Spring 2002 Volume II, Number 1
COMMERCIAL USE OF PUBLIC LANDS SHOULD RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS
by David Haberman
David Haberman is an associate professor of religious studies at Indiana
University who teaches on the subject of religion and ecology.
Many leaders in our community have recently called for
environmentalists in general and forest activists in particular to work
within the legal political system to
bring about the changes they desire. This is a reasonable
request worthy of much serious consideration. It does, however,
involve the challenge to demonstrate that the desired changes
are possible through this means. Our public
lands are being commercially logged at an ever-increasing rate. This includes
the state forests of southern Indiana, even the
watersheds of lakes such as Yellowwood and Monroe. I
first discovered this one day while hiking in Yellowwood
State Forest with my family; we were all shocked to
witness firsthand the damage the commercial logging does
to our public lands.
Since that day I have been surprised to learn how many residents of Indiana
assume that our state forests are lands protected from commercial extraction.
But far from this being true, the managers of our
state forests speak of forest management in terms of
crop farming. Forests are "warehouses" for timber, and
the trees are "inventory." I do not mean to cast aspersions on
the managers of our state forests; they are generally good people who are
simply following the mandate that has been established for them by the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Within this
mandate, our state forests are viewed as tree farms
and sources for commercial timber. Many of us, however,
believe that it is time for this mandate to change: it is time to stop
logging our state forests!
Public lands comprise only a small percentage of American
forests. If managed properly private lands can supply all our
needs, we do not need to encourage over-consumption by subsidizing the
forest products industries with cheap public timber.
Public lands should serve a much higher purpose. Although personally I find them
quite beautiful and even a source of spiritual solace, healthy forests are not
simply an aesthetic luxury, but are absolutely vital
to all biological life on plant Earth.
The forests of southern Indiana - a rare treasure of diverse
plant and animal life - have been greatly compromised by
years of neglect. The DN R deserves much credit for bringing relative
health back to much of our forest land. Present conditions,
however, call for us to let these compromised forests mature so
that they can begin to return to a state resembling "old growth."
Mature forests are home to most species on the planet.
Scientists now agree that bio-diversity is necessary for the over-all
health of all species and the increasingly
rapid loss of bio-diversity now taking place is one of the greatest threats to
life on Earth. The picture that is emerging from recent biological research is
that life is like a tree with each of the different species representing a leaf.
The crucial question is: How many leaves can be stripped from the tree before
the entire tree dies? With this in mind, many are arguing for our public lands
to be turned into preserves for bio-diversity.
Commercial logging is extremely destructive to overall forest health. It not only removes trees before they have lived out their supportive life cycle, but the heavy vehicular traffic resulting from commercial logging also destroys the myriad of creatures that live among the trees and in the soil beneath the trees. In addition to being reservoirs of bio-diversity, healthy forests are also the source of oxygen, clean water, and fertile soil. Healthy human life is simply not possible without healthy forests.
The preservation of forests should extend beyond public lands, but under the
current political system, we have almost no say about what is done to private
forests. Under today's laws a human being who lives on average 75 years can
legally cut down a tree that has been living for over 2000 years if this tree
stands on what is now designated "private property." For me this invites serious
questioning, but at least in theory we do have some say about how the forests on
our public lands are regard-ed. Numerous national polls indicate that
approximately 70percent of the American people want commercial logging on our
public lands to cease, yet it continues. I recently asked one of the managers of
our state forests: If the state conducted a fair poll that showed that the great
majority of the people of Indiana wanted commercial logging to stop in our state
forests, would it stop? He told me that it would not, for "We are not that kind
of democracy." I do not claim to know exactly what the forest manager meant by
these words, but in many ways they reveal the heart of the problem. The
management of our public lands exposes a serious flaw in American democracy
today. We are all increasingly aware that the will of the people is being
represented less and less. Today representational government more and more means
the representation of money and moneyed interests. It is time to change this
also.
We have returned to the opening problem, and the challenge
remains on the table. Considering the limitations in contemporary "democracy,"
how is one to "work within the system" to bring about the thoughtful desire for
change in our forest policies that appears to be shared by the majority of the
people?