Truth, knowledge, reason, and conscience should prevail over deception,
ignorance, and selfishness. Thousands of years of human history provide
innumerable examples of resource exploitation and its human and
environmental costs. A few people got away with the booty, and the rest
were left to pay the price. Ultimately, we pay the price for our
mistakes, sooner or later. The timber industry, like any other human
endeavor, has various social, economical, political, and environmental
plusses and minuses. Like any other group or individual, they are a
mixture of good and bad, depending on what you consider good and bad. I
pose direct questions. Please do not infer any insinuations. With these
considerations in mind, I would like to discuss Warren Flick's message.
If he had not used emotionally-loaded labels (e.g., "elitists" and "fringe
element") and substantiated his statements with facts and figures from all
perspectives (not only those that support his view or values), perhaps his
message would be more persuasive. I have been working on Environmental
Assessments (EAs), which include social, political, and economic
considerations, in the private and public sectors for six years. Before
one decides on issues, they should get all of the relevant information
available, both pro and con. The following questions and comments are
solely intended to shed light on the issues.
On Sun, 16 Apr 1995, Warren Flick wrote:
> I have been receiving flaming appeals through "forest" to stop one thing
> after another. Most have to do with extractive uses of public lands.
Have you received any appeals that were not "flaming"? Do you consider
opposition (devoid of labeling people, character assassination, appeal to
authority, etc) of nonsustainable, environmentally unsound resource
management practices to be inherently "flaming"? Do you consider all of
the provisions of the timber salvage rider to be economically and
environmentally sound?
> 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.
Setting aside a portion of our original forests to protect fish, wildlife,
water quality, and aesthetic values would leave something for future
generations. It's good stewardship. In your opinion, what percentage of
our original forests should be preserved as old growth and wilderness?
What percentage should be set aside for multiple use? What percentage
should be primarily for pulp and timber production?
Most of our national forests still provide pulp and timber. If
sustainable forestry had been practiced in the past, we would have more
harvestable timber today. I care very much for the people whose
employment depend on forest products. Can we say the same about the
forest industry captains who did not practice sustainable forestry in the
past, creating booms and busts in the industry?
Should we cut the remaining old growth forests and extract timber from
secondary growth forests at higher, unsustainable rates to maintain forest
product employment levels? If so, who will help the unemployed forest
product workers and their families when the timber productions inevitably
drops in a decade or so?
Please expand on what you mean by caring "little for all the science that
underpins sensible forest management." How does this apply to your
argument? Natural resource science and management includes fish,
wildlife, soil and water, etc. Can't natural resource management include
preservation of portions of ecosystems and their resources?
> Let's defeat this fringe element and help our national forests return to
> sensible programs in which timber can be harvested, reforested, and grown to
> provide products that all of us buy and use.
Who are the fringe element? Please use substantive evidence to support
your statement that the national forests had "sensible programs" to return
to. These past programs were based on less science (and more short-term
economics) than those being developed today (e.g. multiple use, ecosystem
management with some preservation).
I believe that, when given unbiased, comprehensive information about the
short-term and long-term social, economic, and environmental factors
involved in natural resource management, most people, not just a "fringe
element," would support sustainable natural resource management in most
forests and proactive preservation of some forests.
Proactive preservation will protect plant and animal species for their own
sake and for our descendants, and it will protect the land's aesthetic
values. Sustainable, environmental sound forestry will stabilize
employment in forest harvesting and product industries, without degrading
the environment and reducing employment in the fishing and fish product
industries. Although river dam designs (few or no fish ladders) in the
Pacific Northwest are the primary cause for salmon fishery declines, and
overfishing is also partially to blame, stream sedimentation from forestry
practices share some of the blame.
In summary, I would like to see more comprehensive information and sound
reasoning regarding natural resource management issues. The evidence
provided in the original post seems to be biased, based on the use of
emotionally-loaded words and the exclusion of public domain information
that contradicts some of the poster's statements.
Sincerely,
Wm. Straw
William R Straw tel: +706 543 3796
Institute of Ecology fax: +706 542 6040
University of Georgia email: straw@dogwood.botany.uga.edu
Athens GA 30602-2202
USA
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0