A couple of points: 1) I have heard talk of large blocks (100s or 1000s of ha) of industrial timber/pulpwood lands in Maine put up for sale - and that some environmental groups are advocating the govt purchase most or all of it for ecosystem preservation purposes (e.g. national park-like status). This may be the only possible "way out" for some of these companies, because Maine is too far from population centers for subdivisions to be very profitable, and there is little potential for agricultural usage on those lands. So, large-scale conversion to other uses does not appear likely in the near term for the bulk of Maine's industrial forest base. That leaves - reversion to later-successional forest "with no particular use" (as my colleague Mr. Harrison put it). 2) I take exception to characterizing later-successional forests as having "no particular use." This statement reflects an attitude cultivated in many foresters: that humans MUST be in there, logging and planting, logging and planting, for the forest to have a "use" (read: value). [This perception implies the need for management, and without a need for management, there ultimately would be no need for foresters (!)] To the point: there is most certainly a use/value in leaving forests vertical - they are providing carbon sequestration, oxygen generation, wildlife habitat protection, stream water quality protection, soil erosion prevention, climatic regulation, opportunities for wilderness recreation, genetic stock conservation for a host of species, and probably several other important "uses" which I can't think of right now. That's quite a bit of "use," and a very high level of value, in my opinion, derives from it. * * * One last point: The term "no particular use" betrays a bias I've recognized in many foresters: the notion that a forest MUST have a *particular* use (e.g., TIMBER). All other uses/values then become incidental or secondary to the primary purpose/use - logging and planting. It's saddening (and maddening) to me that this preoccupation with "use" has infiltrated public discourse to the point that radical loggers have begun calling themselves the "Wise Use Movement" (Code for: Single-Use), calling for accelerated logging of public lands, removing environmental regulations from the books, eliminating the Endangered Species Act, further commercializing national parks, etc. These Wise Use folks are a truly visionary group... David Orr dgorr@ucdavis.edu Opinions expressed here are my own, not the University of California's, and not the Regents', and not the Republican Party's.
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0