Listening to the people, a lost concept

To the Editor:

One of the pet projects for environmentalists seems to be the preservation of old growth forest.

Scientists and professional foresters know that old growth is actually a forest in a state of stagnation. The over-mature trees shade the ground to such an extent that new growth cannot survive.

There is little life in old growth forest besides the moss, fungus and mushrooms that feed on decaying vegetation and the giant trees themselves.

The large trees are quite majestic in the final stage of their life cycle and will soon topple and go to waste if not harvested.

If the trunks do not break off at the ground when these trees die and fall over, the roots of the stumps will bring up mineral soil, light will enter in the hole made in the canopy and new growth will seed and take root.

This is a long process, however, and in the meantime these old trees are taking up space that could better be utilized with rapid growing young growth.

In contrast to new growth, which emits oxygen and pulls carbon out of the air in the photosynthesis process, old growth actually adds carbon dioxide to the air.

Forestry professionals know this, but their message is muted by the volume of misinformation spewed out by enviros.

The stagnate nature of old growth forest can be directly observed by hiking in several old growth areas of the local Cabinet Mountain Wilderness.

These areas are characterized by large over mature trees whose limb canopy allows minimal sunlight to reach the ground.

The forest floor of these areas is carpeted with a deep layer of leaf, twig and needle debris as well as the trunks of some of the trees that have died and fallen over. This debris hides the soil and along with the limited sunlight prevents new growth from taking root.

For me, the most surprising element of these old growth areas is the absence of wildlife. It is apparent the stagnant condition of the old growth will not support the ecosystem required for wildlife.

It seems to me, therefore, that the environmentalists’ insistence for leaving old growth intact is at odds with their usual message of preserving our environment and its diverse population of flora and fauna.

Could it be that the environment movement is merely a subterfuge used by special interests to take control of our national policy?

Who gains when industries in our country are shut down or rendered uncompetitive with other nations by excessive regulations?

Who gains when our reserves of oil remain untapped presumably due to environmental concerns while the price for oil escalates to over $100 a barrel?

Who are the beneficiaries of the foreign wars we manage to entangle ourselves in?

Who gains in the trade agreements we enter into?

The answer to these questions never seems to include the American people.

I used to think the reason for this was merely the incompetence of our elected representation. I’ve come to realize, though that the results are much too consistent to be ascribed to incompetence.

The reason the American people as a whole come up short in the profession of legislation, judicial rulings and international agreements coming out of Washington must be that our interests are not being represented.

The army of lobbyists in our capitol, (including those representing foreign interests), seem to have more say in our direction than the American people.

It seems to me the best solution to this problem is to dispose of the lobbyists that reside in our nation’s capitol and return to the system where congress represents the will of the people.

We can’t expect our representatives and senators to dispose of lobbyists willingly.

They depend, after all, on the lobbyists to finance their election campaigns and are beholden to them. Getting rid of the lobbyists would mean they might actually be inclined to listen to their constituents and abide by their wishes.

Perhaps a constitutional amendment is called for banning lobbyists altogether.

William Payne

Libby