[pct-l] Last Straw...

[jeffmoorehead1 at cox.net (Jeff Moorehead)]

> to do something else (by passing appropriate laws).  You aren't
> actually advocating that the National Forest Service should just
> ignore Congress and manage the National Forest as if they
> were designated Wilderness areas are you?

Your point is a good one but it is just that style of thinking that has the 
stopped the process of effective conservation of forests. 'Multiple use' is 
a seriously  outdated idea that was established in the era of Teddy 
Roosevelt's style of conservation. Don't get me wrong here--I do not mean to 
disparage the 'great conservationist' and his role in protecting so many 
natural treasures of the US. But 100 years ago, forest conservation was 
based on the ethic that an individual forest could simulataneously be used 
by hunters, timber companies, mining companies, cattlemen, etc. I don't 
think 'multiple use' is geared for what we now regard as conservation. Allow 
extractive industries onto the land and it is, for the most part,  no longer 
usable by other interested parties. Hardly 'multiple use'. It seems the only 
advantage gained by this archaic designation system is by economic entities 
whose activities ruin the land. I think the recent decision to reopen 
roadless areas is an example of how politicians can use this outdated system 
to further their own, much narrower purposes.  So, yes, I am advocating that 
the NFS should treat some areas as if they are wilderness, in the true 
interest of 'multiple use'. If we define this term to mean that whole 
sections of forest remain wilderness (despite the fact that the Dept of 
Interior is the official admiinistrator of such acts), then I think the 
forest service is finally doing its job, 100 years after the fact.