Environmental groups tried to turn the controversy over logging a small portion of the Shawnee National Forest into a landmark case restricting the use of federally owned forests. While they raised valid questions about the proper management of important natural resources, their cause was destined to fail.
The basic issue was whether a Missouri logging company should be permitted to cut timber on 141 acres of the 260,000-acre forest in southern Illinois. In a sense, the issue is now academic because the logging has begun. But the questions still are valid.
The groups contended that the U.S. Forest Service violated its own policies in approving the timber sale and that the logging would do serious harm. They tried to stop it with a series of protests, even as the logging began, and a federal lawsuit. The Illinois congressional delegation wanted a delay until new forest management policies go into effect, perhaps next year.
But the Forest Service maintained-correctly-that it was following its policies and had cut a legitimate deal with the logging company six years ago, a position upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals. To renege on the deal would have been unfair to the company and would have subverted the terms of a legitimate contract to pressure from protesters.
Further, there is no convincing evidence that the logging will do irreparable harm to the Shawnee. Trees are being cut individually over 115 acres and in blocks of up to two acres on the other 26. Unlike massive clear- cutting, which can destroy wildlife habitat and cause erosion, this kind of cutting can enhance a forest by encouraging new growth and habitat.
The larger issue is the purpose of our public forests-the real focus of this dispute. At the extreme is the belief that they should be preserved untouched with minimal human intrusion and no commercial exploitation. But the Forest Service is mandated to pursue a more sensible policy of multiple use, recognizing that the forests belong to everyone and should be managed for a variety of uses, including recreation, contemplation and the harvesting of timber. Part of that policy is to keep some-32.5 million acres-as pure wilderness.
The Forest Service has been fairly criticized for devoting too much of its emphasis to the logging industry and encougaging timber sales. But this philosophy is changing, and its new policy emphasizes more environmental sensitivity, recreation and wildlife protection, with less logging permitted and more selective cutting required. The goal is a better balance of multiple uses. This must include getting a better return on its timber sales, because while they are profitable overall, in some forests like Shawnee the service suffers intolerable losses.
An afterword: While most protesters at Shawnee pursued legal or non-violent confrontation, some engaged in tree spiking-a despicable practice meant to injure loggers wielding chain saws. This warping of values, the exalting of trees over people, serves only to lose the cause, no matter how valid the questions.