Sensible alternative

The recent announcement of an agreement among the various parties interested in the use of the Maine forest is welcome news indeed. While all the shouting was going on I was almost resigned to having to vote yes on the Ban Clearcutting referendum, in spite of serious reservations about it. Now it appears there could be a sensible alternative.

I have resented the apparent efforts of the forest products industry to incite “class welfare” among the citizens of Maine, pitting those who depend on the forest for their livelihood against “elitists” who, they say, want it preserved for their exclusive use. This is a gross and shameful distortion. Oversimplified arguments on both sides have not been helpful in resolving legitimate disagreements.

There can be no question that clear-cutting as now practiced cannot be good for the forest over the long pull; current forestry management must be modified if the forest is to be sustained. It is equally clear that Maine’s forest-based economy includes many other uses and values found in the forest, and these must also be sustainable.

The agreement announced recently should go far toward bringing about these two objectives, but good intentions must be backed up by the authority of government, democracy’s traditional agent for resolving conflicts among citizens. This means there should be supporting legislation on the books. For this to happen in time for the November referendum, a special session of the Legislature is required. Were the recommendations of the agreement enacted into law, I could, with a clear conscience, vote no on the Ban Clearcutting question.

I have written Gov. King, urging him to call a special legislative session to enact this legislation, or at the very least, to prepare an alternative question to be put out to referendum by the voters. I would urge other concerned Maine citizens to do the same. David Kendall Dexter