By DAVID LIEBER
Staff Writer
 

Clear cutting unquestionably harms the environment. The health of the soil, which determines the health of the forest, is seriously jeopardized by clear cutting. When roots are torn from their trees, the remaining soil has nothing to hold it together. The subsequent siltation following heavy rain and storms ultimately raises average water temperatures, decreasing the dissolved oxygen content of rivers and streams. This is detrimental to cold-water fish species such as salmon and trout. Forest ecosystems are often destroyed by imprudent clear cutting practices.

The economic and environmental data speak for themselves. During the past 10 years, forest and paper industries have lost 48% of their jobs. Jobs will continue to be lost if Maine permits forestry practices that are simply unsustainable, both for the economy and the environment. While paper companies in Maine are clear cutting (trees) at alarmingly high rates, they are replanting at significantly lower rates. According to data released by the Maine Forestry Service in June, less than 25% of the trees being clear cut are subsequently reharvested; in other words, paper companies are removing three times as many trees (mainly Spruce Fir) as they are replanting.

The compromise that the Governor has claimed to forge between environmentalists and business leaders with this referendum does virtually nothing to reduce clear cutting. The Governor's compact was developed in response to a citizen's initiative to ban clear cutting in 1996. But the compact advanced by the Governor, business leaders, and a small group of environmentalists will not protect Maine's forests. The provisions of the 27-page compact, (which voters will endorse or reject on election day) which supposedly promote sustainable forest practices, are worse than the status quo.

The Governor's compact would actually reduce the buffer zone of pristine areas that is required under current law. Companies are currently required to preserve 1.5 acres of land immediately surrounding any 1 acre of land that is clear cut. The Governor's compact would require only 1 acre of land to be preserved for every 1 acre that is clear cut.

Although the compact specifies that they may clear cut only 1% of their land, a seemingly strict requirement, most companies are already in compliance with this provision because of fortuitous circumstances. Federal wetland and endangered species legislation already precludes companies from harvesting large tracts of land which they own. Moreover, of the 7 largest companies that clear cut in Maine's forests, which account for 78% of all clearcuts, only the South African Pulp and Paper company currently harvests over 1% of its land. This 1% provision would thus do nothing to change clear cutting practices.

The compact if passed would provide clear cutting credits to companies for each tree acreage of natural forest it converts to genetically-produced, pesticidedependent tree species following a clear cut. This provision alone is reason enough to reject the referendum because it encourages increased clear cutting. A company that razes an acre of natural forest by clear cutting would be rewarded by the state with a credit to clear cut another acre if it replants genetically-altered, pesticide-dependent trees. This undoubtedly will encourage further spraying of pesticides and herbicides, which break down proteins that produce enzymes to make chlorophyll. Trees require chlorophyll so that they can use the sun's energy to produce their own energy. Suffice it to say that offering clear cutting credits, (which the compact will do) hardly promotes sustainable forests.

One of the fundamental flaws of this compact is its voluntary nature. Not only does the compact fail to promote sustainable forest practices, but it also makes compliance completely optional. Imagine your professor showing up to your final exam and announcing the test is voluntary; how many would stay for the exam? Observers of the public policy process know that a regulatory program which relies on the altruism of the individuals and companies to be regulated is bound to fail. Local communities will have no authority to implement stricter standards. Instead, they will be forced to defer to the compact for guidance on sustainable forest practices.

Companies affected by the compact are under no obligation to comply with audits conducted by the state to evaluate implementation efforts. The audit board authorized by the compact is a total farce. Landowners are permitted to serve on the board (no conflict of interest there?!) and any one member of the board can exercise veto power over the others.

Advocates of the referendum are relying on credibility rather than substance. The television advertisements urging voters to vote "yes" on question 1 paint opponents as "extremists," but say absolutely nothing about the substance of the referendum itself. Governor King and proponents of question 1 have resorted to attacking the messenger (Jon Carter and other environmentalists) rather than the message.

This referendum represents a quick political solution for a serious ecological problem. The referendum was put on the ballot not by a grass-roots coalition of concerned citizens, but by the Governor, and paper companies which have a large stake in its outcome. VOTE NO ON 1!