politics
small “p”
Getting to Compromise
about Forests
Thoughtful logging, careful grazing, rehabilitating damaged soils and streams, recreation infrastructure, prescribed fire, thinning dense stands of small trees, intelligent actions against forest fire and insect and disease attacks are examples of good and important work that make our forests more healthy, but it takes good science, public agreement, committed effort and money to do these things. It takes compromise between those who believe the best we can do for forests is, “NOTHING because everything we’ve done in the forests has been a disaster,” those who just want to take the economic value from the forests and those who see scientific management as the way to healthy forests.
Logging and roads are essential to many forest management activities and they are two key issues where disagreement is intense. There are groups who want logging and roads and those who sincerely DO NOT want logging and roads in the forest. Both say they want what is best for forests, but they can’t agree on what “best“ is, or how to get to “best.”
Logging is not a threat to a healthy forest, on the contrary, it is a useful tool to develop healthy forests, that is, if it is done according to good silvicultural practices and thoughtful management. When good silviculture is ignored, logging is often bad for the trees, the soil, the watershed, the aesthetics, the wildlife and all the other forest residents. There are two main reason GOOD silvicultural practices may not be followed, (1) the only objective is for short-term profits, (2) stupidity. We know how to do good silviculture, good logging, good forest management, we just need to do it - every time, every where it is done.
Roads are a big issue in the “what’s best” debate. Roads are a big impact on a forest, even when done well, they are also necessary for every thing we do in the forest, except Wilderness. Roads need to be well planned to access the forest efficiently and effectively. Roads need to be carefully surveyed and engineered to minimize impacts on soils, streams and watersheds and they need to be constructed according to an engineered plan. Finally, and very important, roads need to be maintained to prevent erosion and stream sedimentation by rain storms and melting snow. These are the reasons good forest roads are expensive. Unfortunately, roads can be built cheap just by sending machinery to make a way through the forest that a machine can use. Roads that are unplanned and not engineered usually cause serious erosion and stream pollution and miles of unnecessary impact because the objectives of the road system were not well thought-out. When a forest road is established, whether it is a good one or a poor one, the question becomes, should the road be left open for public use or should the road be closed and used only for forest management purposes. Either answer is wrong by a large percent of the forest-using public. What’s a manager to do? Agonize over every question, then make a decision, that’s what.
Yip, roads are a big problem for everyone; for those who want the forest left alone to take care of itself; for those who don’t want to spend a pile of money on an expense like forest roads and for forest scientists who see expensive roads and management activities as necessary, especially for fire management, prevention and suppression.
Ecosystems - Values - Science
The arguments between preservation and commercial use have been waged in the political arena, in the judicial system and in the press, each side trying to get leverage and win battles - political and legal.
The sad thing is, this fight between commercial use and preservation is not helping decide how we should use the forests. The real question is, “What are the things we value about a forests?” “Preserve everything” is not a value. “Make the most money possible and return the least possible” is not a value. Natural beauty is a value, clean streams is a value, healthy wildlife habitat is a value, recreation opportunity is a value, a source of wood is a value. Values vary with the kinds of forest and wild critters that are there. How a forest is managed has to follow: (1) the ecosystem’s possibilities, (2) the values people have for the place and, (3) the scientifically based options for sustaining the forest and the values people place within it. Values can be protected or enhanced or preserved by scientific management plans and the money to carry them out. It takes detailed planning, but it can be done, with compromise, cooperation and commitment and we will have healthier forests to show for the efforts.
The big loser in this decades-long conflict has largely been the forest sciences. Science has not guided the discussion, instead, science has been used as a club, by either side, when it serves a particular purpose. The mega fires, insect epidemics, and unhealthy forest structures, are shouting for the need to get our forests healthy. We can do that, we will have to compromise and cooperate on values, apply good science and put out the money to do the work, but it is possible to do.
Doing nothing different will NOT result in healthy forests. Lawsuits between ideologies don’t benefit the forests, they absorb energy, time, money and thought just to win, or lose, a narrow battle. Good science has been a loser because science, when it is considered at all, is used to support some narrow position on one side or another of a legal argument rather than a comprehensive way to guide policy and management. Shame on us! This ideological fighting is allowing trust and funding for responsible forest management to collapse as we burn energy, time, money and thought on legal processes that have little to do with real forests - the real world. It’s ok to feel strongly about an issues, but cooperation, compromise, honesty, a sense of fair play and a genuine caring about our forests and this earth are essentials when considering issues. Honest caring has been lacking at every level of the political and legal discussion, it’s all about both sides wanting to win and the forests are losing.
Earth deserves better from people, if we don’t do better, she will go on without us, or at least a lot fewer of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment