I had 25 appointments in two days--most of them with Republicans. Only one told me "no"--a Democrat. About half said "maybe." Six representatives (half of them Republicans) told me they would definitely vote for and cosponsor Zero Cut legislation. Another six or seven said "probably."
The point is that with a little effort and optimism from one person, the "impossible" began to seem possible--maybe even probable. This is the essential difference between those who would continue to offer up our forests to the chainsaw and those of us who advocate protecting all public forests from logging: The former insist that advocating an end to logging on public lands is surely "politically unrealistic," the latter realize that just about every worthwhile idea has been dismissed as such. Our job as citizen advocates is to change political realities, not grin and bear them.
The bottom line is this: Zero Cut is the only message the public understands. It is the only position that has the potential to inspire. Try talking biodiversity or "light-touch ecoforestry thinning" to the person on the street and their eyes will glaze over. Try explaining to them why it's "okay" to log plantations and second growth, but not native forest, and you'll not only lose their attention, you'll irritate them.
Even if there are some ecologically sound reasons to allow limited logging on public lands (and I don't concede that there are), once we advocate these exceptions publicly we shoot ourselves in the foot. We lose the public. We appear unprincipled, wishy-washy and weak. We put ourselves in the impossible position of trying to explain to the press, the public, and Congress why our version of "forest health" logging is better than that of the timber industry. And, perhaps most importantly, if we advocate anything less than a ban on all logging on public lands, we take a position that is weaker than that of the general public (a 1994 nationwide poll conducted by the Forest Service itself found that most US citizens think that there should be no commercial resource extraction from public lands at all). If the best we can do as environmental advocates is reluctantly follow the lead of the general public, we might as well all go home and leave the job of protecting the planet to the next generation. Hopefully, there will be something for them to protect.
I think that those members of the environmental community who so strongly desire continued logging in certain places on public lands can rest assured that Congress will provide for such exceptions when the bill is finally passed. But the exceptions, the compromises, shouldn't come from us. As David Brower once said, "Let the people we pay to compromise--the legislature--do the compromising." Forest Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas recently stated that if the Forest Service has to stay out of old growth and roadless areas, it will have no timber program. That being the case, why even bother with exceptions?
Ending logging on public lands is admittedly just one small, timid, moderate step in the overall solution. In order to prevent pressure from shifting onto private lands, we must simultaneously advocate strong private lands protection, reduced consumption, and alternative fibers. But we must not be so shortsighted that we let fear of "shifting pressures" keep us from fully protecting public lands. If we constantly live in fear of shifting pressures, we'll never protect anything.
Additionally, we must advocate large-scale acquisition of private forests (such as the Maine woods and coastal redwoods) into public ownership. Once acquired, they will be truly protected if logging is prohibited on public land. After all, what is the point of acquiring forest into public ownership if it's going to be clearcut anyway?
Finally, it should be pointed out that some of the greatest, most visionary environmental advocates in history are on record advocating an end to logging on public lands. To wit:
"...we need a coherent strategy to restore and deepen
grassroots support for public lands, protection of Endangered
Species, reintroduction of wolves, designation of larger
Wilderness Areas, clean air and water, an end to commercial
logging on public lands, and so on."
--Dave Foreman, Wild Earth, Summer 1995
"How about thinking instead of the zero [cut on public
lands]...how about...calling for a 25-year moratorium."
--David Brower, Public Interest Environmental Law Conference,
March 1995 (calling for an end to logging on all public lands
for 25 years).