University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Timber Bill A Threat To Forests

This Thursday a bill is scheduled
to come up before Congress which,
if passed, would result in greatly
accelerated timber cutting on an
estimated 60-70% of all National
Forest Lands outside the existing
wilderness acres. This bill, the
National Timber Supply Act, misleadingly
renamed the "National
Forest Conservation and Management
Act of 1969" (S. 1832, H.R.
12025), would convert land formerly
managed for such multiple uses
as wildlife, watershed, recreation,
forage, and timber into a timber
only management will provisions
for immediate cutting at a high rate
on all such lands. These lands
would include much of the remaining
virgin forests in the U.S. lands
that are much more valuable in this
unaltered state, lands that are
public property and should not be
administered for the sole benefit of
the timber industry, which already
has extensive holdings. This bill
would make it almost impossible to
set aside any further lands for
wilderness preservation.

There is an urgent need for
action immediate action. Timber
lobbyists have tried to keep the bill
secluded to prevent opposition
from Conservationists, but if you
do oppose the bill, there is still
time, and the most effective way to
be heard is to write a personal letter
or postcard to your Representative
or your Senator and refer to the bill
by name and number. The bill can
be stopped, and its success or
failure will depend on whether
enough people are concerned
enough to take the simple action of
writing to their congressmen.

Commercial Forest

The letter from E.
Howard printed in the February 19
issue in response to my letter of
February 17 purports to clear up
several "misconceptions" about the
repugnant National Timber Supply
Act (H.R. 12025 and S. 1832) -
misleadingly relabeled the
"National Forest Conservation and
Management Act."

The bill to which I refer is
presently scheduled for House vote
on the afternoon of February 26,
this Thursday. It is, therefore, of
the utmost urgency that the University
community know the truth
about this bill:

1) The bill nowhere mentions
the setting aside of more scenic and
wilderness area land. In fact (and I
use the word "fact" with more care
than Mr. Howard appears to), the
words "wilderness" and
are not to be found in this ball at
all!

2) The bill in no way implies
that national forest land will be
"managed for its best use." The
stated purpose of this Act is "to
provide for the most efficient
development and improved management
of national forest commercial
forest land..." - "commercial
forest land" is defined in Section 3
of the bill as "forest land which is
producing or is capable of producing
crops of industrial wood and
not withdrawn from timber utilization
by statute or administrative
regulation."

I repeat. This bill has been
rightly called "the antithesis of
conservation" and threatens to
"visit environmental disaster on
much of our national forests." This
bill must not be allowed to pass on
Thursday. Write or telegram your
Congressman NOW and urge him to
vote against this unnecessary
on our national forests.

Monkey Business

When I read that the English
department had abolished comps, I
was not particularly surprised. Such
a move has obviously been coming
for a long time now. I was curious,
though, about how the department
would work in the old rhetoric
about "breadth of knowledge," and
I now see that they did a good job
of negating the effects that the
abolition of comps might have had
on students' freedom of study.

What is academic freedom?
Traditionally this term has been
connected with the sanctity of the
pursuit of knowledge and the
ivory-tower intellectualism on
which "our" English department is
built. These ideals are nice, I guess,
but what about the academic freedom
of the individual student? In
an institution such as this, one must
fragment his interests, and disperse
them over the "breadth" of the
knowledge it is intended he learn. If
the frustration of his courses' irrelevancy
to his needs causes him to
slight them, they strike back in
indignation and brand him with a
"Gentleman's D." To quote Chuck
Berry's analysis of the situation,
there's "Too much monkey business/for
me to be involved in."

Lost Wilderness

It is extremely urgent that a bill
in Congress be stopped. The National
Forest Timber Conservation
& Management Act of 1969 (H.R.
12025) will be debated and voted
on Thursday, Feb. 26, 1970. H.R.
12025 would turn all natural forest
land (not already withdrawn) that
is capable of producing timber, into
timber production only and will
create a fund to be used for accelerated
timber production. The
fund provides for pruning, thinning
and underbrush removal. (This will
destroy most wildlife habitat.) It
provides for fertilization (nitrates in
fertilizer are killer pollutants) and
pesticides (DDT is not the only
staying insecticide). H.R. 12025 is
designed to put an end to wilderness
preservation and to National
Park creation.

There is nothing desirable about
this bill. It cannot be interpreted as
anything but a rape of our forests.
The only winners are the big timber
industrialists. The rest of us lose the
right to observe, study and appreciate
a complete ecology in these
areas. We lose the chance to set
aside more recreational areas (our
national parks are already overcrowded).
We lose for ourselves and
for all future generations the right
to the wilderness experience. And
for those of us who have spent
some time in the wilderness, we
lose the inalienable right to "pursuit
of happiness."

This is the age of "Silence Means
Consent." If you don't write your
Congressman now, there will not be
another chance. Your children will
have no chance at all.