When Mitch Daniels was elected governor, he promised change. With the recent release of the IDNR, Division of Forestry Strategic Plan 2005-07, we are reminded that change is not always for the better.

While the most widely publicized change contained in the new plan is the proposal to dramatically increase logging in all state forest properties by as much as 500 percent, there are many other provisions that are cause for concern.

One of these is the proposal to log the forests that protect DNR reservoirs. Despite the fact that the plan acknowledges on page 2, when discussing the state's private forests, that "water is indisputably cleaner where forest cover protects watersheds ... there is no better protector of Indiana's watersheds," on page 4 we learn that changes in the management for DNR Reservoir Properties will now include "the commercial harvesting of timber."

Logging in critical watersheds and the reservoirs that provide drinking water for large numbers of Hoosiers is not a change for the better.

And though 85 percent of the state's commercial forestland is privately owned and produces 95 percent of the wood products utilized by the timber industry, the new plan proposes to eliminate DNR forestry consultations for more than half of all private woodland owners, those owning ten acres or less.

Again, eliminating assistance to private woodland owners while increasing the logging of the publicly owned forests is not a change for the better, especially when the document acknowledges that, "Elimination of services will reduce the management undertaken. and place these tracts at increased risk."

Furthermore, no attempt is made to quantify the potential depression of prices and disadvantage to private woodland owners of having to compete in the marketplace with large volumes of tax-subsidized timber sales coming off of the state forests.

Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that the plan to increase logging in the publicly owned forests was prepared without any attempt to involve the public. This suggests a disdain for democratic principles and a disregard for the first rule of forest management - that the forest manager should first seek to understand the wishes of the landowner before making any management prescription.

The failure to involve the people of the State of Indiana in the decision-making process for these public lands is particularly troubling in light of the fact that polling data have consistently shown that those polled want greater protection for public forests, not less. Three out of four support an end to commercial logging in public forests altogether.

Excluding the people of the state from the decision-making process is not a change for the better.

The plan further proposes to increase the number and double the allowable size of clearcuts; to eliminate best management practices audits currently conducted after every timber sale; to "streamline" or eliminate archaeological evaluations; and, for so-called "salvage sales," to eliminate competitive bidding, all in the interest of hastening the removal of timber from public lands.

And the impact of all this cutting in the state forests? The DNR is most succinct in its evaluation of potential negative "Environmental/Social Impacts," limiting analysis to two brief sentences: "Some environmental groups will view an increase in state forest timber sales as a negative environmental impact," and, "The negative aspect of increasing state forest timber sales will be the increased presence of timber harvesting activities and short-term reduction in aesthetics of harvested areas."

That's it. There is no mention of soil erosion, damage to the residual stand, impacts of road-building, harm to water quality, destruction of habitat for wildlife or impacts on endangered species; harms to rare and medicinal plants, the ready influx of alien exotic and invasive plants, harm to songbirds, salamanders and other forest dwellers, and other readily anticipatable effects of a fivefold increase in state forest logging.

And yet, according to DNR Director Kyle Hupfer, "This plan is based on sound science."

Excluding meaningful analysis of proposed action while Ignoring the potential for harm from logging is not a change for the better, and it most definitely is not "sound science."

New State Forester Jack Seifert and DNR Director Hupfer no doubt consider this plan bold and decisive. Others might think it arrogant and sadly short-sighted, to so callously ignore the wishes of the people of the State of Indiana they are supposed to serve, and to so blithely dismiss the public's legitimate concerns over the potential negative consequences of the actions proposed in this Strategic Plan.

I can hear them saying, "Nobody could have foreseen that increasing the logging in the State Forest would result in such harm." They do know, or they certainly should.

Sadly, they just don't seem to care.

Andy Mahler can be reached at andy@blueriver.net.