Dear HCN,
Finally, the press has
opened the glossy wrapper on the Quincy package and peeked inside.
Your article, “The timber wars evolve into a divisive attempt at
peace” (HCN, 9/29/97), exposed some of the problems with the Quincy
Library Group legislation pending in the Senate (S.
1028).
While we are eager to see people work out
their differences, the outcome in the Quincy case is fundamentally
flawed. The bill would increase logging dramatically on two
national forests and a ranger district. It would also circumvent
the laws and procedures guaranteeing public participation and
environmental and economic analyses in forest plan amendments. And,
it would force reallocation of scarce funds from other national
forests and programs in California and potentially across the
country.
Also, High Country News is the first to
publicly recognize that the Quincy process was started in secret by
three individuals. With Quincy, it’s been about concurrence, not
collaboration, from the beginning.
The Wilderness
Society is eager to work with legitimate community processes to
find ways to improve public-resource management, but we will insist
that the guidelines for the process clearly respect existing laws
and regulations. We will oppose processes whose explicit or
implicit purpose is local control over America’s public lands, as
is the case in Quincy. The aegis of community consensus, despite
its political appeal, cannot transform bad public policy into good.
Your report on Quincy will help others concerned about our public
lands see the Library Group’s legislation for what it is – bad
public policy.
Louis
Blumberg
San Francisco,
California
Louis Blumberg is
assistant regional director of The Wilderness Society for
California and Nevada.
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Quincy bill revealed as a bad idea.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
