The Forrest Service has a big problem in the area of Morehead Kentucky, and that is what to do about trees in the northern part of the Daniel Bone National Forrest. A great many of these trees were earmarked for sale by logging interests, yet due to a 2003 ice storm, damage to a great lot of these trees has made them unusable. Richard WHite, one log exporter says the sapwood has completely rotted in the trees, most of the bark has falen off, and insects are getting into them. As a result, though to a great extent some of the trees are still marketeable, their value has dropped eighty per cent in the last year and a half.
The Forrest Service nevertheles says the trees should be removed. This, they claim, would prtect other trees from disease, and promote the growth of other trees. However, Kentucky Heartwood, an environmental group, and their leader, Ferrin de Jong (coordinator) wants the trees all left alone. By leving them standing, he claims, they will replenish and stabilize the forrest. The Forrest Service looks upon this claim as being ludicrous. Yet, Kentucky Heartwood, rather than exhibiting concern for the overall health of the forrest and the environment, seems to look upon these circumstances as a victory against the logging interests they so adamantly oppose.
I would tend to side with Kentucky Heartwood, ordinarily. I would have nothing, to be sure, of limited logging, so long as it was done in as unintrusive a way as possible. But unfortunately, the necessity of logging roads does in fact change the density of the forrest ground and endangers indigent species which are necessary for the continued health and vitality of forrest regions. Thus, logging should definitely be limited to the outer periphery of the forrestsd, as logging is a vital and useful component of the economies of many states, including Kentucky. Unfortunately, give some people a mile, and they will eventually take a thousand or so, every time. And as difficutl as it is to stand against their lobbying efforts from the outset, it is all the more so once they have become an established mainstay of the local landscape.
There should be some form of compromise, ideally stated. But things have gotten to the point now where ideology, as in most other things, has outstripped the boundaries of common sense. Anybody with an ounce of the latter would know it's not a good idea to let rotting trees stand unremoved. Obviously, tree blight, and other forms of disease, would easily take hold and quickly spread to healthier trees, if this were allowed to continue. In addition, once these trees dried, they would much easier catch fire than would ordinarily be the case. They would also be a danger to the genreral flora and fauna of the area. The Forrest Service has it right on this issue.
Kentucky Heartwood seriously needs to rethink its stance. If they don't, they run the danger of revealing themselves to be just another cog in the wheel of the looney left, and no sensible person will take them seriously.
