Warren A. Flick wrote (among other things): > > It is high time we stopped converting our Nation's forests to little more > than preserves to sooth the delicate sensibilities of those elitists who > abhor timbering in almost any form. These people care little for the men and > women who depend on employment in manufacturing industries such as forest > producst. They care little for all the science that underpins sensible > forest management. > It is difficult to respond to such statements without a heavy dose of sarcasm. I believe a timber industry that cannot guarantee that jobs will be available as little as 10 and 20 years in the future for the *children* of these men and women, because of today's unsustainable harvest practices, is acting irresponsibly, and "cares little" for the people in its employ. The burden of proof should be on the exploiters of federally-owned timber lands to demonstrate that their use of the land is not abusive to the resource itself, non-destructive of adjacent habitat and stream quality, and overall is beneficial to the nation's economy. I feel it's OK to manage privately owned land for purely short-term economic return in any manner that pleases the owners -- but federal lands held in the public trust need legislative safeguards to prevent abuse and catastrophic mismanagement. I've heard much exchange of economic, social, and political rhetoric over the management of the National Forests of the U.S... I'm curious how our European counterparts have dealt with such issues. David J. Stewart Institute of Ecology University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-2602 e-mail: dstewart@ecology.uga.edu
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0