THE PUBLIC MIND: EDITORIAL REFERENCE TO `FOREST GUARDIANS' QUESTIONED ON HARDWOOD DAY

Dear Editor:

Friday's editorial concerning National Hardwood Day was appropriate for recognizing the timber industry's efforts in maintaining a supply of timber. Trees are indeed a renewable resource, and the industry benefits all of us by managing tree farms well. Because my brother owns and operates a logging truck and a small sawmill in Oregon, I am pleased to see recognition for those who work in this industry.

Unfortunately, the writer of the editorial attempted to praise the stewardship of the timber industry by comparison with the efforts of conservation groups to encourage stewardship. The writer refers derisively to those interested in conservation as "self-proclaimed forest guardians of the environmental movement." Since the editor has chosen to make comparisons, it seems appropriate to explore the motives and methods of both groups.

First, the timber industry does well at growing timber on private land because it is in the interest of the industry to do so. This is not so much good stewardship as simple good business. However, tree farms cannot be compared to intact, old forests. Tree farms are monocultures which contain basically one type of tree along with a few forms of animal life. In contrast, a natural forest contains a wide variety of trees and supports an entire system of plants and animals. To compare a tree farm to a forest is like comparing a cornfield to a prairie. We need both, for different reasons, but we should be clear that tree farms, like cornfields, are managed for profit, not for wildlife.

Second, it is not in the interests of timber companies to manage resources well on public land, because the land and trees so not belong to them. In fact, the logging that is done on public lands is at the expanse of taxpayers. In the past 10 years we Americans have spent $5.6 billion just to make it possible for timber companies to cut our trees and sell them at a profit. As we subsidize these companies instead of allowing a free-market system to operate, we are also destroying habitat of our wild plants, birds and animals. I submit that this is definitely not good stewardship on the part of the timber industry, nor is it wise use of our public properties and tax monies.

Because timber companies are allowed to make profits at the expense of the American taxpayer, we who are citizens and also buy wood products pay for them several times. We pay first by donating public money to the timber companies through the Forest Service subsidies. We pay again in the loss of wildlife and the costs of rebuilding habitat on public land. We pay again at the checkout counter. We may pay a little less because the subsidies allow the companies to provide lumber at a lower price, but this is by no means guaranteed. In fact, much of American timber is sold on a world market, so that our prices are higher due to scarcity of lumber in countries such as Japan.

Finally, although the Southeast Missourian editorial was right to praise the timber industry for the job they are doing on private land, there was no call to attack environmental advocates in the same article. I am a member of the National Audubon Society and its local chapter, the Four Seasons Audubon Society as well as the Illinois Audubon Society and the National Wildlife Federation. These are mainstream conservation groups composed almost totally of volunteers who make no personal profit from their efforts to be good stewards for the natural world.

From long experience with such people, I know that being a member of any of these environmental groups means recognizing that there are several sides to an issue. It means caring, not only about wild animals and plants, but also about solving issues with the least harm to the economy. It means using reasonable approaches to helping people and nature coexist whenever possible. It also means doing my best to be sure that tax money is spent wisely. If this is what the Missourian defines as "self-proclaimed fores guardian," count me in. Count me in also as a self-proclaimed education guardian and a self-proclaimed good government guardian. Whenever the issue involves public land, public resources and public money, we self-proclaimed guardians are what the writers of the Constitution had in mind.

Sincerely,

Ida L. Domazlicky

Cape Girardeau