Loving Our Forests to Death
by Mike Crouse
Loggers World- June 2002
There can be little argument we love the forest. We've loved this forestland most of us have grown up in, and all of us live in and amongst, that we share passion for the land those who live in the city have little grasp of. Much of this is a level of perception whose misunderstanding of one another's viewpoint is the very basis of the natural resource conflict of the last 30 years. The truth is, the rank and file of the eco-industries core membership truly loves the forest just as much as we do, but with a some-what different understanding of what the forest really is. The difference comes from being raised in two different worlds, one the urban environment of images, the other the rural environment of day-to-day experience.
Imagery is important. A picture is truly worth a thousand words. While the image is pliable, malleable, thus molded to the impression one wishes to convey, direct experience is far more direct both in its impression and the harshness of reality. Imagining a Disney-esque view of a sea of old growth filled with creatures that adore on another is far more romantic than the reality of nature's harsh management style, where in fact larger carnivores eat smaller ones. While this is a shock to the urbanite, its just life to the rest of us, in that we actually experience nature directly on a day-to-day basis.
The past 10 years of management inaction, in particular, has in effect brought long-term active management to a screeching halt. And while this non-management is generally cast by the eco-industry as a good thing, the one image they continue to have problems with is the results of this non-management, wildfire. Even to the multi generation seasoned urbanite, wildfire on the gut level, instinctively is a bad thing. Yet through years of successful imagery, the eco industry has promoted this aura of "non-management is good management," thus leaving our forests grossly overstocked, with no maintenance of any sorts after generations of fire restriction.
The result, is a very fire prone publicly -owned forest, some 72 million acres of which is in desperate need of management action (and another 33million acres at risk through bug infestation and disease), either through thinning by man or from wildfire by nature.
The current dilemma has our public forests, caught in the midst of paralysis-analysis catatonia being loved to death by those who've had the greatest effect on public forest management, the eco industry.
One needs to make the distinction between the eco-industry leadership, and their rank and file membership. Those who are dues paying members of several "environmental" organizations do not mirror the views and thinking of their hired executive staff. Similar to what has occurred politically, apathy and indifference to what the leadership is doing, has resulted in an elitist mentality where the leadership has an agenda quite different from the public persona.
How many times, over the past decade have we seen examples of this elitism from the eco industry leadership? Think to seemingly successful collaborative efforts on the local levels, between "environmentalists", industry, and community members, with groups such as the Quincy Library Group in California, and others similar efforts in Montana and Oregon. On the local and regional level, those parties who have to live with the results of any decision, have come together in a good-faith efforts to find a workable, livable compromise which reduces fire risk, provides the timber resource, and maintains the community through industry, jobs, and tax revenues. In spite of years of efforts, and with all parties being content with the outcome, if the resultant solution is taken further away, the closer it gets to the national level, the more diluted that solution becomes until it is finally killed nationally.
Folks we are loving our forests to death. Inaction is action, in that non-management leaves Mother Nature totally in charge… and she is a very harsh and very unforgiving manager. Wildfire is her main tool of management, and it is far more harsh in its inevitable implementation than any final harvest done by mechanical hands. There is no environmental Impact Statement, Ecological Assessments, now Incidental Take Permits required for a wildfire, and the ground looks it at a fire's conclusion.
The fault here ultimately falls on many shoulders, not the least of which are those in the legal profession who've profited so totally from the conflict of industry they've spawned. The local communities and their constituencies have every interest in finding a solution, so they have certainty, predictability, protection, and can get on with life. In the contrary, at the national level a solution spells the end of the gravy train for the legal enterprise that staffs national organizations. Imagine for a moment, the enormous amount of money spent in litigation, versus the paltry sum, which has actually made it to on the ground action. It is profane.
On a parallel straight of fault is the media, more interested in promoting their editorial agenda, than reporting the issue. It is no accident that the national media's level of influence has floundered badly the past decade. Daily newspapers are losing market share, and raw circulation numbers in droves, and have the past 25 years. Television's ratings have plunges as well, as their interest in 'entertainment' thus ratings has overshadowed their interest in reporting the facts. So far separated are the entrenched national news organizations from Middle America, that there demographics for income, education, location, political registration and voting, that their have almost nothing in common with those on whom they are reporting "the news". Their plunging ratings reflect that.
The solution to all of this comes in encouraging bringing management action on public lands to a far more regional and local level, away from Washington DC. Empowering local agencies to act and manage the lands. Encouraging public input from those who are affected by the decisions. The Bush administration is on the right course, in reviewing and unifying the rule making on public lands policy, but it will take time.
Most important, the public needs to be reminded that the non-management option flouted over the past decade, is a false choice that has consequ3ences beyond what they have been sold. Natural management (that is non-management) following 60 years of fie suppression and 10 years of no-management is not a panacea of Disney-esque proportions, but an invitation to disaster. That non-management of our forestlands has had disastrous consequences to ru4ral American communities, companies, jobs, and families.
The assault on rural America has been w3ell crafted by those with an agenda to remove man from the land. What better way to achieve this end than attacking rural American at its financial base, by removing the predictable certainty of raw resources requir4ed for industry? Certainly the woods are there, even after wildfire, the land will still be there. But when you introduce uncertainty into the equation, basic industry will flee, and with it goes the economy. No economy, no community, and thus, no people a very good strategy, cold, methodical, lacking compassion.
Wildfire fits this mindset, a cold-hearted, unbiased, equal rights, indiscriminate killer of all in its way. Is this really what the true environmentalists had in mind? I don't think so.
They are loving our forests to death, and need to wake up. Those many who are responsible within the environmental organizations need to be found and encouraged to stand up and be counted. Regional and local solutions can be and have been made. But the public needs the information and the courage, and enabling legislation and resulting regulation to manage the lands locally, rather than nationally.
Contents Home