MINNEAPOLIS — Minnesota Forest Industries executive vice president Rick Horton gave me a strong counterpoint to the views expressed in my Oct. 31 column, which highlighted the charge by some retired Department of Natural Resources experts that the agency is managing the state’s wildlife management areas “to satisfy the logging industry.”

Headquartered in Duluth, Minnesota Forest Industries represents the state’s approximately 69,000 Minnesotans who cut timber and manufacture lumber, siding and other wood and paper products. Horton has a master’s degree in wildlife ecology and previously held posts with the Ruffed Grouse Society and the National Wild Turkey Federation. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

— Q: What was the forest products industry’s opinion of the recent Legislative Auditor’s Report, which focused on logging on state wildlife management areas?

— A: The report said the DNR hadn’t done an adequate job of documenting the wildlife benefits of forest management, specifically logging, that was done on WMAs. The report didn’t say everything the DNR was doing on WMAs was wrong, but that whatever wildlife benefits that were occurring due to logging on WMAs weren’t documented.

— Q: The report was a little harsher than that, wasn’t it? Twenty-eight DNR wildlife managers wrote to commissioner Sarah Strommen in 2019 complaining that logging on WMAs wasn’t being done primarily to benefit wildlife. The managers also argued they had lost at least some control of logging on WMAs. Essentially, the auditor validated those concerns.

— A: Historically, WMA managers had sole decision-making authority over logging on WMAs. That changed somewhat, but not entirely, under the 2018 Sustainable Timber Harvest Analysis (STHA), which developed the plan under which Minnesota timber would be harvested in the years 2019-2028. An outcome of that plan was that computer models of some WMA logging sites in some cases replaced or diminished wildlife managers’ input.

— Q: According to federal requirements, logging on WMAs must be done primarily to benefit wildlife, because most WMAs are purchased in part or entirely with federal funds derived from hunting license sales. In an unprecedented action, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service withheld $21 million from the DNR to force compliance on the WMA logging issue.

— A: True. But everything you do in a forest, including nothing, benefits some wildlife and not others. So some wildlife species benefitted from logging that was done on WMAs under the STHA. Ultimately, however, the Fish and Wildlife Service, representing the federal government, and the DNR agreed on a framework about documentation and other protocols for logging on WMAs that will keep the DNR in compliance with federal regulations.

— Q: Did your group influence DNR decisions about what timber should be cut on the approximately 400,000 WMA forested acres?

— A: Not at all. We did initiate the process in 2018 during Gov. [Mark] Dayton’s administration that resulted in development of the STHA. I’ll also say we initially wanted a 1-million-cord annual quota, which the model said was sustainable. That amount was reduced to 870,000 cords in the final agreement. It’s true also that we meet every quarter or so with DNR foresters to discuss contracts being put up for bid, and so forth. But regarding what was put up for logging on WMAs, we had no input. That was the DNR. They decide what to offer for cutting and where. Our loggers then decide whether they want to cut it.

— Q: One point of agreement is that loggers, and logging, generally are the best friends wildlife have. What’s debated, at times, are the differing opinions of wildlife advocates and foresters over how much of what tree species should be logged, and at what age.

— A: A common misunderstanding is that we’re cutting more timber under the STHA than we did previously. In the five years before STHA we averaged 796,000 cords a year. In the years immediately after it, we’ve averaged 749,000 cords. So the amount of timber being logged has gone down.

— Q: During the STHA process, DNR wildlife managers argued that a 870,000-cord annual quota would require significantly more timber from WMAs than they thought should be cut.

— A: The STHA process was just that, a process, with all affected parties at the table, including DNR foresters and wildlife managers, timber producers, environmentalists — everyone. That process produced the 870,000-cord compromise, or about an 8% increase over what previously was being offered. Some DNR wildlife people wanted 600,000 cords. We wanted 1 million. We ended up at 870,000. That said, we didn’t design the proposed harvests on WMAs. DNR did.

— Q: DNR wildlife officials argue that each WMA is unique, and local control of logging by wildlife professionals ensures that a WMA’s benefit to wildlife — whether it’s winter cover or mast from oaks or whatever — is sustained.

— A: As I said, DNR decided what would be cut on WMAs.

— Q: Some WMA wildlife managers also complained that oak was too often included in WMA cuttings, a tree species that is critical to deer and other wildlife and that takes generations to re-grow. The 28 wildlife managers who wrote to Strommen said that under the STHA, Whitewater Wildlife Management Area in southeast Minnesota might lose three-quarters of its oaks.

— A: If DNR included oak in a proposed WMA cut, it wasn’t because we asked for it. We have a pallet manufacturer who uses oak, and it’s used for firewood. But it’s not a big product for us.

— Q: You’re a wildlife professional. Were the 28 wildlife managers who wrote to Strommen complaining about logging on WMAs wrong when they argued it wasn’t “scientifically honest or transparent to say that the 10-year timber plan is beneficial to wildlife?’’

— A: Again, some wildlife undoubtedly benefited by the cuts, and some perhaps didn’t. In either case, you don’t understand the timber cutting system in Minnesota if you think we had anything to do with it. That’s 100% on the DNR. They’re the ones who presented the cuts to our loggers, based on the overarching parameters of the agreed upon STHA.

— Q: Has the moratorium on WMA timber cutting that has been in effect in recent years as a result of the logging vs. wildlife conflict been a hardship for loggers?

— A: Ours is a very competitive business. Trees grow faster in the south, for example, where many of our competitors are located, than they do in Minnesota. Our expenses are high, and our margins are thin. So yes, we’re missing that timber. But deer and other wildlife on WMAs are also missing it, because the cuttings that would have occurred would have benefitted them. Due to the moratorium perhaps 10,000 acres of young forest habitat on these areas hasn’t been created for wildlife in recent years.

— Q: Forestry wildlife advocates stress the need for tree-species and tree-age diversity on the landscape, interspersed with new growth resulting from clearcuts. Should spatial diversity of these forest types be part of DNR logging plans on WMAs — or is it a concern only on the broader northern Minnesota landscape?

— A: On the larger WMAs I think it could be a consideration. But some WMAs are quite small and it might not be practical. You also have to consider the regional context. Deer don’t understand boundaries. So the area around a WMA might be a consideration in how you plan various cuttings.

— Q: Recently the DNR has begun development of its next forest management plan. Has the forest products industry been asked to offer input?

— A: No. The process has just begun, and the DNR hasn’t reached out to us yet. We’re hopeful they follow the same process, which worked last time. All parties were heard. We wanted more timber. We didn’t get it. But we’re not complaining. Meanwhile, we’re six years or so into the current plan, and some people are still complaining because they didn’t get their way.

____

©2025 The Minnesota Star Tribune. Visit at startribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.