Counterpoint: Put wildlife first in managing forests

Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Two recent articles in the Star Tribune addressed the controversy swirling around timber harvest in Minnesota Wildlife and Aquatic Management Areas (WMAs and AMAs) over the past five years ("DNR logs a failure in its handling of land squabble," Dennis Anderson column, Aug. 13; "DNR hits pause on logging," Aug. 8).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service understands the issue. That's why they have recently withheld over $20 million in federal funds from the DNR. Sadly, despite the lip service they've paid to the issue, the DNR commissioner's office does not.

The commissioner's office has refused to make any changes to its timber harvest plan since it began five years ago, even though we, along with 22 other DNR wildlife managers (the agency's on-the-ground experts), sent them a letter in 2019 expressing grave concern over the impact the timber harvest policy would have on wildlife.

The commissioner's office is placing too much faith in a computer model to determine the statewide sustainable timber harvest. The analysis itself declared that its implementation would damage habitat, but the DNR decided to enact it anyway to appease industry lobbyists. The model is not designed to benefit habitat, but is being applied on fish and wildlife lands, where the requirement for receiving federal money is that wildlife habitat must be benefited.

The crux of the problem is that the computer model is designed to maximize timber harvest and generates a harvest quota for the amount of timber to be harvested every year across every state forest area regardless of its impact on wildlife populations. As long as there is a harvest quota, that commercial goal becomes the primary focus for the timber harvest — not whether or not the harvest will benefit wildlife.

Timber harvest in forested habitats is an important management tool. But so is leaving enough older forest for wildlife habitat. The proper distribution of young, middle-aged and older forest can't be achieved through timber harvest quotas, which is the current status quo for DNR timber harvest management on WMAs and AMAs. One size does not fit all, but that dynamic is lost with the way it is currently managed.

DNR leadership has chosen to support WMA timber harvest goals based on the mistaken belief that older rotation ages and other "constraints" to the harvest are all that is needed to provide good wildlife habitat. That is not how wildlife management in forests works and not how the law mandates that WMAs be managed.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wishes to enforce the law, for the sake of the habitat. It would be nice if the DNR showed that same concern for the natural resources they have been entrusted to manage.

Ruth-Anne Franke, of Thief River Falls; Gretchen Mehmel, of Baudette; Martha Minchak, of Proctor; Jodie Provost, of Valley City, N.D.; Dave Rave, of Bemidji; and Tom Rusch, of Eveleth are retired DNR wildlife managers.