"Preservation" vs. "Conservation"

In walking around the woods I witnessed many, many mature trees blown over by the storm in late August. Huge cherry trees, beeches and red maples either had their tops snapped off or were uprooted completely. Seeing all that very valuable timber laying on the ground where it will be left to rot and return to the soil made me think about the 1894 New York Constitutional Convention that created the “Forever Wild” aspect of the Adirondack Park.

Back in 1894, the push was on to preserve wild areas all around the country, but massive forest fires in the northeast during 1893 and 1894 made preserving the flow of water a paramount goal for those meeting to discuss the new state constitution. To that end, the areas of the Adirondack and Catskill Mountains were seen as a water source for rivers, reservoirs and canals (still a big means of transportation throughout the state). Only as an afterthought were the forests themselves considered. Even so, preservation and not conservation was the goal. Preservation: To save as is. Conservation: Wise use.

The final result of the discussions in the constitutional convention—and the fear of fire overspreading the region—was the current Article XIV.
It begins:

Conservation
Section 1. The lands of the state, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed.

Sounds good, right?

But does it truly serve the citizens of New York State well?

By locking up the millions of acres of state lands in the Adirondacks and the Catskills the constitution effectively locks up valuable timber and mineral rights. By prohibiting the leasing of lands for either mineral exploration or timber harvesting by any means, the state has written off billions of dollars in assets. Assets which, in the case of the timber, are renewable.

The entire Article XIV is restrictive in nature. It prohibits and prevents and limits what can be done inside the Blue Line, as the Forest Preserve is called.

Certainly I enjoy the access to wild lands adjacent to the Bolt Hole, but I also think of the tax reduction mineral and timber leases could provide. Think also of the employment provided by logging in an area noted for its scarcity.

Contrast the “Forever Wild” policy of New York with the conservation practices of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

State Forest Management and Regulations

Contained in Article 1, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution are these words: "Pennsylvania's public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people."

Instead of creating a “Park”, Pennsylvania has set its woods aside as State Forests. These lands are scattered throughout the state and are open to both mineral leasing and timber harvest.

The Bureau of Forestry will accomplish this mission by:
Managing State Forests under sound ecosystem management, to retain their wild character and maintain biological diversity while providing pure water, opportunities for low density recreation, habitits [sic] for forest plants and animals, sustained yields of quality timber, and environmentally sound utilization of mineral resources.

(emphasis added.)

The Commonwealth has seen fit to use science to determine the best way to manage the assets that belong to the people of the state. Its aim is to provide a healthy environment and a sustainable income from those assets. Its constitution provides flexibility and its Bureau of Forestry can adapt its policies and practices to meet current situations.

Science has shown that permitting timber harvesting can promote a healthier more diverse forest. An old growth forest becomes somewhat sterile. Only storms and fires provide openings in the canopy permitting the understory to bloom.

Perhaps it’s time for the citizens of New York to seriously think about the “Forever Wild” aspect of its constitution. (Although, Lord knows, NYS has had many, many opportunities with several Constitutional Conventions and rewrites over the years.)