>The Ouachita National Forest (ONF) Ecosystem Management Advisory Committee >(EMAC), which I currently chair, has been confronted with and plans to try to >address a set of questions about forest composition. A central, recurring >issue, of course, is hardwoods--management for or against, relative amounts or >proportions, the nature and accuracy of forest inventories, etc. However, it >seems appropriate, at the outset, to ask why people are concerned about hard- >woods in the first place. We are not completely naive about this, but would >appreciate any help from network members, in the form of your own statements, >or reference to relevant documents or published materials. Responses should be >addressed to me at DC27115@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU. Thank you in advance for your >help. > As an Arkansas native, I can state my absolute frustration with the inability of the state to address the wholesale type conversion of millions of acres of NATIVE forest to pine plantations in the "Natural" State. Why Hardwoods? Why not first ask, "Why nursery-raised Loblolly Pines?" "Why destroy native biological diversity?" "Why sacrifice natural wildlife habitat for industrial forestry?" The question seems put to place the burden of proof on those who wish to conserve the last remnants of Arkansas' natural heritage from the heavy equipment and hand of Weyerhauser, Georgia-Pacific, International Paper, and the rest. Why are people concerned? In my case, there are few places on public lands in the Ouachita NF, and nearly no places on industry lands where I once roamed as a child that have not been totally degraded as the native forests were destroyed in the 60s and 70s to make way for massive tree farms. Small, locally-owned companies practicing selection management, maintaining significant hardwood components, were bought up by the big guys, and the land holdings converted wholesale in a matter of a few years. This was perhaps good for timber company profits, but water quality, wildlife, recreation and tourism potential were devastated. Why are people concerned? Fly over southern Arkansas in an airplane. Look down on the patchwork quilt "landscrape." Imagine the number of acres involved. Imagine what has been lost. I would only expect that those people whose livelihoods depend on timber company profits would feel any great approval at what has occurred there. Arkansas' tourism program has relied for 20 years on the theme "The Natural State." (This was the result of a conscious effort to downplay the old State Motto, "Land of Opportunity" - certainly it was a land of opportunity for Big Timber) The decision to promote Arkansas' naturalness ironically occurred at the precise point in history when its naturalness was being systematically eradicated! Just think - tourism potential might be much greater today had the industrial forestry assault and resultant destruction not occurred. Just a few thoughts on a VERY important question... David Orr
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0