Of all the silvicultural debates surrounding the Compact for Maine’s Forests, the greatest reach into irrelevancy occured this week when voters were asked to consider how many football fields could fit into a theoretical number of clearcuts, if three-fourths of the Compact were ignored and foresters cut the maximum amount of acreage allowed, which all sides generally agree would not happen.

While it makes for a convenient image for those opposing the Compact, the football-field argument just adds confusion to an already difficult issue. It is no surprise that a poll taken two weeks before the election concluded that 27 percent of likely voters still did not know which way they would vote. That number, if anything, has increased since late summer and appears to have been drawn from previous Compact supporters. Even while this has happened, interestingly, the percentage of people opposed to the forestry measure has remained about the same, according to Strategic Marketing Services, which conducted the poll.

Voters should feel comfortable supporting the Compact, which establishes a formal way — through its audit program — for the public to stay involved. The Compact prevents the huge clearcuts of the past, improves buffers between clearcuts and includes a reserves component that will allow researches to learn more about managing the forest. It is for these reasons and others that 61 percent of the Maine Division of the New England Society of American Foresters, which has more than 400 members, said they would vote for the Compact.

David Field, chariman of the group’s policy committee, pointed out that, “No organization could expect its members to be unanimous in their opinions on the complex issues addressed by the Compact, or the solutions proposed, and opinions expressed in response to the poll ranged from strong support to strong opposition.” The fact that a significant majority of these foresters judged the Compact worthy of support does not mean the Compact is the last word in answering questions about the future of the forest.

Some residents have raised serious issues about forestry that have not received enough attention. More useful than football-field analogies, for instance, are questions about how low logging prices affect cutting practices. Others have worried that the species composition of the forest has changed, particularly since the spruce budworm cuts of a decade ago. Still others are concerned with developing stands for wood products of higher value than pulp.

These issues ought to be addressed, and supporting the Compact — showing lawmakers and industry the public is committed to changing practices in the woods — is a good way to begin. Ardent environmentalists have tried selling their proposals in the Legislature, and they failed. They tried passing one through the referendum process last year and failed. They knock the Compact because they say it does not go far enough, but their alternative is to remain without a broad public coalition and without approved legislation.

Maine can do better. It can include the public in the long process of improving Maine’s forests. The Compact is the place to start.