FORESTS DO NEED BETTER MANAGEMENT

                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: WEDNESDAY, January 29, 1992                   TAG: 9201300401
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A10   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: PAUL M. HENDRICKS
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium
FORESTS DO NEED BETTER MANAGEMENT
UNLIKE Stephen Bennett of Appalachian Forest Management Group (letter, Jan. 16), I applaud the Jan. 8 editorial on the public's national forests. The George Washington National Forest plan will be reviewed in detail by the Sierra Club and other organizations, but the editorial presumes the need for improved management of our national forests, and that is important.
Mr. Bennett falls back on the "multiple use" slogan as an excuse for unimpeded access to our forests by the logging industry. This slogan dates to the founding of the Forest Service at the end of the 19th century. The service was created because of need for appropriate management of our nation's forests, which were being decimated at an alarming rate due to the greed of the timber barons.
Multiple use then meant that the forests had uses besides cutting trees. The timber industry fought this concept, but much has changed since 1890.
Many of the national forests we enjoy now, especially in the East, come from lands either destroyed by the logging industry or considered not profitable. These lands were nursed back to their current good health through the protective guardianship of the Forest Service.
It was only with the housing boom after World War II that they became primary sources of timber and the Forest Service a de facto subsidiary of the timber industry. Now, the industry regards our forests as their own private preserves, since their own lands have been overharvested.
In addition, the federal government (you, the taxpayer) subsidizes the costs of logging on the national forests. Now, multiple use takes on a whole new meaning. Fortunately, there is a move back to that original goal of true "multiple use," but if we don't preserve our forests, then no one will be able to "use" them.
Mr. Bennett refers to the "preservationists" with venom, as if conservation and preservation were evil goals! He then hints ominously at funding by "special-interest groups."
I belong to one of these groups, the Sierra Club, which represents more than 600,000 people nationwide, more than 11,000 in Virginia alone. I know many of the people who have been working on this issue. We are nearly all volunteers, lucky to be reimbursed for some expenses.
The few staff people for the various conservation organizations involved are certainly not getting rich on their salaries, and the Sierra Club pays no stock dividends (well, at least not in cash, but in more long-term benefits).
Who can join our "special-interest group"? Anyone! We represent the "special interests" of the owners of the forest, the American people. There are no membership requirements.
Even Mr. Bennett could join the Sierra Club, and may be a member for all I know. However, the Appalachian Forest Management Group cannot reciprocate for me. They require members to make a living from the wood-products industry. Their close relationship with big corporations such as Westvaco is well-known. So who is the "special-interest group"?
Our national forests are our only hope for preserving intact an important part of our natural heritage. Our National Park System contains many jewels, but these areas are too small to preserve intact ecosystems. They are also currently subject to heavy development pressures both inside and outside their boundaries.
Private landowners can be encouraged, but certainly not forced, to actively manage their lands for preservation of habitat and biodiversity. Our national forests are a treasure we must preserve (that dirty word again). They are a part of our soul.

by Archana Subramaniam by CNB