Smart destruction can be good for preservation

I felt a little sick when I heard that dead trees along the Joyce Kilmer Forest trails would be “cut down.” But after visiting the forest last month, I believe the Forest Service did the right thing — both in what they did and how they did it.

The point of preservation of the virgin forest is for people to see it, not seal it up in a capsule — thus the inclusion of minimum-impact trails and the prohibition of motorized vehicles and equipment within the forest, including no chainsaws.

Only dead or dying hemlocks along the trails were “blown up,” meaning that a small charge was placed in each tree trunk at a place to cause the decaying trunk to fall in a direction resulting in the least impact upon its surroundings. The trees were then left lying as if wind-blown, not removed, where they will replenish the forest floor.

The Forest Service clearly showed great skill in setting the charges, and I saw little evidence that falling trees had damaged their living neighbors.

The impact of any human action or non-action on the forest is not black and white. A totally anti-anthropocentric stance would decree that no trails should exist in the forest and that no human should ever set foot in it — but then that would defeat the ultimate purpose of its preservation, wouldn’t it?

— Betty Cloer Wallace
Asheville

SHARE

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

One thought on “Smart destruction can be good for preservation

  1. bill smith

    Indeed. One can not leave a forest un-managed, especially one that has already been meddles with. It’s our responsibility to maintain a healthy forest, not expect it to heal itself.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.