Next Page    Previous Page

Guest Commentary

Wilderness Designation and the Wildlands Project – Sound Policy?

By retired Forest Service Supervisor Peter Hanlon

          As a retired Supervisor of National Forests in North Carolina, I wish to comment on the recent "vision" proposed by a coalition of environmental groups for our region's national Forests.

          As proposed, they wish to set aside over half of the region's national forests in permanently protected "Wilderness" designations (i.e. the Wildlands Project http://www.twp.org/) with the objective of preserving biodiversity and a natural heritage for future generations.  If this is truly their objective, I would argue that they are going about it in the wrong way.

          Congressionally designated Wilderness areas virtually eliminate any human influence.  While some may believe this would lead to enhancement of the natural order, in fact, it is quite unnatural to eliminate the human intervention that has been taking place for thousands of years in these forests.

          Humans have managed our Appalachian forests for the last 10,000 years since the native people first began using fire (very effectively, I might add) to shape the forestland to meet their basic needs.  As endemic human populations increased across the landscape, so did the intensity of forestland manipulations, including large clearings for agriculture, villages, etc.  Ask any competent forest ecologist and you will find out this is not fantasy.

          Combine this with long-term human activity and the settlement by predominately European immigrants in the 1800s and the vast logging operations of the 1900s across the region, and you begin to see the emergence of a forest landscape history heavily influenced by human disturbance.  When a young U.S. Forest Service began to buy uplands in the region around 1911, they purchased lands that had been logged, farmed and grazed for many years and generally thought to be useless.  The U.S. Forest Service nurtured these lands using modern forest management techniques and incorporated multiple-use strategies allowing these lands to provide a multitude of environmental, social and economic benefits.  As the forests began to maturing over the last 30 or so years, the U.S. Forest Service initiated a more intensive resource management program guided by the natural sciences and designed to protect and enhance these multiple benefits on millions of acres of federal lands in the region.

          What we have is a wonderful environmental success story that showcases the resiliency of our Appalachian forests, modern natural resource management techniques and the importance of human disturbance in the maintenance and development of this natural heritage.  If we want to protect and enhance the biodiversity and natural heritage of this area, why would we want to eliminate the human influence on over half of our national forests?

          Obviously, there is more to the agenda of these environmental preservationists than "protecting" our national forests.

          The preservationists are using "old growth" discoveries, by their own people, to justify the "protection" of these lands. Besides being a vague and misused term, "old growth" protection is not the sliver bullet that is going to save us from ourselves.

          If these preservationists were truly sincere in their efforts for environmental improvement, they wouldn't be so anxious to see these forests mature into the "old growth" stage.  As most of us are aware, trees are one of the best natural mechanisms we have to clear carbon dioxide from the air and produce oxygen as a byproduct of this conversion.

          What people do not know is that trees have a biological maturity threshold where they actually become carbon dioxide contributors rather than carbon sinks they are during young, vigorous growth.  Therefore, from a clean air perspective, we should strive to keep trees in the younger stages of forest succession rather than letting them go beyond the biological mature stage we associate with "old growth."  Think about it.

          During my long career with the U.S. Forest Service I observed many changes in management of our valuable federal forestlands across the country.  These changes were driven by new discoveries, new technologies and political decisions based on science.  I sense that we are slipping into the uncharted waters of allowing emotionalism to influence important natural resource decisions that may impact our national forests for many years.

      It is my sincere hope that trying to eliminate human influence on these important lands is not the driving force.  That would be the most unnatural thing we could do.  After all, we're just as much a part of nature as any of the other creatures on earth.

    Note: Peter Halon retired from the U.S. Forest Service.  He lives in Fairview.  The author may be contacted for questions or comments through the BlueRibbon Coalition office: 4555 Burley Drive, Suite A, Pocatello, Idaho 83202: e-mail brdon@sharetrail.org . Reprinted from the August 2002 issue of the BlueRibbon Magazine. 

Next Page    Previous Page