SS011 Entity 2: Long text explanations from survey based on attributes from entity 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attribute: EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10007 If there is no difference between two variables I'm not sure how they reached a conclusion about what the appropriate management action is. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10009 This conclusion is only true if reducing air pollution is the only goal of salvage logging, which I doubt is rarely, if ever the case EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10018 When looking at specific sites salvage logging can be useful for areas that have large populations to help slow a secondary fire. There's other factors rather than just soil erosion at play. This also doesn't tell me how much more soil erosion happened, therefore I cannot tell if it was a moderate to high increase or if it was negligible. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10020 There are ways to mitigate soil erosion to an extent by making sure skid trails have proper mending at the end. We ALWAYS plant the salavaged area so the soil eorsion is partly mitigated. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10021 Smoke generation of subsequent fires would be a function of the existing fuels and fire severity. Fuels from stands that are not salvaged would have some impact on fuel loading but the amount of decomposition has removed some of the total fuel loading and the seasoning of the fuels allows for cleaner burning thus reducing smoke amounts. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10029 it is sound in that a conclusion followed the premise, but it is an extreme conclusion that leaves no room for other options EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10032 I work in a position within the logging community that has little control over whether a unit is salvage logged or not after a fire, therefore I see that suggesting this could make people think but I think more evidence and examples would justify whether this is sound advice I'd ever give to an operator. And even at that it would not stop operations. I also work in the eastern oregon landscape and would question where these studies were conducted and if they are relevant to our climate, soils and forests. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10040 Again, would need more details about the study to know if it was applicable to my landscape, but this seems fairly sound to me. It would at least help guide me where salvage logging should be avoided, such as lower quality/drier sites. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10045 Doesn't take into account the potential management needs for that landscape or the legal requirements that may be on a landmanger. At times there has to be some salvage to pay for other post-fire needs. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10046 If air quality is an important objective then maybe the conclusion is reasonable, would want to understand the data used, timeframe, location, etc. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10051 More or less smoke may not matter to your landscape objectives. Therefore, even though salvaged log areas produce the same amount of smoke, it may meet other objectives of the landscape to salvage log. But if you are only focused on smoke and air quality, then this argument is sound. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10066 Again, what were the conditions of the study area, soil type? site class? slope? This conclusion should be applicable only to the areas with similar site conditions. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10074 Again, I would add a because statement in the last sentence to drive home why this is important to me. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10076 It is sound in the sense that the conclusion follows the premise, but the premise was broader whereas the conclusion is being used to a specific area. I am unsure where the study was conducted so to then use this conclusion for my landscape may not work well. As we as land managers have a lot to consider after a fire such as wildlife, water, vegetation and soil. So if the cost of the soil health is too much of a risk, I understand but I cannot draw management decisions from this premise EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10082 This is a sound argument, but again I'd like to see more specifics rather than generalities such as, lower tree recruitment and survival. Is it significantly different or just a little less survival. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10084 Just uses one Parameter to determine whether to salvage harvest or not EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10099 If the studies are true this is a sound argument. I stray away from salvage for a couple reasons. Salvage logging is dangerous and hardly profitable. I think the time, money, and energy should be used to prevent catastrophic fire damage. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10108 About the same amount of smoke is ambiguous and leading the reader to the conclusion. It either produced the same, more, or less smoke. The premise is too vague for the conclusion. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10117 Slightly sound based on the study, but I would need multiple resources, varying studies, and more information for it to be entirely sound. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10129 What were the logging practices and slope conditions and leave strategies for snags or down wood? Were there different % of salvage. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10132 I would need to see the studies and have more information on the treatments that were done, as well as the time interval for the second fire entry. From everything that I have witnessed proper salvage, site prep, and planting have shown to be more productive healthier stands that are more resistant to a high severity fire. I don't doubt the detrimental impact to the soil following a second high severity fire, I'm simply following the belief that a properly managed stand likely wont experience a high severity fire. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10141 to vauge of a statement. I would want to see what was evaluated and how. specifically, were ""best management practices"" implemented to help with soil stabilalization in sensitive areas? parameters of what was evaluated and what inputs were used in the evaluat EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10150 Study makes no mention of soil type, slope, etc... Cant apply broad conclusion without additional site information. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10152 This finding could have broad implications across a range of forest landscapes and also aligns with observations following post fire logging EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10153 premise: ""had lower tree recruitment and survival"", ""hinders"", ""suggests"". Conclusion: ""should not"" Should not if there is a risk of it burnin EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10161 More context is needed on the salvage prescription and subsequent reforestation. For instance, if all trees were removed, and what density and species were replanted afterwards. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10167 This finding does not lead me to the stated conclusion for various reasons: 1) I do not know the geographic area, environmental conditions, or types of salvage harvest treatments of the study. From my knowledge of previous studies of salvage logging and ecosystem recovery, different studies have had wildly different conclusions. For this reason, the details are very important to assess the applicability of the results to my landscape. 2) Perhaps more importantly, the research finding presumes that the primary objective of salvage logging is ecosystem recovery through natural forest regeneration. There are many other reasons to conduct salvage harvesting. In my organization, financial returns from salvage are a more important consideration than unassisted ecosystem recovery. Additionally, we have resources to conduct site preparation and reforestation treatments, which greatly enhance our ability to ensure that we are reforesting with genetically adapted, drought tolerant, appropriate species that are more likely to survive in future climates. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10173 We manage trust lands, the beneficiaries and local communities would be deprived of any financial gain until the next rotational harvest. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10190 There are a lot more factors that go into it. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10193 It is too broad and does not state what the management objectives for the landscape is. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10207 I would need to review this study --- it sounds like wishful thinking. The idea that a forest stand could recover enough biomass (Fuel) in a ten year period to equal the pre-existing stand seems unlikely. Possibly the type of replacement material being burned could elevate certain levels of air quality but seems a poor argument. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10208 they don't explain a reason on why there is less recovery in areas that haven't been logged. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10210 The argument is incredible focused on one aspect of Salvage logging. I can be a part or piece of a broader argument that should include socioeconomics, differences in land management practices from federal / state / private entities and the root causes between those differences. Lastly salvage logging has an incredible impact on fire response, fire fighter safety, and impact on landowners and communities which, in my opinion, would have a dramatic impact on tree recruitment, soil stability, etc.. due to fewer acres burned at lower intensity. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10215 This argument points to one consideration to make when determining whether or not to salvage log. There are many other resources to consider besides soil. There are also many other pros and cons to consider that would be rooted in land management goals. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10217 How big was the study? I think that all micro climates are not the same throughout the landscape. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10225 The conclusion is that salvage logging does not reduce the impacts on air quality on subsequent burn overs. That is too simplistic. and does not include other stand mangagement variables. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10232 It seems sound to me, but it’s not my area of expertise. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10243 My landscape has a 100-500 year fire interval so this information is irrelevant to me EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10250 The premise does not consider all management variables. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10259 If the pure argument is tied to air quality as a result of salvage - then this is a sound argument. There are many other factors tied to salvage that this statement misses and makes it fall short. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10291 Makes sense EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10307 There are many factors that need to be taken into account when making arguments like this. It is not a one size fits all approach. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10340 Air quality after a second burn in the same stand should not be used as the sole metric for justifying salvage logging to not take place. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10343 Salvage logging may reduce the possibility of a second damaging fire, erosion levels may not be significant at either level. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10345 There is always challenges to making blanket statements and assumptions across all landscapes and climates uniformly. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10354 I think that there are mitigation measures for soil erosion during salvage logging as well as secondary tree planting to help with tree recruitment and growth. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10358 again, some missing steps with the argument getting to the conclusion EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10361 Setting aside that salvage logging doesn't occur in National Parks, the conclusion is too broad. Soil conservation is extremely important, but there may be other considerations, such as hazard tree mitigation, which mean that salvage logging is necessary. Also, knowing that soils are at risk after salvage logging encourages planning and action to prevent this, such as post-fire slope stabilization measures. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10366 In my landscape a second fire is not a given and soil erosion is not uniform. The findings would argue better for judicious salvage logging rather than an outright ban. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10376 Tree recruitment is not the only goal. Salvage logging makes future management actions possible by removing hazards. You can't fight fire in a snag patch so the second fire burns unchecked. If the second fire was planned and aerial hazards mitigated then tree recruitment would be improved. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10379 My unit has dry and moist ecosystems. No one size fits. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10384 Need more research to isolate salvage logging as the driver for lower tree recruitment. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10392 longitudinal study proves out that data is sound EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10395 There are additonal resource concerns, public safety, wildlife, etc. that may be of greater importance EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10398 I haven't heard the argument that salvage logging reduces the amount of smoke from subsequent fires, so this is a weak premise in my mind. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10416 Salvage logging and the decisions around really all management actions are not a ""one variable in, one conclusion/solution out"" scenarios. The value in salvage logging isn't captured in this argument. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10420 One study on one landscape can only be extrapolated so far. I can't extrapolate this fictional study to my landscape with any level of certainty. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10427 Assumes air quality is the only management objective EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10430 It is relevant and logical that since a study showed adverse impacts that someone wouldn't want that treatment done near them. But the salvage logging done on ""my site"" could be different than the one in the study. Maybe they learned their lesson from the study and are going to do it slightly on ""my landscape,"" or maybe my landscape is different in a way where we would not expect that pro EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10435 No benefits to salvage logging were mentioned. These studies only pointed out negative impacts from salvage logging. If the argument is stating no salvage logging should be implemented, then there should be exceptions mentioned as salvage logging does have some benefits. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10439 The language used is absolute. There is room for interpretation. Additionally, it is one study. Are there other studies that refute this? Is the study area comparable to one's home unit? EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10442 My agency's policy does not currently allow salvage logging. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10446 Recovery post disturbance (wildfire) is best measured in successional stages based upon site potential and using the species present to estimate stages of successional recovery. Basing an argument upon tree recruitment appears overly simplistic and not representative of true site recovery post disturbance. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10452 It was a study over long period of time, so it seems there would be enough research conducted and data collected to support this argument. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10457 Overly generalized conclusion. Salvage logging has a range of benefits and costs that must be weighed against one another, and they are very site specific considerations. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10458 As with many of these questions the answer is not binary. We often make decisions based on multiple policy and resource concerns. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10469 I would need more information about where the study was conducted to evaluate if it applies to ""my landscape". EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10475 The argument is based of more than one premise so it seems more sound. The conclusion is still too vague to make this argument more sound. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10484 There is no discussion of land use allocation, management objective, or purpose of the salvage logging. The context is constrained to: high severity fire, that was salvaged, and then burned again, compared to I am assuming the same scenarios in an unsalvaged stand. What were the stands- the same? Different? What are the metrics to determine ""future impacts to so EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10494 Since we are faced with natural regeneration of many of our stands post-fire this makes sense. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10495 A blanket statement like that conclusion is not taking into account all variables that decide whether or not salvage logging should be done or not. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10498 Too little information with many variables. Management objectives, tools available, and constraints have large bearing on results EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10509 It ignores the finding that the results were the same, so there is no strong reason to not salvage log just because the result is the same. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:20009 Presumably, worrying about smoke from a wildlife is not the only concern so there's a lot more factors to consider. If the answer was, ""Therefore, salvage logging should not be used on my landscape as a measure to improve air quality"" it would have been very sou EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:20012 It depends on what your goals for the site are. The statement makes a values judgement, rather than looking at why you are salvage logging and does not take into account other potential management goals/objectives. If lower tree recruitment is the goal because you don't think the site can handle higher tree densities in the future, then you might be okay with it. If you are trying to manage for early-seral habitat with abundant snags, then you would not want to salvage log that area. Issues of public and employee safety also come into play. If you are trying to recover the costs of hazard tree removal along roads, in recreation areas, or around infrastructure, then you might want to consider salvage logging. ""Should/should not"" statements are value calls, not scientific conclusion EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:20023 assuming that all other factoer were equal for both the logged and unlogged areas - the premise is sound - the conclusion that it should not be used on ""my landscapare"" is not because there is no information about whether conditions are the same on that lands EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:20032 Smoke production is lower on the list than other factors when it comes to deciding about salvage logging, such as chance of reburning, public safety on public lands roads, ability to reforest, amount needed for a watershed to have adequate downed wood and snags, etc. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:20037 not a strong argument for the conclusion, many other factors are included in coming to the conclusion given ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attribute: EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10020 There is no explanation as WHY conclusions made, so I can't make the educated, logical connection. Thinning the thick stand lowers the fire hazard as it removes the extra vegetation, so for that reason as is I would always want to thin an old stand to a certain level. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10028 If I need to harvest at a certain rate and doing the thinning creates the same effect while generating income, it’s a win win. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10032 Based on how much that would change our economy if we didn't allow mature growth stands to be thinnd I would like way more extensive research than just ten years to conclude that this is sound EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10035 10 years of study is a sufficient time frame to assess the drought stress and soil moisture to trees in the study. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10042 Therefore, mature growth stands should not be thinned on my landscape to accelerate transition to old growth forests. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10046 somewhat reasonable but again would want to ""dig into"" the data, determine if other studies reached similar conclusions, is 10 years enough time EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10051 To me again, what are all the objectives. If it is just purely transition to old growth forests, then sure its sound. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10054 This argument only addresses transition to old growth forest, and does not speak to fire resilience of the forest. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10063 not enough information or data. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10065 The decision to thin a mature stand not based on one conclusion from one study. Instead it needs to be based on legal requirements, in WADNR we have a trust mandate to consider. Politics at the state and local level also need to be considered. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10066 Again, this all depends on the site. For example, this may be appropriate on the eastside of the Cascades in WA but not the case west of the Cascades. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10077 More info on the scenarios EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10082 This is sound as the conclusion follows from the premise. I rated this as moderately sound because the conclusion seems overly simplistic. The premise is too general to make an outright management decision. How much lower was the soil moisture content, how much more likely are they to experience drought stress, drastically different or only slightly. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10083 would need to see study design to evaluate EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10096 the stand may need management to create Wildlife habitat and the conditions of westside vs eastside is not mentioned here. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10108 The premise is ambiguous, geographical region and tree species should be provided for context. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10109 Not a 100% because in general when there is less competition drought is not as hard on the remaining trees, more trees equals more competition. Would like to see the data. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10117 Slightly sound based on the study, but I would need multiple resources, varying studies, and more information for it to be entirely sound. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10119 If the goal is to accelerate development of late-successional stand structure, and the expense and disturbance of thinning does not support this goal, then thinning is unnecessary. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10120 Acceleration to old-growth might not be the sole objective for the stand. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10129 Is there a soil type and characteristics that are consistent between the stands? What is the stand density detail of thinned vs unthinned. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10131 If thinning provides economic return and does no harm to reaching oldgrowth conditions, thin! EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10147 The management goals of the thinning are not expressed. If the goal is only to accelerate the transition to mature forest, then the conclusion is correct. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10150 Extreme Fire Behavior not defined. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10151 There are numerous factors that go into deciding to conduct a VDT. Some stands it makes sense and some stands it doesn't, I would not agree with having a hard statement like this without seeing the data and the model study. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10152 There are so many other factors to consider; is the stand in a high risk environment; is it on the coast where fire risk is much lower; what are the other risks of not thinning the stand? EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10153 Premis: ""suggests"" ""are more likely"". Conclusion: ""should not"". Should not seems like an extreme conclusion for an argument whose premise are built on suggests and more likely. Perhaps lower soil moisture content due to variable thinning could be negated by planting more drought-tolerant native species within your landscape. This may allow you to have more managem EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10162 Premise and conclusion. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10173 We manage for Northern Spotted Owl (NSO), so 50% of the Spotted Owl Management Unit (SOMU) must remain in habitat - Relative Density 48.RD48) EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10190 Not a long enough timeframe. There are a lot of other factors like policy that shape decisions. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10193 This assumes that the management objective for the landscape is solely to improve fire resistance does not take into account other goals that may be better reached by thinning such as revenue generation. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10197 may be other reasons for thinning; perhaps ecological EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10208 They don't explain the mechanism behind the lower soil moisture content. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10212 My landscape covers a variety of mature forests types that have a wide range of climates, topography, history, challenges, and species. In my mind the conclusion may be fine but would need to be more specific to be sound. What type of mature stands? In what landscapes? The conclusion would also need to be explicit in talking about mature forest thinning in the context of fire resistance, fire behavior, and timeframe for it to be sound. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10217 Sounds like the information is scewed in the no cut stands catagory. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10221 Case by case ,location of the stand. Some areas are rapid reproduction whereas some areas should never be cut or thinned. Shade reduces fire behavior by 50% Mature stands can be thinned properly before disease and drought kills them. % EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10225 data set of 20 years is not long enough. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10232 It would depend on the reason for the thinning. If the removed wood can be harvested, and can generate revenue, then I think the study would support thinning activities. If it’s just thinning for thinning’s sake then I agree with the study’s conclusion that it should not take place. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10243 1. Without knowing the details of the study (study duration, thinning intensity, location), I cannot judge its relevance to our long-term landscape objectives. 2. Thinning mature stands is generally a politically driven decision rather than an ecologically driven decision, so the argument is irrelevant to our management actions. 3. At this time, drought is not a significant issue on my landscape and I would be hesitant to allow an issue that doesn’t exist to guide my management decisions. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10282 I'd like to see the data first, just to confirm the soundness of the argument.... EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10283 the premise needs to define the types of landscapes assessed EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10343 Not all thinning is variable density. There may be other compelling reasons to thin forest stands. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10350 The research could help make a management decision, but how does the research relate to site conditions. What other factors are influencing the decision? EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10354 When the stand is opened up from a thinning prescription. The soil has more sunlight and more wind exposure to dry it out. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10358 This decision would have big implications in my area, so further studies would be needed EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10361 I have worked on a national park that used thinning to restore yellow pine woodlands, so this question is relevant. I would be curious to know what forest types were included in the study to help judge how relevant the results/conclusions are for my situation. If I were considering thinning for some management purpose, the information from this study would help inform the thinning design; e.g., removing seedlings but not middle canopy to maintain shading of the forest floor, or thinning more heavily on shaded, north-facing slopes that would be less likely to dry out. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10367 Recurrence interval of certain fire intensities isn't examined. In other words, an old growth stand may be more resistant to wildfire, but if you treat the stand with variable density thinning, you may ultimately save the stand from complete loss due to high burn severity when the fire does happen. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10376 10 years is a short time frame for transition to old growth. If the only goal is resistance to fire then thinning should not happen. If thinning supports transition to old growth characteristics, and that is the goal, then thinning should happen and fire should be managed to occur when conducive to reduce extreme fire behavior. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10379 Dry vs moist landscapes EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10384 Points to need for more research to strengthen causative relationship between thinning and factors of drought stress. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10390 While generally sound, this argument does exclude the consideration of other variables beyond soil moisture and drought stress in order to draw a conclusion EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10395 Something to consider, but resistance does not equate to immediate fire risk in the near term EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10398 The argument may be somewhat sound based on premise and conclusion, but the conclusion is too much of a jump with other factors considered. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10416 It is not a huge revelation that removing overstory reduces soil moisture, if the desired condition you are managing for is increased soil moisture then this is a sound argument. If it is more board feet, and a more open stand allowing for healthy undergrowth (shrubs, grasses, forbs, etc) and diverse habitat then thinning is a tool that fits that desired condition EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10423 The argument needs to be more quantitative. Needs to be clear how hard the stand was thinned (BA, TPA, RD, etc). The study/modeling doesn't describe recommendations or predictions and therefore, conclusions shouldn't be based solely off this study. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10431 Again, the argument lacks consideration of other relevant factors, including other benefits of thinning (habitat reasons, economic, fire probability, ecosystem factors) that influence thinning. Conclusions may be useful for informing actions, but it would be rash for a single factor to drive these decisions. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10435 The negative effects of variable density thinning are reasonable based on this study. However, no benefits were mentioned. Surely there could be exceptions for situations where variable density thinning has benefits. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10437 For the same reason as the previous argument, this summary lacks context and so applying this short summary to a landscape level decision would be inappropriate. What is the source data, how many stands and what area is this study representative of (is the the PNW, or somewhere else in a different forest structure type)? Applying research to landscape level planning is very difficult to do, and so site specific applications are more appropriate than applying a generalized result to an entire landscape. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10449 This argument does not factor in any socio-economic factors that influence decisions regarding timber production - the BLM's RMP does not allow a manager to make the decision to not thin mature growth stands just because doing so increases drought stress. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10456 10 years is a terrible frame of reference for the fire regime affecting my forest type. There are also many different reasons to thin other than fire resistance. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10461 Just one study - what does other research suggest? What were their methods? Was the study done in a similar ecosystem to mine? EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10468 location, species, location andtreatment have not been identified, to much generalization EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10469 Again I would want to know what the landscape was for this study before applying the results to my landscape. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10472 Again, this argument is based on a grossly oversimplified management scenario. Variable density thinning in mature forest seeks to accomplish objectives 50 or 100 years in the future - therefore evaluation ""at 10 years"" is entirely arbitrary and not consistent with the time metrics of the practice anyway. Further, while an opened understory may experience more drying due to wind and sun, these areas are also more likely to include pollinator plants and other non-tree species, which are desirable - regardless of the issues surrounding fire risk, behavior, or timber biomass producti EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10484 I don't work in a mositure limited system, I work in a light limited system where insects, disease and primarily wind/storm damage are the driving forces of stand changes, not fire. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10488 There is a leap in logic that the study forests are similar to forests in ""my landscape."" While compelling, site-specific factors may exist that cause a forest to respond differently. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10503 Not enough information. Science and conclusions are not that black and white. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10509 Managing for old growth may not be the only reason to thin. The study suggests there is no benefit to the transition to old growth, but there may be other reasons one would want to thin EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:20004 too many examples of thinning bringing fire back to the forest floor, decreasing fire intensity EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:20023 fire resistance and fire behavior are 2 different animals. the comparison does not make sense. the therefore conclusion is not sound - there is no evidence that ""my land"" is subjected to the same weather and site conditions as the study areas EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:20030 Would want to know more about pre thinning condition of the stands. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:20035 The study shows that a particular management actions has an undesirable effect. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:20037 not enough information given about either the site or the degree/duration of stress to jump to that conclusion ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attribute: EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10018 Just because a study indicates it's not significatn does not tell me any of the variables involved in this study. It's hard to know if my location was a part of the study and if the results are applicable. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10020 It's really hard to make conclusions based on one study! One study is inconclusive! EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10021 Part of my answer is biologically I believe that drought tolerant native trees already on the landscape will fill the void in areas left by less drought tolerant species. Economically I am concerned that translocated trees would not have as marketable values and would ultimately displace higher value native species. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10032 Again would like to see how relevant this study is in the eastern Oregon landscape before concluding how sound it is EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10040 This is a relatively sound conclusion, assuming that my management objectives include timber production of the same species sampled and that I'm not worried about seedling survival. However, I'd be curious what ages of timber were measured and how rotational thinning vs. clearcut replacements compared. My existing timber may increase biomass growth, but can I sustainably recruit new cohorts using my current silvicultural methods? EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10042 The conclusion follows the premise but statement is weak. Therefore, we should not translocate later-blooming meadow plants onto my landscape to manage for pollinators. I would want a replicated study and modeling to make decisions for the next 100 years. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10051 I put moderately sound because the conclusion is based off a model which often are wrong. According to the study there is still an 80% chance of a collapse, so doing nothing because a model says it wont help, doesn't seem like the best thing to do. I believe more information would be need to make this a sound argument. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10060 The study was only over a 20 year period which is very short in the grand scheme of evolution so I wouldn't believe it to be very/extremely sound but it is a point of information to consider. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10076 How I interpreted the premise and conclusion it is leading that the tree species native to the area will adapt rather than managers having to translocate drought adapted trees. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10078 To suggest through this data set that a portfolio of management options should not be utilized is not recommended as 100 years of uncertainty in a biological system model does not produce an argument to not translocate plants. A diverse biological portfolio is more resilient than a focused pathway derived from a short-term model (relative to the actual predicted timeframe). EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10084 I think invasive species is more of an issue with pollinaters in meadows than climate change. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10094 the past 5 years with hotter and longer summers put pressure on for more drought tolerant trees to prevent decline especially in newer plantings. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10117 Slightly sound based on the study, but I would need multiple resources, varying studies, and more information for it to be entirely sound. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10129 While the 20 year data set seems like a good span of changing weather/climate conditions to predict the future, I'm not sure if 80% prediction of collapse means ""do nothing"" now. . I'm a little skeptical of any model to predict any certainty past year 1 EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10141 I would want to see the specific parameters of the study to comprehensively evaluate the soundness of it. Specifically, what factors were evaluated to make this determination. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10147 It does not say the effect of translocation. Could translocation increase growth rates, and is an increase in growth rates desireable? Site specific factors may play a role. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10150 Too many site-specific factors to apply a broad conclusion. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10152 In the life of trees, 100 years is not that long of a planning window. We expect it's likely the PNW will lose a significant amount of western red cedar. How will we replace the ecosystem function of this loss of cedar? EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10153 Phrases ""will not be necessary"", ""ensure current levels"" within the premise followed by ""we should not"" in the conclusion. You could argue that while it may not be necessary to translocate native trees from hotter and drier seed zones to maintain current levels of timber production that does not mean your landscape may not benefit from drought-ada EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10160 Hard to predict future. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10166 it depends whether you think meadow pollinators are ""good"" or ""bad"" If you think they are good, then the conclusion is not sound. if you think pollinators are bad then the argument is sound EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10173 Translocation of native plants could also transplant pests and disease. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10190 Not enough information to know where study was performed and how similar/different from my area it is. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10192 There are factors such as land ownership and management activities/policies, that may skew statistically significant impacts on canopy cover by translocated trees in 100yrs EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10205 If translocation will not impact canopy cover why risk moving species that may not move on their own due to climate change? EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10207 Not having access to the study, peer review and references limits answers -- however, basic logic suggests if climate change advances at the rates described in the theoretical study that it will have significant impacts on (current) native plants/trees if this advances far enough --- some canopy would be better than none. The impacts on (current) native ecosystems would be impacted negatively in either scenario is assumed whether or not translocatiion occurs. This may make sense at a global scale but unlikely at a regional level. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10215 This argument does not consider other variables like disturbance regimes and the overall resilience of the landscape. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10217 It is very hard to predict the future climate as it is concerned with changing plants from droughty areas to high moisture areas on sumptions only. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10221 Climate change has too many variables that I do not fully understand. A lot can happen in 100 years. Let mother nature do the work. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10231 Soil Moisture and Canopy Cover are differnt variables not necessarily directly dependant of each other EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10239 Other factors to consider for translocating. Would need to know more details and if this has been applied on different areas/landscapes. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10249 A 20-year data set gives me some pause. The conclusion is very linear without any other considerations. I do not plan management decisions on one scientific study, or desired outcome of a stakeholder, or public perception of how land should be managed. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10250 The conclusion follows the premise. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10259 As written, this is confusing. If soil moisture values will low, my understanding is that means dry - and if its for twice as many days = drier longer? This appears to almost contradict itself. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10345 When has history ever shown that translocating species to non-native spaces to other locations ever shown a 100% positive impact. There is always some consequences that may not be seen quickly. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10350 Site specific conditions could impact the soundness of the argument. Is 100 years sufficient time to see response? EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10356 On my unit, we favor a precautionary principle and choosing not to take a management action is always easier to accept than taking an action. Given that decision-making framework, this conclusion follows moderately well from the premise. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10361 There are all kinds of reasons NOT to translocate plants. While it would be handy to have this study to help bolster an argument, I would need much more to resist the pressure from higher levels of management to keep the landscape looking and functioning just as it does right now. Also, there are many reasons why pollinator populations are crashing (e.g., neonicotinoid pesticides, urbanization, etc.); the pressure to translocate plant species probably wouldn't just be to support pollinators. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10366 The conclusion does follow most of the premise. However there is a question about the validity of the model based on an unexplained increase in water use efficiency which would have ramifications on the other potential gains. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10374 We don't have timber production here but the argument seems sound to me. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10376 onto my landscape..... if trying to reduce the probability of collapse. There could be other reasons for translocation. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10381 The argument is sound, but the nuances of land management are not reflected. There are considerations that were not addressed, such as the value of research and monitoring on translocating plants, and possible higher demand for timber production in the next 100 years. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10390 There could be other reasons to translocate trees from hotter and drier seed zones apart from soil moisture. Canopy cover is also only one metric of 'success' for translocating tree species. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10395 It is somethng to consider, but would translocation be economically feasible at a level to make difference. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10398 The argument seems sound, but I have questions about the model and think it would be good to validate it with on the ground data. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10420 I would change the final sentence to therefore, translocating later-blooming plants may not be sufficient. All models are wrong, some are useful. The information provided isn't sufficient enough to rule out translocating plants having a benefit. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10427 Assumes timber production is the only management objective EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10431 late-blooming plant translocation may not be an influential factor on pollinator collapse avoidance, but there may be other benefits. An insignificant relationship to one variable should not be the sole factor informing meadow plant translocation. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10437 It's an OK argument, but again, taking a single study with only a summary of results and applying it to an entire landscape is an over generalized application of a single paper. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10439 There could be other reasons why the need for translocation is necessary. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10442 My agency's current policy does not allow plant translocation from outside of watershed boundaries or to higher elevations to protect genetic integrity. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10445 To determine that we should not translocate drought-adapted trees to the landscape I would like to know the regeneration of the native trees. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10452 I don't feel there is enough information for me to determine how sound, or not sound, this argument is. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10457 My entire landscape (even at the planning unit) rarely includes just timber producing species. More importantly, there are species and places where tranlocation might be sound. The conclusion is not based on the logical argument. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10465 If you strictly care about canopy cover, it could be reasonable. However, canopy cover is only one metric and may not be the appropriate metric to determine the success of the effort. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10469 I would want to know how statistically insignificant before I made a decision. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10475 The conclusion is made from several significant points. The argument seem sound. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10484 20 years of data doesn't seem sufficient to predicte 100 years of change with any certainty to either make, or not make these claims. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10495 If the native trees are going to do fine on their own, then introducing non native plants is not warranted. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10498 May be enough data to support conclusion EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10509 I read this as saying that translocating these plants will not change the probability of pollinator collapse. Translocating plants seems like a drastic measure that would be considered as an emergency measure to prevent a certain ecological disaster. If there is low probability of it succeeding, then doing something that drastic may not be worth the risk of other unknown consequences to the environment from that action. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10553 Canopy cover isn't the only consideration EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:20007 If the data shows a statistically insignificant impact of planting on the pollinator collapse, then it warrants a look at where the study was conducted. EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:20009 Depends on what their goal is, if the goal is to worry only about the next 100 years (long for people, short for ecosystems) then the argument carries weight. If we're talking about future sustainability past the 100 years, then I need more information. I am often confused/distressed at the time frames we choose to consider when we're talking about ecology. . EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:20023 i don't see where it was the late blooming plants that were the problem. what if the plants were not blooming early enough? - i don't see the connection between what parts of the life cycle of the pollinators was affected - there is so much variation among blooming times of meadow plants and variations among the life cycles that utilize the blooming plants that extreme variation in the data would result in the study showing the statistical insignificance EXPLAIN_LT_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:20035 This study does not report the effect of introducing later (not immediately). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attribute: EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10037 We do not manage our lands for profit, and are generally prevented by law for managing with a profit motive. While this study appears beneficial to folks engaged in timber production, more research on the ecological benefits of salvage logging would be necessary for us to consider using it as a management action - especially given the increase in invasive species generally seen after allowing heavy equipment into a site for logging operations. For example: how does salvage logging impact rare fire adapted species like Nicotiana attenuata and other forbs? EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10041 We live in a and manage a manipulated landscape and if recruitment of old growth characteristics a is a goal then science which supports the use of management actions to achieve desired future conditions sooner should be utilized. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10042 The 10 year study window is short but also encompasses the fire seasons with the highest severity. The conclusion is weak again. Therefore, salvage logging should be used on my landscape as a tool to manage air quality. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10054 This argument only addresses soil erosion, when there are numerous other factors to take into account, including post fire wildlife and herbaceous communities. soil compaction from logging, soil erosion from logging. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10060 This being just one study, and over a 10 year period, I would see this as one point of information to consider. Also, since we typically have very little fire salvage due to the location of the forest I manage, I usually would not be too concerned about a study of this nature. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10063 didn't state how many studies they compiled EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10065 Seems like the study was built to prove that salvage logging is a good thing. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10077 Not enough info on the two scenarios EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10078 Too narrow of a premise to draw a conclusion on a post-fire effect that has numerous contributing factors to the overall effect. Soil parent material, slope, rainfall, aspect, soil organics/structure and more contribute to the overall erosion probability beyond whether biomass was removed from the site mechanically prior to another fire return. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10083 would need to see study design to evaluate; other factors influence decisions EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10094 reducing damage to overall soil health is important the only issue I have is how does one sell this to the public who may not have the same knowledge base? EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10107 Too many variables at play here - soil types, fire severity, slope etc. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10109 first fire and salvage removes fuel load, fuel load during second fire is not as heavy thus reducing the chances of high severity and intensity fires. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10116 My operational experience would agree. It’s a no brained. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10119 The ecological benefits are a hard sell vs public opinion that sees salvage logging as a cash grab. This information alone isn't enough to change policy. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10131 Study shows benefit, provides income, can share the study with public who are concerned about salvage logging. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10140 Less smoke should not be the only reason to salvage log. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10147 The managment goals of the salvage logging are not expressed. The decision to salvage log a stand is likely based on more factors than just air quality, and site specific conditions (such as access) may affect the decision to salvage log a particular stand. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10148 Fire behavior and severity is different for differing levels of residual logs/snags left and time of year of the next fire. So not realistic to expect the next fire to be less smoky in all conditions tied just to the salvage logging. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10160 Reducing dead trees will help minimize ground fuels in the future once trees fall out of the canopy and can potentially lead to lower severity fires while utlizing a resource. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10162 Probably less smoke because less green vegetation than the previous stands. Sounds like Tobacco science to me.. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10166 again, This is ridiculous. There are many factors that need to go into the decision to salvage log after a fire. How much new road do you have to build, how steep are the slopes, how badly did the stand burn will you make any money? EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10174 Salvage logging post-fire greatly aligns with the goals of my unit as there is a need to capture value post-fire prior to log deterioration as well. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10192 There are more factors that can affect a landscape level decision, argument from study findings are useful tools in support of a decision but won’t solely drive management decisions EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10197 not the only criteria to support salvage logging EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10205 Salvage logging impacts wildlife populations by removing standing snags and future downed wood. Because we don't know if that stand will burn again any time soon it's better to protect snags and downed wood. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10212 Same as before. Conclusion needs to be more specific to the argument. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10219 conclusion follows from the premise. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10221 Fire weakend snags are my wors fear in the fire environment. The fire is not the killer as it is predictable and studied. Sanag or fire weakend trees are not predictable and cannot always be identified. The trees left behind do go back into the ecosysytem but the time it takes to decay and become biomass is several years. The resource could have been used for future employment an homes to be built. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10231 The conclusion directly answered the premise EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10239 Not all study's can be applied to every landscape. Would need to know more information- location, species, etc. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10249 All examples in this survey have the same flaw for me: leading to a conclusion that is supported by a study. I look for conclusions that include suggestions, possible outcomes, unexpected responses from nature, social trends, etc. No conclusion can be made from one study. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10342 Without have read the entire study, I'm not sure what forest type this is referring to. It seems the argument would change depending on the forest type and the fire return interval. Coastal forests have such a time between fires (even with climate change) that this seems to be less of a valid argument, however it seem logical for overstocked forests that historically experienced more frequent fires. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10350 would like to have a little more information about site specific factors. How did the study conditions compare to the project conditions? If they are similar the answer would be very to extremely sound. If conditions were different the research would be less helpful. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10356 **assuming an additional premise that minimizing soil erosion is a management goal of the unit,** the conclusion follows from the results of the study EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10362 The area where the study was performed and the methods need to be looked at closely to see if this information can be used in our area. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10367 The logic is there, but there are missing variables that aren't explained like what logging equipment and what season were the units salvaged. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10373 the conclusion statement does not align with the supporting evidence. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10374 Removing fuel reduces the fire severity EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10381 Again, the argument is sound but lacks any consideration of factors other than air quality. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10390 While generally sound, creating a conclusion for land management based on one resource specialty, in this case soil, would be considered reckless in my agency EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10393 Decreased smoke may be more important on some landscapes and units than others. The conclusion does not consider other effects or values. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10396 Generally sound argument, but numerous other factors might be considered in decision to conduct salvage logging. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10411 I would need more info on the study area. What were the soil types, topography, etc. in study compared to those on my unit? EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10423 Less is not a number and may not be significant. There are many other factors that should be taken into consideration based on the site. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10431 There are other effects of salvage logging not accounted for in the argument; other factors, such as probability of reburn and comparison of recovery effects from salvaged vs un-salvaged should also impact decisions about salvage logging use. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10433 Please see previous answer for details. This could be heavily biased research paid for by a biased source. It's also missing methodology and lots of other information needed to determine value. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10437 It lacks context. They say the study was done over the course of 10 years, but does not indicate the scope of the analysis. Providing information about the number of sites used for the study, the area of the study (is it in just one small area, or is it representative of a region), what region the project was done in, what age forest/species composition of the original stand is not presented, whether re-planting was done, etc. Also, it's only a 10 year study, which is very short in the context of seral progression of forests. Taking one result that lacks enough context and applying it to the management of the landscape is too general of an application. It depends on how, when, and to what forest stands you're applying a prescription to in order to determine how this, and other research might inform the management across a landscape. . EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10440 Other concerns have equal or more weight than air quality. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10449 The decision on whether or not to salvage log is not based on whether there would be reduced air quality impacts should there be a reburn. Having been in the position of deciding whether or not to salvage log, air quality was not an issue I considered at all. There are many other more important factors that a line officer will be weighing when deciding whether or not to salvage. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10456 Smoke and reburn potential are not the only reason to salvage log. How did they measure smoke from a very small area affecting human population centers? EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10461 What do other studies say? How similar is this study's location to my ecosystem? What are other factors I'm concerned with and how does salvage logging affect them? Air quality might not be my highest concern. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10472 The problem with this argument is that it rests on the assumption that only tree species are desirable and that the only desirable distribution of trees is ""full stocking"", which is an agroforestry concept, _not_ an ecological concept. All available evidence suggests that we will be seeing an increase in shrub dominant ecosystems in SW Oregon over recovery/return to forest canopy systems (essentially, our lands will begin to look more like those in North California) - this is not a ""problem"" that needs a solution ecologically, it is only a ""problem"" in the eyes of a timber economy. Further, SW Oregon has been this droughty before within the last 600 years, and at this time, conditions remain consistent with historic norms from the perspective of our local pl EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10479 Fire impacts streams, and if some of the trees can be used for habitat in the stream and to reduce the number of trees harvested near streams is of great importance to me EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10488 The argument does not consider effects of salvage logging itself on soil erosion. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10505 Not clear what kinds of forest systems the work was done in - not all old growth is equal in fire adaptation EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10510 oversimplified but sound EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:20004 replacing salvage logging ""SHOULD"" with salvage logging ""COULD"" be used would propose it as a tool, rather than a rule. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:20007 It's worth looking into the data showing higher tree recruitment and survival after a second fire. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:20024 How much erosion, and what would be the effects of that erosion? How much hazard is there of a reburn? What are other considerations? EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:20028 That takes into account one factor of salvage logging. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:20035 We would also consider probability of re-burn and competing management objectives (wildlife, etc). EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:20036 The argument only considers one factor. Salvage logging effects are complex and varied, and public opinions are across the board. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attribute: EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10018 Depends on if the cost to thin is worth the additional growth EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10021 At this time the only forest managers that are managing for OG forests are the feds (BLM, USFS). The fuel loading on federally managed lands has far exceeded the carrying capacity in many areas particularly in SW Oregon. The theory that variable density thinning increases fire resistance on the surface appears to be a sound concept that should be implemented. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10029 conclusion is based on the premise EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10037 We manage our lands for conservation and research purposes. In some cases, it might be helpful for us to experiment with variable density thinning, especially where species are threatened by forest pathogens and need the extra help,. However, I would need to be assured that the benefits outweigh the risks. Logging activities generally involve a degree of soil disturbance and risk introducing and spreading invasive species. Because each management situation is different, and the information here is rather limited, I could not yet recommend this as a general best practice for my lands. In addition, regulatory issues surrounding management for endangered species such as Spotted Owl and various rare plant species would need to be examined before approving any such work. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10040 The type of fire behavior in thinned stands may have been a direct outcome of fire management actions, and although thinned vs. unthinned may have played a role in resulting fire severity, it's difficult to draw a blanket conclusion that ALL thinned stands will hold-up to future wildfire. Does extreme fire behavior have a historical precedent for your vegetation type? Were there other unwanted outcomes (i.e. introduction of invasives from equipment)? Do the study conditions match your forest? EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10041 With the effort to exclude fires on our landscape over the past 110 years we must thin in order to maintain resiliency of these stands EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10045 The conclusion makes assumptions about the management objectives for the landscape. They may not align with my agencies and would not necissarily be reflective of the need (or not) to increase the amount of old growth forests. Additionally, I would need to know more about the data set utilized and the assumptions that are in the model. Lastly, there may be more interest in maintaing ecosystem function as climates shift, and this does not indicate any particular directionality to those results. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10060 I have first-hand experience in this area and have seen the results of this practice over my 30 year career working on the forest that would lead me to believing this conclusion, although I'm also aware that once stands reach a certain density point that they will not respond to thinning due to other factors such as percentage of crown and exposure to weather events. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10074 I think this argument is missing a because statement in the last sentence, such as ""Therefore, mature growth stands should be thinned on my landscape"" because my trees will grow faster, be more resilient to wildfire, and will in general be healthier. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10076 I find this conclusion moderately sound as it is still a broad statement but I am using knowledge I have about forests and trees and that is why it is a sound argument because of my knowledge and education. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10078 This is common knowledge among foresters, but should be shared with those who make legislative decisions so they may make better, more informed decisions. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10084 It is my experience after observing variable density harvest over the past 30 years that the understory down wood components are more developed in mature stands that have not been thinned EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10094 Thinking about members of the public who can't understand the complexity of managing forests for wildfire risks only see the trees being harvested as a bad thing and cant see how thinning is beneficial EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10099 Fire and drought have a catastrophic impact to our communities. Mature stands deduce wildfire impact. I believe it is worthwhile to expedite the progress which forms mature forests. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10107 I would not want to thin ALL mature growth stands, location and other ecological factors are also important... EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10116 One size does not fit all. I have seen first hand the fire and all benefits of thinning and clear cut harvests. Need a landscape of all variable forest stand densities and ages. The Forest Service timbered lands are the worst overall managed lands in the west for neglect regarding stand management for fire resiliency. Lots of examples as I have work forest forest in most of the western states. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10138 Findings suggest variable thinning retains soil moisture and decreases drought stress. Geographic location would have an influence on the decision to thin mature stands on my landscape. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10140 I would like to know more regarding location of control stands. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10141 Moderately sound- I would want to see more lengthy evaluation to prove the argument. 10 years is a very short time when looking at scientific study. I do agree that you can see the effects of thinning in stands within 10 years, but would want to follow up at 15,20,25 and 30 years to demonstrate the ongoing effectiveness of the thin. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10148 Reduction of basal area especially if the thinning is variable with skips/gaps reduces competition and increases tree health better than an evenly space ""tree-farm"" thinning. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10160 I do not deal with this aspect as much, but support the idea of being able to manage mature growth stands. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10161 My landscape is managed for a variety of resource goals, including habitat for species associated with late seral habitats. The longevity of the data set is compelling. Also, the research is in alignment with anecdotal evidence from our management, in all the areas addressed. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10166 There are many different ""arguments"" that go into deciding on how ""best"" to manage forest lands. A two sentence argument yielding a valid conclusion is ridiculous. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10167 This argument/conclusion has the same two problems as the other two examples: 1) There is no information about the geographic location and details of the study. The circumstances around the study may not be directly applicable to my landscape. 2) This conclusion presumes that preventing extreme fire behavior in mature forest stands is an overriding objective. That may not be true. In my landscape, we have different management objectives in different locations on the landscape. In some areas, leaving mature forests undisturbed is a higher priority than others. We also manage many different landscapes with different levels of fire risk. Where we have higher fire risk, we may be more likely to thin mature stands to reduce the risk of extreme fire behavior. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10174 I think there are other variables that need to be considered before saying all stands in this class. Such as region (western forests vs. eastern forests), species composition, wildlife management goals, etc. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10192 There are many other factors outside of “weather” that can contribute to extreme fire behavior. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10205 In general I think this applies to planted timber stands and natural stands that are very dense. In general most natural regenated stands should be left alone. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10207 like the prior question, limited study needs to be applied to historical climate data and cycles - but this seems feasible, lacking data and descriptions of activities and results, from personal observations, education and experience in forestry and fire programs but specific instances and management goals may vary so is not a catch all solution. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10210 A good strong stand for a sensible concept, be prepared to include previously mentioned impacts. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10215 This study strengthens the argument in favor of VDT in old growth. This one study does not necessarily mean VDT treatments should be carried out in all mature stands. The study design, statistical analysis, and applicability to target ecosystems will dictate how much weight it holds for management decisions. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10219 Seems logical as long as the rate of growth towards old growth conditions speeds up. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10231 The conclusion is a dircect result of the actions defined in the premise EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10239 Need more data on type of stand conditions, species and location to apply information to ""my landscape." EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10249 In the example above only soil moisture is used as reasoning to do variable density thinning. This is only one of many variables to consider when planning a thinning operation. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10250 The premise does not take into account the full scope of considerations for my landscape. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10259 This follows a logical argument - thinning increases moisture in residual stands so thinning is an acceptable management method to reduce drought stress. However, it is trying to connect older stands to an assumption of a plantation style stand - which are not apple to apple. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10345 The study was only 10 years long. Compared to how a long it takes for a actual mature growth stand 10 years is less than 10% representation of actual conditions. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10356 Again, this argument assumes the additional premise that extreme fire behavior should be avoided though active management. That is not necessarily the case on my unit, but if it were, then this argument would be moderately sound. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10362 We are experiencing rapid changes due to climate change so the results of these studies do not necessarily reflect todays conditions. Varying wildfire intensities are an essential component of forest ecology and must be more accepted and tolerated if we are to have healthy forests. Thinning has many impacts on forest function and structure that are not necessarily good for ecological integrity. The loss of carbon, standing and downed logs for wildlife habitat, the loss of forbs, grasses and shrubs from thinning activities, and the loss of soil moisture and soil integrity are a couple of impacts of thinning activities. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10366 Depending on the situation there are a lot of reasons a given stand should not be thinned independent of moisture stress. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10374 This study confirms the concept that reducing ladder fuels, reduces fire danger EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10393 The conclusion does not consider other effects and values. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10396 Generally a sound argument, but numerous other considerations besides fire resistance might be involved in decisions to thin older forest stands. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10399 The premise of this argument provides that variable density thinning of mature stands can increase soil moisture content and increase stand resiliency from drought. Immediately concluding that mature growth stands should therefore be thinned on the landscape is a leap in logic and excludes a host of additional management objectives to be considered in order to meet the desired future condition of the stands. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10411 Were studies were conducted in similar ecotype/region? EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10420 Study applicability. Unscientific to broadly apply findings outside of the study area. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10427 assumes fire resistance is the only management objective EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10430 Assuming their landscape is similar to the study, then it would follow that if benefits are shown by doing something, someone would want to have those benefits on their land. It is only slightly sound though because they are over generalizing from just one study, and they need to look at all the studies. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10433 One study conducted over 10 years without knowing the location of the study and the methodology of the research AND who conducted the research AND who paid for the research. There's a ton of missing information. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10439 This statement would be very important to include as rationale for treating stands in Wildland Urban Interfaces or habitat for sensitive species. But multiple studies should be used to support this statement. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10442 How are ""mature forests"" being defined? I'm skeptical that 10 years is a long enough study interval. My landscape (National Parks) does not currently allow for stand wide thinning, only in campgrounds and the built environment. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10452 The study was over a long period of time that would allow for adequate research to be conducted and data collected. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10457 The conclusion is overly generalized. Fire resistance is not a landscape property. Fire resistance is a stand/species specific property that should be considered in the larger mosaic of the landscape. All mature stands do not, and probably should not all be fire resistant, assuming that we could make all of them that way. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10475 From a finding in one research project to a conclusion about all mature stands at some landscape scale, that is a big stretch. The conclusion is a blanket statement . Mature stands that have similar conditions to research stand would be good candidates for VDT, not all mature stands. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10479 As a fisheries manager, logging near streams and rivers is a huge concern, so if no logging or thinning can take place, it is to the benefit of the fish in the streaam. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10495 Any forest that has less fuel to burn will have less extreme fire behavior. This is preferable so that fires may not take out the whole forest. However, there are other ways besides thinning to achieve the same thing. It is a good idea to thin mature growth stands but not a given. The argument is sound but not complete. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10498 Timeframe extremely short to make conclusion EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10504 Since the data set is only 20 years long there is still room for error when making assumptions for growth patterns up to 100 years. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10510 same as before EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:20009 Only considers a single issue. OG forests are home to many T/E species, which would beimpacted by these actions. Not to mention the cultural and other concerns. These conclusions are too broad and too divorced from the goal of the action. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:20012 Again, this is a values/goals statement. Although this argument would support many of my management actions, it really depends on what you are trying to manage for. If you want to manage for old growth, great! This will work for that purpose. If your goal is to maximize timber volume in the stand or maximize economic output, then this may not be the best type of treatment. Conclusion statements should not include values judgements. They should align with the subject of the study. If they said ""Therefore, if you want to maintain and improve old growth structures on the landscape, then mature stands should be thinned"". Otherwise the author is assuming values of the reader and reducing the effectiveness of their argum EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:20024 Conclusion is over broad. What are the other considerations? EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:20028 Provides one potential solution for retaining mature stands on the landscape. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:20032 It would depend on it the study took place in the same forest type as on my landscape, such as the Coast Range or Cascades Range, a study from the pine forests of the eastern Cascades might not be relevant to forest stands in the Coast Range. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:20036 I would change the ""should"" to ""could"", mature growth stands could be thinned on my landscape. It is site specific issue. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attribute: EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10028 i would stick with existing natives from drier seed zones EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10029 conclusion is related to the premise but there is no suggestion that translocating should begin immediately. The studies refer to the net century EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10030 I would want to see the study and the complete results before making any decisions like this. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10035 I work with small forest landowners and they are very concerned about climate change. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10037 I manage preserves for as scientific and genetic repositories for the preservation of rare species and rare plant communities. Studying the real world response of these communities to climate change will be valuable. Translocation of nonnative species and nonnative genetics directly contradicts our conservation goals. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10041 having a variety of trees from different seed zones isn't a bad idea especially given the fact that seed diversity and the resulting stands has declined in the past 100 years due to artificial reforestation. Basing long term management actions on ""science"" that was paid for by funders looking for a specific conclusion should be analyzed and compared to other studies looking into similar issues. I find it hard to support climate change science since the funders definitely had a desired outcome and studies which didn't support the narrative were marginaliz EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10045 It is a valid argument but lack the pros and cons of just moving seed zones, e.g., we will still have cold snaps, so what are the implications to having less cold adapted species (or seed zones) in those conditions, as well as the potential misalignment with insect and disease pressures. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10046 seems reasonable but would want to ""dig into"" the study, timeframe used, microclimates, possible unintended consequences of translocation of specie EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10054 Should perhaps have a discussion on need to maintain current levels of timber production. Also affects of translocated trees on wildlife, and overall ecological integrity. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10063 They are basing the information over a 20 year study in which they extrapolated the probability of collapse. I feel the argument is sound, but i would not base my next hundred years down to 10%. I would satill keep the studies and track prograss. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10065 Natural systems are extremely complex and models have a lot of variability that does not always predict outcomes especially when the models are used to predict outcomes that are dedicates out. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10066 In what area was the data derived? The conclusion should be applied only to the area in which the data was gathered. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10074 again, I would include a because statement to drive home the message in the last sentence, such as: because it will make my forest stand more resilient to climate change. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10077 Way too broad EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10082 The argument is sound because the conclusion follows from the premise. The study shows average decline in timber biomass growth rates from 2001-2021. Modeling suggests incorporating trees form hotter and dryer seed zones will ensure current levels of timber production. Assuming maintaining current levels of timber production is a goal, beginning to incorporate translocated native trees into management decisions is logical. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10083 would need to see study design to evaluate; benefits seem to outweigh possible consequences EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10096 Will the translocated plants survive in the current climate conditions? EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10099 Predictions are useful but I believe we need to go off what is happening in the forest right now. Nature is very adaptive. Translocation is a natural process and I will happen whether we take action or not. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10107 Eastern WA lands I manage range in elevations up to 7,000 feet...Drought-adapted trees would not do well in many sites... EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10109 Would need more information, but seems sound, as our condition become hotter and dry they move into a state that is more suited for a species that can thrive in those conditions. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10116 Nothing should be immediate as you introduce non native plant species in an area so do you invite disaster for existing species and translocation of foreign pests and diseases. History is ripe with failed translocation of species in an ecosystem. Introduced species such as Scotch broom is wiping out native species. Introduction of lake trout has devestated native bull trout in Yellow stone upsetting the balance. Good intentions often are disastrous to natural evolving ecosystems. Planting trees, thinning trees all good. Be careful on “immediately” doing anything especially looking at newly introduced species. The Florida ecosystem is ripe with invasive species intentional and not intentionally introduced. Hawaii is another example. The list is long. Saving the planet will include stopping all wars that use too many resources for creating their own disasters. Yes plant trees all you can but trees native. The glaciers have been receding for thousands of years maybe faster now, but geologically retreating non the less. In the 1970 and beyond some predicted an ice age was upon us. Do your research. The sky is not falling. Unless man caused war brings the sky down. Think about it. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10119 We're already planting. It makes sense to adapt to change and to plant informed by current research rather than just following old management strategies. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10131 Trees may not grow well here. Would be more sound to plant a mixture of drought tolerant and native seed zones to ensure some do well. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10140 Only looking at 20 years does not seem sound enough to me, especially if you are looking 100 years into the future. Climate change, or signs of it, did not just show up in the last 20 years. I would use a longer data set. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10148 In working in this location for 25 years I have personally seen an increase in drought stress mortality in PP so volume losses will accelerate. Differences in DF from the Sierras vs. coastal or Cascade DF are evident and would suffer less mortality as they are adapted naturally. Rather than replacing species for example incense cedar to replace western redcedar in the PNW. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10161 The study incorporates the major factors pertinent to forest management, including projected increase in water use efficiency. Native trees that are more drought and temperature tolerant would therefore be a logical solution. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10162 . Premise discussed how models suggest translocating native trees to retain canopy and the conclusion states that. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10167 Through our own forest genetics and tree breeding programs, and through our participation in university-based genetics cooperative research, we know that we have considerable ability to influence the adaptability of the trees we plant on the landscape through our selection of provenance. In our tree improvement programs, we already select genotypes that are resilient to a broader range of environmental conditions, including those with greater drought tolerance. And the seedlings we plant now must be able to survive today's climate. Therefore, the finding that moisture stress is expected to increase does not necessarily lead us to the conclusion that we should immediately begin translocatinting drought-adapted trees in our landscape. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10174 Likely needs more testing before becoming an immediate need. Unclear how current species will respond to the changes. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10178 Translocation is a hot topic on what we should do and all we can do is look at models. I dont believe mass translocation is needed but more studies and science with small units being translocated to study would be more sound then using modeling. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10193 It only addresses growth rates, and does not address any benefits the native species provide that may be compromised by translocating trees EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10197 I'm a geologist not a silviculturist EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10212 Similar to before, need more specific details in conclusion EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10219 Extrapolating a 20 year data set out 100 years doesn't seem appropriate to take immediate action. Studies using translocatin on a local basis need to be conducted/analyzed. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10225 20-year data set is too short for soundness. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10232 I’d like more data on how it works and if it’s been tried. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10243 1. My unit’s primary objective is timber production and there is no local market for pine, larch or other non-native drought tolerate species. 2. Even with a 30% reduction in growth, our local species will outperform drought resistant species in most places on my landscape. However, I think it’s appropriate to begin experimenting with translocating trees in specific areas (such as south facing slopes at high elevation or south facing slopes with root rot issues) on a limited basis. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10289 I do not agree with the statement or the findings. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10307 Again, it comes down to the site. Understanding the trends allows managers to make decisions based on local knowledge and future predictions., EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10326 Dont think 20 years of data is enough to change an action that affects will affect much longer time-spans (rotation age or producing healthy ""mature"" stands). EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10343 No controls, no data from non local seed sources. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10344 I believe a reduction in the amount of conifers on the landscape with appropriate spacing(similar to 1850-1900 forests) and implementation of fire to promote early seral stages would help in alleviating soil moisture issues EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10358 I understand the argument, but there's a few steps before you'd starting translocating species EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10362 The studies need to be examined closely and further research is needed on the impacts of these actions to the ecology of the forests. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10367 Economics aren't considered; both the effort and the effect to communities/mills of harvesting and processing different species. Also possible to implement other methods (biochar, thinning, etc.) to avoid translocation. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10373 The conclusion statement my not be supported by the information presented. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10379 Considering pine species may not be able to adapt as quickly or in the wrong landscape EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10384 Too drastic of a management action based on too little information. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10392 longitudinal study proves data set for management decisions EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10393 Need more data and studies on consequences of translocation. Species introduction may threaten native plant and animal populations. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10396 The argument seems to hinge on a single study employing a model with unspecified validation. If at least two of more studies provided similar results it would lend greater weight to the argument. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10411 Studies to support the success/effects of these translocated species would be helpful, although I do agree this is an important tool to mitigate effects of climate change on canopy cover. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10416 Pollinators and there needs are vitally important to all life, we should be taking actions to help their continued existence even if it is artificially influencing the amount of meadow/open area and increasing the length of time there are viable plants for them to utilize EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10423 The conclusion directly follows the premise of the argument; Immediately translocating later blooming meadow plants onto the landscape will reduce probability of collapse. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10430 The immediacy of the conclusion does not follow because the premise was not specific enough. It did not say how much incorporating of translocation would have to be done or how long it would take. It also didn't say what the down sides would be or if there were any other options to support such an urgent conclusion. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10433 The study openly addresses the concern of ensuring current timber production. This supports my concerns about the biased nature of the researchers and the research. Are we talking about the health of the natural system? Or are we talking maintaining profitability levels for the timber industry? EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10435 Based on the study, it's crucial to begin translocating drought-adapted species. However, there should be more explanations and scientific reasoning to support the argument. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10446 A single study leading one to argue that immediate actions need to happen is hyperbole and reactionary EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10449 Are there any drawbacks of translocating later-blooming meadow plants? What species are we displacing by favoring later-blooming species and what are the implications of that? EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10456 What parameters does the model use to estimate the effects and what does collapse mean? How were stochastic processes incorporated into the model? EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10461 What do other studies suggest? What are potential downsides - e.g. might I be transplanting an exotic that will become invasive? What is the long-term goal for the meadow area? EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10472 This argument is founded on the assumption that ""maintaining canopy cover"" in quantity _exactly as it is now_ is both consistent with some historic norm and also desirable, when neither of these assumptions really hold water - additionally, this argument completely ignores other critical variables which must be considered and _vetted in actual practice_. For instance, Douglas Fir from drier locales may not grow to a size large enough for Spotted Owls to utilize, even if there are no limiting factors on the growing site. Further, ""A Study"" is not really established science, and without several decades of in-field vetting, your 'model' cannot be viewed as even tentatively reliable or accurate. Further, with what we now know about epigenetics, and also what we know about the historic climate of the PNW, we know that our local very old trees have lived through this kind of drought before, and likely include genetic adaptability for drought, even if it was been wetter than the historic average over the last 150 years or so (and EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10488 The argument does not consider the species of trees to be relocated, what ecosystem services will be lost with current tree species (e.g. species-specific dependencies), and if translocated trees can adequately fill that void. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10494 Will translocated trees necessarily show the same level of canopy cover post logging? Is that a real solution to a problem when that canopy cover takes decades to form? EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10503 There isn't enough information to support translocating drought-adapted trees. Just because growing conditions are changing and growth rates are reducing doesn't automatically direct us to translocation. Will drought adapted trees produce as much biomass or more than your current timber stand? What are the other host of potentials with introducing these new trees to our area? Not enough information in this argument. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10505 Would need to evaluate the research to determine resolution of data included and analogies to my specific unit. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:20004 again, too definite... Translocation later-blooming meadow plants COULD be used in management actions EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:20012 A slightly better argument, but still includes the values statement of ""should"". If they had said, ""because we want to maintain our timber production as one of our management goals, we should immediately begin translocating drought-adapted trees in my land EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:20024 One modeling study does not establish a fact. There are other factors to consider, and this contains no cosideration of those.. Not ""immediately"" before considering counter arguments. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:20028 This provides one potential solution to avoiding collapse. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:20032 It seems like there are other factors that need to be taken into account. It's not clear if these trees are the same species but from different seed zones or if some of these trees are different species adapted to hotter and drier conditions. EXPLAIN_LT_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:20037 the conclusion follows the info given ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attribute: EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10033 Similar to the last example this is based on one study, assuming for one desired outcome not taking into account any of the additional effects. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10036 assumes natural regeneration. planting after fire, with appropriate tree species is key in a salvage logging situation EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10047 The arguement is sound, but it would be more convincing if it revealed the size of the sample set of stands evaluated to check the statistical validity, and if it considered whether other factors may be involved. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10050 While the conclusion does follow from the argument, management decisions are multifaceted. we do not look at one issue and derive a management decision, we evaluate many issues. air quality is only one issue, and while (hypothetically) salvage logging will not reduce smoke levels during future fire events,ithere is not enough information here to make a final decision. does salveage logging increase smoke levels? what is the impact on smoke levels during future fires farther down the return interval? EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10055 You need more than one study to determine whether that is true or not, especially a study over just 2 years EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10056 There can be other incentives to log (recoup economic investments). EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10073 If the level of smoke is about the same regardless of salvage logging, it's not a good factor to dissuade the salvage. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10079 2 years is not enough time to really determine this premise. How many sites were really part of this study? EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10081 There are many factors affecting management strategies. The results of one study - even if accurate - are still only one part of the picture. More importantly, the regulation of salvage logging is not part of my unit, or jurisdiction, so any results of this study could not have an impact on our program. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10092 If management actions are decided upon the basis of what smoke emissions they generate, it is sound. I just don't agree that it is the best decision point to use since factors that affect smoke emissions during a given burn period seem too complex to use as your sole decision point. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10095 makes sense in terms of forest succession. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10097 Not enough information to reach a conclusion EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10105 Seems like correlation not causation as presented. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10111 Multiple fires in any stand in a short time frame would be near in possible to duplicate identically in order to compare with a control (not salvaged). Fires do not burn uniformly across the landscape nor within a stand. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10121 I can't base a conclusion about my landscape on a study site without knowing more information. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10123 removing trees would potentially hinder natural regen/recovery; management for reforestation may be needed; site specific (how wide of a study?); EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10134 So no more impact (in the context of the argument), but more revenue and an opportunity to site prep and plant site adapted species (cant do this when dead trees are standing due to safety)? Sounds like a good trade. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10136 Study should be repeated, 2 year timeframe is short. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10137 This seems a bit concerning to landowners and public servants who manage forests sustainably to generate revenue. I would need more information. Specifically to see if there were studies done on salvage logging done after a certain amount of time a fire has happened and what those impacts were. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10144 The conclusion uses one management objective to make a universal claim about all future salvage logging. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10146 Must weigh all factors. Depends on designation of the land, if production acres then must salvage and replant. If wildlife acres no salvage. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10158 Similar to last example, ""should"" is too strong a word to use when only one objective of management, reducing smoke, is included in the premise. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10163 Salvage logging should be used. The biomass that goes into the air on the unsalvaged lumber could instead be an actually usable resource. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10168 I would need to know the details of the salvage logging location and prescription to make an assessment on the soundness of the argument. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10170 The tree recovery is dependent upon allowing surviving green trees to be harvested or left. Salvaging of only dead trees should have little to do with future tree recruitment. The second fire could potentially ""cook"" the seed in the soil. The argument also assumes no artificial means of reforestation will be used. The management options should be left to the landowner to deci EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10180 What are the mortality parameters for trees that are identified for salvage? 100% canopy mortality or 80% canopy mortality? Salvage logging and residuals will vary by forest type, so assuming that we are still in second growth DF, this may or may not have more value. Similarly, the value of salvage logging on future forest response (natural reforestation, re-burn or triple re-burn) will vary by forest type and historic disturbance regimes. Areas (can be higher fire frequency within a lesser frequency forest type) that are more prone to shorter disturbance intervals will likely benefit or have varied responses from he argument and data. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10181 Depends on fire recurrence rates, typical fire intensity etc. on ""my"" landscape. Argument is jumping to a conclusion too soon. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10202 There are more issues surrounding salvage logging than air quality in an imaginary second fire. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10204 It depends on the goal. Just because salvage logging does not improve air quality does not mean it has no other functions. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10213 Soil erosion is relevant to all forested landscapes. Assuming this person's landscape includes forestland and the infrastructure/economy to support salvage logging, this assertion (albeit unsatisfactorily brief) is at its core reasonable. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10216 2 year study does not seem like enough time to make that conclusion. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10222 Answer completely depends on the agency's statutory requirements and management objectives. Amount of smoke may have nothing to do with these.. Furthermore, define landscape. Unit only, PNW as a whole, single province? EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10227 If this situation were to occur, in addition to soil and other environmental concerns other factors of prudent management of the resources burned that could be salvaged turned into cashflow and in turn aid in reforestation costs would be a deciding factor too. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10235 Depends on the landowner objectives. To state salvage should not be used ever is not appropriate. To state that this should be considered in land management decisions would be appropriate. Also if the objectives of the landowner are to produce fiber then the mitigating factor could be to manage in a way that reduces impact of a second fire by reducing fuel and creating breaks. I also feel that this argument does not go into non-salvaged forest that burns twice - what are the consequences of that scenario in relation to salvage harvest. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10236 Was there a reduction in occurrences of a second fire in stands that were salvage logged and where those second fires less severe then those that were not salvaged? Was there any post logging mitigation done to reduce erosion such as water bars, hay/straw placement, and placement of slash if available. Was there a difference in soil nutrient levels between the two stands? How severe was the erosion? Even though there was worse erosion short term if it helped prevent future fire the long term benefits outweighs the short term losses. I would need a lot more information . EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10238 Again, I would want to know more about the methods/study area to see how well it relates to ""my landscape"". Also, a single 2-year study seems like a fairly small amount of data to make management decisions with. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10246 These statements are based on one study each. The study was only conducted over 2 years. More data should be required to sway my judgement. Tree stands take decades to change and mature. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10253 All logging contributes to soil erosion. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10310 Soil erosion is only one of many impacts associated with forest management. One impact should not outweigh all others and should be viewed from a wholistic lens. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10351 Local conditions are most important EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10355 There's a presumption that all landscapes will burn twice before the benefits of salvage logging are realized. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10357 study not long enough EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10368 Air quality is often not the driver of decision making for land managers. It is a variable that is considered and analyzed but usually is not the main driver of a decision to salvage log or not. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10371 The statement does not include any specifics of any potential confounding variables such as harvesting intensity, slope, soil type. The conclusion is too black and white. Is there anyway that harvesting could have been done differently to reduce those impacts? EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10372 A reduction in recruitment and survival is the wrong question to be asking. Rather you should be asking if recruitment and survival is sufficient to meet management objectives. In my experience it is often the case that tree recruitment and survival is too high, even after salvage logging. The conclusion from this study should be something more like, ""Therefore, the effects of salvage logging on tree recruitment and survival should be considered in light of desired future conditions and management objectives prior to implementing the salvage harvest and in developing a reforestation strategy. Just like everything in this study so far, a few data points are being presented to lead to an extreme, politically charged, and unsupported conclusion... how stupid do researchers think we are EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10378 I'm struggling with the premise that a stand will burn again after being burned within 2yrs of the study. many managers have to balance all of these potentially negative consequences against the framework under which they manage their land. Maybe theres no less smoke after a salvage logged stand burns again. But at least the owners got a commodity from the land before it burned again...? EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10383 Again, conclusion depends on air quality being the sole objective for the activity. Again, lack of one benefit is not the same as detriment. 2 years is almost more of a data point than a data set. How many samples and where. Etc, etc EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10394 I don't know the variables or type of site the study was conducted on when compare to the ground (and management objectives) I am managing for. I would be uncomfortable making sweeping decisions based on this argument without further investigation. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10400 The last sentence needs a because or so-what stated in the conclusion... and ""should"" is subjective and biased ... ""salvage logging does not need be used on my landscape if the goal was to improve air quality of subsequent fires." EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10403 There could be other variables or reasons for salvage logging, e.g. safety along roads, O&C act requirement for ASQ, economic EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10408 Air quality as a single criterion for salvage logging is myopic EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10418 Need to know more information about where the salvage logging took place, was it private or public land, too what extent was it logged and rehabilitated. Not enough information is being presented. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10419 I don't think the time frame helps this issue. Depending on the time interval between burns would have a big factor on how the area responds. Whether those fuel loads were standing versus on the ground would have an effect. I expect you would see more soil sterilization with fuels on the ground if they weren't salvaged logged. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10426 Again, the devil is in the details. What type of soils were present in the study sites? What was the exposure and slope? What equipment was used to remove salvaged trees? Were erosion mitigation mechanisms utilized? Lots of different factors to consider when determining if the study is relevant or not. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10438 It's only one study, conducted over a short time period EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10443 Too many factors not taken into account here..... Generalizations will get you in trouble EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10448 Study was only 2 years and where was this study as it applies to the entire PNW. The argument needs details to come to that conclusion. What did the study consider salvage logging, does this include roadside hazard tree removal? does the definition of salvage logging just refer to salvage of a timber sale area that burned from wildfire or does it include hazard tree removal along roads and other public areas post wildfire? The argument would be more sound if the findings on soil health and tree recruitment were included before coming to a conclusion.. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10453 Management decisions (i.e., conclusions) are made based on a wide variety of resource values and potential impacts - they are rarely made based on a single factor. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10466 Again, how and why did post-fire salvage logging after a high severity fire worsens future impacts to soil? EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10467 This does not address the issue of danger trees caused by the initial fire. Although one could fall and leave those trees. Would that have the same effect as not salvage logging? EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10478 WIthout more rationale, this is not enough information to make a decision against salvage logging. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10485 Air quality is only one aspect and justification for this argument. As a land manager, I am worried about more than just one argument since every parcel of ground is for multiple use and sustainability. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10487 Again, difficult to draw a clear conclusion with limited background information on the study's methodology, assumptions, data and conclusions. Would need to read the source publication. to respond. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10497 First of all, the premise of the argument is something that I have seen. Indeed, there are more problems in a landscape after a high-severity fire (you should be specific that high-severity means damaged the soil, not high-severity damage to the vegetation, which would NOT increase erosion in the case of additional disturbance). I would not use such a one-sided argument to ban all practice on a landscape without looking at more of the angles. Like I just said in the parentheses, did the disturbance actually damage the soil or just the vegetation on the surface? That is a very common assumption made by inexperienced land managers that don't look down and take the time to dig a hole and check for soil damage with indicators such as loss of soil structure and hydrophobicity. Another weak argument that shouldn't be used to make knee-jerk reactions to an unfamiliar occurrence or disturbance event. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10502 There are just too many sideboards to make such a generalization on this. How was the tree planting density, what were the soil types that were highly burned, were these only southern-facing slopes, was it coast range, cascades, high-desert? Was the cause of the second fire - human or natural? Was fertilizer applied to the regenerating stand. Also - my land management area very rarely has high-intensity fires and almost never a second fire, much less high-intensity EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10507 In my landscape most of our forests are not actively managed and are in designated wilderness, with natural processes key to planning and decision making. Should more active management be required in the future, and in situations where fire may move through frontcountry developed areas, this research would be useful in decision making. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10536 Air quality would only be 1 of many factors that would be considered when determining to conduct salvage logging EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:10544 Without more information, it is unclear if the only difference in sites was the use of salvage logging. Other factors could have contributed to the results. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:20006 It states that salvage logging should not be used after high severity fire, but we know that stands burn with many different severities and salvage logging may be a useful tool in low and moderate burn severity areas. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:20014 in all circumstances? there are always outliers on the landscapes - which soils, any soil not responding this way? EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:20020 Soil disturbance from logging on severely burned soils is inclined to increase erosion due to lack of root mass and soil cohesion. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:20022 I think this argument assumes that tree recruitment is the only reason why salvage thinning would occur. I think the actual reasons are often more to do with economics and removal of hazard trees and a blanket ban on all salvage logging doesn't necessarily make sense. However, it does make sense to consider this information and be judicious in using salvage logging, especially in areas where recruitment and survival is already a major concern. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:20026 Air quality, although important, is the lowest consideration in Salvage logging. Soils and the ""worth more standing"" enviro value seem to be more important. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:20033 2 year study isn't enough time to get at the question. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:20034 depends on objectives EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_SALV Respondent ID:20038 Post fire- removing burn trees equates to more soil erosion after a second HENCE, just leave nature alone. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attribute: EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10033 It only takes into account one study, one result, based only on one desired outcome. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10034 monitoring stands for only 2 fire seasons does not allow for enough data to be collected. I believe that too few variables were considered. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10036 2 years doesn't capture climate changes very well, would need long trends to validate the argument. we know taking out grand fir helps with water EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10038 I manage drought stressed ponderosa pine stands that are typically extremely over stocked. If we do not thin them they will be come an extreme fuel loading and die to fire, bark beetle or drought. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10055 You would need more studies over a greater period of time to conclude with those results. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10061 Many different objectives and reasons for variable thinning. Conclusion follows but its just not that simple to be a guiding principle EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10069 The structure after the entry would be immediately changed and unremarkable. Depending on what variables are desired will determine the prescription / management. The way in which you framed the question is limiting and lacks context and scope. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10072 Fire resistance is not the only land management objective. There may be other potential benefits to thinning mature stands outweighing a potential reduction in fire resistance. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10075 The argument does not include a because statement, as explained before. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10079 A 2- year study is not enough time to truly evaluate this premise. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10090 If they approach old growth at the same rate, and timber production is a goal, then thinning might be a good option EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10095 It feels counterintuitive. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10097 Moderately sound for the simple conditions expressed EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10110 This is a single study over a specific time period. Yearly fluctuations in drought may have exacerbated the effects of thinning shock. Longer term observations are also necessary EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10113 Fire is not the only management concern on the landscape, so this argument is over simplistic. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10121 The argument isn't sound because it's basing a conclusion on a premise that is lacking a lot of information. I can't base a decision of what to do on my landscape to a study site without knowing a lot more, e.g. the location, topography, forest type, climate conditions, etc. A better argument would take into account similarities between the study site and a manager's landscape. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10125 There is no description of the landscape mentioned in the conclusion. I am not sure whether the research premise and conclusion equally applies to my landscape/climate. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10136 Timeframe is only 2 years. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10139 Once again, this seems like a short term data set to support a wide sweeping conclusion EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10143 State lands in my area manage trees for harvest. It's a part of the agreement when the lands were purchased from the county. Most of our stands are less than 80 years old and do not meet the criteria of mature growth. A biger political push is in process to creat these mature stands from outside our agency. This information aids in knowledge at my level of young stand management, but could aid in the decision making at upper levels of the organization. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10145 Just leaving these stands to slowly decay and die is not productive use of the forest and keeping these stands healthy and growing should be the goal of all land managers. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10146 Need the volume from those mature thinning's to meet annual harvest goals. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10159 While I have no reason to doubt this conlcusion, the study periods (datasets) are somewhat short relative to the lifespans of mature forests. There are so many variables that could affect outcomes (e.g. soils, tree species, geographic location, aspect etc.). EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10163 There are other reasons to thin the stands, one of which is fire resistance. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10168 I need to see the data. The results of this 'study' do not corollate with my experience. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10177 Need more information on stand characteristics, site index, thinning prescription, etc. to make a response. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10180 Reliance on models is my biggest issue. Models are a function of the input data and statistics (both of which can be structured for a desired outcome), and with the immense variability we are seeing in the 'input' category (i.e. weather/climate, fire behavior as a function of weather/climate, departure from historic fuel loadings that have facilitated mature stand response to historic fire), basing and making decisions from model results is the biggest turn-off for this argument. There are too many other factors that would need to be included or analyzed prior to this being a sound argument for my role or application. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10182 Short ecological timeframe study that draws a generalized conclusion. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10196 Single study, short duration, is ecosystem comparable to where I work? EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10202 If they both approach old growth at the same time why wouldn't you produce a renewable resource out of the stand. Yes there are other effects from logging you have to take into account but more wood products is a good thing. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10213 This argument is only sound if the primary management goal on this person's landscape is to maximize the speed at which old growth structure and function are achieved. Thinning can serve several other objectives, so avoiding it merely because of its apparent inability to meet one of these possible objectives (based merely on one study, to boot) is a rash and unsound conclusion. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10222 Context dependent and need more than two-years post-implementation monitoring to better understand treatment effects on drought stress. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10227 Need more information on the parameters of the study to make a conclusion. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10234 The argument is landscape specific. I believe the Coast Range to be more receptive to the benefits of variable density thinning than say the Cascades, or eastern valley, due to the commonly higher relative humidity values. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10238 Again, I would need to know more about the methods/study area and 2 years is a very short time period when considering forest management and study data sets. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10242 Site specific characteristics vary from micro-climate to micro-climate. There is a variety of geographic areas in Oregon that exhibit different growth characteristics to draw a broad conclusion that would apply to forests across the PNW. We don't know what species composition is, average annual precip is, or what the fire behavior is in this study to know how to extrapolate the information to compare to other stands. Not enough information. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10347 hard to determine with data from only one study which was only over 2 years. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10355 The argument fails unless it assumes that the only purpose of the thinning is to accelerate the transition from mature old growth. This seems unlikely. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10357 study not long enough EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10368 There are many factors that go into making decisions like this and landscape specific details may provide other benefits like ability to create potential operational deliniation units which help wildfire suppression efforts or many other potential ecological scenarios may benefit from thinning mature stands and be part of the rationale to thin mature stands even though this thinning doesnt create old growth faster than unthinned stands. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10371 This statement doesn't include needed information such as biophysical site characteristics, forest type, forest context (WUI?), stand objectives EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10372 The question focuses only on time and doesn't include relative quality. We already know that trees in open conditions grow larger faster, including epicormic branching, crown width, and bark characteristics. We also know that the development of a second cohort is initiated by disturbance (in this case harvest). SO this simplistic argument only focusing on time rather than quality appears to be intentionally misleading to the reader; intending to push people towards a political solution rather than a nuanced discussion about tradeoffs. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10378 Again. 2yrs? Also, maybe those increased risks are considered acceptable for a certain piece of ground, depending on the mgt goals the lands is being managed for. In general (having been in grad school myself for quite a while) models don't impress me. The data that backs them up is what I want to know about, and the assumptions put into the model. I could make a model that would show the exact opposite.... EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10383 Depends on treatment objective (to accelerate or something else). Lack of one possible benefit is not the same as general detriment. How relevant is the study to ""my"" landscape? Was it in the New Jersey Pine Barrens? Then probably not terribly useful here. What does the other available literature find? What were the methods? Has the study been peer reviewed? The 5-year dataset - I certainly hope they weren't trying to measure rate of progress to old-growth in just a 5-year window. I could go on, and on, etc. ad naus EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10394 I don't know the variables or species the study was conducted on when compare to the ground (and management objectives) I am managing for. I would be uncomfortable making sweeping decisions based on this argument without further investigation. Also, I don't know what the elevated drought stress means in a temporal sense, I would further consider short term vs. long term gains if they might exist. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10400 Conclusion is vague and again ""should"" is not supported (biased/subjective as written) in the sentence. Sentence needs qualifying statement included ""Therefore, because the model demonstrated that growth rate would not change, MG stands should not be thinned if the objective is to accelerate their transition in EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10403 On a multi-use landscape, you need to take into account all uses (not just fire) before making a decision. That is why all those studies are extremely useful but calling out one of them doesn't make a sound argument EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10407 The argument seems plausible, however, it is just one study and many others indicate the opposite. A five year study in the life of a stand isn't a very significant amount of time. Less than one percent of the life cycle of the stand. But it is something that should be considered as resources are finite and if true over time other efforts should take priority over thinning EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10418 How can reducing trees per acre be counter productive to a healthy stand EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10421 Drought stress is but one factor. In stands that are currently very moist, experiencing more drought stress than it experiences now may still be a low absolute amount of drought stress. There are likely several considerations other than drought that could give good reasons to thin mature stands. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10426 There are other factors to consider when deciding whether thinning is appropriate. Aspect, % slope, elevation, etc. all influence moisture availability in terms of opening the canopy to sun exposure. I'd need to see the data in order to make a determination as to whether or not the study is applicable to a proposed thinning project. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10438 Only one study. short time period. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10450 Again, conclusions from one study in one location can't be automatically applied to all other locations EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10454 I got hung up on the word ""suggests."" We don't really KNOW, and 2 years doesn't really give us enough time to understand how this process plays EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10466 What would the alternative be? And more importantly, why did the variable density thinning decreases fire resistance? How? EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10470 Without seeing the parameters of the study, I cannot provide a better answer. Was this limited to the west side forests? EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10478 For the available information, It is unknown how much thinning decreased fire behavior. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10485 I want more science. For one article you are quoting I can get online and find 5 others that support variable density thinning. Give us something quantitative vs qualitative statements. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10492 Depends on the the goals and objectives to managing the stand are. Are there other interests that play a part in it. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10499 In the BLM we have a goal of providing wood. Thinning is one of the tools we have in our toolbox. If we didn't do thinning we would focus on regen harvest (almost clearcuts). This may be devastating for several species. This 'therefore' statement would work well in a hypothetical stand (or perhaps on park service land or something) but I think has limited application in working forests. If we could get to the mature stand stage and leave the stand alone it would be nice. This 'therefore' statement also indicates that we can thin mature growth stands and it wouldn't affect the stand reaching old growth. Just sayin. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10508 5 years is a short timeframe. This is interesting EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:10536 Not really sure if a 5 year timeframe is adequate to examine the transition of mature to old growth, would need more details to make this decision EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:20006 Managing for old growth is only one of many goals. This argument may be sound of the purpose of your project is only to manage towards old growth structure - but its rarely that simple. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:20014 what species? where on the landscape, in California and Oregon? there are always caveats to any study, do they discuss those. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:20017 There is no information on how the post-thinning fuels were treated - that is critical for fire behavior after thinning. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_THIN Respondent ID:20038 Mature stand was thinned and control was left alone, there was a comparison of the effects of fire on both stands. Conclusion - the thinned stand had more extreme fire behavior HENCE, don't thin them and stop using fire as an excuse to harvest older trees (I'm talking to you, Forest Service). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attribute: EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10033 A longer duration data set is useful, but again one desired outcome drives the findings, whereas there are far more factors to consider. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10049 You must correctly interpret accurate data over a protracted time period to reach this conclusion, modelling for 100 years based on a 5 year study in this arena is unpredictable at best. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10055 You need more than one study to determine whether or not to implement a practice. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10056 Conclusion doesn't follow premise. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10069 The data from since is great, but there are many variables that are not addressed in research that managers have to consider when making management decisions. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10072 While the study suggests translocating late-blooming forbs is unlikely to reduce the pollinator collapse (presumably this means either extirpation of pollinator species or disassembly of pollination networks) over the next 100 years, there may be other benefits for forb restoration such as buffering against extirpation of other forbs or delay when such a collapse may occur. The conclusion would be sound if it were ""forb restoration to prevent pollinator collapse over the next century on my landscape is unlikely to be successful EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10088 Small data set. Binary conclusion. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10090 If translocation is not used, current harvest levels would not increase. if an increase is a positive outcome, translocation might be a good option. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10091 Drought tolerance is not the only factor to consider when translocating species. Other factors include the potential spread of insect and disease vectors, changes in native species adaptation windows, and the productivity of off-site, poorly adapted species to other climate factors. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10095 Regional and site-specific variation (s), model accuracy using 5yr data set opposed to a 10 or 20 yr. data set. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10111 I think its sound but would like to see more specifics on the data written into this conclusion. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10113 If canopy cover does not have a statistically significant impact from translocation, then translocation will not have the desired effect. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10123 depends on management goal - timber production v. ecological function/preservation EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10137 Economically spending money on translocating of later-blooming meadow plants into management plans just doesn't seem worth the price if it will not have a significant impact of the collapse od meadow pollinators. Meaning we would be wasting time and resources on planting just for it to not work. Howver, I do believe doing study plots would be useful throughout forest forests to see if the statistcal model that was used to be true or not then go from there. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10142 Due to the length of time of the model, 100 year and 80% outcome, making a conclusion that is do or don't do, I don't think is a sound argument. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10143 Youngstand management is dependent on the survival of seedlings. This study shows the highest probability of survival. With fewer units being interplanted due to heat stress or drought over the course of time. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10145 I disagree with the notion that Climate Change will have these dramatic effects on these meadow species. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10158 It is only sound if current levels of timber production is the only goal of translocation. There could be other benefits to translocation that are not addressed by this premise. There is also no mention of uncertainty in the model results, and translocation could provide bet-hedging in cases of unsure outcomes. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10163 Arguments are said to be sound when the conclusion follows from the premise. This does. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10170 I agree if we decide the correct climate model is ""hotter and drier"". I've seen 14 different potential climate models with 3-4 of those being the most likely to happen within the next 100 years. My concern with moving vegetation is ""Did we get it right?"" We have one opportunity to do so. A lot can happen within 5 years (the study timeframe listed above). A better solution to species migration may be to set out ""sentinel"" populations for researchers to observe rather than full scale movement of tree and pla EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10171 Since the goals of our typical management are to maintain or increase the timber production in our landscape/s, we wouldn't want to risk changing our entire species composition for no realized gains in productivity. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10182 Overall the conclusion follows the premise. However a 5 year data set is a short ecological timeframe to draw confidence in the conclusion. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10184 I am uncertain, what ecological aspects would come in to play with translocation as a precautionary activity? EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10191 Test Trial would be beneficial EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10196 One study, Where?, Are we looking far enough into the future?, What climate models/assumptions are used? EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10202 It is short and one sided, we could start to include a small mix of meadow plants while also addressing other management concerns. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10222 Can't draw a conclusion without first knowing where the study was conducted in the PNW. Management actions are context dependent. I would need way more information to make an informed decision with, e.g., tree density, disturbance history. Plus, it's only a 5 year data set that doesn't address the pacific decadal oscillation. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10227 Increased water use efficiency is not a guarantee among different species due to global warming. Drought stress due to climate change on species still has to be an important consideration. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10234 Non-native trees may not withstand the harsh environment of the coast range forests. For example, the ponderosa pine of the southern Oregon coast is not as hardy and resistant as a Fir or spruce to the north, and the amount of moisture in the winter months would hinder growth. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10242 Need more site information. How would native plant populations be impacted by introduction of new plants? What variables were sampled in meadow studies? Could there be losses in other critical nutrients that might affect native plant populations in addition to climate? EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10246 Once again these are single studies. Natural selection and evolution should be favored over human interference. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10248 Short term and not site specific. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10351 Species management is based upon local conditions EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10368 A 5 year data set may not be sufficient to accurately predict what will happen in a 100 year timeframe. Also statistics dont always predict complex ecological patterns accurately. Active managment of late blooming pollinator species has not been an action that has been well studied and could have different possible outcome than are predicted from this one study. If there is a chance that the translocation will work then it should be attempted escpecially in certain amangement secenarios due to threatened, endangered, or sensitive species conservation efforts. Studies are only a tool to help guide decision making and do not provide with 100% confidence what will actually happen in real life. Sometimes at least trying active management and studying the popuation and ecological trends is better than not trying and relying on one study since the risk of losing pollinators is a huge problem. Trying is better than not trying. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10371 There are other factors to consider, such as disturbance resistance and extreme peaks in temperature EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10380 There may be other reasons to translocate trees besides canopy cover. Argument assumes canopy cover is primary objective. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10386 This case makes a sound argument for not translocating plants for the purpose of supporting pollinators. However, I only called it moderately sound because of how broad the conclusion was relative to the premise. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10397 Needs to identify the relationship between ""my landscape"" and the research data better. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10403 There could be other reasons for translocating drought-adapted trees. You can't make that decision based on information from a single type of resource specialist for a mutli-use landscape. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10413 This appears to be a compelling argument but again I would need more information to determine the applicability of this study to my landscape. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10421 Canopy cover is not the only or even the most important reason that we might move species. We may accept reduced canopy cover but still want to direct the nature of the new, lower density forest condition using some other characteristics of translocated species. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10426 An increase in water use efficiency is irrelevant if there is less water available for use. At best the effect would be neutral. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10429 An argument of such grand proportions (landscape) cannot be extremely sound if it is only based on one variable (soil moisture). EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10438 Depends on the model inputs and it's just one study. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10441 Based on that info, it makes sense. I don't agree as canopy cover is not the only consideration EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10450 As with the previous examples, conclusions from a single location and focused on a single factor cannot be assumed to be valid in all management scenarios. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10453 While the model indicates that there would not be an aggregate benefit to pollinators, there could be species-specific benefits that could still be considered. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10454 contradicts itself EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10464 Same as before, need to see more detail about controls and where the data came from. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10467 Translocation may have unintended consequences. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10471 this is not my area of expertise, i am uncertain EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10483 The conclusion follows the premise EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10487 Difficult to formulate a logical response without seeing the original publication, base data, study methodology and underlying basis for the study's conclusions. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10492 If results were insignificant why would we do management actions that do not work? EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:10499 This short paragraph suggests that no matter what there is an 80% chance of collapse- so then what's the point of trying. On the other hand if there was a chance we could actually do something then I would say we should at least try. Also, the area I live in is usually not really reflected in the models that are run in Oregon. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:20005 5-year data set on soil moisture- limited time frame for building model of continuing physiological strees , how is model correlating increased temperature to canopy cover measurements? May be other reasons to transplant drought-adapted tres - mortality or disease? EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:20020 Why would you translocate trees if models are predicting there will be no benefit? EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:20026 There is assumption that wood is a viable future in society and that humans know all of the unintended consequences of this action. We have planted non-native species all over and are often regretful. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:20031 Models are theoretical and recent 5-year data sets used to predict 100 years into the future is a little weak. EXPLAIN_ST_ANTI_TRAN Respondent ID:20038 Models show that evolution will kick in (survival of the fitness) in timber trees HENCE, there is no reason for humans to interfere (yet, once again) and try to fix nature.. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attribute: EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10023 Smoke is the product of all fuels and interplay of moisture, fuel conditions, burn severity, inversion conditions. Suppression activities are highly dependent upon firefighter safety. A real question not address is post fire snag density and impact on suppression activities (proximity to points of delineation, exclusion to firefighters for safety considerations). EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10034 I believe this study could easily be replicated and find the same results. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10038 rarely is the reason for salvage logging due to air quality as the number one driver for salvage logging EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10049 The evidence collected over many years supports this argument. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10057 The combined benefits of properly conduced salvage logging would drive action in all but to most unusual circumstances. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10058 Is salvage logging economically viable and will it pay of the follow up sivicultural costs? EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10061 Again it follows buts its not that simple to be a guiding principle. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10064 Although it make sense with your conclusion many other factors must be considered. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10072 The ecological context of this study is not necessarily the same as my landscape. The species composition, moisture regime, and underlying soil may differ greatly between my landscape and the site on which this study occurred. Similarly, my landscape may not have recently burned. This assertion would be more sound if 1. the study were a meta-analysis of post-fire salvage logging across the Pacific Northwest and the majority of studies found such a relationship between salvage logging and future soil outcomes, and 2. if the conclusion were that salvage logging would be a useful management tactic following fire. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10075 The argument does not include a ""because"" statement. For example, that would be, ""Therefore, salvage logging should be used on my landscape because it has problems with soil erosion."" Just because something is generally good does not mean it is always good, and that is something that must be considered when arguing for a EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10088 Useful information but conclusion doesn't account for other challenges with salvage EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10090 The argument here is too simplistic. More information is needed to make an inference here like elevation, sloe, aspect, rainfall etc. . EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10091 Smoke management is only one of several factors used to evaluate the need and effectiveness of salvage logging. Other considerations are economic, biologic, water quality, and habitat maintenance and improvement. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10093 There is no data to back up the conclusion. Also, I don't see how they connected the dots on less soil erosion through salvage logging. It appears as though the conclusion was taken at face value and made assumptions to support salvage logging. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10110 Would be interested to know what the pre-fire stand structure was and overall consumption compared to the effects of re-burns EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10113 This argument effectively uses the findings of this study, but does not incorporate any additional studies for support. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10114 Air quality relates to public health which is a rapidly increasing desirable outcome to fire suppression/management. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10125 Not clear whether the study is also representative of my landscape. A slightly better conclusion statement would encourage the exploration of salvage logging as a management practice as opposed to suggesting its widespread use without considering any other factor(s). EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10126 2 years is not a very long time to draw a major conclusion like this. I also think that because soil types, forest types, and fire behaviors vary so widely, that the application of salvage logging would still be site dependent. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10142 The conclusion is says that it should be used, but doesn't say that it will be used everywhere. So it suggest a tool to use. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10143 Low intensity fires providing for survival of stands should be the mission of all in our industry. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10145 I deal with private forest lands, so any way that a landowner can reduce this risk of future fires and get trees growing back is very important to me. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10155 I'm not sure severity of fire is associated with smoke levels. Also, density of salvage logging would affect level of smoke. I would need you to define salvage logging better to answer question. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10159 Empirical evidence clearly supports the conclusion. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10165 The argument is too vague. It does not address fire return interval or precipitation patterns, or stand condition prior to the second fire event. The argument is based on a weak correlation and does not address other possible factors. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10171 As before, our goal is to maintain or increase productivity, so having higher tree recruitment and survival are both desirable attributes which would suggest greater productivity following salvage as compared to no salvage. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10177 Salvage logging should be an option in forest management but may be done to meet the needs of a vast array of forest management goals. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10182 Short ecological timeframe study and conclusion is too generic. Many other factors need to be considered in the process. A better conclusion is that ""salvage logging should be ""considered"" as an option on my land EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10184 again, other influences should be considered. Not all practices have the same result in all landscapes. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10194 Reforestation after a wildfire is very important to limit surface erosion and sediment delivery to aquatic habitats. Replanting costs are offset by revenue generated by the salvage harvest. Study indications that reforestation success is enhanced by salvage logging is an additional consideration that supports the conclusion that reforestation after a wildfire is beneficial. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10196 It's only one study conducted over a short time horizon. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10203 There is more to salvage logging than simply what was in the above statement EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10218 many more variables to consider when deciding on salvage logging in terms on impacts of soil health, compaction, and erosion. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10226 Forests are variable, as are fires. While the study found significant results, that doesn't mean it necessarily applies to all landscapes - including ""mine"". Note, I didn't see this box on the previous question but would put the same explanation there. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10234 The benefits of salvage logging are of high importance as we transition into the possibility of more frequent and violent wildfires. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10242 What regeneration activities occurred after harvest operations to reforest burned areas? Obviously if no trees were replanted, there is likely to be less smoke produced. It just seems like there are a lot of assumptions to be made without know what occurred after harvest operations. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10248 Short-term and not site specific. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10257 Findings may be specific to harvest method, stand type and soil type EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10352 Argument dismisses timeframe between fire events. Private timber lands salvage everything, Leaving the landscape without diversity. The actions of salvage logging at those scale has a high impact on the landscape in terms of road building and impacts to impacted soils. Geology plays a large role in how the landscape will react to erosion processes. The publics perception does play into this equation as well (political) and federal limitations prohibit landscape level salvage. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10360 I would question the results of this study as is seems that it would be nearly impossible to nail down data to back it up given the infinite variables involved. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10364 Salvage logging generally removes large contiguous patches of habitat that would be utilized by primary post-fire colonizers (e.g., black-backed woodpeckers). Removing entire portions of those habitats reduces the resources for those species, therefore, broadcast salvage logging should not be used across all sections of landscape experiencing high intensity fires, but rather selectively, allowing for certain areas to be left completely untouched (or else ""thinned,"" but this can't be done in practice for safety reaso EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10375 The probability of a second fire may be small, and there are other effects to consider. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10380 Conclusion assumes that air quality is primary and/or sole decision variable. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10386 The argument is sound for why salvage logging might be used. However, the conclusion is very broad. It would be more sound if the conclusion specified where/how salvage logging should be used. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10389 Study failed to address desired tree densities, which are far fewer than the hundreds or thousands of seedlings that can follow a fire. Also, the argument is timber-centric because it only addresses trees, and probably only conifer trees. Most studies that include hardwoods will separate findings for hardwoods and conifers. Studies that only address trees are usually looking only at conifers. Natural and healthy ecosystems in Oregon coast include hardwood shrubs that become trees, shrubs, grasses, and forbs. Hardwood dominance for decades after a high intensity fire is a natural process. See late 1930s era aerial photos of the central Oregon coast. where majority is hardwood dominated. Then look at 1950s or 1960s aerial photos that show conifer dominance in unmanaged stands when the conifers finally got taller than the hardwoods. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10397 Research supports the statement, but it would be better if the connection to ""My landscape"" was made. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10402 Missing the WHY. Is air quality in the area really a consideration/concern/issue? EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10407 This is sound because it supports other studies that concluded the same things. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10413 Were the trees and fire regime in the study and control areas similar enough to my landscape to make an assumption that the same effects would occur in my landscape? EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10421 Basing a management opinion on a single study is not very sound. Post-fire recovery after a subsequent burn is only one aspect of achieving desired forest conditions. It would not be very sound to base the decision to salvage log or not only on this one factor. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10428 Should have some kind of expectation or explanation that high severity fire is likely to return in the interval represented in the study. what kind of logging? ground based? cable? EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10429 Generally, air quality is not the only issue that is considered in determining whether to salvage log. This would not be a catch-all conclusion to allow for salvage logging on my landscape, but simply one of the benefits to weigh when determining the action. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10450 The conclusion does not take into account the specific nature of or management priorities of all landscapes EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10454 I'd be worried about any science that tells me what I ""should"" do. Natural resource decisions are very site specific EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10464 All of these conclusions follow the premises, guess I didn't follow the instructions well for the first two. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10470 East side ecosystem does not have the density seen on west side of state. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10482 Just a guess again EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10483 The conclusion was specific to my unit specific, but the premise is general as in all units. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10492 Again, it depends on the goals and objectives to which one is managing for. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10499 This statement directly contradicts other studies that I have seen. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10508 Smoke is relative to weather and others, not just fuel availability. making this conclusion with just that one study doesn't seem sound, need more data points. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10566 Are you assessing our biases? The information is valuable to land managers to know if it is true. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:10568 need more information. Causation vs. correlation EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:20005 '@ year study - limited time frame, What is sample size in study.? Is the study in the same forest ecosystem, forest type, is my landscape the same as the study area? Study suggests that salvage logging may be beneficial to tree recruitment - not necessarily that it shoul or should not be used - what are objectives of management ? EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:20008 How often fire occurs on your landscape and at what severity, would play a mjor role in if you should use salvage logging. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:20017 Without knowing more about the study, I cannot conclude that it applies to my landscape - soil type, vegetation, rainfall, etc. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_SALV Respondent ID:20031 It's just one study. Basing management actions on a single study ignores the potential for other eventualities. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attribute: EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10019 I basically have purview over the entire state of Washington so there are no blanket practices that can be entirely sound. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10023 Lingering questions regarding topography, fuels, additional treatment regimes, ignition sources and interplay with fire behavior. Questions linger on modelling assumptions. Would like discussion on pros/cons of 2-year time span during high drought (PNW) heat dome conditions with record high ERC's. Is this an outlier period that distorts findings, an opportunity to peer into future conditions? EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10049 The duration of the study is far too brief to consider this a sound argument. If you want your argument to stand the test of time then you must use an appropriate timeframe for your study. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10050 while the argument is linear it would be difficult to implement this on lands i manage based upon policy. to the same point I reference in the first question, i would need to look at many other issues in conjunction with this finding. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10056 Little bit of a stretch. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10057 The conclusion is naturally derived from the premise but there are multiple other variables to consider in addition to higher soil moisture and resistance to drought stress. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10058 Just harvest the stand. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10064 Given the limited information it suggests the data was limited in scope. To be extremely sound it will take many years to see an over all “moisture content benefit”. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10081 My program doesn't make management decisions about upland harvest in ""our unit"", that's up to the private landowners. Any argument which states that we 'should' take a management decision about something we have no jurisdiction over, is not sound. If the argument were phrased, ""mature growth stands should be thinned on THE landscape"" or ""thinning of mature growth stands should be adopted by government and private agencies"" I w EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10092 Sound, but I would prefer to use the benefits of reduced drought stress and greater fire resilience as my decision points instead of age to successional stage. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10093 This demonstrates a better basis for the conclusion, given it has 2 years of data and is comparing against control stands. A longer timeframe with more data points would make it a more sound arguement. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10102 I don't necessarily disagree with the study, that's just something I would never do based on the mission of my agency and the obligation I have to the beneficiaries. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10105 2 years does not seem like a long enough study to draw that conclusion. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10111 There are many factors baked into land management and creating mature old growth stands does not always align with agency goals. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10114 Thinning larger diameter timber is one of the most controversial management issues. This appears as a straightforward pro-favorable argument for thinning timber of all diameter classes as appropriate. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10123 as a forester, I agree with premise and study results. Current position is regulatory, so neutral in effect of information of current position EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10126 I think this argument also applies a very broad conclusion to a very site specific situation. Some sites may see increased precipitation in future years due to climate change, and so soil moisture content may be more difficult to predict. I also need more information on which forest types and vegetation communities were included in this study to draw conclusions about the management of my forest unit. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10134 What about the finances of the operation? Do late rotation thinning pencil out? EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10137 The goal of my company is to not only generate revenue but also to have healthy forest stands and create old growth and have less intense fires. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10142 Again, saying should be instead of will be. Having tools and options is the benefit of research studies. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10144 If your goal is to reduce extreme fire behavior, then VDT may help you meet that objective. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10155 Yes they should be thinned, but the optimum density of leave trees and spacing is needed. I dint think we know that info yet. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10158 Should"" is too strong a conclusion. There are other values to consider besides drought stress. My landscape may or may not be similar to the study sites in the susceptibility to low soil moisture or current stand conditions. Results from a 2 year study may not be sufficient to make this conclusion over a wider range of expected climate condition EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10165 Does not consider climate and micro-site impacts on the efficacy of the treatments. The benefits of thinning to promote a specific structure are well known, but this statement alludes to reduction in drought stress as the narrow result of the thinning. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10170 The reduced fire behavior could be a result of logging practices used during the thinning operation. Fallers typically remove tall brush when falling trees for safety reasons. This action alone could remove most ladder fuels in a stand. The physical act of tree removal (and crown removal) aides in breaking the fuels located in the crowns which some wildfire studies have shown will cause a crown fire to ""drop out"" of the crown an onto the forest floor. The composition of the stand will play into fire resistance. Leaving understory hemlock in a Douglas-fir dominant stand after a thinning will not protect the hemlock from a future fire, as one example. Un-thinned stream buffers tend to as fuel to a fire resulting in the loss of the buffer, however, they do recover faster if hardwoods are present in the buffer prior to the fire. Thinning a monoculture (such as DF) results in a different end result compared to a more complex stand even with variable density thinning EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10171 My landscape goal is not to create more old growth conditions. As such, thinning mature growth forests is an economic loser when your goal is to maximize growth and productivity in harvestable timber. Thinning Douglas-fir stands is not a sustainable endeavor if your goal is to sustainably produce Douglas-fir sawlogs at a profit. It is for expediting habitat/older forest conditions; not perpetual, economically positive, active management. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10181 No indication what ""my"" landscape weather conditions are, or the current condition of the mature growth stand, or the landowner objectives for the mature growth stands. Too little information to establish a sound reasoning. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10184 There are other indicators that could be influential. Species, aspect, geological location also play a role. Not all studies can be used across all landscapes. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10194 It conclusion is consistent with the logical consideration that a forest will grow more efficiently is thinning removes trees from competing for nutrients and water with old growth trees. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10203 There is more to landscape management than science. Many decisions are political or financial in my agency. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10204 Just because a thinned stand may have a higher soil moisture content doesn't mean we should go in and thin all mature stands. Some plant species need higher soil moisture, some don't. Perhaps thinning could be implemented only in certain places where it provides the most benefit relative to its costs on other biological conditions. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10216 The final sentence may not be true for every landscape. What is the density threshold? How dense is the unit that must be thinned in order to meet the drought tolerance? Is this true for all soil types? EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10218 some areas in my district are designated to grow habitat that exhibit older stand conditions. this is where I would implement this activity EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10235 My landscape is not actively trying to develop old growth forests on all lands only on a subset of lands does this occur. Having the suite of options for treatment is important. Especially if the species composition is off. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10236 Was this done in multiple timber types and across different regions and climates? What about stands that used different silvicultural methods? What was the best density to thin too? Was there a point at which thinning too heavy had a negative affect? EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10246 These studies are based on short time frames. This argument seems the most sound to me because of the data set collected over the longer period of time (moisture content). I still have doubts on the conclusions of all of the statements based on the timeframes in general though. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10248 Short term data set and not site specific. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10257 Findings may be specific to stand type and local climate EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10310 You cannot put the trees back up once they are cut and it is hard to base a decision that may take 50-100 years to remedy based on one study done over 2 years. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10328 I need to know more in order to make an informed decision. Purely on the statement above I am not very convinced. I would want to see the sample design and how the study was conducted to better asses the 'soundness' of the argument. Are these ad-hoc research plots after a fire (not very convincing in my opinion) or side by side comparisons carefully controlling and measuring other variables that influence extreme fire behavior (slope, topography, weather, fuel moistures, etc). EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10351 Thinning decisions are based upon local conditions not general results EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10352 Other ecological variables are not accounted for that are important. The argument is soley based on trees and not the ecosystem nor does it describe the effects or condition/recovery of the more ""intense"" fire. Stand replacing event? What was the survivorship? What was the actual difference between the two stands/how big of a magnitude of difference? What is the cost/benefit of the situation in ecological te EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10360 I manage for sustained yield, so in my current role this just isn't something I deal with. I suppose the argument is sound if your goal is to manage for old growth and not timber production. On a forest time scale, what is 50-100 years? Not much. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10364 It is a sound argument if the management priorities are to improve stand conditions in mature and old-growth stands. Practically, it would be difficult to implement in certain units due to internal guidance: my field office for example is focused on management of our commercial stands, rather than the mature stands reserved primarily for northern spotted owl habitat. Therefore, while we SHOULD pursue this action, it is unlikely to occur. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10375 Sounds good. There may be other, contradictory, factors to consider, e.g., increased roads, snag production, or noxious weed spread. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10380 Conclusion assumes that accelerating the conversion of mature to old growth is the primary/sole management objective. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10386 If the management objective is to produce old growth forest, this is a sound argument. However, I don't rate it as more sound due to the lack of specificity in the conclusion and inherent uncertainty of models forecasting that far in the future based on 5 years of data. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10389 Need to know the structure of mature stands before they are thinned and the definition of old growth stands in terms of conifer and hardwood trees and stand layers. Old growth definitions almost always include ""multi layered multi species"" stands but management for most of the last 40 years within the range of the spotted owl has focused too much on giant trees (>40"" dbh conifers) but plant and animal use in old growth forest is related to hardwoods and cavities more than tree sizes. Granted, large cavities in giant trees are critical for spotted owl nests and bear dens but these elements are not needed on every acre. Marbled murrelets are strongly associated with giant trees but they also use epicormic branching for nests. Epicormic branching is facilitated by creating open conditions around younger Df, and maintenance of open conditions on the top half of a conifer is facilitated by hardwood trees surrounding a con EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10397 Data is used to support the statement, though it would be better if the connection to ""My landscape"" was better identified. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10402 not a bad reasoning but missing the WHY. How much do you already have/need? what are the other trade-offs? EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10408 This hypothetical does not provide any information about “my landscape” so I have no idea if the conditions are applicable EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10413 Did the study and control areas include similar types of forests and fire regimes as my landscape? EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10419 Fire intensity is directly related to fuel loads and fuel connectivity. Thus, by treating landscapes with variable thinning you should reduce intensity by reducing fuel loads and connectivity. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10428 I guess technically sound but I think all of these should have the type of logging that was included in the study. It doesn't say whether the study was on ""my"" landscape, and that should be in there too. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10429 This is a sound argument, but it is not sound enough to base a landscape decision off of. More variables need to be considered. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10443 We do thin - and for reasons listed here - but again, so many variables to consider.... EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10448 Argument could also include findings about thinning reducing extreme fire behavior and accelerating transition to old growth stands. Need to cite more than one study to have a more sound argument, regardless of the conclusion. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10453 The conclusion is based on a single objective that may not apply consistently across all stands - land managers establish a wide variety of objectives across landscapes based on a wide variety of factors. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10464 5 years of data isn't much when talking about forest lifespans. Would need to see more detail to get a feel for the robustness of the study. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10467 Need to know more about what type of stands were thinned and how the study location compares to my location and species mix. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10482 Just a guess, I have no idea, I work with sagebrush EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10483 You drew a specific conclusion from a generalized premise EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10487 Again, same answer as previous questions about management-related arguments. Interpreting previous studies and their conclusions always depends upon the study design, the variables, and limitation of the study. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10502 variable density thinning also has sideboards - 4-acre open areas have been shown to encourage larger limb development such as for marbled murrelet thinning but land managers are accused of going on a ""timber grab"" when it is clearly shown that trees need sunlight down to the base to encourage this type of development of old-growth characteris EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10507 My landscape is generally unmanaged and within designated wilderness, with natural processes central to planning decisions. Should the situation arise where more active management of forests is needed, this argument may apply. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:10568 need on ground truthing- not just modeling EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:20005 I would stay argument is sound; whether it is moderate or very sound may be in the details. Argument uses study ""suggests"" which to me is a sound way of describing results. . Need to explain what structure and funtions are being accelerated EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:20008 If the goal of your landscape is to increase old growth forest you want to get there as quickly as possible. But you still need to consider the short term impacts of thinning mature forest. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:20020 comparing the trajectory of mature stands to old growth characteristics in thinned and unthinned stands answers the question of whether or not we should thin. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:20022 Based on the definition that was previously given for mature growth stands, I think it's likely that this study was based on forests that are significantly wetter than the forests in my area. I think these findings may still be applicable, but I would be more cautious in applying them and would want to see research that was more specific to drier forest types. Overall I think this sort of research is extremely valuable, but we should exercise caution in applying research from one ecological setting to a totally different setting. I also think there needs to be a distinction drawn between multi-story mature growth stands and single-story mature growth stands in terms of what management actions are appropriate. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:20026 Thinning can be a surrogate for natural disturbance, like fire that we actively suppress. Sentiment against mature stand management is value based and exacerbated by environmental groups and their business model. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_THIN Respondent ID:20031 It's just one study. Variability of this study may not represent the variability in many studies with similar hypotheses. It is possible that another study could conclude differently. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attribute: EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10017 It is based on the results of a modeling effort looking at translocation, so sounds sound to me but I wouldn't rank it extremely sound. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10019 From my perspective, it makes more sense to hybridize native trees with more drought tolerant or climate tolerant species rather than just put species translocated from separate ecosystems. There will definitely be a transitioning time for all the biota and just planting different trees is impractical. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10023 One study isn't a body of evidence. Follow-up studies of translocation and pollinators and translocation and unanticipated impacts on forest ecosystems. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10026 Introduction of new tree species brings its own host of problems (insects and disease). EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10034 I believe 5 years is too short of a timeframe. Not enough data. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10050 this argument has less variables to consider in my opinion than the first. if trees will not survive due to climate change, then if we want timber on the landscape, we need to look outside of historic species and seed zones. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10057 Same as previous, conclusion follows the premise but there are more factors to consider than drought adaptation alone. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10058 Seed source EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10064 Models are only as good as the information we put in. They are typically filled with bias to a desired outcome. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10073 The study suggests stress will increase over the next 100 years, but saying we need to immediately begin translocating trees implies urgency that isn't confirmed to be necessary. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10079 Careful study and analysis with sample treatments need to be completed before recommending this premise. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10081 This doesn't relate to my work at all. Our program does not deal with planting or translocation. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10092 Not seeing the connection to how these translocated plants are supposed to fare before these climate change impacts actually occur. (Ie, planting failure due to current poor site for the species) EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10093 This argument includes data to connect the dots between identifying what the issue is and how it can be addressed or significantly reduced through taking steps now to work toward addressing the problem. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10102 I do believe that we are going through a drier cycle however, my opinion is that this could be a normal earth cycle. I base my opinion on historical information of different tree species presence in specific geographical areas than what we have today. More than just what we have planted as the result of logging. For example, Large stands of large white pine on the west end of the Olympic Peninsula; ""Nisqually"" pine (looks like ponderosa), Oregon white oak and incense cedar in the Puget Sound area and foothills of the Cascades. More research into the actual history of natural timber type changes in my area would be much more helpful for me and could help me in tree selection when reforest EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10105 It doesn't go into the range of draught tolerance of existing species, or why existing can't handle the change in moisture content. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10110 This is outside my area of expertise and therefore I don’t have the knowledge necessary to critique this argument. On the face of it, incorporating translocated seed sources should allow for them to integrate with local gene pools and provide adaptive benefits to the population EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10114 I would agree that its extremely sound except that with any management action there are other factors to be weighed such as economic and operational feasibility. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10121 I can't make a decision about my landscape based without knowing more about the study and study site. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10125 The urgency with which translocation is suggested in the conclusion does not align well with the premise. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10126 The study results align with previous studies I've read, and suggest similar actions. I did not select extremely sound because the study relies upon models which have built-in assumptions that could be inaccurate. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10139 Single study and short time frame is, in my opinion, insufficient to justify the final conclusion of ""immediately being translocating..." EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10144 The conclusion logically follows the premise. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10155 Where do we find the drought tolerant tree species to relocate, Southern Oregon, Northern California? We don't know enough about regional microclimates, where are they, do they overlap, and the effects on trees. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10159 Modeling is very useful, however, can be difficult to anticpate all of the appropriate variables, inputs, and assumptions. Therefore, the modeling outcomes may be less ""concrete"" depending on the construction of the model. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10165 Drought adapted tree species are typically slower growing species anyway. Using a species with a slow growh rate to replace one that may theoretically slow down is not sound. The argument sounds more like a question of mitigating climate induced mortality rather than mitigating a growth rate reduction. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10168 Decisions made on a 5 year data set and a model...really? We don't have the resources/funds to speculate on a landscape level. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10177 A 5 year dataset is not enough data to make a management decision. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10180 Changing the trophic relationship of an entire forest system or type, based on translocation of the organism at base of the trophic pyramid could have immense and terribly detrimental impacts. Conversely, this could be critical to maintaining forest cover in the PNW. A long and thorough discussion is needed on the % of reforestation that occurs in relation to natural vs. translocated trees. Within this, more info on same spp or different spp would be helpful. Moving the genetics of DF or PP from southern reaches north sounds appropriate as that is an increased timeline of a nature process, however replacing DF and PP with other spp could have unforecasted impacts of extreme detriment (ecologically and economically). EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10181 Translocation of later-blooming meadow plants is just one management action to be incorporated to reduce chance of collapse. Doing just the one action is sound enough, but without context of whether it is an action associated with a management plan is shortsighted. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10194 Drought cycles tend to follow a longer cycle than a 5-year study, typically 7 to 10 years. Although the study indicates climate changes toward hotter and dryer, it would be prudent to begin phasing in the translocation of drought adapted trees but this should be introduced gradually and the climatic conditions monitored to verify actual trends are realized in the projected time frames. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10204 Are the later blooming plants native to the area? What effects will the later blooming plants have on the rest of the ecosystem? We do need to address climate change but need to know the additional effects of translocating species. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10213 Basing management activities on a single 5-year study is a rash thing to do. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10226 Again, these systems are variable. And modeling outputs around climate change are generally too coarse for me to have confidence in them at the scale of ""my"" landscape. Also, because I'm involved with managing natural areas that support native ecosystems, rare species, etc. and are intended as baseline/reference sites, such active intervention is unusual and a last reso EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10235 This ultimately comes down to what the particular landowner's objectives are. If it is to produce fiber then a measured series of steps are needed to ensure appropriate species for growth and yield are selected. If it is just canopy cover without concern for forest products then a more rapid translocating process is reasonable. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10236 Will these plants help bring more pollinators to the area and will it in fact help increase there numbers overall or just move them to a new location? What will the introduction of non native plants do the existing vegetation and will their impacts be overall positive or negative? EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10238 I don't believe that one 5-year study is enough data for an immediate call to action. I would also want to know about the methods/study area, a one size fits all approach doesn't seem appropriate to me. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10257 modeling studies can incorporate a broader range of areas, stand types and climate zones and results may be applicable EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10258 Need to test and monitor first before full implementation. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10328 Again, I want more information before I take this statement at face value. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10352 The argument again does not take an ecological approach and misses key variables of soil chemistry and potential changes to forest species interactions. It does not balance the potential needs of key threatened plant and wildlife species. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10355 It seems relatively low risk. The conclusion assumes some facts, like we understand the impacts of translocation and have found them to be beneficial. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10357 More extensive data set needed EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10364 I think that is one solution, but perhaps needs more specificity on the suggested replanting ratio of local varieties to more drought-tolerant varieties. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10372 This conclusion puts too much weight on untested models and predicted conditions. It also fails to mention the unknowns that could lead to unintended consequences. Drought tolerance is only one factor that is being considered here, other factors need to be considered like resistance to local diseases, fire and other disturbances, and interactions with other native organisms over time. Climate has shifted in the past and the ecosystems assemblages as we see them now are a result of those changes without human-assisted species translocation. I don't think maintaining current levels of timber production at all costs is a good goal at all, the costs and sources of uncertainty need to be thoroughly evaluated and studied prior to implementing this idea at a large scale. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10375 I'd like to think there is some chance we will actually reduce our carbon emissions rather than just be forced to adapt. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10378 I think 5yrs worth of data is too short for a strong conclusion to be made from a model. Especially without knowing the source of the data and anything about the data. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10383 extrapolating from a 5-year window to a 100 year projection may be good performance art, but may not be good science. I may be judgmental, but in my mind, this researcher not only hasn't sold me on this point, but has likely damaged their academic reputation (at least with me). ""Hotter and drier seed zones"" is not equal to ""drought-adapted trees."" Same general comments otherwise as the last EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10389 Argument fails to address the effect on native species currently occupying stands and does not discuss the plasticity of the plants currently occupying study sites. There are too many examples of non-native plants adversely affecting the resilience of an ecosystem to make a simple argument for translocating plants that may have never been there. Need some historic context for messing with ecosystems by translocating species. A better argument would be to favor plastic native species, such as valley pine and Df, and manage for wider spacing. If drier conditions become the norm, then productivity will decline no matter what species we try to grow. Furthermore, timber value is not addressed in the argument. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10394 It would be a consideration of many factors, including site, species, spatial/distribution of plant communities. I would also consider any cumulative effects that are occurring in the project area, not make sweeping assumptions. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10400 Jumping to the conclusion of ""immediately"" without more information appears to be inflammatory or a personal judgement without addressing the implications to the ecology and species that would be impacted by potentially introducing drought-adapted tree species to an area (it doesn't specify native or nonnative - which has a whole other suite of concer EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10408 Geography matters as does the breadth of the study and the data used to run the model. I would want more information before jumping to such a firm conclusion EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10418 When public land managers are able to manage their land proactively (before it burns) versus reactively (after it burns) then maybe translocation of species may be an option EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10419 I have seen this more with rangeland plants and depending on the area, the concept is good but not applicable due to either increased costs of the seed collection/source or the applicability of it at a landscape scale. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10428 Needs a tiered management direction that we want to continue to maintain current levels of timber production. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10443 Variables! EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10448 Not an expert in botany or silviculture to know how sound this argument is. Context would be helpful, such as where was this study conducting and in what ecosystem(s). Translocation on a landscape level scale seems unlikely due to lack of funding and resources. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10466 How does a five year dataset project the next 100 years? EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10470 Without seeing the actual data, I cannot provide a better response EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10478 That is a significant decision/management action to take when only using a 5 year data set. How will this effect early blooming meadow plants? EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10480 using a 5 year data set can be used to get the answer you want depends on what 5 year period you use Data set should include a min.100 years for stands that are up to 450 years old EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10482 I have no idea, I work with sagebrush not trees, this whole survey is a waste of my time and yours for reading my responses since I don't deal with trees EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10485 It's one conclusion, but again we are managing for multiple resources. I have yet to see policy or direction to translocate any seeds or plants from drier zones to our area. I also think their are other risks that should be factored in, like long term transition and loss of native vegetation, effects of changing the landscape, habitat changes for fish and wildlife, and so on. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10497 With caution. Introducing species that are ""not native"" (at least in the current climate) can be risky. Introduction of new species may have unintended consequences. For example, consider the introduction of the salt cedar to the American Southwest. It was done with good intentions, now it is a pest. But, because it has become naturalized habitat for some flycatchers, now it has become part of the landscape and has changed the ecosystem. By introducing new species too quickly, there can be an cascading effect of un-anticipated changes. The argument is weak; it only talks about one factor contributing to decrease in canopy. What about topsoil loss? What about increased wildfires? What about changes in amounts and timing of precipitation? Many more factors need to be considered before drawing such a conclusion. A land management agency would not be able to make a decision based on this argument, as there are many specialists that would need to contribute to this argum EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10502 What is the land Use Allocation? there may be differing management direction to creating meadows in a timber production stand. However - on a meadow restoration or meadow development project this would be sound science to incorporate. The bigger picture is getting the planting stock for these types of trees and their survival rate once planted. Could be very labor intensive to ensure they are established EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:10507 In my landscape, natural processes/avoidance of manipulation are key, with a few exceptions. There may be some opportunity to use this information at sites where active revegetation is planned as far as species selection; however, only plants already native to the park would likely be considered. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:20006 Adapted migration is a tool we can use. We may begin immediately testing this, but site specific variables will always be important to understand the success of assisted migration in particular locations. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:20014 I dont like the word Immediately and I would need to read the manuscript first to determine of the argument is sound EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:20017 There is no basis for me to determine if the study conditions/location are similar to my landscape. EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:20022 I think this is a strong argument for some of the potential benefits of translocation. In order to make a decision, I would also want to see information about any potential downsides of translocation. For example, would it potentially harm native plant species to introduce new species from other areas, and what are the potential repercussions of that? EXPLAIN_ST_PRO_TRAN Respondent ID:20033 Too much variability in 5 years to make that assertion. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------