A sensible forest plan
Certainly, forest supervisors are as diverse in political thought as the members of any other group. But they wouldn't be in their positions without an appreciation of and a commitment to the health of the nation's forests. They aren't the types who would relish destroying this precious natural resource, nor could they, even under the new rules.
The Bush administration's new rules grant these supervisors a lot more discretion than what they had before in how they manage individual forests and grasslands. It makes them better able to react to pressing dangers, whether from insect infestations or wildfires, and to utilize newer technologies. In the past, environmental groups often used litigation and other tactics to delay new forest plans indefinitely.
The plans these forest managers implement will then be monitored by auditors. The managers also are bound by a requirement to protect all natural resources using the best science available.
It's a model similar to the one used by many private firms that successfully manage forests and grasslands. Unlike the way some would like to characterize them, these private firms do not destroy forests. They manage them for their own purposes. Drive through the forests of western Washington and Oregon some time and notice the various growth stages of these private forests, all with signs denoting when they last were harvested and when they were replanted. Trees are renewable resources. They must be wisely managed to meet the needs both of humans and the ecosystem.
That is quite a change from a system that until now has strictly required public reviews and studies. It is not, however, a signal that the nation's forests are about to be mowed down haphazardly to satisfy a greedy nation's desire for houses, furniture and firewood.
You can be the first to comment on this story.