DNR Seeking Public Input on Forest Management Plans
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) seeks public input on its 2025 Forest Management Plans.
According to the DNR these plans are necessary “to keep Michigan’s nearly 4 million acres of state forest healthy and thriving.”
A number of open houses are planned across the state. These open houses serve as informal meetings to meet with unit managers and provide comments on the proposed plans. More details on these in-person meetings can be found HERE.
To select a forest management unit and provide comments digitally you can go to the DNR’s mapping program HERE. Each unit is only open for comment during a designated period.
After the comment period closes for a specific unit the department will finalize and publish the plan. These meetings are called Compartment Reviews and are currently only being held virtually.
To ensure our natural resources remain protected and managed thoughtfully and our outdoor heritage defended, join Michigan United Conservation Clubs today: http://bit.ly/JoinMUCC.
To introduce myself and my wife, Both myself and my wife’s higher education is in forestry. While my passion has always been forestry I never went into active forest management but instead followed my wallet and did construction. My wife, unlike myself, did enter active forestry and was at one time State Forester, Michigan DNR.
We own a camp in the Gwinn district and recently were informed that the State was having a cut adjacent to our property. We welcomed the cut. After talking to the local forest manager we find we disagree with the type of cut they are doing on one site but not all. The forest site in question we classified as Lowland hardwood conifer mix. The DNR classifies this site with a different definition but basically the same. Their plan is to clear cut the site. We see in their comments on this type of cut that they acknowledged this will result in significant regeneration by root and stump suckers. Anyone familiar with this type of regeneration knows that trees originating from root and stump suckers are a very, very POOR GRADE of tree that normally do not reach maturity and if they do, suffer from significant internal rot. Why manage for poor grade trees?
Secondly, I was told that this “site will never improve” and this is the best management for this type of site. We totally disagree with this because it is our belief that it is short sighted. There is a thing called Succession. This is where, over time, tree types change, ultimately ending with what is referred to as a Climax Species. Management can move it forward, keep it the same or move it backwards. Your management plan, we believe, moves it backwards or at best tries to stop nature which I believe was expressed when I was told the “site will never improve”.
Third, Clear cutting destroys second growth that is already established and growing. This cut REQUIRES the logger to cut nearly everything 2” in diameter and larger. Trees 2” to 5” have no commercial value and will be cut and left to decay. Why? You’ve just lost 4 to 15 years of growth. I was told that 90 years from now this site will again be mature enough to harvest. I was also told that this is the harvest procedure always used. Again, I disagree, This site was logged about 40 years years ago where they left the smaller trees. The reason you’re able to harvest it today, 40 years from when it was cut and not 90 is it wasn’t clear cut then.
Lastly, we, as educated foresters, know clear cuts are a necessary tool to manage forests for the best long term health of the forest. Coupling that with wildlife needs and social requirements we only disagree with its implication to sites in transition. The site in question is adjacent to a better hardwood stand that although it doesn’t yet produce veneer timber is slightly ahead and marked for selective cutting. I would gladly welcome a walk thru with the local forester and guidance to new published data showing that what we learned in collage is no longer applicable. Thank you for the opportunity to express our beliefs.