Dear HCN,
In “Experiment takes the
cut out of logging” (HCN, 1/17/00: Experiment takes the cut out of
logging), Mark Matthews writes, “Some environmentalists who have
followed the (Flathead Forestry Project) group fear that, like the
Quincy Library Group in Northern California, stewardship contracts
put land that is owned by every U.S. taxpayer in the hands of small
local groups (HCN, 9/29/97: How a foe saved the Quincy Library
Group’s bacon).”
It may be accurate to say that,
back in 1997, some environmentalists claimed that they feared the
QLG proposal as a “local control” land grab. But it is inaccurate
and misleading to use the present tense in the article, implying
that national forest system lands have been somehow conveyed into
private hands and/or taken over by the QLG.
Since
“local control” is a red herring in the QLG case, another example
or description of the issue would have better illuminated the
questions floating around about stewardship contracting. For
example, the long time periods being sought by some would-be
contractors (25 years is the longest I’ve heard proposed out loud),
or the questions of who actually decides what stewardship
activities occur on any given piece of ground, are genuine
issues.
The three-year-old fears expressed by
environmental organization staffers lobbying against QLG are not,
and never were, based in reality.
Linda
Blum
Quincy,
California
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline A red herring issue.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
