Section 40 of the Massachusetts Forest Cutting Practices Act (MGL Chapter 132) declares that the public welfare requires the rehabilitation, maintenance, and protection of forest lands for the purpose of conserving water, preventing floods and soil erosion, improving the conditions for wildlife and recreation, protecting and improving air and water quality, and providing a continuing and increasing supply of forest products for public consumption, farm use, and for the woodusing industries of the commonwealth.
Are the goals to rehabilitate, maintain, and protect forest lands to conserve water, prevent floods and soil erosion, protect and improve air and water quality, and improve conditions for wildlife compatible with the goals of improving conditions for recreation, or of providing a continuing and increasing supply of forest products for public consumption, farm use, and for the woodusing industries of the state?
Should these policies be changed to reflect the broader goal of restoring natural forest habitat and wildlife communities or restructured to prevent long-term habitat and biodiversity losses?
Due to the interdependent nature of all life within and between ecosystems, issues of connectivity and the necessity of wildlife corridors must be considered. How do we balance conservation, preservation, or restoration of environmental systems across private and multi-use public lands? Does preservation of endangered and at risk species warrant dominance of private land by state or federal policies? How do we morally determine the merit, and fate, of invasive species in conflict with native species? How do we categorize non-native species that have been occupying the continent for 200 years? For 100 years? For 50 years? For 30 years? How do we judge and respond to invasive species whose offspring mature in 1 year? Literally hundreds of generations of some invasive species have successfully occupied our lands. At what point do we classify non-native species as native? Should we ever classify non-native species as native? Do invasive species ever occupy a niche without ousting the former occupants of that niche? If restoration requires it, how do we quantify the benefit of disturbing lands previously disturbed by anthropogenic actions?
What is the goal? Is the goal restoration to pre-anthropogenically disturbed condition? Is the goal obtaining a balance between post-anthropogenically disturbed condition in a manner that best supports the maximum environmental health and biodiversity of native habitat, flora, and fauna?
From a philosophical point of view, if this is the ethical position, is it a feasible position? If this involves extinct species and we have the technological ability to recreate extinct species, should we? How do we return the past without dislodging the present and affecting the future? What is our ethical obligation to the present? What is our ethical obligation to the future? Do we have any moral obligation to the past?
No comments:
Post a Comment