Dear HCN,
I’m writing to compliment
High Country News on its coverage of the Quincy Library Group (QLG)
and bill (HCN, 9/29/97). It was as calm, complete, unbiased, and
delightfully wry an overview of the situation as I have seen to
date. My response is enhanced by my being a rural county supervisor
in the Sierra Nevada who works for and supports communities and
protection of our natural resources, and who is committed to the
premise that our healthy environment is our healthy
economy.
I’m also an old Vermonter who believes
in town-hall meetings and barn-raisings. The Quincy Library Group
process is consistent with the best of that
tradition.
As a local politician, I feel very
strongly that we need to see relevance: decisions that are
relevant, analyses that are relevant, solutions to our issues that
are relevant, and a project on the landscape which – we all
fervently pray – will demonstrate that healthy forest management is
a possibility. I think the community-based QLG process has yielded
a relevant plan and project.
It offers the
opportunity to accomplish two things: first, to show that a
community working together inclusively can seriously address the
question of sustainability on the land and in the community;
second, to launch a five-year demonstration project from which much
can be learned about the future direction forestry practices must
take to ensure sustainability. Additionally, the QLG legislation
embodies much of the environmental community’s national interests:
roadless-area preservation, old-growth protection, riparian
protection and restoration, strategic fuels reduction, use of the
best available science, as well as full compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act and the California Spotted Owl
recommendations.
In a perfect world, the Forest
Service could have implemented the Quincy Library Group plan. The
administration could have authorized the plan as a pilot and/or
demonstration program.
Those who had the
authority to make the change without legislation failed to do so.
Therefore, the QLG resorted, with regret, to
legislation.
Regardless of the route by which we
– all the shareholders in public lands – have arrived at this
opportunity to implement the plan, let’s give the plan a try.
Otherwise, we will perpetuate the disastrous mismanagement of the
past 100 years.
Sustainable forest management is
a critical issue, no matter which side of the issue we’re on.
Therefore, it is the responsibility of each of us, as individuals
and as organizations, to become informed and to not take positions
until we have the benefit of accurate information. Fortunately,
these days it’s easy to get information, thanks to the World Wide
Web. I suggest that all of us who have questions regarding the
Quincy Library Group and the legislation should check out the
“Myths and Facts’ section of the Quincy Library Group Web page at
http://www.qlg.org/.
The Quincy Library Group’s
process, commitment, and focus on problem-solving is an effort that
must be given every chance. It’s also my hope that in the future,
the national environmental community will step outside the Beltway
and work with us at the local level to achieve our common goal:
better forestry.
Those of us working on behalf of
our communities and of the environment at the local level should
take heart: The QLG process shows that we are gaining a place in
the decision-making process. In the 15 years I’ve been in office,
I’ve worked hard to ensure that voices speaking out for the
environment or the resources or for a quality of life have a right
to be heard equally – a right to be given equal weight – in local
decision-making with the voices that historically have been
exclusively listened to: industries and
developers.
Andrea
Lawrence
Mammoth Lakes,
California
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Quincy bill deserves to pass.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
