YES on Question 1

“Do you want the Compact for Maine’s Forests to become law to promote sustainable forest management practices throughout the State?”

Opponents argue that the compact is either a long, complicated list of regulations or it is just so much chatter about the forests. But it is neither. The compact is a risk: It begins a process to improve forest practices among industrial users of the forest without guaranteeing that the process will be successful.

The risk is worth taking.

The problems of clearcutting and overcutting, of stripping the value out of the forests and selling off parcels, of seeking short-term gain over long-term stewardship are real and must be changed if the state is going to have a forest of value in the future. Most voters agree with this, but some question whether the compact will address these problems. Here is how it will help:

The compact establishes quality standards that large landowners (more than 100,000 acres) must meet to clearcut land. The state currently has no standards — and it shows. Under the new process, a forester must demonstrate either that a stand will be improved through clearcutting, that it will improve or create necessary wildlife habitat, that the stand is otherwise at risk for windthrow or that a stand is an existing plantation.

Buffer zones — the forested gaps between clearcuts — generally will be expanded under the compact. Current practice is to leave a patchwork of alternating clearcuts and thin buffers.

An auditing process will give the public a look at how well or poorly large landowners are managing their land.

An education initiative will pay for two additional field foresters, a natural-resource educator, and it will cover the cost for municipalities that decide to develop forestry ordinances.

The compact’s reserves on public land will create laboratories for researchers to learn more about the complex interrelationships of people and nature.

That’s the nuts and bolts. It makes some people’s eyes glaze over; others see a vision of the way Maine’s forests ought to be. The essential thing is that the compact gives the public a much greater influence in how large landowners manage the forest. This is accomplished largely through the audit program, which all large landowners have pledged to adopt. Under the audit, the owners would be scored on their ability to create and maintain a sustainable, biologically diverse forest. Independent inspectors would decide whether they had met these goals and inform the public of the scores.

This is the most important part of the compact, but it is also the part that includes risk. Details of the audit would be decided upon by a board yet to be named. The public must care enough, first, about the standards established in the audit and, secondly, about how landowners react to failing grades.

The alternative

Some opponents of the compact are hoping for its defeat with the idea that they will persuade the Legislature to pass a tougher reform. These folks apparently have not been paying attention to the Legislature during the last couple of decades.

Lawmakers have killed one substantial forestry bill after another. The mortality rate for these bills has been so high, in fact, that it persuaded environmentalists last year to bypass Augusta and appeal directly to the public with a referendum measure to ban clearcutting. That measure begat the compact as a competing bill. Now, however, these same environmentalists are saying that forestry questions can be solved legislatively. All evidence is to the contrary, even though the legislative process is the preferable route.

The Compact has an added burden in that some people are opposing it on the grounds that it overregulates small landowners. That’s true only if the small landowner is also irresponsible with a chainsaw or is a timber thief. For everyone else, it works this way: Landowners who clearcut less than 5 acres are not affected at all by the compact. If they clearcut less than 50 acres a year, they are still not subject to permit by rule but would continue to report on acreage harvested. Up to 100 acres or 10 percent of a parcel, whichever is greater, can be clearcut in a year. Small landowners are not part of the audit process unless they petition to join.

A few people have expressed concern over a right-of-entry provisions in the compact that gives wardens the ability to issue stop-work orders for illegal cutting. This is a kill-the-messenger argument. Right-of-entry already is on the books and would not change under the compact. If opponents have a problem with Maine’s logging rules, they should say so. But there is nothing wrong with a warden requiring a landowner to obey the law.

More important and often overlooked in the compact is the language concerning the right to practice forestry that not only reaffirms the commitment to sustaining this industry but enhances, through notification rules, the ability of landowners to participate in crafting local-timber harvesting ordinances. It sets forth in rule and spirit guidance for improved forestry and greater public participation.

And that, ultimately, is why the compact is valuable. Including the current and future residents of this state in the process of protecting its natural resources is not a simple task and it will not be completed with the passage of the compact. This is the beginning. This is the step voters can take to stop the most reckless forestry practices and build a healthier forest for generations to come.