I fully concur with the attached Oregon Wild comments, particularly regarding the insanity of clearcutting our only resource capable of mitigating climate change and deterring wildfires. 
Submitted by:
Carol Van Strum

July 16, 2025
Dear OSU Forest Science Dept and OSU Board of Trustee's, I concur with Oregon Wild's summary statement to the OSU Forestry Dept. Draft Management Plan 2025.

"We urge OSU to reject the agricultural model of forestry in the McDonald-Dunn Forest and instead develop and adopt an ecological approach that is more aligned with public values by conserving more mature and old-growth forest that provide clean, cool water; stable water flows; high quality habitat that helps provide hunting and fishing opportunities, recover endangered species, and support indigenous cultures; carbon storage that mitigates global climate change; microclimate refugia for wildlife trying to escape climate extremes; soil and slope stability; resilience to wildfire; diverse recreation opportunities, and quality of life that forms the foundation of Oregon's diverse economy. The industrial model undermines all these goals, and there is already far too much of that happening in western Oregon on private lands. Public lands can and should do things differently."

Personally experiencing the McDonald Forest/Dunn Forest/Peavy Arboretum area’s are getting serious use every day and night, by 100's of area/out of area residents who visit and enjoy these forested areas, next to Corvallis, Oregon.

Visitors find peace within these State of Oregon Forested area’s, and this peace seeking at this time is an important physical asset for Oregon, Corvallis and to OSU.
Students come to OSU for the ability to enjoy exploring these forests, which are truly at their back door’s, and close by the City of Corvallis and the OSU Corvallis Campus.
Initiating more industrial forestry management into forest's like McDonald/
Dunn and Peavy Arboretum area forests must be closely evaluated against a long list of ecological and environmental benefits for not clearing old growth, not clearing to 100% second growth plantations and not entering any old growth stands for dead tree removal, road building for future timber sales, and for logging to fund College of Forestry bills, from old growth age class forested areas.

The State of Oregon cut limit age should drop to 80 to reflect the Federal Standard in the NWFPlan, which is out of date but revised and support’s the retention of older forest age class on Federal land in Oregon. 170 years aged cut limit releases too much carbon into the global environment as these trees are removed out of carbon sequestration where they do the most benefit, remaining alive and for the next 200 plus years, keep working/growing to sequester possibly a known amount of tons of carbon a year, per each 170 year old, old growth tree.

State Forestry management guidelines should work to retain, protect and support older then 160- 170 year aged forests on private and State owned Lands. From what is proposed, in this Draft Mg Plan, the State Forest Practices Act allows cutting trees over 170 years. Where are these older forests on State Land in the Oregon Coast Range? Possibly they exist still on land managed by OSU Dept. of Forestry and trees at 170 years and older, should not be cut at all, under this Draft Forestry Mg. Plan 2025.

The people of Oregon own these forests and everyone should have some input into how they are managed. Removing trees over 170 years needs to be discussed by the citizens of Oregon, as they have no idea this will occur on their State Forested lands with this Forest Mg. Plan Draft.

Allowing a few hired forestry mg. contractors, or OSU Forest Science Dept staff to write this mg. plan and not involve the public to review it, and have the public not be able to have time for any Public Meeting opportunities, or open houses to ask questions about this plan before it becomes law is not helpful for the long term health and well being of humanity and the planet.
Global warming is rapidly impacting all the planet’s forested habitats to create dryer forests. Leaving trees standing to create shade, protect against soil erosion is important.
Allowing more intense clearcutting of older age class native forests which leads to increased soil sterilization from slash burning, and of the lack of closed canopies with variability in Crown height that have been working generate water production for area water tables, and for the generation of rainfall locally, will be directly reduced with each clearcut that opens up larger and vast areas of ground to heat up, dry out and be ready to catch on fire with the next lightning storm, or by human causes.

The public should be involved in long term decisions in this Draft Mg. Plan in each of these State owned forests OSU Dept. of Forestry and their contracting forestry businesses are paid to clear cut slash burn , spray, plant, thin, and continue to manage for 30 years.
The public should have the right to have the chance and time, to look at this mg. Plan and better understand the threats these forests will face with active global warming going on and the need in this Draft Mg. Plan, to increase clearcut for profit, in larger and larger areas and in stands which OSU College Forestry never planted, and are native natural original old growth, that have been for the past 200 plus years, regenerating from natural selection processes within in these State owned forests.

Clearing forests over 170 years of age, in the face of active global warming fails to acknowledge how critical these old growth trees are individually, for carbon storage.
80 year old trees are considered old growth by the USFS.

Cutting down trees at 170 years increases the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, and adds to the total, ongoing for profit, destruction of our ecosystem support systems and moves the planet faster towards reaching more and more environmental Tipping Points.
Hopefully this draft Forest mg. plan acknowledges Global Warming and works to curb, slow and stop globally degradation of climate and for a stable global environment, by not slash burning, not transporting cut trees 100's of miles to mills, or by selling uncut peeler logs overseas as export raw trees.
If this plan fails to acknowledge that it's impacts effect global warming, it should be revised to honor and protect the global environment from damages due to carbon generation from Slash burning, transporting logs 100s of miles to be milled or to allow these cleared forests to be exported to Asia and cutting trees over 170 years.

How does this Draft Mg. Plan honor Native American lands within these forests? It possibly does little to bring in the tribal forestry staff to review and provide feedback to OSU Dept. of Forest Science. These forested areas as open prairies, meadows and balds in the Coast Range, where well used for generations of Native Americans. Native Americans should be included in reviewing and developing this Draft Forest Mg. Plan, in these State of Oregon owned forests.

How are the youth involved in this Draft Mg. Plan? Youth will inherit a more destroyed planet from the implementation of this Mg. Plan.

This Draft Mg. Plan possibly strongly contributes towards moving us all to a destroyed planet, destabilizing by global warming, and triggering of tipping points that can not be stopped by human ingenuity and sweat.

I have enjoyed walking in the Soap Creek side of McDonald Forest in the old growth patch and finding active Red Tree Vole nest materials. Logging commercially in trees over 170 years is old growth removal and with it goes habitat for: Red Tree Vole, Northern Spotted Owl, Flying Squirrel, and all the species found in State Owned, Coast Range Forests.
Old growth 170 years tree removal for sale/export over to Asia of these older trees for high profitability to College of Forestry's Budget, should not be calculated as environmentally profitable but be counted as a loss in the value of these forests over the long term to provide free,
ecologic stability under the threat of Global Warming.
Please revise this management plan to reflect how our current planetary life support system's are in rapid decline, species of every type are going extinct over shorter time periods. Please make sure that any revised mg. plan for these State Owned forests clearly recognizes all pending threats to our existence from global warming and unstoppable changes driven by global warming, to the planets overall total, global environmental stability.
Slash burning wood debris on the forest floor from clearcuts adds CO2 to the atmosphere. Burning slash turns into more tons of CO2 and adds to global climate dysfunction, and fuels global environmental destabilization by unstoppable, environmental destabilization Tipping Point processes which are underway.
Clearcutting trees over 80- 170 years, slash burning, both equally damage the global atmosphere. Trees over 80-170 years old, sequester carbon at a record rate and should not be removed to make boards or saw dust out of them. Trees over 80-170 years support complex native forest ecosystem ecology and should be retained to support these fragile ecosystems as private lands are rotational forested cut at 25-30 years and cleared to 100% each 25-30 years.

Cutting trees over 170 years needs to be banned/removed from all future Draft Forest Mg. Plans.

Does OSU Dept. of Forest Sciences, running the Elliott State Research Forest reflect similar policies and practices as are proposed in this Draft Forest Management Plan 2025? That would not be research forestry, but industrial forestry in the coast range, one of the world's best tree growing regions, and one of the most industrialized forest mg. areas on the planet.

Please withdraw this Draft Forest Mg. Plan and work to slow this process down. Involve the Citizens of Oregon and of Corvallis to have more people able to get involved in this process, instead of rushing this plan through to law. Passing this plan into law during the 2025 OSU summer break when half of Corvallis residents are gone, and not many students are present on campus to participate in this final comment period provides this plan, little if any public involvement in this Draft Mg. Plan process.

Update this Forest Mg. Plan draft to reflect best management practices developed by OSU students and staff over decades of work/researching, discovery and study similar to what is proposed in management for the Elliott SRForest.
Hopefully the Elliott State Research Forest mg. plan was redesigned to be somewhat environmentally sustainable, in specific area’s and will not be driven by underlying need to generate cash to support OSU Dept. of Forestry and the Division of State Lands who possibly are cooperatively managing the ESRForest together with staff from the ODForestry, make sure OSU Dept. of Forest Science cares for the Elliott to remain a complex coastal rain forest and not a massive industrial forestry complex, Coast Range Forest plantation monocultural moon scape.

OSU Dept. of Forest Sciences has a long and distinguished history of research and discovery that have changed the way forest science operates from the dark ages, to become a somewhat more environmentally aware and wholistic Ecosystem approach to growing and harvesting trees in these Coastal Rain Forests. .

Cutting a 450 year old Douglas Fir in McDonald Forest in the Soap Creek drainage was not right and reflected poor management practice in action from OSU Dept of Forestry and their timber firm hired to clearcut this sale. Stopping the cutting of old growth in this sale area, stopped OSU Dept. of Forestry from removing the last old growth stand in the creek drainage this 450 year old Douglas Fir was existing it.
OSU Dept. of Forest Science does not need to be continuously thought of as the industrial forestry Dept who is able to keep on making revenue for the Dept. by allowing clearcuts in forests owned by the State Of Oregon, and with this Mg. Plan Draft to allow forests with age classes over 170 years to be cut, across all of these State Owned Forests this Mg. Plan Draft applies to.

I am in opposition to this Draft Forest Mg. Plan 2025 and support that the OSU Board of Trustee's/OSU Forestry Dept Chair, withdrawal this application and call for it to be revisited with an environmentally sustainable lens and not an industrial forestry clearcut practices or policy, for quick profit, Ag driven management model/ plan.
OSU Dept. of Forest Science can consider by withdrawing this Draft Mg. Plan, to work to involve the public in creating a fair and Environmentally Sustainable Draft Forestry Mg Plan, over time.
With public involvement in this Draft Mg. Plan, by State Of Oregon residents, to be allowed the time to be positively involved in our OSU managed, but State of Oregon owned forests, to develop management processes and policies, that work better to restore and rebuild positive repore and respect from the public for OSU Dept. of Forestry.
We need to hear about how important these forests are for protecting our Global Climate, and not to be mined for continuously every ten years, for the need to make money for revenue generation for the Dept. of Forest Science, and to pay staff/Dean, for their ongoing work in Education and the Forest Sciences Dept.

What all new discoveries have been made in the recent decade of scientific literature supported by OSU Forest Science Dept. and graduate students from OSU? These discoveries can be highlighted in this management plan other then focusing on the industrial forest practice of hiring contracting logging firms to in a week, clear cutting and remove forests with trees over 170 years to fund the budget for the College Forestry at OSU.
Thanks, R.Foster Corvallis, Oregon

I oppose this plan and would like my below comments document to be read, reviewed, and entered into public record.

Comments submitted to OSU College of Forestry and OSU President & Trustees by Ellie Cates on 7/16/2025 in opposition to the proposed forest management plan.

I am writing so that there is public record of my opposition to OSU College of Forestry’s updated forest management plan. I am also writing to urge you to reconsider and adapt this plan before it is too late and to also request that you host a public meeting where we can gather to express our concerns in response to the finalized version of this plan being published. The extremely short review period you have oDered us and the clear lack of public meeting opportunity oDered this summer makes it clear that you don’t really want to hear from us, which is odd, because you reference community collaboration in the plan itself. The McDonald-Dunn is a public forest, owned by the state of Oregon (in accordance with ORS 352.025) and therefore, these forests belong to all Oregonians. You are mere stewards of these lands and your inability to take into consideration the safety and values of your community both present and future, will ultimately lead to the destruction of our forest ecosystem here, with detrimental consequences that will persist long after you are gone. OSU College of Forestry has long operated as a shill of the logging industry and local logging stakeholders, and rather than pivot towards ecological forest management – which is in the best interest of Oregonians in this community and is a more sustainable long-term model too - you all continue to immorally and unethically pillage this jewel of our community. You can’t just replace what you destroy when you bulldoze a forest, vulnerable ecosystems will be damaged beyond repair and we will have you to blame.

Despite experts, academics, and caring community members weighing in at planning meetings over the years, before the board of trustees, via newspaper articles, letters to the editor, and endless emails, there is no change. You don’t actually care that we’re right, you just want to appear collaborative and none of us are buying it. I am both livid, and distraught at what you all are doing. You are standing by while the fate of this forest and our community is sealed by a group of individuals who are creating a forest management plan while their very salaries are in part funded by logging revenue (can you say ethics violation?!). You are choosing ignorance over humility, and archaic practices of industrial forestry, over innovative and sustainable ecological forest management. Utilizing climate aware practices is a good business model, environmental destruction – not so much. And what is RIDICULOUS is that OSU College of Forestry could be an incredible example of ecological forest management and community engagement, but that would probably not please your industrial logging stakeholders, so you choose to turn a blind eye and carry on with your destruction. I’m ashamed of you and I feel betrayed by you. It is both weak and unforgiveable of you to allow this destruction in our community when you have all the power in the world to stop it.

What you need to also remember, is that every email sent, every comment submitted, every recorded meeting is public record and is proof of your unethical behavior and PROOF of comments from concerned citizens which you have continuously ignored. Last time there was a community meeting, the dean clearly threatened us with taking away forest access, as if he owns the forest. WE share this forest as a community and we do NOT approve of this plan. It is clear to all of us, that these public meetings are nothing more than your attempt to appear collaborative. You are unwilling to hear us, unwilling to adapt your plan, and unwilling to be honest about your agenda. This is utterly deplorable. Your forest management plan will be in eDect for a large part of my adult life, possibly long after you are gone. I am young, and I desire a future where privileged academics are not seizing and destroying what belongs to all of us because they are too ignorant to embrace the new, and set aside ego and the ways of old. This management plan may outlive all of you, but I will still be here living in this community. And what’s really sad, is that this is really an echo of greater systemic problems we are already facing. You are echoing elements of the cruelty and greed we are all witnessing from our government. We are all witnessing the president and GOP attempt to steal public lands and deplete them of resources for profit to line the pockets of billionaires. We are all watching as these senators and congressmembers vote in the middle of the night to try to sneak bills by us, bills which steal what is rightfully ours and irreparably harm our environment and safety. And really that’s what you’re doing here you just call it “forest management” but in fact you’re just engaging in mass clearcutting and utilizing academic terms and your positions of power to try to trick people into believing that you actually care about more than your paycheck. You’re doing it in summer with a scant review period to try to quell opposition, which is really quite duplicitous. Where is your humility? Your care for the environment? Your care for community? Did your parents not teach you to behave with integrity? Mine did – they showed up to many of your College of Forestry meetings over the last thirty years and you ignored them.

One day this forest will burn, and we will turn to these public comments, published articles, recorded meetings and we will say “OSU, I told you so.” You are responsible for stewarding these forests in an ethical and safe way and you are not doing so. You are endangering all of us with your lack of care for wildfire risk mitigation and the deeply inadequate attention towards climate- oriented concerns in your drafted plan. Your forest management plan is nothing more than an attempt to solidify your own salaries, logging revenue, and stakeholder satisfaction and we are on to you. You are selecting plans which clearly favor mass logging and clearcutting with enormous consequences for carbon sequestration, wildfire risk, and irreversible harm to our forest ecosystem, not to mention the many forest users who desire to respectfully and peacefully use these spaces. You also seem to forget that this forest is what brings many people to our town, and if you move forward with this plan, your legacy will be one of destruction of a forest that could be and has been a safe haven to so many of us. It would be a vast oversight for you to believe that because of ongoing political crises, we are too tired to continue on in opposing your unethical practices. In fact, what is going on in the world is showing us that we CANNOT give up on our communities and it shows us that every forest matters. Forests are our survival, both for us and future generations who deserve to persist and make it in a world that is green. Current events also show us that when communities come together and people unite, we win. Community ALWAYS overpowers greed and ignorance. These lands are even more precious amidst the threats we are enduring from the US Government, from rapidly escalating climate change threats, and from your own deceit and poor moral standard. I am deeply betrayed and disappointed by you all. You are no better than the billionaires who are suffocating all of us, you’re just spinning your lies in a more cunning manner. When you are fighting communities and destroying priceless and vulnerable forest ecosystems, you’re on the wrong side of history. It’s time for you to wake up and face that.

I hope to see late seral and longer rotation harvesting practices done in more of the college research forest, not less. Study of old growth type forest and ecosystems needs more areas maintained for those characteristics to exist for such study. Patch cuts, corridor and variable thinning should also be studied on a wider basis as opposed to large clearcuts and even aged stands. We should be proud of our forest and work to continually improve biodiversity.

"I appreciate the work that went into this plan yet think that it would be helpful to clarify certain points and make revisions. It is understandable that community input ""indicated strong interest in expanding the acreage of older forest"" (page 69). Based on the writing in this page, it currently sounds as though the 350 acres of ""old growth reserves"" specified in the 2005 Forest Plan will be combined with an additional 810 acres to be set aside for older growth. However, both the 810 acres and original 350 will be reclassified to a ""late-successional forest"" management category, which I read involves selective removal of trees. Is it possible simply to add the 810 acres to the existing ""old growth reserves"" and avoid any tree removal in the 350 acres specified in the 2005 plan?

It is nice to read that the timber harvests will continue to provide revenue to continue forest operations, including teaching and research, yet I think it would be useful to clarify and justify some connections between these activities. To better justify the extent of the timber harvests, I suggest specifying overarching research goals, clarifying the financial needs of this research and how they will be aided by the harvests, and explicitly discussing tradeoffs between the immediate need for revenue and maintining longer-term possibilities for research."

"Dear Committee Members of the 2025 McDonald-Dunn Forest Plan,
I am submitting this public comment primarily to express appreciation for public access to this amazing forest. I have been running, hiking and biking in these beautiful woods for more than 20 years and it is my highest recommendation to people visiting our area. While I understand it is primarily a teaching and demonstration forest, it is so much more than that to this community. It provides a much needed therapeutic out door space for the local community. In case you are interested, I have attached an article from the Cleveland Clinic on the importance of these types of spaces for the health and well being of a community:
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/why-forest-therapy-can-be-good-for-yo...
While I don’t understand the entire plan, I am under the impression that there may be much larger areas cut at a time during the forest harvesting than the current plan. If that is the case, I have concern about the increased amount of time it may take to restore the ecosystem and the potential impact of this on sustaining its resiliency.
May we find a solution that aims for both a healthy forest and a healthy community for many generations to come.
Thank you for your consideration and time in reviewing these public comments.

Sincerely,
Corvallis Resident
Pamela Chapin MD"

On behalf of Friends of OSU Old Growth, I am submitting the attached PDF of a recent blog piece as public comment on the draft management plan for the McDonald-Dunn Forest.