In the latest positive twist in the Bell Smith Springs saga, logging again has been halted in the area. It is doubtful that the logging in the area will truly benefit the Shawnee National Forest.

And while the U.S. Forest Service apparently is pitted against environmentalists in the matter, it is a difference in ideologies that separates the groups.

The Forest Service wants the restoration of a hardwood forest, and so do environmentalists. Both groups agree that restoring the Shawnee to a hardwood forest will increase biological diversity in Southern Illinois.

Advertisement

While environmentalists are content to sit back and let nature take its course, the Forest Service wants to put the Shawnee in high gear by removing the stands of shortleaf pine inhabiting the Bell Smith Springs area in Pope County.

The shortleaf pines in question are non-native. They were planted about 100 years ago as a source of timber and a preventative measure against erosion.

The Forest Service has stated there will be a significant environmental impact if the area is logged. Advanced erosion is possible, meaning topsoil from logged areas could wash away in large amounts.

Why cause this erosion by logging the very trees that were planted to prevent erosion?

On the other hand, Forest Service procedures do seem to have scientific backing. And when relaying their side of environmental issues to the public, well-meaning environmentalists often cloud informational pamphlets and posters with an abundance of emotion.

But environmentalists scored a victory when Chief Judge J. Phil Gilbert, who presided over the case in the U.S. District Court, said the Forest Service’s plans are disingenuous, or insincere.

The Forest Service estimates a $454,000 bill for logging the trees. In a sense, every person who pays taxes is chipping in to remove pines covering 900 acres and saturate creeks and streams in the area with topsoil.

Advertisement*

In another sense, however, these same folks collectively are investing in a mature hardwood forest at a quicker-than-normal rate.

It all boils down to ideology. Is it better to try to harness nature and use it for the benefit of humankind, or to keep our hands off even if we think we can improve natural processes?

Until we can determine which is better for both humans and the environment, it seems best to leave Mother Nature to herself.