Harry Seigle’s Jan. 15 letter, “A troublesome forest policy,” omitted key information. The president’s recently announced policy to protect roadless areas in America’s national forests is a long overdue step that will not only protect our forests but make possible sustainable economic growth for many of our country’s rural areas.
Among the items omitted are the realities that you can’t save a forest by cutting down its trees, and that forest preservation provides clean water, attracts newcomers and enables a growing recreation industry–all pluses for a rural economy. A local economy based on treating trees as timber and cutting them down, as Mr. Seigle suggests, provides a clear end for economic health at the point when the trees around the town are gone. What will these families do for work while they await the growth of his newly planted trees?
The most glaring inaccuracy in Mr. Seigle’s letter is his claim that “. . . mature forests will burn without mercy to their resident ecosystems.” In fact, the opposite is the case. A mature forest has grown up with fire as an integral part of its ecosystem. The large trees are much less likely to burn, and they shield the forest floor from excessive sunlight, thereby preventing the overgrowth of small trees and shrubs. Fires in such areas will generally burn cooler than fires in logged forests and contribute to the thinning of highly flammable undergrowth while enabling the planting of new seeds from the mature trees.
