How many readers of this paper read Brett Haverstick’s editorial last week? He represents the “Friends of the Clearwater” enviro group. Did any of you believe what he wrote?
I worked the timber harvest for 23 years and saw first-hand the benefits of logging. I have revisited many of the timber sales I worked on, and guess what? Biodiversity is thriving in those old clearcuts. There are trees 30 feet tall, flowers bugs, lichens, fungi and other things, including snags. If you still think environmentalists have credibility, make a list of products they manufacture to replace forest products. Then make a list of the products manufactured by logging. Which is longer?
Why do the “Friends of the Clearwater” appeal every federal timber sale that comes up for bid? Just because they can? It seems that way. They would rather see it die and burn to ash than see it utilized for our (and their) benefit. Their ideal forest is gray, brown and black, not green. All of the scientific analysis on the planet doesn’t come close to working on the ground. (Read: Hands-On Forest Management.)
Haverstick calls logging “catastrophic.” I call logging commonsense forestry. Enviros live here also, and use the same forest products that we all use. They contradict their own existence. Don’t just take my word for it. Go out and see for yourself. You might see the truth.