Intensive Management- Can the South Really Live Without It?

Over the past five years, the public and private sectors have debated the future of forest management and its implications for the next century. In the public sector, resource managers have debated the meaning and significance of “ecosystem management,” a term coined in I992 by then-Forest Service Chief F. Dale Robertson; he suggested that this approach to forest management would “blend the needs of people and environmental values in such a way that the National Forests and Grasslands represent diverse, healthy, productive, and sustainable ecosystems.” Resource managers in the private sector have also debated among themselves and with their counterparts in the public sector about ecosystem management. The forest products industry’s dominant view is that ecosystem management is a process with different meanings and applications, which are based on ownership and objectives (Owen 1995). Within the private sector, debate also has focused on the traditional application of multiple-use forestry, using the principles of sustainable forest management. This is defined in the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) of the American Forest and Paper Association @F&PA 1995) as “... [meeting] the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs by practicing a land stewardship ethic which integrates the reforestation managing, growing, nurturing, and harvesting of trees for useful products with the conservation of soil, air and water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, and aesthetics.“Thus, sustainability as defined by industry is about more than assuring a sustainable timber supply; it is also about sustaining the full spectrum of forest values.