestry professor, and forest scientist” and “a hero, and a genius, and a nice guy, too.” We fear the praise was too faint.
Tom Bonnicksen holds a bachelor’s degree in forestry, and master’s and doctorate degrees in wild land resource science. He earned those degrees while studying under Dr. Harold Biswell, the Father of modern landscape fire science. Tom Forest has studied the ecology of ancient forests for more than 30 years, and has authored more than 80 papers and articles on forest ecology and resource management.
In 2002 Tom Bonnicksen received the Bush Excellence in Public Service Award for Texas A&M University Faculty for his lifetime work on the protection and restoration of native North American landscapes. The Bush Presidential Library Foundation established the award to annually recognize a Texas A&M faculty member who makes outstanding contributions to public service. Tom Forest was the first ever recipient of that award.
Continuing: From the Texas A&M press release on that occasion (see here):
“What I care about most, after my family and country, is the restoration of America’s native forests and the security and welfare of the people who live and work in them,” Bonnicksen said.
Bonnicksen is a renowned public speaker, published author and legislation writer. His model for decision making provides a basis for strategic planning and insight into the relationship between fire and the structure and dynamics of native forests.
He wrote “America’s Ancient Forests,” published in 2000 by John Wiley & Sons. The book documents the existence of more than 20 North American ancient forests and details how the findings should be a model for maintaining today’s threatened forest lands across the nation.
He also is featured in this year’s Temperate Forest Foundation calendar for his help to communities by improving the management of forests that they have depended on for many years. The Temperate Forest Foundation goal is to gather, analyze and communicate scientifically credible information to the public on social, economic and ecological issues.
“I aim at restoring forests’ historic beauty and diversity while maintaining the jobs and economies of local communities in and around them,” he said.
From briefing staff members of the U.S. House of Representatives in testifying before the U.S. Senate Forest and Public Land management Committee on Resources, Bonnicksen continues to serve as a bridge between academic and research endeavors. He has served as the sole expert intervener witness in Federal Court cases affecting all national forests in Texas, and encouraged the practical and useful application of knowledge that led to improved policy developed with active participation of the public.
Tom Bonnicksen was a driving force behind the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. He testified before Greg Walden’s House Sub-Committee numerous times, and helped draft some of the language. It is a great tragedy that Walden’s bill got butchered by Ron Wyden and Peter DeFazio, but it is no reflection on Tom Bonnicksen or his scholarly, civic, and heroic contributions.
We say heroic because Tom Bonnicksen has had to endure countless slings and arrows from the eco-Left. The latest is a “politics of personal destruction” hitpiece in none other than the Los Angeles Times, one of the biggest killers of trees on the planet. We offer no link, because the LaLa Times is not user friendly.
Yesterday, eco-twit and unabashed radical Bettina Boxall reported in the LaLa Times that a no-name UCLA professor named Phil Dumbell (or something), issued a press release! slamming Tom Forest, accusing him of being a paid lackey of evil timber barons.
“He’s always introduced as the leading expert on forest recovery, and he’s just not. There’s nothing in his record other than just talking and hand-waving,” said UCLA ecology professor Philip Rundel, one of several academics who issued an open letter to the media this week questioning Bonnicksen’s credentials.
“I don’t care if people print his stuff or not. But he needs to be identified for what he is: a lobbyist.”
The letter, signed by two other UC faculty members and the founding dean of Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, accused Bonnicksen of having misrepresented scientific facts, and advancing views that “fall far outside the mainstream of scientific opinion.”
We think Phil Whatever missed the mark. Dr. Bonnicksen’s record is enormous, with dozens of scientific, peer-reviewed papers on forest history and forest science, as well as his tremendous book. What is Phil’s record? Zero. Phil is not a forester or a forest scientist. He has never published even one scientific article on forests.
Phil Whatshisname is a plant ecologist who has studied chaparral in Southern California his entire career (a remarkably dull and inauspicious one). In the twilight of that dim career, Phil decided to join a radical eco-litigious group that has a habit of suing the US Forest Service for everything under the sun. We do not question Phil’s motives, other than to say they are obscure. Maybe they think he is a forest expert, even though he’s not, and he likes the attention his fraudulent appeal generates.
One of Phil’s group’s pet peeves is tending forests. They are opposed to it. They prefer catastrophic immolation to forest protection, maintenance, and perpetuation. Phil supports them by spouting pseudo-scientific BS like this:
Giant sequoia ecosystems with their plants and animals evolved with and depend on natural fire cycles for their long-term survival. Preposterous claims by spokesmen for the forest industry that fires in the Sierra Nevada degrade long-term wildlife values are unsupported by any serious scientific data.
Instead of logging the land held in our public trust, the Forest Service should instead look to the monument’s next-door neighbor, where the National Park Service has created a model of forest health in Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks. In a landscape nearly identical to the Sequoia National Monument, prescribed fire has been successfully used to reduce fire risk, promote giant sequoia reproduction and enhance wildlife. Today, after more than 30 years of using prescribed fire to manage overgrowth in Sequoia National Park, nearly natural conditions help young sequoias thrive. The heat from the controlled burns opens the sequoia cones, scattering seeds far and wide. In the spring, sequoia seedlings can be seen sprouting like grass. Logging does not provide for this natural seed rain or the appropriate mineral soil conditions for new seedling establishment. Although thinning small trees may be necessary in circumstances where trees are especially dense, prescribed fire is the management that best mimics nature.
All tripe. Giant sequoia groves are remnant open, park-like forests maintained for millennia by frequent, regular, anthropogenic fire. There have been no “natural fire cycles” in giant sequoia for at least 11,000 years. Vast amounts of serious scientific data support that fact. Indeed, no reputable forest history denies it.
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks are not the “model of forest health”. Their forests are bug-ridden thickets, actively dying, and prone to catastrophic wildfires that the Park Service refers to as “prescribed natural fires”. The “prescriptions” (what a joke!) are toxic and result in forest extinction, because they do not include disposing of the excess fuels or otherwise preparing the forest to receive fire.
Phil fails to mention that “prescribed fires” in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks also have been known to kill firefighters (see here).
In the above quote Phil Lamebrain also engages in eco-babble about “sequoia seedlings sprouting like grass.” Giant sequoias can live to be 3,000 years old, unless consumed by catastrophic wildfire. They are so huge that a single tree occupies an entire acre. To replace a sequoia forest on a sustainable schedule, you would need to establish one seedling per acre, once every 3,000 years! There is no reprod dearth in giant sequoia. The problem facing sequoia forests is not a lack of regeneration. The problem is that catastrophic fires fueled by the post-Indian thicket are killing the old trees.
Phil Whatchacallit misses entirely anthropogenic fire. He fails to understand that people have been manipulating the landscape for millennia. Before Phil got here, giant sequoia forests were more like giant sequoia savannas, with giant trees here and there overtopping a grassy understory. That savanna was maintained by the former residents. After those caretakers were extirpated, a thicket grew up between the giants. Phil wandered in last week and saw a doghair thicket of poles, and he thinks that’s the historically normative condition.
If we follow Phil ?’s advice, catastrophic fires will drive giant sequoia forests to extinction.
Phil Whocare’s own 30+ years of work in chaparral also missed the obvious fact that people have been burning off Southern California for millennia, too. The ancient residents of the valleys of SoCal burned their landscapes every year, which promoted the growth of light-burning grasses instead of creosote-drenched chaparral. Ancient fires were light, never catastrophic.
The result of Phil’s ignorance, and that of his ignorant compatriots at UCLA, is that SoCal has recently suffered the worst fires in its history. In 2003 over 750,000 acres burned near San Diego, destroying over 3,700 homes, and killing 24 people. More huge fires happened near Lake Arrowhead this summer. Potential outbreaks of killer chaparral fires currently threaten the entire California coastline, one of the most densely urbanized and populated coastlines in the world.
Phil is a total failure as a plant ecologist, and his failures are reflected in the enormous tragedies he has helped to cause.
Tom Bonnicksen, on the other hand, had this to say about chaparral management:
Large chaparral fires, which killed most of the people and destroyed most of the homes in 2003, can be prevented. This is easily done by breaking up old highly flammable chaparral, which means 40 years or older, into small patches and surrounding them with young chaparral that doesn’t burn easily. Prescribed fire may be the only tool available to do it until we find an economic value for chaparral, such as biomass energy.
The same method works in forests. Reduce the size of patches of old overcrowded forests that burn hot and isolate them from one another with forests that are open and have little fuel. This will keep wildfires contained so that they don’t spread across landscapes and destroy whole forests and communities. Unlike chaparral, mechanical methods work best in forests because they pay the cost and they are safer than prescribed fire.
As a fire ecologist and historian of America’s forests, the choice seems clear. We can’t give up and watch torrents of fire incinerate forests, kill people, and lay waste to communities. We must have the courage to manage our forests and brushlands to protect each other and our environment.
Phil Eyeforget criticizing Tom Bonnicksen is like Salieri criticizing Mozart. Tom Bonnicksen is a luminary, a genius, a scientific pathfinder, and a forest savior. His name will live on, and his work will be respected and studied, long after Phil ’s name has vanished from memory.
October 23rd, 2006 at 11:32 am
Based on the above (the juvenile and slanderous style of writing is suspiciously similar op-eds written by Bonnicksen), I really don’t expect that you will post this but here it goes anyway. Tom “forest” Bonnicksen has not published a peer reviewed paper for at least 20 years. It seems that tom “forest” has been to busy promoting timber and oil company agendas (see exxonsecrets.org) to read any scientific papers in the past 20 years either. Frankly, Tom “forrest’s” credentials don’t hold a candle to the signers of the open letter to the media. But why argue? Let people make up their own minds, post the link to the article in the LA times (which is neither unweildy or hard to navigate) http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bonnicksen21oct21,1,3921976.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
A true academic welcoms open debate of the issues based on ALL available information.
October 23rd, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Regarding your “In defense of Tom Forest,”
You obviously have a passion for what you believe, but there comes a time when such passion blinds objectivity. Your attack of Phil Rundel and anyone who questions Bonnicksen’s own objectivity engages in the very thing you claim to distain, “the politics of personal destruction.”
I think it is important to help clarify some of the issues you seem to be raising.
First, Bonnicksen is a public policy enthusiast, not a forest scientist or ecologist. Those of us in the scientific community who have read his publications (I have read all of them) have not been particularly impressed with this methods or ability to eliminate variables that may influence his results. This is why the primary supporters of his ideas are connected to economic and political interests instead of the scientific community. Bonnicksen has published a handful of peer-reviewed papers, but they are mostly spin-offs from work he did 30 years ago in Sequoia. A lot has changed since then. His Ph.D. was not in forest science or ecology, but rather a public policy examination about perceptions of wildfire management in Southern California chaparral. By the way, Bonnicksen claims to be a chaparral “expert” yet he has never conducted actual botanical field research in chaparral systems. His experience remains within the confines of policy, not biology.
Regarding your comments about how the Sequoia NF stands are “bug-ridden thickets.” Could you provide any research to back up this claim? It would be helpful for your argument. I am not aware of any long-term studies that come close to the conclusions you are making.
Do you really think the conservation and scientific community was responsible for the 2003 fires in Southern California? As a firefighter who was on the scene, I suggest you do a bit more research before making this conclusion. Severe fire weather conditions became the driving variable. Bonnicksen’s suggestion that we masticate large tracks of chaparral for bio-fuels to reduce fuel loads is not a solution. Many of us in the fire business enjoy Southern California native plant systems and would prefer to leave them be. It might be helpful for you to search the literature and discover that fuel age is not particularly relevant to determining fire size in the region.
Regarding Native American burning and how we have damaged the landscape by stopping it and continuing fire suppression efforts. I’ve always been curious about this argument. Considering that Native Americans were only here in sufficient numbers only about 10,000 years ago to have had much of an impact, how did California ecosystems survive with out them? You might also consider the impact massive logging and overgrazing had on the landscape, things that we introduced here during and after the Gold Rush. Balancing your commentary with a full range of factual data will help your argument considerably.
On a final note, most everyone in the scientific community understands these issues well and is well aware of Tom Bonnicksen’s leanings. It is relatively common knowledge that he was pushed into his own “Institute” at Texas A&M primarily because the department was finding his personality difficult. He didn’t get the California Department of Forestry (CDF) directorship in California because the Governor’s office realized he was more of a polarizer than one who could craft successful public policy. His attempt to use UC Davis as a way to provide some connection to California was not particularly wise.
Tom Forest is on the Forest Foundation’s payroll, an organization that is funded primarily by the logging industry. I think that should factor into your analysis.
FN2
October 23rd, 2006 at 5:21 pm
FN1,
Did I start this? No, a professor at UCLA, a member of a radical-left, eco-litigious, pro-forest fire, anti-forest, anti-human being, political club started this, by placing a slanderous article in the LA Times about a “fellow academic.”
Did Rundel publish a scientific article refuting one of Bonnicksen’s in a peer-reviewed journal? No, he spit his venom in the newspaper.
Did he cite even one Bonnicksen paper? No. Rundel was quoted as saying, ” There’s nothing in his [Bonnicksen’s] record other than just talking and hand-waving.” Is that the action of a true academic welcoming open debate?
I searched for Phil’s research publications on forests and found none. I found just one reference, a political letter he wrote to the San Jose Mercury that was full of pseudo-scientific tripe. I cited it, quoted it, and explained its fallacies. Did Phil do that much? No.
Did you? No. You only parrot the slanders without any investigation into the truth or falsehood. You cite nothing but the self-same LA Times hit-piece. Furthermore, you suggest that everybody who disagrees with your ill-informed opinion must be a tool of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy, dancing like a puppet on a string for a few pennies. Nice. What are your sources and amounts of income? What are your affiliations? Who pulls your string?
And my approach is juvenile? Why? Did I write a hit-piece in the LA Times? Is my freedom of speech somehow less than that of a two-bit, non-entity, non-forest scientist?
Again I ask, what are Rundel’s sources of income, and the amounts? What are his affiliations? Where is his academic record on forests? What is Rundel hiding?
But most especially I want to know, why does he (and you) want to burn America’s priceless, heritage forests to the ground? What did those forests ever do to you that makes you want to drive them to extinction?
October 23rd, 2006 at 6:07 pm
FN2,
Yes, you are right. I am engaging in exactly the tactics of Rundel. How does it feel? As a member of the scientific community, do you routinely engage in publishing hit-pieces about your political/academic opponents in the newspaper? Is that your style, or just one you approve of when Rundel does it?
I am trying to save my forests. If you want to play with me, you better realize the game is hardball.
You claim to have read all 80 of Bonnicksen’s publications, the work of a long and illustrious career. Then you cite his PhD dissertation at the very beginning of that career, and that’s all. Is that how you want your life’s work in science evaluated, by your thesis and nothing since?
And you were not impressed. My, my. Would you like to impress us with some of your research? I guarantee you the same sort of cursory review that you discount Bonnicksen with.
My claims regarding the Sequoia forest are based on my own personal observations. Have you ever personally observed that forest? Must I deny the facts in front of my face and in plain sight because you can’t find a reference to it?
Yes, I really think the conservation and scientific community was responsible for the 2003 fires in Southern California. The radical eco-nuts in places like UCLA are directly responsible for allowing incendiary conditions to build up. As a firefighter who puts himself and others in harm’s way, you should be very concerned when misinformed academics call for No Touch, Let It Burn policies.
The wind blows often in SoCal, but wind does not burn. Fuels burn. It’s the fuels, not the weather.
Regarding Native American burning, how nice that you are curious. Have you done any research to satisfy your curiosity? Can you cite any experts? Your question does not make sense, indicating to me you have never read any of the literature.
And that is not surprising because the “scientific community” has ostracized people like Tom Bonnicksen and so many others that do conduct research into anthropogenic fire. It is very difficult for anthropogenic fire researchers to publish, or get grants, or even hold academic positions. Who in your “scientific circle” is an anthropogenic fire expert? Is there one at UCLA? At OSU? I know of one at Davis. Can you cite any?
Is academic freedom real, or an ugly charade?
Here we go again. What is your source of income? Who tells you what to say? Are you beholden to tell lies on behalf of your employer? Is anybody? I can assure you that Tom Bonnicksen is an original, and he speaks for himself, and says what he means, and means what he says, regardless of whomever feeds the kitty.
Are you familiar with the Forest Foundation and their work? I take it you are not a contributor. What organizations do you contribute to?
And finally, why do you wish to destroy priceless, heritage forests? Why do you prefer irregular holocaust to regular tending? Do you really prefer that 3,000 year old trees be incinerated so that a sea of germinants, as thick as grass, can occupy the site?
What kind of conservation is that?
October 24th, 2006 at 11:09 am
Furthermore Boys,
What is all this nonsense about Dr. Thomas Bonnicksen hasn’t published anything significant in over 20 or 30 years? Didn’t you read the first paragraph of this post that got your attention?
If you look at the fine print, you will notice that I casually mentioned the greatest book ever written about our forests, America’s Ancient Forests – From the Ice Age to the Age of Discovery (2000, John Wiley). Somehow, you subtract 2000 from 2006 and get a number larger than 20. And you call yourselves scientists and experts! Why, a well-schooled third grader is better at arithmetic than you guys!
I doubt that you are what you say you are. Show me the proof. Show me the scientific reports, or writings, or anything that might indicate your expertise regarding forests. Send me something about forests written by your hero Phil, for that matter.
I have claimed, from the outset of this blog, that I have expertise regarding forests. And I have backed it up. There are 375+ posts about forests here. Many are reviews of scientific books and articles, all of which are listed in my Bibliography, including my own contributions. You are welcome to review any or all of it, because I have placed it in plain public view.
But you have no such expertise, or writings, or bibliography, or anything about forests to display. You can only cast specious, politically-motivated, nasty insinuations at real experts. And you do it by placing hit-pieces in the LA Times, and on my blog, empty of science, bearing patently false accusations against a real scientist, a dedicated, accomplished, and honored man, who is trying to save our forests from destruction by holocaust.
You are frauds, and malicious frauds at that. You cannot argue the facts, you can only spew insinuations. How does it feel to get a taste of your own medicine?
October 24th, 2006 at 11:18 am
Mike:
I don’t know who Fakers One and Two are, but I am not surprised at their vicious personal attacks on Tom Bonnicksen, for several of the reasons you describe.
Tom Bonnicksen is an influential scientist with an international audience, and has been for some time. His understanding of “native forests” certainly trumps any of the work I have seen from Franklin and the others.
Although the Fake Names are fake, similar opinions have been voiced by certified scientists, and I am far more concerned with the strong “status quo” bias and methods prevalent in the fields of “forest ecology” and other environmental sciences.
I agree that your comments are inflammatory and juvenile, but I also agree that you are only responding in kind; i.e., fighting fire with fire.
Good to see the discussion on these important issues (forest management, fire history, and agenda science); they are important and need serious consideration before too many more acres are lost to negligence and arrogance. If it takes juvenile efforts to accomplish these means, then hooray for the kids!
Bob Zybach
October 28th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Dear Readers,
I have altered the names of two of the correspondents in these comments. They failed to authenticate themselves despite my repeated requests.
One of the fake names was similar to the name of a real person who is a scientist, but the real guy spells his name a little differently. We apologize for any misunderstandings.
We were gamed by eco-Nazi sneaks. This entire post is about dirty tricks by people who seek to stifle debate, sabotage free speech, censure and censor the truth.
Their ultimate goal is holocaust. It is important to see that. The bottom line with these folks is the further catastrophic destruction of our heritage forests.
The base motives of eco-Nazi’s are annihilation and destruction. They do not value forests, but instead seek to incinerate them. Whatever their motives were when they first deviated, those have mostly faded and one single intention has taken over: holocaust. And anything goes, no slimy ploy or fabrication, is out-of-bounds for these anarchists and terrorists.
The juxtaposition of these despicable creeps and their drive-by tactics with another catastrophic and fatal fire is damningly appropriate and heart-breakingly tragic.
Mike