Tough choices in old forests.

In the furor over AFA's position on old-growth forests, perhaps the most difficult issue to address is the charge that conservationists are insensitive to the needs of the people most directly affected. In this case, that means the people involved in the logging communities and the industry of the Pacific Northwest. AFA's search for a new approach that would assure continued long-term management of the old-growth forests on public lands was met with a storm of criticism from that region. (See Lookout article, page 17.)

We were accused of being "Eastern Establishment Liberals, " "pontificating from the Potomac, " who had "sold out to the preservationists" and taken positions that were deliberately "anti-industry." Our proposals would result in jobs lost and lives shattered, it was asserted, and we either didn't know or didn't care. Pretty tough stuff.

And there's some truth in it, but it may not be the truth that many of our critics chose to focus upon. This is a national issue, deciding the long-term fate of forest ecosystems that belong to all Americans. But the immediate impacts of the decision in both economic and environmental terms will fall directly on a very small percentage of us. So, for a huge majority of Americans (most AFA members included), this is an issue that can be debated in cool and rational terms. For the few who are at the point of impact, no such coolness is possible, for they feel personally threatened and angry.

You don't have to deal with national forests, or old-growth, or West Coast-East Coast distance and distrust, to find yourself caught up in exactly the same kind of issue. You can get it in any neighborhood or community. Just ask anyone who's ever served on a local governing body or been involved in the siting of a proposed landfill, incinerator, or factory. Heaven help those who must consider really difficult things like a toxic-waste facility or power plant.

On the national front, we have fought for years about how to reduce air pollution without putting the high-sulfur coal miners in West Virginia out of work. Or how to reduce auto emissions in cities without affecting the profits of Detroit automakers or the jobs of auto workers. Each of those decisions pitted the national goal of improving air quality against the lives of selected people, companies, and industries. No such decision is made easily or without rancor.

This brings us back to our old-growth forest situation. There has been a very strong shift in public expectations for the public forests, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. In particular, there is now strong feeling that not just forests but old-growth forest ecosystems contain major values that should be protected. The Pacific Northwest, where most of the remaining old-growth forests exist, is caught in this sudden change. National forest managers and professional foresters, who for decades learned that old-growth forests were decadent and barren places that needed to be harvested so that they could be replaced with healthy, thriving young forests, are now getting a different message. That message has been growing in volume for almost two decades, until today it can no longer be ignored.

For a conservation organization like AFA, whose members work with, and love, trees and forests of all kinds, the intellectual debate has been fairly easy. We've long supported the concept that forests are more than trees, and should be managed for a range of values far broader than timber alone. Scientific studies illustrate the tremendous values within old-growth ecosystems, and few places are as special as a stand of "cathedral trees," whether they are western firs, midwestern walnuts, or eastern oaks.

At the same time, we know that each such forest is a living ecosystem-that it will not and cannot remain static. We don't always know how fast, or when, it will change, but change is inevitable. Thus we face another question of values and beliefs. Will an old forest change more "naturally" and "better" with no human intervention of any kind, or are humans an essential part of the ecosystem, and can intelligent human intervention result in changes that are good for both the ecosystem and people, too?

For AFA, the answer is loaded toward the latter value. We are environmentalists of the shade epitomized by the late Rend Dubos, convinced that in today's world, humans and their activity are an absolutely unavoidable part of every ecosystem. The main question becomes: Will human activities be done in a way that protects and enhances the ecosystem's long-term integrity, or must we succumb to the temptation to exploit the ecosystem for quick profits?

Some argue that you can't let people touch these forests, that there's no basis for thinking that people will manage them for long-term ecosystem integrity. We disagree. We favor intelligent human management, based on the best science available, but "tilted" firmly in favor of protecting the long-term integrity of forest ecosystems. When the science isn't real clear, we'll come down on the side of caution-even to the point of saying, "Let's stop what we're doing until we know we can do it right. "

This leads to the criticism that we favor forests over people. Our first reaction is a vigorous denial. Our more considered reaction is to agree with our critics that there is some truth to the charge.

When we become convinced that the only choice pits the long-term integrity of an irreplaceable forest ecosystem against the short-term need for jobs and profits that are possible by exploiting that ecosystem, we'll take the forest. When it is a forest ecosystem on public lands-where the entire basis for retaining the lands in public ownership is so that they can be managed in the long-term public trust doctrine of law-our position becomes even more pro-conservation.

To the people directly impacted by such a choice, it is going to sound like we don't understand or appreciate their immediate problems. Or that we don't care. Our answer-not an easy one, to be sure-is that we do know, and we do care, but that higher values, of far more enduring impact, are involved, and that we have come down on the side of those values.

That's probably enough to earn AFA the enmity of lots of affected people, but it's not enough to constitute a responsible position. Now the question becomes: What can be done to soften the blow? The jobs lost, lives shattered, and communities destroyed are very real and very compelling, even if they are not geographically widespread or very noticeable perhaps in the national economic scheme. As we did in the last Congress, AFA will work hard in 1991 to find ways to soften those economic blows.

In the final analysis, we want both healthy, stable forests with good ecosystem integrity and a sound economy built upon responsible resource management. We think that in the long run those two goals are unavoidably linked. You can't have one without the other. But the specific formula for getting there from here, without imposing unnecessary costs on any of the people affected, is a whole lot harder and more controversial than any general principle. And every proposed solution will raise cries of anguish and fear. Those fears are real and must be eased where possible, but the public interest dictates that public policy respect, protect, and wisely manage our public forest legacy. AF