Forest Service must hear concerns
The piece by Craig Allen and colleagues attacking me (“Southwestern forests need active management,” Commentary, Dec. 4) is much more than a “he said, he said” science debate. The larger issue at stake is whether the U.S. Forest Service can listen to requests for a full environmental analysis of the impactful Santa Fe Mountains Landscape Resiliency Project and whether independent scientists without a stake in government funding are on equal footing. Strong-arming scientists and concerned citizens who speak truth to power never works.
I am blessed with a passion for all things natural that takes me to some of the world’s most biodiverse forests. Some may be challenged by my worldview, implying that I am an outsider as if only their view counts. My search for the truth in the Santa Fe National Forest began some three years ago during site visits to this remarkable forest.
Frankly, I was shocked about how much of it was being degraded by overzealous thinning projects resulting in weed-infested savannas lacking in forest complexity. As an “outsider,” I come with a fresh pair of problem-solving eyes, free of government research dollars that can otherwise obscure such fact-finding expeditions.
Scientists often disagree over how we view the natural world. I see forests as a kind of super-organism, an interconnected marriage of form, function and process uniquely adapted to fit the environment and sometimes in need of legitimate restorative actions.
My critics ostensibly view the forest as “fuel” in need of “active management,” without which forests would somehow discombobulate if not for massive intervention. Their view represents a profound misunderstanding about the science of cumulative effects of large-scale human interventions, which is not unlike what I see in many forests all over the planet.
Despite our differences, I choose to present my perspective thoughtfully and respectfully — the high road. I believe Allen and associates took the lower road about whether I’ve conducted enough original research to matter. The Forest Service chooses sides to suit preconceived outcomes rushed on the public with minimal review to spend billions of dollars it now has on thinning projects, no matter the consequences.
In fact, according to the organizers of the public event that I spoke at, the vast majority of those who also spoke asked for an environmental impact statement. That supports some 98 percent of public project scoping comments and a Santa Fe County Commission resolution asking for more rigorous analysis and better mitigation. This is being ignored by the agency.
I suspect my critics have not spent nearly as much time as
I have in publishing about the extensive collateral damages and climate impacts from poorly conceived projects like the Santa Fe mountain project. Unfortunately, the agency and agency-associated scientists can’t see the forest for more than just the fuels. I respectfully disagree with Allen and colleagues. Their opinion is not the only one that should count.
To represent legitimate public concerns is not misinformation; it’s truth telling, however inconvenient for some. Respectful communications are essential in avoiding my-way-or-the-highway attitudes — and for listening to an otherwise disenfranchised community that is anything but powerless.
Dominick A. DellaSala is an award-winning international scientist with over 300 original research publications and eight books.