32 



changed it, we would have to change our view. Quite likely, though, 

 if the President changed his mind, we probably would, too, I sup- 

 pose. 



But I think that is highly unlikely but possible. Statutorily, of 

 course, it would remain in effect until changed by the same proc- 

 ess. 



Mr. DOOLEY. Also, on finding 6, they basically talk about the £in- 

 cient forests, the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests, as being 

 homes to rare and threatened and endangered species. I am sure 

 they are driving at the sequoia redwoods. 



They say that further destruction or diminution of the forests can 

 only accelerate, basically, the extinction of the said species. The im- 

 plication here is that the management plan that the Forest Service 

 is operating now is actually contributing to the extinction of the se- 

 quoia redwood trees. Do you agree with that? 



Mr. J. Thomas. I don't think that is what it said. Congressman. 

 I think it said that — I don't know if they were aiming at the se- 

 quoias themselves or the complex of plants and animals that would 

 be associated with the late successional condition represented 

 there. 



While not being familiar with that exact situation, I have a lot 

 of experience with some very similar things, and I suspect there 

 are complexes of plants and animals that are associated with that 

 successional state. 



Let me find out something. 



[Pause.] 



Mr. J. Thomas. What I wanted to check — and I was correct — the 

 spotted owl conservation strategy that is being considered is a full 

 ecosystem strategy. It involves all of the complex of plants and ani- 

 mals. So we are well on our way to dealing with that question. 



Mr. DooLEY. Further, on finding 9, they basically refer to the 

 ecosystem of the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests. Then they 

 say such ecosystems are not renewable for many centuries after 

 logging, if at all. In your testimony, you talkec^ about the natural 

 state of succession. Is there really a contrast between preservation 

 of a natural ecosystem, a differentiation between after logging and 

 without it? And what is the real difference? 



Mr. J. Thomas. I think the language in that statement is confus- 

 ing to me as an ecologist. An ecosystem includes all successional 

 states, from bare ground after fire or disturbance, to the more ma- 

 ture forest stands. I really think that statement is aimed at those 

 late successional stands, because the ecosystem itself includes the 

 whole complex. That is a subset of the ecosystem. 



If it is described that way, then it has a whole different meaning. 

 The statement is like you have to have 450,000 acres of late succes- 

 sional giant sequoias, which, indeed, would be many centuries 

 away. 



But I think the point to be made is that when you are dealing 

 with that late successional forest, it can be replaced only after very 

 long periods of time and probably could never, if starting from bare 

 ground, could probably never be replaced, because it evolved in a 

 way over time under circumstances, almost of geological time, of 

 weather and soil development that would probably never be rep- 

 licated. 



