|
Jack E. Phelps
In a recent conversation with a person who shall go unnamed, I was asked, "Is the AFA an anachronism?" The query, I trust, was at least somewhat tongue in cheek, but it provoked me to ponder the question: Are loggers, sawmill operators, and timber land developers really out of step with mainstream America as we near the end of the 20th century? Not according to the people I meet on my travels. Over the past two or three years, I have talked about the timber industry and its problems with dozens of people in airports, on airplanes, in hotel lobbies, and in many other settings. I think these people represent a fair cross section of Americans, and rarely do I encounter anyone who thinks it is just awful to cut trees. I find that people generally are supportive of responsible harvests of America’s forest lands, even of public forest lands. They think it is unfortunate and wrong that so many Americans have lost jobs and experienced life-disrupting, involuntary dislocations as a result of government actions restricting the timber supply. That is not to say, however, that they are unequivocally supportive of the forest products industry or of logging on public lands. They do have concerns. They are worried about the long term safety of America’s forests, especially of what they perceive to be the "few remaining" stands of "old growth" in the West. Rarely do they possess an understanding of these terms, but they use them because they have frequently heard them used. Therein lies our industry’s principal public relations problem. People have been inundated with distorted facts and persuasive arguments that they have found credible. Therefore they believe that the industry has been irresponsible and has over-harvested the nation’s forests. They believe that major wildlife losses have resulted from logging. They believe that fish are endangered by logging. They believe that forests with "spiritual" values have been eliminated from the national treasure trove of resources, and that these lost values are irretrievable. People simply don’t know how much standing timber is left in Western forests. Nor do they understand that forests are dynamic, not static; that the majestic, "cathedral" forest of Disney movies is largely mythical; that most Western forests, including those in Alaska, don’t look like the coastal redwood forests of California. The mental picture most people have of Western forests has been carefully crafted for them by creative public relations campaigns designed to suit the purposes of those who want to eliminate the timber industry in the western United States. Our goal must be to alleviate the worry that Americans have about the present condition and the future viability of our forests and the wildlife they support. We must develop factual information that will help allay their fears, and we must package it in a way that can be readily comprehended by the layman who knows little or nothing about our forests and our industry. And we must back up our message with solid science, because recent surveys show that most people trust scientific information. There lies before us a major re-education task that will take great resources, coordinated effort, and lots of time. The targeted groups must range from elementary and high school students, to adults working in other industries, to retired persons. Nor can we depend upon the mainstream media to get the message out. We will have to find ways to deliver the message directly, and with punch, whether through personal contacts, talk shows or via the entertainment media. But deliver it we must. It has become a matter of survival, not only for our industry but for many of our Alaska communities.
|
