ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, April 3, 1997 TAG: 9704030041
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-12 EDITION: METRO
TYPE: LETTERS
Clear-cutting can enhance future forests
BILL STOWERS' response (March 21 letter to the editor, ``Clear-cutting shouldn't be tolerated'') to Amy Helm's informative letter (March 16, ``Harvesting methods can help forests'') on harvesting methods, particularly clear-cutting, intrigued me.
I graduated from Virginia Tech's School of Forestry and Wildlife with bachelor and master degrees in forestry, and am a practicing forester. Despite attending the same college, Stowers and I were apparently taught entirely different silviculture practices.
Clear-cutting is not bad for the environment. It does not cause excessive erosion, and soil loss is minuscule compared with that from a new subdivision. What little erosion occurs ceases after two years when the site has naturally regenerated or been replanted.
The clear-cuts' impact on wildlife is species-dependent. It will enhance habitat for those species favoring young forests, while decreasing habitat quality for wildlife dependent on mature forests. To unilaterally assert that clear-cutting destroys wildlife food and cover simplifies a complex natural dynamic.
A proper clear-cut leaves the landscape barren and it isn't visually appealing. To the untutored eye, it appears nothing of value will ever return. But a knowledgeable person realizes this is only a properly prepared seed bed for a future forest.
While no one silviculture method is applicable to all timber types and forest conditions, clear-cutting is a powerful tool for the forester. Hardwood forests can only be ``selectively harvested'' a few times before the resulting stand is composed of poor form and quality species, useful for neither lumber nor wildlife. An educated environmentalist realizes the difference between a forest stocked with vigorous species, valuable for wildlife and timber, and a hollow shell.
ROB BELL
ROCKY MOUNT
Kids risk their lives with tobacco
I TAKE issue with Harry Martin's March 3 letter to the editor (``Anti-smokers want a total ban'') and his statement that he "didn't believe anti-smokers are all that concerned about teen-age smoking, but just wanted to ban tobacco and would do and say anything to that end.''
Martin is correct in saying that he is the user of a legal product, but it's also true that this legal product is the No. 1 addictive drug - and it kills. It's unfortunate that when tobacco was legalized, the dangers of this product weren't known.
Does he know that statistics show 90 percent of all smokers start smoking before age 18? I don't care if Martin or other adults smoke, as long as they are aware of the risks involved. But it's important that everyone be educated to these risks before they start a habit that is very difficult to stop. Surveys have shown that 81 percent of all smokers wished they had never had that first cigarette.
As a former smoker, I know the trauma of breaking nicotine addiction. To prevent others' similar pain, I have volunteered hours to educate young people on the dangers of this drug and have worked with teens who desperately want to quit smoking. It's important that tobacco products not be sold to children.
The American Cancer Society has a wealth of free information available to educate parents and children on the risks of smoking. It's our responsibility as adults to ensure that our children are informed about the health hazards associated with smoking, and that the community puts in place safeguards to prevent the sale and use of tobacco products by minors.
CAROL KELLEY
BLUE RIDGE
Law is too lax to protect workers
YOUR MARCH 4 commentary (``Virginia should reform workers' compensation law'') highlighted problems with injury. But let's talk about death.
The Virginia Workers' Compensation Act appears to have been created to protect the employee, but it protects the employer even more.
If a business operates in an unsafe manner, the only thing the employer must pay is workers' compensation and a fine to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration if the employer is found guilty of negligence. When the fine is so low that the employer likely made more money than it cost him to allow an employee's death, there is total gross negligence. Businesses are even allowed to state that unsafe working conditions were permitted because correction wasn't cost-efficient for the company. As long as business owners continue to line political pockets, it will go on.
This state is one of two that has such poor workers' compensation laws.
Let's not forget that when our spouses go out the door to report to work, he or she may die doing so. What will you do if it happens to you?
SHONNA MITTEL
BLUE RIDGE
LENGTH: Medium: 90 linesby CNB