MANAGED vs. NONMANAGED

A local newspaper recently ran a full page article, not one day, but continuing for two days, about the merits of enhanced wilderness on the Allegheny National Forest.  While I give credit to Kirk Johnson and his passion for wilderness, I believe he and the editorial writers of the local paper can’t see the forest for the trees.

The Allegheny National Forest was purchased in 1923 for the purpose of providing for the perpetual production of wood and water.  As it has evolved over the years through proper and thorough management, the forest has become part of the very fabric of our rural society.  Consistent with its responsibility as being a “good neighbor” the forest has contributed greatly to the social and economic well being of the four counties and surrounding region.  Locking up forever large portions of the land is contrary to the mission, which is production, and is a violation of responsibility to manage the entire forest sustainably.

Forgoing active management will cause the inventory to eventually revert to a northern hardwood monoculture making is far more susceptible to invasive species and disease.  In addition, the structure will decay and deteriorate to a condition quite unlike what is glorified in the two articles.  Take a short hike in Heart’s Content or other protected areas of the forest and examine the true condition of the woods.  It lacks appeal by the majority and serves no purpose but its very existence. 

Such conditions may be appropriate for a park where preservation takes precedent over production.  But, in a national forest the latter is the mission and that mission should not be thwarted by attempts to covert the land to nonproductive wilderness.  Neither local communities nor the forest benefits from such a decision.