Issues and Answers

Forest Health vs. Preservation

Today's plentiful forestland base in the United States is a result of both nature's incredible tenacity and the insight of turn-of-the-century conservationists who recognized the need to develop a cooperative, scientifically based forest management policy between public and private ownerships.

This policy, based on the concept of multiple use of our forests for commodities, wildlife and its habitat, water, recreation and other values, has been the constant focus of fine tuning, as new scientific theories and discoveries make balancing the multiplicity of factors which make a healthy forest an increasingly complex task.

Unfortunately today, politically driven forest policy is being propagated by interest groups and members of Congress who call themselves environmentalists, but in reality are contributing to the destruction of the very environment which they claim to save.

The major laws and legislative efforts which have been aimed at "setting aside" areas of land, namely the Wilderness Act of 1964, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and most recently, the continuing debates in Congress over old growth forests, are all attempts to draw boundaries around defined portions of land. This policy is theoretically to protect these lands from human activity and interface in the spirit of natural preservation. Realistically, however, we now know it doesn't work but contributes to the degradation of forest health.

A good example of this failed policy is in the Sierra Nevada range of California, one of the many areas throughout the west which suffers from poor forest health conditions. As a result of extended drought, insect infestation, decades of fire suppression, and most recently, the severe curtailment of management activities on the national forests in the range, the Sierra suffers from an estimated six billion board feet of dead and dying timber, enough to build half a million homes. While options are being considered on how to reduce this historically high, unnatural build up of fuel and return the forest to a healthy, more natural state, environmental groups continue to file lawsuits. The Administration orders the U.S. Forest Service to do almost nothing. As government scientists debate recommendations on how to preserve the habitat for the controversial California spotted owl which lives throughout the Range, environmentalists are calling for the entire Sierra Nevada to be permanently set aside as a "biosphere," or giant park, without regard for the horrific damage a wildfire will cause, not if it burns, but as most wildfire experts predict, when it burns, destroying everything in its path, including human communities. At this point, we must ask ourselves, where will the wildlife and the habitat be?

Those in the disciplines of forestry and wildlife biology who advocate multiple use of our forest resources (as is necessary for the continued environmental and economic health of our country) see things differently. We subscribe to scientifically based forest management policies, which until so called “environmentalism” became popular, resulted in nearly 50 million acres a year being saved from wildfire, forest growth exceeding harvest by 37 percent, hundreds of millions of trees being planted each year, and many species of wildlife actually brought back from the brink of extinction to thrive today. Remarkably, all of this has been accomplished while we have satisfied America's insatiable appetite for wood and paper products, and until politics became a factor, maintained safe and healthy forests.

Without a consistent scientific policy in place, one which advocates the multiple use of these forest resources while realizing that human interface and our needs will always play a role in the planning, our forests and lives will be at risk.

If we don't manage our forests, nature will. What we must ask ourselves then, is how much fire and destruction can we afford in the name of wilderness? Or can we continue to use our knowledge and experience to live within the means of scientifically managed forests which provide the aesthetics and needs for everyone and everything?

Back to CFA
Back to the Info Center
Back to WoodCom