967
The Organic Act
Editorial
Sometimes it's difficult to understand why our elected lawmakers even bother to pass laws. I suppose to justify their existence. There are so many laws now that those passed yesterday, if not palatable to passing political whims, are forgotten and ignored, relegated to the dustbin of history as succeeding generations of lawmakers go merrily on their way creating new laws for current tastes that in time will be just as ignored as the laws of yore are today.
But we better start remembering a few of our fundamental laws and reminding our lawmakers of their existence.
The Organic Act of 1897, otherwise known as the National Forest Management Act, is a good example. Its language is very clear. The purpose of setting aside the forest 'reserves,' or national forests was "to improve and protect" the forest within the reservation, or for.... securing FAVORABLE CONDITIONS OF WATER FLOWS AND TO FURNISH A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF TIMBER FOR THE USE AND NECESSITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE U.S."
The law does NOT say.... "unless an unelected activist judge decides millions of acres should be set aside for the exclusive use of a spotted owl, or a willow flycatcher. Or a toad, or fish or insect." Also, the law does NOT say.... "unless special interest groups file injunctions prohibiting those activities specified by the law." What would we think of a police force restricted to the station as murderers roamed the city killing at will, or city firefighters sitting around a table pondering the implications of a lawsuit while someone's house burned down the street?
Yet that is exactly what we are doing with the national forests.
If the clearly stated law was no longer appropriate, why was it not eliminated? If the forests are no longer needed for "favorable conditions of water flows" or "a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the U.S.," why doesn't Congress tell us?
The government's own website explains that the Organic Act "illuminates Congress" understanding that forest reserves were intended for MANAGED USE and productivity, NOT WILDERNESS PRESERVATION, and demonstrates lawmakers' recognition of the close connection between forest management and management of other resources The more reality-based Congress of 1976 still recognized the practicality of the Organic Act, when it reorganized and expanded the law. It 'required' the Secretary of Agriculture to assess forest lands, develop a management program based on MULTIPLE USE, SUSTAINED YIELD principles and implementation of a RESOURCE management plan for each unit of the National Forest System.
That sounds pretty simple. A basic dictionary (Webster's New World) will tell you that a 'RESOURCE' is "something that lies ready for use or can be drawn upon." Of course the confusion in our day lies on the identity of the 'drawer.' Is it mouse, moth, moose or man? Could it be that the intent of the law was to provide for ALL of them?
'MULTIPLE,' for those who don't understand what it means, is also clarified by the dictionary. It means, "having many parts (I think that means that the forest can be used by more than one species or use), shared or involving many." Involving MANY? What a concept! Obviously, some of our judges never even learned to use a dictionary, much less respect the law. Even more pathetic are the Congressmen, excuse me, Congress PEOPLE, who allow judges and babbling rabble-rousers to exceed their place on the fringe and take over the responsibilities given to Congress alone.
'YIELD' is defined as "to produce as a crop, result, profit, etc." PROFIT!
Imagine the dictionary using that dirty word! To think that our leaders were once people who understood that land, with a few necessary exceptions, was to be used PROFITABLY in order for all people to earn a living and support themselves and the U.S.. Even way back in the 1700s, that old relic Thomas Jefferson (Remember him? He helped lay the foundation of the greatest country on earth), passionately declared that "the earth is given as common stock for man to labor and live on."
Now let's explore what 'SUSTAINED' means. Lo and behold! The dictionary says 'sustained' means... uh oh, "to keep in existence, to maintain, or prolong, to provide sustenance." There again, confusion reigns in an era when plain language is regarded as an obsolete oddity.
Sustenance to WHOM?
And to WHAT?
I wonder if 6 million acres of burned forest, communities reduced to ashes and a watershed reduced by half constitutes "sustained yield."
Do we have no courageous leaders willing to uphold the forgotten substance of the Organic Act, and implement its MULTIPLE USE provisions to the best of their ability and for the benefit of their fellow countrymen?
Payson.cc © 2002 Carrol Cox
Payson Arizona Editorial and Opinions on National USA / World / and Local News Issues