What is "forestry?" We are the North Carolina Forestry Association. What does this mean? Do we all define forestry in the same way? Forestry is officially defined by the Society of American Foresters, the professional organization of foresters. SAF defines forestry as: "…the profession embracing the science, art, and practice of creating, managing, using, and conserving forests and associated resources for human benefit and in a sustainable manner to meet desired goals, needs, and values."
Forestry is a profession with its own code of ethics and it is based on science. Forestry is not, and cannot be, driven by myths or by ideologies. If we allow ourselves to be guided by the myths that may be popular with any particular segment of society or at a particular point in time, we will not be able to fulfill our professional obligation to manage resources "for human benefit and in a sustainable manner."
Regrettably, this principle is too often not followed. As a result, when it comes to forests, people find themselves choosing up sides and bonding with other people whose set of myths is most consistent with their own beliefs. Eventually, these like-minded people form organizations, and the organizations take on the particular set of myths or ideologies that are consistent with the views and feelings of the members. Lines become hardened around these myths, and the opportunity for civil dialogue about the real and critical issues becomes virtually impossible.
I will make the case that most groups involved with forests have developed their myths, and the conflicts over these myths have characterized the forestry scene in North Carolina for the past several decades. My point is that, as we move into the future of forestry in North Carolina, we will need to overcome the ideological approach to forestry and play a positive, participatory role in the civil dialogue that will be needed to determine how our forests can best be managed, used, and conserved "for human benefit and in a sustainable manner."
What are some of the myths that get in the way of clear thinking about our forests? Let me start with one of my favorites.
Myth #1 is that Nature, if left alone, will tend toward some sort of stable, utopian state. This myth, above all, is the basis for much of the debate and controversy over forests. No less of an authority than the Vice President of the United States talks about an earlier time when there was "harmony among all living things." Nature by itself, according to Vice President Gore, operates on "principles of balance and holism."
This point of view permeates almost all debates about the environment. It is particularly prevalent in controversies related to preserving so-called old growth forests.
At the heart of these arguments is the romantic notion of their eternal presence if they are only left to Nature. Nature is good, Nature is gentle, and Nature is in balance.
The problem with this view is that it has no relationship to the findings of science.
As the author and former environmental activist Wallace Kaufman has said, "Nature does not prefer the conditions we love, or us. To the contrary. She does not prefer nature as we know it." If Nature were stable and gentle, why is it that over 99% of the billions of plant and animal species that have lived on the Earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been killed off?
Indeed, the earth is a violent and ever changing place, whether we like it or not. It is estimated to be about 4½ billion years old. The first several hundred million years of the earth’s existence is referred to as the Hadean period. From a human point of view, this is an appropriate name because the earth was truly a hellish place. No life of any kind existed on the planet for its first billion years. From that time until today, the earth has been characterized by violence and change. The Atlantic Ocean was created as North and South America split off from Europe and Africa and continued to drift apart as they are continuing today. Over time, continental land masses have shifted all over the face of the Earth and have collided with each other, causing enormous uplifting of land masses, creating mountain ranges, and triggering violent earthquakes.
Mass extinction of species has occurred at several periods over the Earth’s history. The most celebrated and, as yet, not understood period of extinction was the one that marked the boundary between the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods roughly 65 million years ago. All dinosaurs and flying reptiles disappeared, as did about three-quarters of all angiosperms, or flowering plants.
For humans, the really interesting history of the Earth began a mere two million years ago. This began the period of the great ice ages that scoured and sculpted the land and left it largely in the state that we know it today. At times, Arctic conditions have existed in most of North America, and the Great Lakes were gouged out of the Earth during this period. Six hundred thousand years ago, the area that is now known as Yellowstone National Park was the scene of the largest volcanic eruption in the history of North America. It spread volcanic debris over millions of square miles, reaching as far as Kansas and Texas. The blast, together with the many smaller eruptions that occurred over the next few hundred thousand years, melted right through the Rocky Mountains, leaving an enormous plateau 7,000 feet high among mountains that are up to 12,000 feet high. The heat cooked the rock, turning it a distinctive yellow color. This is where the national park gets its name today.
Even now, the Earth is a violent, dynamic system. In Iceland, in Hawaii, in New Zealand, and in Costa Rica, lava bursts from rock like the spouting of whales. The ground shakes as if giants were wrestling with it, and it kills thousands of people. We have recently witnessed the devastating effects of earthquakes in Turkey and Taiwan.
From our standpoint, the most significant event in the Earth’s history was the emergence of homo sapiens. This only happened a mere 500,000 years ago. Keep in mind, too, that the most recent great ice age ended only about 10,000 years ago. At that time, humans were still chipping flint spearheads to kill the last of the wooly bison and carving flint sickles to work the first of the world’s crude farms.
Ten thousand years was not very long ago in geological terms. Let me try to put some of these big numbers in perspective by converting time to distance. The Earth is 25,000 miles in circumference. Suppose this 25,000 miles was made equivalent to the 4½ billion years that the Earth has existed. One trip around the world, then, would be equivalent to having traveled through all the time that the Earth has existed. By this scale, the time that human beings have existed would be equivalent to the distance from NCFA headquarters in Raleigh to NC State University’s campus. The 10,000 years from the last Ice Age to now would be about 100 yards—the length of a football field out of the 25,000 miles. In the big scheme of things, civilization as we know it and old growth forests are very new phenomena on Earth.
In the face of the natural change and violence that characterizes Nature, it seems both silly and a bit arrogant to suggest that we should attempt to return to some past state that Nature prefers. Who gets to pick the preferred time and state of Nature? What period of time should we shoot for? How do we go about stopping the inevitable and powerful forces of change that characterize Nature?
The Earth does not need to be saved. It will be here long after the next round of violence and mass extinction. Our task is to do our best to manage the resources that Nature has provided at this point in time for human benefit and in a manner that is sustainable in light of current conditions. We also need to take steps to prevent our actions from contributing to the Earth becoming a more adverse place for human beings.
The second myth that I wish to highlight is that technology is the root of most environmental problems. This is a deeply held belief by those who seek a utopian world that is rooted in some past state of Nature. In the minds of many environmental preservationists, technology is associated with industry and industry is bad.
Linking technology to adverse environmental consequences is not new. The poet William Blake referred to the "dark Satanic Mills of industry." Henry David Thoreau took to the New England woods to escape industrialized society.
But is technology the root of all environmental evil? Here I wish to make two points. First, technology can be viewed as being completely compatible with a high quality environment. In some ways, technology can be blamed for what was once billed as the death of Lake Erie, but it was also technology that brought it back to life and that has reconstituted it as a productive fishery and recreation resource. It is technology that will clean up the air in Beijing, and it is technology that will eventually wean hundreds of millions of people from using wood as their source of heat.
For those of you associated with manufacturing in one way or another, suppose you could conduct your business with no waste, no defects, no inventory, and no accidents. Wouldn’t you hunger for such a manufacturing system? So, I would think, would those who represent organized environmental groups. They key point is that it will be technology that will continue to move us toward such systems.
The other point I want to make about technology is that it seems to only be bad if deployed by industry. I will quote again from Wallace Kaufman. He observes that "…while environmentalists preach against technology and try to deny it to poorer people…they give little thought to the chemicals, energy, and technical processes used to produce Vibram soles for hiking shoes, Gore-Tex raingear, freeze-dried camp food, superstrong rock-climbing ropes, Volvos, Kevlar canoes, and magnesium-alloy pack frames. The list is long and growing."
We reached a world population of six billion people in 1999. The only way these people can have a chance of being healthy, housed, and well fed is through the development and deployment of new technology.
Myth #3 is that we are running out of trees. Fred Cubbage can dispel this myth with much more authority than I can. I simply want to observe two things. First, North Carolina has more acres of trees now than it did in the year in which I was born. Annual growth of trees still exceeds annual harvest and mortality, meaning that inventory is still accumulating. And this is happening with only about 11% of the state’s forestland area being in pine plantations. The second point is that, as a nation, we have decided to set aside over 270 million acres of land and remove it from any form of commercial activity. This is over 8½ times as big as the State of North Carolina, an enormous land area. It is true that not all of these lands are forested and the biggest share of them is in Alaska, but they do collectively represent a major commitment to environmental preservation. I become concerned about the perpetuation of the myth when I read quotes from prominent members of the environmental community to the effect that a particular stand of trees must be saved before all of the trees are gone. These myths are dear to the hearts of those people who affiliate themselves with organized environmental preservation groups.
But what about us? What about the members of the North Carolina Forestry Association? Is it possible that we may harbor some myths that sometimes muddy our thinking? At the risk of offending the NCFA members, I am suggesting that we do. Let me identify two such myths.
Myth #4 is that owners of private forest lands have the right to do what they want with their land. Without question, the concept of individual ownership of property is the bedrock of our economic system and is a vitally important principle in this great democracy in which we live. My worry is that we are quick to espouse the importance of private property rights, but we do not in the same breath point out that private property owners also have responsibilities. Furthermore, unless these responsibilities are regularly and fully met, society can very easily remove the rights. Private property rights are man-given, not God-given, and they can be taken away by man through changes in law or regulation.
Fortunately, the concept of private property rights is well imbedded in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which states that "…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This is a vitally important concept that must be maintained. Important to the process of maintaining it is the fulfillment of landowner’s responsibilities. Let me give you an example.
As most of you know, North Carolina State University benefits enormously from the Hofmann Forest, which is under the able management of the North Carolina Forestry Foundation. The Board of Directors of the Forestry Foundation has the full right and authority to manage that 78,000-acre tract of timberland. In doing so, however, it has explicitly identified several issues for which it has responsibility. The Foundation knows, for example, that it has a responsibility to not degrade the quality or quantity of water entering its neighbor’s lands from the forest. To assure that it is living up to this responsibility, it has installed a sophisticated water quality monitoring system on all of the major waterways leaving the forest.
The Foundation also believes that is has a responsibility to future generations, so it does not have the right to degrade the site productivity of the forest. It believes it has a responsibility to not knowingly contribute to the elimination or extinction of plant and animal species, and it is currently developing a plan to maintain the habitat of the red-cockaded woodpecker that apparently resides on the forest. The Foundation believes it has a responsibility to keep the forest from burning down and from burning the neighbor’s property. And, finally, it has a responsibility to earn a competitive rate of economic return.
If, over time, the forest cannot earn a reasonable rate of return, pressures will mount to convert it to some other use, and all of society will lose through such a conversion. These few simple but sound principles guide the management of the Hofmann Forest. They are based on the concept of private responsibility.
We all have such responsibilities, and all members of the forestry community stand to suffer if we do not exercise them.
Myth #5 is that it is a small group of dedicated but radical environmental activists that are opposed to timber harvesting. Without question, organized environmental groups use whatever means that work in galvanizing public opinion against forest management. But we need to recognize that a large segment of the public wants to believe the messages put forth by these organizations. Most citizens want clean air, clean water, and pristine forested landscapes. They are easily led to the conclusion that cutting down trees destroys these values.
And, do you know what shapes their opinions more than any other single thing? It is the slicking off of woodlots in and around urban areas by developers. It is not forestry that is of concern; it is the rapid rate of deforestation that is being done by developers throughout our state. And they have reason to be concerned. According to USDA data, from the early 1980’s to the early 1990’s North Carolina was second only to Florida in area of new developed land. Newly developed land during this period totaled 940,000 acres, an increase of 36% during the decade. Most urban folks never go into the woods. They never see the statistics about growth rates versus harvest rates. Their opinions are being shaped in the urban environment and then very adroitly being fed upon as the environmental organizations extend what is happening in cities and suburbs to the rural, forested areas of the State. Myths 1, 2, and 3 are easy to spread when the general population has a predisposition to believe them. And as they become more widely spread and accepted, it will become increasingly difficult to practice forestry as we know it today.
Our ability to practice forestry into the future will depend on two things: our performance and our image. Let me suggest four things that I would like to see all members of NCFA commit to that I believe will help with both performance and image.
First, all of us who own land need to exercise our property responsibilities as well as our property rights. This means approaching our forests not from the perspective of what is the minimum we can get by with and still comply with laws and regulations, but rather what do we need to do to step up to our responsibilities to our neighbors, to those who depend on the forest for its economic contributions, and to future generations? This is how we will manage and use forests for human benefit and in a sustainable manner, and this is what forestry is all about.
Second, it is in the best collective interests of everyone in the forestry community if members of NCFA speak out when a landowner is not stepping up to his or her responsibilities. We all occasionally see things going on in the woods that do not adhere to best management practices or that otherwise do not represent responsible forest resource management. Think of the impact it would make if NCFA members would write letters to local newspapers that would be critical of bad forestry practices and that would point out the difference between practicing forestry and simply cutting down trees. Who has a bigger reason to speak out in indignation over inappropriate forestry practices than the members of NCFA? You all have the most to lose if society decides to restrict your rights.
Third, I want to build upon my thesis that concerns about timber harvesting are widespread throughout society and that many of them have their roots in what is happening to trees in urban environments. If this is the case, wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the North Carolina Forestry Association to play an active and visible role in establishing workable urban tree ordinances? We are taking a bad rap from the development community on the issue of clearcutting. It is not in our best interest for landowners or developers to be able to skirt tree ordinances by claiming that they are engaged in forestry. It makes sense for our organization to come down on the side of urban trees by clearly and visibly separating ourselves from the deforestation that is associated with development.
Finally, we need to stop taking a knee jerk, defensive reaction every time an environmental organization launches a propaganda campaign. In the debates over appropriate uses of forests that will inevitably continue to rage, we cannot afford to be viewed as anti-environmentalist. We need to realize that the debates will continue unabated and that all this is part of the great democratic process to which we are all committed. The trick is to be a positive force in the discourse that will take place. We need to recognize that members of organized environmental groups, the general public, and all of us want many of the same things—clean air, clean water, good jobs, a safe, healthy environment, and healthy, diverse forests. These are not unreasonable things to want and to aggressively strive for. In my view, we burn up too much energy railing at a small number of organized environmentalists and not enough to thinking seriously about how we can play a larger, more visible role in achieving these positive societal goals.
What will be the future of forestry in North Carolina? In an important way, it will be determined by the performance and the image created by the members of the North Carolina Forestry Association. What a wonderful and important challenge for all of us!
#####