The local newspaper published an article about our recent horse-logging project. A friend saw it, along with a picture of me standing next to a big log we had just brought out of the woods. "There is something wrong with this picture" she said, obviously referring to her perceived image of me-the "environmentalist." In one sense she was right. Yes, it is very unusual for a conservation organization like the Chattooga River Watershed Coalition to run a timber harvesting operation on the national forest. Conversely, the single tree selection that we conducted at Brown Gap was exactly the kind of timber harvesting operation we had been trying to get the Forest Service to prescribe, ever since our organization was founded in 1991. When I explained to my friend that the timber harvesting project was our way of demonstrating a method of forest management which sustains a native forest and that also provides jobs and high quality wood products to the local community, then she understood.

In the conservation business, public perception is everything. It is one thing to endorse the concept of humans living in harmony with nature; implementation of this land ethic is the hard part. Whether it is the landowner looking for the best way to harvest timber on private land; a citizen who wants to participate in the planning process for Forest Plan revisions; or, a person who wishes to vote for a public servant based on their conservation ethic, the question is simply: who do they trust?

As the debate exists today, ideas about conservation vary greatly, with two camps at the extremes and a detached majority in between. At the one extreme is big business, which has captured congress through campaign financing. The Forest Service is currently subject to this camp through budget appropriations. On the other extreme is the professional "environmental" community who thrives off the conflict. The greater the need for reform, the more foundation money pours into their program.

Some examples to illustrate include the infamous "Salvage Rider" introduced in 1995 and sponsored by Congressman Charles Taylor of North Carolina, which charged the Forest Service to increase timber quotas to "improve forest health." At the other end of the pole, "environmentalists" created the "zero-cut" concept for public land management. The Salvage Rider was not about forest health, it was about filling the bank accounts of timber companies. Neither is zero cut about not cutting trees, but rather, about stirring rhetoric. The result is polarization and a distrustful public, leading to no action.

The Brown Gap Timber Sale was about a real, palpable action aimed at implementation of a good land ethic. As a result, the great majority of people who came to our job site were quite impressed with the operation. Trees were harvested with minimal impact on the soil and the surrounding forest, wood products were manufactured, jobs were created, and there is a healthy forest still standing on site.

If indeed Aldo Leopold was right about the definition of conservation being humanity's ability to live in harmony with nature, then we must break the gridlock that now surrounds the debate over how this harmony can be achieved. Depolarization is the answer. Consequently, the solution lies with the majority between the extremes. This will garner public trust, and action. That is why we decided to stop talking about conservation for a few months, and take action in a way that clearly demonstrates a "real world" conservation ethic. The Chattooga River Watershed Coalition is working towards building trust and stimulating action by the public for true forest management reform. In this issue of the Chattooga Quarterly, we hope you enjoy our account of "phase one" of the Brown Gap Timber Sale.

Back to the Top