Colvin's First Annual Report: A tough pill to swallow

            I took hydrogeology last semester, which helped me a bit in understanding the scientific claims made by Colvin in his “First Annual Report.” And, while I’m not sure about the validity of some of his points, I find no issue with the core of his argument, which is that the forests of the Adirondack Park are a major factor in shaping the state’s climate, particularly in terms of the distribution of rainfall. As a legislator reading this document in 1873, I would certainly have felt the urgency of Colvin’s message. The idea of New York’s canals and waterways drying up while other parts of the state are besieged by damaging storms would have been a terrifying thought. And, unfortunate as this fact may be, I think that thought provided more impetus than a purely ecologically minded proposal would have been able to. For although Colvin reminds his readers that the park’s wilderness is “romantic scenery [with] a strange, wild, and romantic element,” this is far from the main point of his argument. He quickly moves on to the implications of the park’s continued destruction for the state as a whole which, as aforementioned, are concerned primarily with the forest’s influence on rainfall distribution.

            I’m in a bit of quandary after reading this report. On one hand, I’m upset that the only impetus strong enough to motivate legislators was an economic one. For most of these lawmakers, the intensive deforestation of the Adirondack wilderness was fine, until it threatened the livelihoods of those downstate. Colvin recognizes this, however, and capitalizes upon it. Can I really fault him for ignoring the ecological reasons behind the land’s preservation, knowing that his report would have been less influential as a result? It’s a hard pill to swallow, but I recognize that the Adirondacks would most likely not exist today if their destruction hadn't threatened the water supply of those downstate. While I wish that ecological reasons alone could have influenced the park’s preservation, I know that’s naïve. Economics will always play a major role in lawmaking, and sometimes I worry that “forever wild” will turn into “forever wild until we need it.” In some parts of the park, it seems like this might already be happening (like that ski resort we were talking about). The silver lining here is that there are more ecologically minded lawmakers and activists today than there were when Colvin wrote his Report. This way, at least we know that “forever wild” won’t go down without a fight.