HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
July 15, 2004 It was troubling to see that the Bush Administration announced several days ago it was overturning a Clinton-era forestry initiative protecting some 58 million acres in National Forests from inroads and lumber harvesting. However, unlike most young semi-idealist Democrats, I am not troubled for the same reason. I worry, of course, as do a growing number of Republicans, Democrats, conservationists and environmentalists, that this is amounting to one of the largest timber industry giveaways in history. But there is something more. Clinton's initiative, not surprisingly, is under challenge in two federal courts. The timber industry is very upset about being barred access to these pristine acres and acres of trees. From a business sense, I can understand; the business of America is business, after all. This is why the timber industry was happy to hear that, when the Bush Administration overturned the Clinton plan, it freed up some 30 million of those 58 million acres for cutting and manufacture. I have heard the arguments from Republican - and Democrat - friends of mine that trees really do nothing to help the economy of the United States. Really, in truth, what do they do? They just sit there and wave in the wind, and do little, if anything, to help the bottom line. So, logically, if something is unproductive, it should be processed into something that is productive. Now, please bear in mind I am not an ardent preservationist by any stretch of the mind. I believe resources are to be used. However, I also believe there should be some places in this nation - National Parks and National Forests - that exist simply to provide beauty and recreation for the American people. The people were gifted those National Forests by past leaders, and with that gift came the mandate that these forests were to be preserved and enjoyed, no matter how tempting the economic benefits of logging, for all ages and generations to enjoy. Theodore Roosevelt, by far my favorite President, had some of the best ideas on the subject. At one time he declared tha, "We are not building this nation for a day; it is to last through the ages." I believe his ideas are still valid today. No, National Forests serve no major economic purpose. But sometimes, just sometimes, we must keep some things around that are simply serene, that showcase the lush beginnings of North America, simply because it is the right thing to do. Cutting into National Forests seems to violate the same sanctity and purity that would come with developing Gettysburg's battleground. There are many millions of acres of forested land that may be used and replanted by lumber interests that do not include our sacred National Forests. They may just be trees, but the fact remains, they are trees that were deemed special enough to be preserved for over a hundres years. They are places to be free from the industry and technology of the nation. They are the last natural leisure areas of the country. In 2006, fifty Governors will have to submit reports detailing whether they would like to keep forests in their states pristine and uncut. It is my firm hope that they will make the right decision and tell President Bush that this idea is simply wrong. "Nothing is more important than the preservation of beauty. If we should fail to solve the problem of our dwindling National Forests, it would avail us little to solve all others." - Theodore Roosevelt ------------ About the author: Max Burns lives in Indianapolis and interns with the Indiana Democratic Party. Visit The Rabid Demoncrat or read the fantasy-fiction novel "Alcardia". He is currently a senior at Lawrence North High School and is active in political clubs and associations. Max thinks it's time to hatch a real environmental policy and plant George W. Bush back in Crawford. Email: MBurns_NS@hotmail.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
