I appreciate Terry Sprecker’s rebuttal (“Getting it right on forests,” Recorder, Feb. 11) to my Jan. 31 letter and must agree with and expand on some of the statements. 

A. I totally agree that the main purpose of our forests is for the benefit of our environment and natural ecosystems. Our public forests have been set aside for the benefit of the general public to have access to enjoy this natural world. Independent scientists repeatedly state that the healthiest ecosystems, biodiversity, hydrologic cycles, etc. exist in forests that are allowed to grow wild with no destructive human interference. The public should have their numerous comments and pleas addressed. Most of the public believe that our public forests should not be exploited for logging interests.

B. Yes, foresters often treat forests as a crop, and yes it is in their best interest to maintain the regrowth of that growth on a regular basis. In their management of the forest as a crop, they bring in huge machines that trample the forest with noise, heavy pounding of the ground and soils destroying all life in its path and frightening all the wildlife in its vicinity. Once the destruction occurs, there is talk and sometimes actualized plans to regrow the area destroyed. Meanwhile, the largest, oldest trees who have supported an immense diversity of life and have stored and sequestered large amounts of carbon, have been destroyed. People who have depended on that beautiful forest are devastated when they witness and experience the loss.

C. Yes, the main purpose of environmental groups is to keep us from destroying our planet and ecosystems. That is what most of us are doing in defending the public forests from logging. Unfortunately, some of the conservation groups get funding for logging their lands and are influenced by one sided information.

D. Biodiversity is essential to this conversation, yes. Wild forest ecosystems are among the most biodiverse ecosystems in the world. Why would we interfere with its health for private interests?

E. The environmentalists, climatologists and ecologists do not agree with the existing systems. That is why a moratorium is so needed. If done honestly and correctly, without political games and manipulation of truth, we can learn the most caring and scientifically responsible way to interact with our forests.

Mr. Specker, you are correct. I am not an environmental scientist, climatologist or ecologist. I am an ordinary citizen who has learned tremendous amounts about our forests from those who are independent environmental, climate and ecology experts. They have nothing to gain but the truth and urge us to save our forests from extractive practices during this age of biodiversity and climate emergency.

Miriam Kurlan

Goshen

]]>