The burn debate and the Decline of Turkeys

[GobbleNut]

These types of discussions are good,...and they demonstrate the need for sportsmen to be organized and present their concerns about management issues to the agencies that manage our lands.  As can be seen from the comments, there are always varying opinions about the application of management strategies for habitat, wildlife, and the inter-relationships of the two.  Throw in the human-based elements of economics and politics, and things can get pretty cloudy and complicated awfully fast. 

Wildlife professionals and land management agencies are perfectly capable of working together to insure management strategies for both are applied within some reasonable guidelines.   Frankly, the idea that they would not be doing so is hard for me to fathom.  Surely there has been research on the impacts of prescribed burning on various species of wildlife,...and that the application of whatever techniques are used are tailored to minimize those impacts,...at least on publically-owned lands such as Forest Service, BLM, and state-owned properties.

Regardless, unified voices with the same message are always more effective than random individuals complaining about a perceived problem.  There are lots of organizations that represent sportsmen,...the most obvious for turkey hunters being the NWTF.  Even if you do not want to join them, these organizations are definitely involved in issues such as this one, and have a wealth of information and resources available to affect needed changes in wildlife management policy,...and/or at least provide educational resources to support or contradict concerns such as whether prescribed burns have significant detrimental effects on wild turkeys.

From a personal perspective, I can tell you that public land management agencies are very in-tune to the public concerns about how they are managing our lands.  The organized sportsmen's groups in this area interact with them constantly and they are quick to ask for our input on just about every controversial issue that comes up,...and they listen to what we have to say.  That can happen anywhere,...but it is up to sportsmen to organize themselves into an effective lobbying force.

[HogBiologist]

Hog, step away from your Crystal Ball. I log over 200 days a year in this forest. I was a USFS employee and have prescribed burnt 1000s of acres. I was also a biologist for the SCDNR and also a Game Warden for the SCDNR. I currently serve as a Wildlife consultant on many large tracts of land and serve on three different hunting/land conservation boards.

HOg, you and I have spoken before but it amazes me how many so scientific ingrained or brainwashed individuals can assess an area without ever having laid eyes on it or the way the burn by this group in this forest is applied. When you do this it really shows to your credibility as no true scientist , biologist or otherwise would do anything more than generalize.

But to answer some questions:

Yes there is the possibility of nest destruction even in smaller mosaic burns it is just far less and also fare less of a threat to other species.

Yes there are many other species in decline that share the same needs and habitats as the Wild Turkey mostly amphibs and low nesting song birds.  Wild Quail being the most sportsmen related species. Quail Forever is a huge ally on this topic.

The purpose of the fire being set is always notated at fuel reduction even when the area only has one year of duff build up . You can literally see for 100s of yards in most of the annually burnt blocks.

The fires intensity in low fuel areas is 100 percent in relation to how many incendiaries are dropped. I am not just spouting information but have many friends that still work with the USFS. They tell me the RX is never followed and that the density of fire eggs dropped is usually 3 times the RX if not more. That is how an area low in fuels still gets burned severally as does the canopies of the trees. Make sense?

Once these blocks held a myriad of species , now they don't iits really simple. Five years of dense, massive aerial burning an ecosystem at this scale intensity will do that anywhere on any ecosystem. Thats common sense. 

Hog, I don't mean to come off strong on you. But  I am old enough and well traveled enough to only offer a "intelligent opinion" on something that I have not seen with my own eyes especially when the practiced application by team A might be correct whilst Team B with the same equipment completely devastates the entire procedure.

To speak that Timber Harvest by the USFS produces profit is to show ones complete ignorance of accouting at the USFS.   Currently this same office is under investigation for a 5 million dollar loss that no one can explain several employees are under Admin leave and have been terminated. Unfortunately its mostly scrubbed from the web so you would have to ask around and listen well.

Some great questions and I appreciate them.

I am not looking to stop spring burning. I am looking to curtail aerial delivery and to hopefully put a little emphasis on the time at which it occurs. Again its only common sense.

First: I am not going to sit and type out a long response to a message that is posted. I neither have the time nor want, to do so.

Second: I still disagree with the need to stop aerial ignition. What takes
Place in your area, does not happen in mine. In actuality, our USFS burn rotations need to be much shorter. They do in fact have demo areas that are putting the landscape back into the original conditions (pre English settlement). A short leaf pine-bluestem ecosystem. The rotations for that ecosystem are much shorter. Along the 3-5 year range. Yes, a 5-10 year rotation allows for the buildup of extra fuels. But, any fire will cause "hot burns". The ignition source is not the issue.

Third: I am not a keyboard biologist. I would rather sit in person and have a discussion.

[Strick9]

Your 3rd sentence is noted and from whence you should have spoken originally. 

My office is in Charleston. I travel to many states however and would like to do the same.

I would not desire however to see our NF returned to the wide open, full canopied, mostly mature Pre English settlement Forest types simply because today we have far less habitat available period and such forests have a lower carrying capacity for wildlife than say the select cut edged forests of today at least when they are managed properly.

Honestly its all about management goals. Timber should never be considered over wildlife but hand in hand with wildlife.

[g8rvet]

USFS still need to pass a pack test.  They may be fat and lazy, but they had to have gotten that way since the last pack test and will need to shape up prior to the next one or they are not fighting fire for the Feds.

I don't understand how you think a ping pong ball (or 10,000 ping pong balls) make a 1000 acre burn hotter.  Once they are burned out (not long) the fuel is the fuel and that fuel is the understory. 

You make a lot of generalizations about how things are being done in your area and myself and Hog are telling you they are not being done like that in our areas.  And we are not saying we think they are not, we KNOW they are not.  When you make sweeping statements that are exagerrations, it lessens the effects of the truths you tell.  You are a grown man and can do and say as you please of course, but you need to concentrate on what is being done wrong and laud what is being done right.  It is still being done right in many places in this big Ole Country of ours. 

[howl]

Around here, the Federal lands are rather obviously managed for woodpeckers. They do indeed burn well into nesting  season. And the later burning does seem to have started in the last several years.

My question is how do these fires impact turkeys so strongly when hens tend to nest in habitat that does not burn?  I have not seen greened up clear cut or short planted pines burn. Those areas tend to have a fire brake or creek around  them. I am not asking be cause  I disagree with anything written on this thread. Better understanding this topic allows easier finding of turkeys if they like to nest in habitat I have not yet learned about.

[Strick9]

Alligator Doc,

Some of you fellers have heads harder than a heart pine lighter knot lol. No offense meant mine is harder than TSS.  I already said I approve of spring burning when applied with drips and attention to detail. I would also not have ever gotten on the soap box if what I am speaking of wasn't happening. IF it wasn't obvious to you that I am speaking directly of the SE and specifically the Francis Marion National Forest then I would say you didn't read thoroughly nor click on the links provided.

No where did I say it was being done like this in your particular area. The NF however has adopted aerial ignition nation wide. All NF have different fire RX and different Fire crews. Some follow and know what they are doing most however....

As to your heat question heat. Add a volatile compound in any amount that burns at a higher temperature than the fuel intended to be burnt and you have done what

Many of these areas simply wouldn't burn much at all if they didn't absolutely coat them in fire eggs. Does that make sense?

How else could you create a 15' flame scar in an area that has only one year of duff accumulation and virtually no under story? I have to say that I imagine that if three eggs could have splattered into the tree then lit from the bottom could be the only other solution but I am talking whole runs of trees in blocks with the tops burnt out etc. Lets just say in my neck of the woods aerial ignition has gotten out of hand. 

I think the biggest or hardest pill for some of the "burn is good never bad folks" is that they aren't seeing the same thing I am seeing or observing therefore they speak from generalizations. Or maybe since their forestry instructor told them they will always believe it just as professors influence libs. Another reasoning could be that indeed small burns are good so big burns must be more gooder lol.

I agree a Pack test should be absolutely necessary, few folks even know what the means, however due to the liability of such it isn't going to be reinstated from what I am being told, though a guy can hope.


Howl , there are no firebreaks present where I speak that haven't grown over entirely.  Imagine 2500 acres in one big block being burnt fully across all at one time. Surprisingly there are hardly any videos out there of aerial burn delivery applications so the best I could come up with is a combination of these two.

First video ...Imagine these being dropped in dense long lines ( this model is actually much smaller than what is used by the USFS) being dropped via helicopter in a circle surrounding 2500 acres and then again being dropped in lines to create more lines of fire in the center. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJMxwj21AUk

2nd video , this is a not very good example as this burn is only about 10-15 acres. Imagine 2500 acres and all done at 35mph..  You get the idea I reckon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcLnhs4FXvI

Here is some real world data for you to chew on folks see any corelations? Burned acres vs poult per hen observed.

[fountain2]

I know what a pack test means..and have to take one annually.  2 options for us.  I do the arduous

[g8rvet]

Some of you fellers have heads harder than a heart pine lighter knot lol.

My wife would agree! 

IF it wasn't obvious to you that I am speaking directly of the SE and specifically the Francis Marion National Forest then I would say you didn't read thoroughly nor click on the links provided.

I am in the SE.  When I am speaking, I am talking about where I hunt, the Appalachicola National Forest.  Burned by USFS.  See them all the time. Usually stop and chat with them about where they are burning. 

As to your heat question heat. Add a volatile compound in any amount that burns at a higher temperature than the fuel intended to be burnt and you have done what

In the scope of burning 2500 acres, that would be akin to saying I raised the tide in the gulf when I took a whiz - technically correct, but practically negligible.  You are dead right that the method of lighting and the timing affects the flames,  also lighting the crown of the fuel, but totally wrong that even 100,000 ping pong balls burning for the initial 30 seconds on 2500 acres makes the overall fire hotter.  Maybe you are not saying that, but it sure sounds like you are.  Once the fuel is lit, the fuel, the rH and the wind is in control of the heat of the fire (and I agree that if it is all lit at once, all the line is burning evenly and aggressively downwind, it will be hotter, but not because it was started with a chemical - because it was started very efficiently - unlike a ragged drip torch line-which is still started with a chemical).

it isn't going to be reinstated from what I am being told, though a guy can hope.

Ate dinner with my nephew and will fish tomorrow with my brother. I will ask if they have heard that is no longer a requirement.  As of less than a year ago, my nephew had to pass it to get on a crew.  You may well be correct, and it is just my ignorance.  I talk a lot with them about it, but it is not my vocation, I am just interested.  News to me. 

Where is that study from?  Would love to see it.  That does not look good.  That is a lot of acres.  Would like to read that. 

[Strick9]

I can see what your saying, as I mentioned I am hardheaded and dense as well. I somehow didn't emphasize that the 2500 acre burn is just one burn. The USFS publicly announced burn budget is 60,000 acres of which they have burnt approximately 25,000 from 3/5 until today in the Francis Marion NF. They have burns scheduled up until June 15 of this year in this NF. There is some confusion as to their wording in the public announcement as it includes two NF the Sumter and the Francis Marion. I am seeking direction as to whether they intend to burn 30, 000 in each or 60,000 in each. I have received no clear answer. It allows them wiggle room and may have been intentionally written for such.

Even if it is 30,000 acres in the Francis Marion which is 235,000 acres that represents only 12% which doesn't seem like a lot and wouldn't raise my hand barring the fact that they keep hitting the same areas of easy access over and over again. And it also so happens that some of these areas before they were targeted held high density Turkey populations and now five years later they are devoid of Turkeys. The only dynamic that has changed is the continuous targeting.  I also wouldn't be alarmed if other areas in this forest showed that the Turkeys had simply moved to new blocks. However being that I cover the entire forest regularly on foot and by travel I can say with accuracy that this hasn't been the case. 

I was informed about the Pack test by a retired USFS SE regional burn manager now retired. I need to verify that again as it was just one point spoken over briefly in a long communication.

The data was created by using data from the National Interagency Fire Center and the SE regions Natural Resources offices annual Poult counts. I did not create the graph nor assemble the data. The individual that assembled the data for me is currently assembling the same type graph for each state individually. 

This below link is an interesting non timber biased study which shows what I am speaking of: Pay close attention when reading to the the rate at which hens nested in recently burnt areas. Now if that area is annually burnt for 3-5 years well you should get the point. If you choose you can scroll down to the discussion area and results but a complete read will certainly get the reader more in tune.

I am certainly not blaming the entire decline on just the aerial burn adoption but would say that it is certainly an area that should be well scrutinized.

http://www.seafwa.org/resource/dynamic/private/PDF/SISSON-134-139.pdf

[Ihuntoldschool]

Hog Biologist nailed it in my opinion.   When you look at the decline of the eastern wild turkey particularly in the Southeast the timber harvest is probably the #1 factor.

[Strick9]

Care to explain that? Timber harvest or the monoculture farming and harvest of timber? Not sure what you meant but I am a proponent of harvesting timber for the sunlight exposure it provides, meadow creation, edges, new growth etc all of which is great for turkeys.

[g8rvet]

How bizarre.  I know that Plantation well - drive by it quite frequently.  It is only a couple of counties over from me. 

Couple of thoughts.  That study was specific in looking to see if hens used burned areas for brood rearing.  I would have been shocked if that had been the case.  Every turkey nest I have seen has been in very dense areas - they want cover!  Would be more interesting (and quite extensive) to look at the percent of burned cover areas that were burned.  In most burn plans, that would be areas with relatively recent plantings where the undergrowth was thick and the pines were not close to mature-the exact places that would want to be avoided for burning due to killing the pines!  No sane forester would do that  on purpose. If he/she did, they would not have a job for long.  I think that is good argument for not using the ping pong balls, but have been told they are amazingly well controlled and after the fire has started, the helo is on spotting duty (to spot breakouts) and even suppression with a bucket should those occur in locations not accessible to fire breaks.  I did not know that.

Don't worry about Oldschool.  He thinks in simple black and white.  Harvest must be either good or bad, fire is either good or bad, decoys, popup blinds, etc etc.  Harvesting timber is so much more advanced today than ever, we just need to be sure that biologists, specifically game biologists and turkey experts, have a seat at the burn plan table. That is where the difference is made. Pulp harvest opens woods to become mature stands.  Without that, they would be unhuntable and terrible turkey habitat.  All timber stands are evolving in their life cycle (other than the Eglin old growth type stand, which are pretty much nowhere).    Nothing can be done much about private timber companies, but the Feds should answer to all users of a federal land, period.  Can I have a show of hands of who thinks the Wild Turkey should have equal footing (if not more) as the RCW?   

[g8rvet]

I was told today that there are burn plans for each site.  They must be followed by the P burn managers.  Those plans are made, with input from biologists, not just foresters.  I assume these are not public meetings as I have never seen one posted.  How does the average turkey hunter get more voice through game management in these plans?  I am asking, I do not know the process at all.  I have been involved in action plans for invasive plant spraying by the Feds on a local impoundment and that was like fighting a Goliath Grouper with a cane pole. 

[Old Gobbler]

Sticky ...

I'll say , a proper burn cycle is advantageous , of course ...proper is in the eye of the beholder , my eyes say not to do it anytime near the spring season , and the keep it to segmented tracts ,  and leave certain areas untouched each year to provide nesting,  and areas for quail

The absolute worst burn program is big cypress nwr , they simply don't do anything ,, leting the underbrush to grow out of control until a wildfire burns the whole place down to the ground ..... the administration there is solely responsible for the decline of the whole area, and the loss of thousands of acres of cypress , live oaks and pines .....they are living  in some fantasy world and have designated the area a "wilderness " heck even the native Americans deployed control burns , they knew the advantages of it

Oh ...there good at blocking all access to the place , there good at that too , why let the public enjoy it

[HogBiologist]

Pine/Bluestem Renewal
Shortleaf Pine/Bluestem Grass Ecosystem Renewal in the Ouachita Mountains
George A. Bukenhofer
USDA Forest Service
Heavener, Oklahoma
L. D. Hedrick
USDA Forest Service
Hot Springs, Arkansas

Presettlement and Current Ecological Conditions
The 8 million-acre (3,237,600 ha) Ouachita mountain physiographic region is located in west central Arkansas and southeastern Oklahoma. The mountains are east to west trending and range in elevation from 500 to 2,700 feet (150-820 in). Travelers in this region prior to European settlement described the landscape as dominated by pine (Pinus echinata), pine-hardwood and mixed-oak (Quercus spp.) forest communities with fire-dependent and floristically rich grass and forb understories (Du Pratz 1774, Nuttal 1821, Featherstonhaugh 1844). Large grazing herbivores including elk (Cervus elaphus), bison (Bison bison) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) found suitable habitat there (Smith and Neal 1991). Fire return intervals averaged less than 10 years for most sites (Masters et al. 1995). Tree densities averaged 170 trees per acre (420/ha), and the mean diameter was 11.4 inches (29 cm) (Kreiter 1995).

Today the Ouachita mountain landscape is still dominated by forests, but the structure and composition of these forests have changed dramatically. The density of trees has increased to 200 to 250 trees per acre (494-618/ha) and the mean diameter is now 9 inches (23 cm) (Kreiter 1995). Understories are now dominated by woody vegetation and certain once-dominant grasses and forbs are uncommon (Fenwood et al. 1984, Masters 1991, Sparks 1996). Elk and bison have been extirpated. Other species, such as Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) and the brown-headed nuthatch (Sitta pusilla), have been affected negatively by habitat loss (Jackson 1988) and the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides borealis) is endangered (Neal and Montague 1991). Average fire return intervals now range from 40 to more than 1,200 years (Masters et al. 1995).
Historical and present-day ecological communities of the 1.7 million-acre (690,000 ha) Ouachita National Forest (ONF) are illustrative of the above descriptions. Present day forests developed largely in response to two factors: commercial exploitation of the original forests and suppression of fires. Large-scale harvest of trees commenced in the 1910s and by 1940 most of the virgin forests had been cut (Smith 1986). With USDA Forest Service (FS) stewardship, the period of forest regeneration that followed was marked by a strict policy of wildfire suppression. That policy has largely remained in effect to the present. The recent use of prescribed fire by managers, averaging 25,000 acres (10,100 ha) annually over the last decade (R. Miller personal communication: 1995), has been insufficient to maintain a woodland (i.e., tree/grass) ecosystem. The result is that such ecosystems have all but disappeared from the Ouachita mountain landscape (Foti and Glenn 1991).

Desired Ecological Condition in the Context of a Contemporary Landscape
National forest lands are now subject to the philosophy of ecosystem management. Ecosystem management has been variously defined, but most definitions have two attributes in common: an overriding goal to protect ecosystem integrity, sometimes called ecosystem health, and an allowance for human uses that do not compromise ecosystem integrity. The following are key elements of a large-scale ecosystem management project on the ONF to restore the shortleaf pine-bluestem grass ecosystem on 155,010 acres (62,730 ha), and in the process provide sufficient habitat for a recovered population of the endangered RCW and a sustainable supply of wood products (FS 1996).

Elements of Ecosystem Management
Increasing the use of prescribed fire and using tree cutting to simulate natural disturbance patterns. Reduction of basal area is accomplished by commercial thinning. Stand regeneration is accomplished by commercial timber sales using irregular seed tree and irregular shelterwood methods. With either regeneration method, some of the seed trees are retained indefinitely. The size of prescribed burning units encompasses landscapes rather than smaller stand-sized blocks. The average size of prescribed burning units has increased from 200 to 600 acres (81-243 ha), with some units as large as 8,000 acres (3,230 ha) (R. Miller personal communication: 1997). In the past, most prescribed burning occurred during the dormant season from October to March. We now include some burning during the growing season to emulate fire patterns described in Foti and Glenn (1991) and Masters et al. (1995).
Using a modified control strategy for wildfires. Traditional FS policy has been to suppress all wildfires and minimize the area burned regardless of whether the fire was beneficial to resources. We found that a modified control strategy for wildfires, which recognizes that some wildfires are beneficial and should be allowed to burn, helps increase the area affected by fire each year. In those instances where wildfires are burning within prescription, occurring in areas determined to be desirable and not threatening human safety or property, willdfires can be allowed to burn to the nearest man-made or natural barrier. This change is an example of "FIRE 2 1," a new effort initiated by FS leadership to embrace the changing responsibilities in wildland fire management in the 21st century (Apicello 1996). Goals for FIRE 21 include contributing to restoring, maintaining and sustaining ecosystem function for healthier forests and rangelands, and integrating wildland fire management concerns and the role of fire into all agency management programs, where appropriate.
Increasing rotation age. The minimum time between regeneration cutting, or rotation age, has been increased from 70 to 120 years for shortleaf pine forest types. This allows for a greater number of acres of older trees and results in increased mast production from hardwoods retained in these pine stands. The older trees are also required for RCW and other cavity-dependent species. Cavity development is associated with a fungal heart rot (Phellinus pinii) infection that usually does not occur in stands less than 70 years of age.

Maintaining mixtures of native pines and hardwoods. An important part of the restoration process is to replace non-native trees when possible and retain mixtures of pines and hardwoods on the landscape both among and within stands. Retention of mast-producing trees has been a significant issue for the ONF

Developing and maintaining forested linkages among mature forest habitats. Minimizing ecotonal differences between contiguous stands and reducing habitat fragmentation is important to many bird species. Each timber harvest proposal is examined for ways to keep forest regeneration localized, which maximizes the size of areas that support mature stands. We have increased the size of regeneration areas from 40 to 80 acres (16-32 ha). Because the total amount of regeneration per year or decade is fixed by the rotation age, achieving it on fewer, larger areas rather than many smaller areas reduces the total edge between dissimilar conditions. This also maximizes the area of contiguous mature habitat.
Recognizing that people are an important part of this ecosystem. Traditional uses of forest, such as timber harvesting, hunting, firewood gathering, bird watching and fishing, continue while we work to restore ecological (historical) conditions. No special limitations are placed on the public while using the area. Project planning incorporates local values through an extensive public involvement program. Information from monitoring the effects of restoration has been gathered through close collaboration with university researchers. Detailed information is used to monitor the effectiveness of our projects and guide the restoration effort.

Assessing Ecological Health
There are three areas by which the ONF can measure success at attaining ecosystem health. Biodiversity, recreation opportunities and timber supplies are used as "yardsticks" because all were significant issues in recent planning efforts.

Biodiversity
Wilson et al. (1995) examined the breeding bird response to this restoration effort. They found that 10 species of ground/shrub-foraging species (yellow-breasted chat [Icteria virens], brown-headed cowbird [Molothrus ater], Carolina wren [Thryothorus ludovicianus), northern cardinal [Cardinal cardinalis], wild turkey [Meleagris gallipavo], indigo bunting [Passerina cyanea], northern bobwhite [Colinus virginianus], chipping sparrow [Spizella passerina]) and shrub nesting species (American goldfinch [Caruelis tristis], prairie warbler [Dendroica discolor]) were favored by thinning and prescribed burning, as compared with controls. Two ground-nesting species, the ovenbird (Seiuris aurocapillus) and black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta varia), declined in the same restoration areas. Small mammals were found to have increased in numbers and species on the same restored sites (Lochmiller et al. 1993). Sparks (1996) found that prescribed burning produced higher herbaceous species richness and diversity, and forb and legume abundance in the project area.

Recreation Opportunities
Outdoor recreationists, including hunters and bird watching enthusiasts, are attracted to these restored lands. In A Birder's Guide to Arkansas, White (1995) featured the project area as a unique opportunity to view RCW, brown-headed nuthatch and Bachman's sparrow. Discussing the decline of the northern bobwhite, Brennan (1991) provided some evidence that the forest-management techniques used here (reduction of tree basal area, reduction of midstory and prescribed burning every one to three years) resulted in higher bobwhite numbers. Masters et al. (1996) examined whitetailed deer forage production on the project area. They found that restoration efforts increased preferred deer forage sixfold.

Timber Supply
Timber harvesting is an essential part of these restoration efforts. The environmental impact statement for the FS long-term strategy for RCW recovery (USDA 1995) in the Southern Region concluded that this region-wide restoration effort would result in a gradual long-term increase of timber supplies after an initial decline. The ONF implementation of this strategy, because of favorable age class distribution, projected that timber harvest volumes would remain constant in the next two decades, and decline slightly from 29.2 to 27.5 million cubic feet of wood by the fifth decade (Bukenhofer et al. 1994). The decline in long-term sustained yield is largely a function of increasing the rotation age from 70 to 120 years.

Other Considerations
Another measure of ecosystem health is the potential for reintroduction of extirpated species. The elk has been successfully reintroduced to three nearby locales, the Buffalo National River in northern Arkansas, and the Pushmataha and Cookson Hills wildlife management areas in eastern Oklahoma. Earlier attempts at reintroduction failed due to brain worm (Parelaphostrongylus tenuis) infestation (Carpenter 1973). Recent studies (Raskevitz 199 1) determined that the intermediate hosts for the brain worm were snails (Gastropidae) that were dependent on moist forest conditions where tree densities were high, including a well-developed mid-story. They found that elk preferred habitat that included open, drier forest conditions unfavorable to the snails, and this preference yielded elk with no clinical signs of brain worm infestation. In the future, we expect that the drier forest conditions provided by shortleaf pine/bluestem grass ecosystem renewal will supply a sufficient quantity of suitable habitat capable of supporting a reintroduction of elk in the ONF.

Summary
The most influential laws relating to and governing FS land management activities include the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act, Endangered Species Act, National Forest Management Act, Clean Water Act and, to a lesser extent, the Clean Air Act. For many, these laws present conflicting direction and create an insurmountable operational, regulatory and judicial tangle.
All of these laws predate direction issued by FS Chief Dale Robertson to Regional Foresters in June 1992 in which he admonished them to follow a philosophy of ecosystem management in their stewardship of national forest lands. All of these legal mandates remain in full force. Collectively, these laws can be summarized as requiring that national forests be managed to allow for sustainable human uses, both economic and non-economic, without compromising land health. The role of the ecosystem management policy adopted by the FS is to provide a single, all-inclusive philosophical context for management that integrates the spirit and letter of these laws. It puts sustaining land health first. We think this is appropriate, for over the long term, it will be impossible to sustain human uses without first sustaining the health of the land.
Our project is one example of ecosystem management. It embodies elements of landscape ecology, restoration ecology and endangered species recovery. It seeks to restore an entire ecosystem on portions of today's Ouachita mountain landscape. This is not so much because the landscape was prominent in pre-European settlement times, but rather because it had almost disappeared along with its unique flora and fauna. The project is mindful of Aldo Leopold's (1949) famous dictum that saving all parts and pieces of the ecosystem is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering. At least in this case, we have demonstrated that managing for ecosystem integrity (health) need not result in significant reductions in timber resources for traditional human uses. This, coupled with the increased recreation opportunities enumerated above, is a "win win" situation.

Acknowledgments
We wish to thank W. G. Montague and J. C. Neal for their useful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.