TEN REASONS FOR PREVENTING EXPLOITATIVE LOGGING
IN KENTUCKY

• 1. Non-sustainable methods. Current harvesting methods are not sustainable. Our forests recovered from earlier episodes of logging, but forests were not clearcut at that time, trees were felled with cross-cut saws and axes, and logs were skidded by draft animals and often floated down waterways to mills. Today one finds chainsaws, large bulldozers, and heavy trucks which compact the soil, disrupt water flow, and adversely affect any plant and animal life that manages to survive the logging. In addition, huge debts associated with the purchase and maintenance of modern logging equipment often leave little room for operator care or land ethics; the logger must maximize daily harvest simply to survive and to service the interest on loans. See ASPI Technical Publications 32, 33, 34 & 35.

• 2. Indiscriminate cutting. In former times trees were selectively removed from a forest since there was little demand for small trees or for non-timber species. In addition, muscle power was more selectively and less destructively applied on forest sites than is the present petroleum-powered harvesting technology. Today's voracious global appetite for pulp and other wood products means that it is profitable to cut nearly all species and sizes of trees - some for the pulp mill, some for the peeler mill, some for the saw mill. Such complete exploitation exposes the Land and its inhabitants to the elements, and changes verdant hills into moonscapes.

• 3. Poor forest health. Many forest species are going the way of the American Chestnut, and we face the prospect of losing a significant number of the 100 or so woody species that form Kentucky's Mixed Mesophytic Forest, the oldest and most varied hardwood forest in the world. Native species such as Flowering Dogwood, Butternut, and a number of types of oaks and hickories are under heavy stress from air pollution and a variety of secondary conditions resulting from pollution. Contrary to popular myth, salvage cutting is no solution since it simply removes the symptoms of the disease without curing the disease itself. Common sense dictates that all logging should be conservative and designed to help our forests survive these troubled times.

• 4. Excessively frequent logging. In the past forests were cut infrequently enough that an individual stand had 50 to 100 years to recover from logging. Today we face the almost certain prospect of much more frequent logging since large quantities of raw material will be needed to supply the dozen or more mills that buy pulpwood in Kentucky. We should not be fooled by the forest green color of the mountains in summer - history and science both indicate that forest ecosystems cannot long remain productive when cut too frequently.

• 5. Incompatibility with alternative crops. Exploitative logging is incompatible with the cultivation of forest-grown alternative crops ranging from medicinal and culinary herbs, to mushrooms, fruits, and nuts. Production of secondary products derived from these crops provides an opportunity for locally-owned and value-added industries, and offers hope for Appalachian people. The potential value of Appalachian ginseng alone is about $12 billion per year in a rapidly expanding Asian market. See ASPI Technical Papers 23 & 36.

• 6. Weak current regulations. The present political climate supports any activity that generates profit and employment over the short-term, and belittles any movements that hinder attainment of these goals. Grass-roots forest protection movements have been weakened, and, at present, forest practices regulations are ineffective or nonexistent. Wisdom says that we must go slower, not faster -- and that we need to enact forest practices legislation that considers the long-term welfare of the Land and of the people.

• 7. Lack of a good land ethic. We can only provide future generations with the opportunity to live dignified and fulfilling lives if we protect the Land which is the basis of all life. Wildlife and plants are essential components of the Land, and they too need open space in which to survive and prosper. For instance, migratory songbirds such as the wood thrush require large undisturbed patches of forest in order to nest and survive. Widespread destruction of forests will certainly doom many familiar and beloved birds, and will reduce the overall quality of life.

• 8. Lack of social equity. In the early days, forest products or the profit from forest harvests were kept within the hills or at least within the surrounding area. Now raw materials and the bulk of the profit are shipped out of the region, often overseas to countries such as Japan or Germany. Local people gain virtually none of the profit while suffering the consequences of exploitative harvest. Sustainable and healthy human communities need some control over their own economies, ideally in the form of locally-owned facilities for producing value-added forest products. Sustainable communities will never survive when both the Land and the people are exploited by absentee owners or multi-national corporations.

• 9. Adverse psychological effects. Local communities will be weakened by exploitative forestry. Psychologists teach that attitudes and worldviews are strongly affected by local environmental conditions -- and non-sustainably cut-over forests are neither inspiring nor pretty. Exploitation of the Land fosters an attitude of "What's the use?", and people lose a sense of civic pride and self-respect. In Appalachia, surface mining taught us is that we must not again allow this to happen to communities. Disorder always breeds disorder.

• 10. Adverse effects on tourism. Tourism is Kentucky's third largest industry and is well worth enhancing since it may become even more important to local economies. Forest degradation will discourage sight-seers, who are the major tourist activity. Southern Living magazine finds that 40% of tourist time is spent sight seeing. Add to this other activities such as fishing, hunting, camping, birdwatching, and hiking and we discover that other two-thirds of the activities are forest-related. For every dollar gained by outside interests through exploitative logging, five dollars will be lost by local interests due to reduced tourism.