Logging: A word that strikes the
environmentalist’s heart with anger and derision. In many cases, they are
correct in their sentiments. In the Terrie book, a man traveling through the
Adirondacks compares the torn down and desolate landscape to hell. When I hike
through the Adirondacks, I often cross ugly and overgrown old logging roads,
with remnants of corduroy laid across them. However, I really appreciated
learning more about the history of logging from the readings this week,
especially the Schneider book.
On page 215, Schneider describes
the Adirondack wilderness as becoming a “great, hydraulic wood-delivery
machine.” Although often destructive to the environment, I found the whole
system of log delivery to be fascinating. It is a great example of mankind’s
ability to manipulate the wilderness for economic gains and greater efficiency.
Schneider also gives us a bit of perspective on logging’s impact on the
Adirondack forests on page 217. According to Barbara McMartin, the impact of
logging on the Adirondack forest before 1890 was “minor.” Despite the photos of
logjams and descriptions of ravaged landscapes, logging was (finally) a
profitable use of the land, and created many jobs. The question is, was it
worth it? As a wilderness purist, I still say no, although not quite as vehemently
as I would have said before the readings this week.
We are seeing a similar fight
nowadays with the Tupper Lake resort case. Creating the resort would create
many jobs and provide an economic boost to a depressed area. Yet would it be a
suitable use for “forever wild” land? Would it set a dangerous precedent for
the rest of the park?
Although I agree that logging can be incredibly destructive, there's incredible evidence that the forest is wonderful at rebounding itself from logging in a matter of decades. Obviously it's a different forest than it was a couple hundred years ago, but given the opportunity the wilderness will prevail. At this point it's a matter of making our future processes sustainable and, if we're being completely honest, a little more hidden away. The original main concern about logging was that it was unsightly, but even clear-cut land from the late 19th century has rejuvenated beautifully. As logging practices become less obtrusive both ecologically and visually I think that it is perfectly fine to allow the continued practice in the area, especially with the economic gains. As for resorts, that's another argument entirely... As a lifelong patron of the area I hate to see it become "tourist-y" but since I don't live there I feel I can't have an unbiased view of the issue - it won't affect my income or employment. Personally, I think it's a heartbreaking concept but I see the other side as well.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, development can be assessed on its sustainability and its capacity to return to wild. A logged forest, for example, will regrow and regenerate the trees once felled. In contrast, a massive resort would take centuries to re-accomodate wilderness in the area it once stood and thus would have a far greater impact than a logging operation of the same size. Mining operations have a similar lasting impression, evidenced by open pits and lingering machinery.
ReplyDelete