No abstract

No abstract

Policies that attempt to balance timber production with non-market values that forests provide are common across the United States. Such is the case in northern Maine, USA, where management of critical areas of mature softwood-dominated forest are regulated through the State’s primary wildlife management agency. We use a case study approach with qualitative and quantitative analyses to understand the persistent difficulties encountered by both forest and wildlife managers when implementing this policy. Interviews with foresters and wildlife biologists established the management parameters, and simulated management scenarios compared forest management outcomes with respect to both financial and wildlife habitat provision goals. The model results indicated that there are opportunities for comparable revenues within regulated habitat areas as without, although the returns varied due to legacy of previous management and species composition. More importantly, the interviews revealed that differing habitat metrics used by foresters and biologists are a barrier to communication and management planning, and thus also a barrier to effective policy implementation. We close with thoughts on the applicability of both the methods and results to other situations where an understanding of multiple-use forest policy implementation is desired.