To the concerned environmentalists of the Shawnee and all others that have a need to know more truth about cutting trees than lies and half-truths:There are a lot of things that these protesters have neglected to tell you about nature and cutting trees. Nature is cyclic. It is advantageous. It is resilient. It is beautiful in all it is and does. But it does more than what you would give it credit for. It is not a two-year-old child that needs pampering and protection from the rain. It has survived a multitude of disturbances for millennia and it is still here today. You say it will not be. We say go back in time to when this area was formed. Large ice sheets carved the land bare. Nothing could survive that, could it? Fires raged across the land time and time again, sometimes set by lightning, sometimes by a Native American hunting party. Nothing could survive fire, could it? White settlers inhabited the area and cut the trees and plowed the fields for crops. When the land was all used up and could not support the crops, they left. Trees could not grow back there, could they? But what you see today is the remnant of all that death and destruction. But you called it beautiful. How could this be; this was ugly not long ago.

Disturbance is no new happenstance for nature. It has dealt with it before and will deal with it again. In fact, this beautiful oak and hickory forest that you so love is (and has been) dependent on disturbance in one form or another to continue its existence. Without disturbance, more shade tolerant species will come in and out-compete the oak and hickory, which by the way supply a fair amount of food for some of our forest friends (the furry ones, not the huggers sitting in their barcoloungers during a protest).

Now we would like to address a few points that several of the protesters stated. Kristen Kordecki, you stated you were going to prevent the rape and destruction of the land. We think we have already enlightened you about death and destruction in nature. But if you still don’t believe us, take a good look at Yellowstone National Park, Mount Saint Helens National Monument and every last tree on the Shawnee National Forest. Another argument was that this action increases soil erosion. This is a valid point, but to say that you have already seen trees fall into the road because the soil has been washed from their roots… We were here all summer, when this situation began and we don’t remember there being enough rain to wash the dust off our cars, let alone enough to was the soil away from a healthy tree.

Advertisement

Jan Wilder-Thomas, your argument was to save what is left of an old-growth forest in Illinois. This is a very hard topic to argue for or against, as there is yet no one accepted definition of just exactly what old-growth is. But it is a very nice buzz word. But then catchy words and phrases are something you like to use (murder trail, dead bodies). You would be a good politician. Another point you tried to make, but failed miserably with those of us that have been educated on such matters, was that young trees without the protective covering of the canopy above will be directly exposed to pounding rain, then direct sunlight evaporates the moisture quickly, drying the soil until nothing can grow. Nice try. Were you talking about rain drops or softball-sized hail? Rain drops fall on young plants and trees and they rejoice, for it is good. As for drier soil after a cut or disturbance, that is wrong. Soil moisture increases due to the decreased amount of evapotranspiration occurring. This increase in soil moisture warms the soil and makes it more hospitable for seeds to germinate and grow. And the seedlings and saplings that are already there receive an increase in all the things they need to grow, i.e. water, sunlight, nutrients, and space. One other argument you had about leaving the tops behind; yes, it does increase fire fuels on the ground, but it also increases and replaces nutrients into the system. Most of the nutrients in live trees is tied up in the leaves and smaller branches and the roots. These stay in the system. What is taken is the part of the tree that adds nutrients at a minimal quantity over a longer time. This is also beneficial to the system.

We are not for or against the harvesting of trees. However, we are for the continuation of an ecosystem cycle. What we are against is the attempt of certain environmentalists to manipulate the opinions of the public through emotional arguments without giving them the whole picture from an ecological view. This is what education (environmental or otherwise) is about. Give the students complete information and then let them make their own informed decision.

Terry Conway is a graduate student in forestry and Ken Johnson is a graduate student in curriculum and instruction.