Winter 2000
Should We Let Diseased National Forests Die and Burn?, Is Restoration Forestry A Better Idea Than Zero Cut?
Published: Friday, January 14 2000
A coalition of the nation's most powerful environmental organizations has asked Congress to approve legislation that would outlaw logging in National Forests.
Next to a nuclear explosion, there is no more lethal killing force on earth than a big forest fire. The most violent are called "blowups" because they are capable of exploding.
The claim that ailing western forests can heal themselves if they are left alone seems based on a belief that pre-European forests and prairies were naturally functioning ecosystems uninfluenced by humans.
Listening to the National Forest harvest debate from the sidelines, one might easily conclude not much has changed in the Forest Service over the last 25 years, but the agency and its mission are both very different than they were-even ten years ago.
Since its inception in the aftermath of the Great 1910 Fire, the nation's forest fire-fighting policy has been closely tied to a conservation ethic of near biblical proportion: waste not, want not.
The difference between "Zero Cut" and "Forest Restoration" is perhaps best illustrated in terms of nature's three most intractable lessons: It is not possible to save or preserve a forest. The only constant in nature is change.
If we stop managing National Forests, they will decline and die, just as they've done at least 16 times since the last Ice Age.
In northern Arizona, along the north and south rims of the Grand Canyon, the National Park Service is considering the unthinkable: logging in a National Park.