By SHAWN P. O'LEARY
Forum Editor
 

I was born and raised in Allagash, Maine, a small town nestled deeply in the north west corner of the Maine Woods. My way of life, as well as those of my relatives, are directly related to the forest and the lumbering industry. Moreover, I have served as a Park Ranger on a wilderness park which is located in the center of the area that is being debated right now. This precious space has been my experience and livelihood my entire life. These are claims that Jonathan Carter cannot make, as his experience in this area is limited and spotty at best.

The first fallacy that Carter espouses is that the compact would actually increase clear cutting. The point would not be so contentious if he would declare that it may increase clear cutting, but he actually charges that, without exception, clear cutting will increase under this plan.

As the compact is written, it dictates that a cap on clear cutting will be set at 1 percent of the total property that the landowner controls. Carter states that because all but one landowner already operate below this ceiling that clear cutting will undoubtedly increase. Clearly, to emphasize his point most effectively he has to reach a theoretical maximum yield on clear cutting. He does this by assuming that all landowners will cut every last stick of wood that they can within legal limits, and practice replanting and herbicide spraying following the cuts. The flaws, and there are many, in this logic is that only a handful of landowners clear cut and fewer still replant. Moreover, of those that do, only a handful use herbicide spray (though the use of the spray is extensive).

Carter also points out that the 1 percent cap does not reflect the land which is already cut, and therefore the impact on the forest is larger than as presented in the compact. So I will indulge Carter's argument: let's say (for the sake of Carter's logic) that 50 percent of the land in the North Woods has been cut flat, not a toothpick's worth of wood left (which is a drastic overestimate). That would increase the real amount of woodland available to clear cutting to 2 percent of the total ownership. Drastic impact, or drastic exaggeration? Douglas Rooks, editor of "The Maine Times," had the following to say in his October 16 editorial regarding Carter's estimates: "By insisting that the compact will increase clear cutting, FEN (Carter's Forest Ecology Network) comes perilously close to a Big Lie technique." It is important to note that "The Maine Times" supported Carter's efforts to ban clear cutting last year, yet feel compelled to critique his campaign methodology this year.

Carter also does not address the primary methods by which timber is actually harvested from the North Woods. At the speech held at the Benjamin Mays center this past Monday, I pressed Carter about what is the predominant method of timber harvesting in Maine. I correctly informed him that it was selective cuts as opposed to clear cuts. He would not address the issue when confronted with this, and moved on. There is a misconception among many voters that clear cutting is how the landowners harvest their timber, and Carter knows that such sentiment could draw votes, misguided and uniformed as they may be.

Carter's own numbers support my claim that clear cutting is not such a detrimental factor in the Maine woods. First he presented graphs that illustrate that the major landowners are harvesting timber faster than the forest can grow it. He follows this up by declaring that all but one landowner harvests less than 1 percent of their land by clear cutting. So if the forest is being cut faster than it grows back, and less than 1 percent of harvesting is done by clear cutting, then that would mean that the bulk of the harvesting is by methods other than clear cutting (i.e. selective costs).

Another half-truth that Carter used to support his position was a photograph of the Allagash Wilderness Waterway (the park that I work for) and the clear cutting done right up to the property lines of the park. The photograph was meant to portray landowners as zealous timber tycoons trying to steal the beauty of a recreationist's wilderness experience. In actuality, the state authorized those cuts during the spruce budworm infestation as a means of protecting the timber within the ownership. The state owns only 500 feet from the water's edge, but operates two additional zones of control of timber harvesting. The "mile zone" is under the control of the state, where the paper companies own the land, but must apply to cut within the zone. The state rarely approves these applications and never does so for clear cuts.

Moreover, the state operates a "visible zone" which has the same standards and effects for any parcel of land within sight of the waterway. At the conference, Carter challenged that he could show cutting operations operating at the edge of the state's 500-foot zone. He is lying, period. It is one of my duties as an Allagash ranger to monitor and enforce the harvesting zones along the waterway. Any infractions are accidental and enforced immediately. As is commonplace with Jonathan Carter, he didn't provide the whole truth, as it would be detrimental to his cause.

I agree that clear cutting is ugly, and it silts streams and destroys habitats. I also realize that it rarely used, and when it happens it is often as last resort salvage operations such as during times of parasitic infection (which helps prevent the spread of the infestation to healthy parts of the forest) or to harvest timber stands that are of low quality, followed by replanting. Simply put, clear cutting is a tool for harvesting. Paper companies know that clear cutting is very profitable in the short term, but that it depletes the resource so rapidly that extensive use would destroy any chance for future economic success. I think of the North Woods as my home and I would never want to see it destroyed, but more importantly I don't want to see extremists such as Jonathan Carter swindle their way to a choke-hold on that region either. When you consider this referendum question, consider why the people who live, work and recreate in the North Woods do not support Jonathan Carter, his efforts or organizations.