Why It Matters: Active forest management is more effective than passive or “hands-off” management for increasing forest resiliency, improving wildlife habitat, and increasing access for sportsmen and women. Legislation that prohibits or limits forest management practices, such as prescribed fire, is misguided and removes important tools for managing forests for wildlife. Educating policymakers about the importance of sustainable forest management to wildlife habitat is essential to supporting science-based management and our sporting traditions that benefit from healthy forests and productive habitats.
Highlights:
- On February 27, the Agriculture and Forestry Natural Forest Protection Act (House Bill 7914) was introducedto designate existing Management Areas as Natural Area Preserves, prohibit active forest management in these areas, and impose management restrictions on other forest land.
- On March 13, the Old Growth Forest Protection Act (Senate Bill 3081) was introduced to prohibit or limit certain forest management practices on public land that benefit wildlife habitat.
- On March 26, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF) submitted a letter to the House Committee on Environment and Natural Resources and a letter to the Senate Committee on Environment and Agriculture encouraging them to table the bills.
While both bills on their face are intended to protect old growth forests, CSF is concerned that the bills would negatively impact forest health and wildlife habitat by prohibiting science-based forest management. The prohibitions in the bills against even-aged timber harvests, let alone the prohibitions against cutting even one tree in certain areas, limit the ability to improve forest resiliency, create young forests to support wildlife species that depend on early successional habitats, and improve habitat for wildlife with prescribed burning.
CSF’s letter regarding Senate Bill 3081 stated, “Prohibiting even-aged management on state-owned land would remove important tools for habitat management that are key to creating habitat diversity to support a greater diversity of wildlife. Seed-tree harvests, shelterwood harvests, and clearcuts, despite common misconceptions, are not inherently negative. They are well-established silvicultural methods used to improve forest health, promote shade-intolerant species valuable to wildlife like black cherry, reduce stand entries to minimize impacts to soil and water resources, and enhance wildlife habitat by creating young forests and other early successional habitats.”
CSF’s letters cited several examples of invasive species, including gypsy moth and hemlock woolly adelgid, identified in the Rhode Island Forest Action Plan as threats to forest health. CSF’s letters also encouraged policymakers to consider the importance of early successional habitats created by even-aged management and provided examples of Species of Greatest Conservation Need identified in the Rhode Island Wildlife Action Plan, including the blue-winged warbler, Eastern towhee, and monarch butterfly, that depend on early successional habitats during important stages of their life cycles. Ruffed grouse, American woodcock, wild turkey, and White-tailed deer also utilize early successional habitats.
House Bill 7914 is particularly troublesome because it proposes to designate existing Management Areas as Natural Area Preserves. These are lands purchased and/or managed with funding generated by Rhode Island’s sportsmen and women through the “user pays – public benefits” American System of Conservation Funding, and CSF strongly opposes this provision of the legislation.
CSF looks forward to working with the State of Rhode Island General Assembly to consider the impacts of these bills on wildlife habitat.