We soon forget history as we address current issues. A case in point is the current debate over the proposed land-rezoning plan proposed by Plum Creek.

The concern appears to be over subdivision and development of land that traditionally has been undeveloped forest for timber growth and harvest. Timber companies held many of these land areas, including the Plum Creek lands, for at least the last 75 to 100 years. The lands were almost always open to the public for recreation.

In the 1990s, debate started over forest management practices and a citizen’s initiated referendum resulted in several years of turmoil in the forest products industries. Not only did our traditional pulp and paper companies lose out in their re-investment and modernization opportunities, the uncertainty of highly regulated forest management drove the traditional landowners to the first sale of some of this land in more than 100 years.

The new landowners did not have long-term attachment to these lands and some large parcels have been resold and significant subdivision of the large tracts has occurred. Traditional use of these areas by the public has been terminated by some of the new owners.

If we look back only a few years, we can see that the current debate over subdivision and development would likely not be an issue if the attempt had not been made to impose unreasonably restrictive regulation. Are we better off today facing development of the traditional forestlands?

What if we impose restrictions that force sale to a new generation of owners?

Although the Plum Creek zoning proposal needs public input, it appears to provide a balance between public and private interests and seems to lean toward long-term stewardship.

A plan providing for 98 percent of a 426,000-acre parcel to be zoned for operational timberlands, open to public recreation for the next 30 to 70 years, is certainly worthy of consideration.

Stephen W. Cole

Hermon and Lily Bay