Pages

Monday, September 15, 2014

Is "preserving" the same as keeping wild?

In today's class, and continuing for next few classes, we discussed the concept of wildness in relation to the mining and logging practices that have taken place in the Adirondacks over the last two centuries. Many arguments against the practices, obviously, invoke the age-old ideology of "Forever Wild" that rules the area. In response, of course, are those who are reliant on the jobs and industry that the practices bring with them. The real debate boils down to the environmental impact that the mining and logging have on the area, but it's not nearly so black and white as it might seem. The simplified issues an outsider might see are these: People need jobs and the area needs a sustainable economy, BUT the logging and mining in the area drastically alters the landscape in (presumably) a negative way. But at closer investigation the argument gets muddy. While clear-cutting timber does aggressively change the landscape, the wildlife don't always suffer for it. Deer flourish in sparsely-wooded areas, fallen timber is scavenged by beavers who can't necessarily fell a big hardwood, small rodents and medium-sized predators tend to prefer scraggly undergrowth to hide and hunt in over bare-floored forests. As we discussed today, some mining operations (garnets) accrue very little waste, and most of that is re-purposed for road-building. Sustainable timber practices are becoming the norm. Even unsightly mining shafts become the perfect habitat for bats (which control the insect population) and other nocturnal creatures. Obviously this debate is far from over, but I believe there is an attainable compromise in the near future. Yes, mines aren't necessarily pretty, but they're often out of the public eye, and shallow mine pits can be re-covered with soil once they've stopped producing, which would greatly increase their rebound rate. Brutal logging may have a drastic affect on the forest but regulated, sustainable logging can encourage future growth, and young forests actually encourage the diversity of Adirondack wildlife. The Adirondacks are a precious commodity for those of us devoted to wilderness, but we can't deny the profitability of the space. In a country and a time that needs all the economic help it can get, pretending our wilderness isn't a source of jobs and resources is only detrimental to a place that deserves plenty of attention.

2 comments:

  1. Life is resilient, definitions aren't. No matter what humans do to the surrounding landscape, however high or deep, life will still be there in at least its smallest form, microbes. They have been found in mid-ocean rifts where water temperatures exceed boiling, under oil tanks where leaks have occurred (the bacteria consume the hydrocarbons), in radioactive waste sites (once again, the bacteria consume uranium and other compounds), and have been proven to survive in space for years. No matter what humans do to the Earth, some form of life will occupy that new niche. Definitions are only for our own purposes because as I said in my post, with enough time, geologic forces will most likely wipe out all evidence of human society and all will again be wilderness.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think in order to get the concept of wilderness to even enter peoples mind's and hearts there has to be a balance between human use of nature's resources and the preserving of the land. It is easy to appreciate, respect, and enjoy the wilderness when one can drive into the park for the day or settle down in a lodge for a home cooked meal. If the wilderness of the Adirondacks was what we think of as "true wilderness" I can't help but imagine the greater public having the same fear and distaste for the wilderness as the first settlers and surveyors of the Adirondacks.

    ReplyDelete