A current ethical issue that has national roots and local consequences is the Bush Administration overturning Clinton’s popular 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This rollback puts 2 million acres of roadless public forest lands in Oregon at risk for exploitation, particularly after fires. Bush allows Governors to petition the US Forest Service (USFS) for continued protection of these public forests, which, fortunately, Gov. Kulongoski is doing. The USFS is disrespecting the petitioning process and just sold off hundreds of acres of trees in Southwest Oregon’s roadless forest (Mike’s Gulch) and more are scheduled, setting the precedent for being the first roadless wilderness in the lower 48 states to be exploited since Clinton’s law was passed. This is despite months of protest by many environmental coalitions, Oregon citizens, and Sen. Defazio and Gov. Kulongoski (although, democratic Senator Wyden has remained silent. Share your thoughts at http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/).
Oregon has lost 90 percent of its old growth forests on public lands, and whether or not we (and our elected representatives) choose to protect the remaining 10 percent is a moral issue. Former USFS volunteer Perri Knize (VanDeVeer & Pierce, 2003) argues that it is dangerous for our government to view the national forests as a timber resource because it then rewards the USFS for selling trees instead of protecting the integrity of publicly-owned forests. From a resource standpoint, we do need some wood products, and forest workers need some jobs, but both can come from the millions of acres of tree farms on private lands, although this should still be done sustainably. Public lands can still provide forest worker jobs through USFS stewardship contracts to restore degraded areas and thin plantation stands to prevent fires and promote larger tree growth. Public forests are also economically viable as a source for limited recreational tourism. But I would argue that even if there weren’t economic benefits to some humans, these ecosystems should be protected for their own sake, based on a biocentric ethic.
Instead, anthropocentrism has traditionally set the tone for most forest preservation policies. Anthropocentrism is where humans construct themselves as largely separate from, superior to and dominant over the rest of the natural world, viewing nonhuman species as a resource whose primary value is instrumental, and therefore conditional. Even though we now appreciate our ecological connectedness with nature, some may still only care about preserving wilderness out of self-interest – because it controls our climate and provides us with clean air and water. Biocentrism, as promoted by Deep Ecology and Leopold’s Land Ethic, goes deeper to suggest that wilderness has intrinsic value that gives it merit for protection in its own best interest, regardless of any separate instrumental value that humans may place on it. The basic argument of deep ecology is one that supports “caring about the earth not just as a means to our human ends but for its own sake” as VanDeVeer and Pierce said in their 2003 book “The Environmental Ethics & Policy Book.” While some may perceive biocentrism as anti-human, I see it as fully respecting nature and all living beings, including human animals, more equitably.
When it comes to competing interests between humans and nonhuman species, our current anthropocentric viewpoint has functioned as an ethical loophole/excuse to sacrifice non-human life to serve human needs, even for minor reasons. This has led to humans causing the greatest mass extinction, mass murder, of species in millions of years. Under a biocentric ethic, non-human species would not always be at such a disadvantage, and we would be less willing to sacrifice nature in most circumstances and would be ethically obliged to try harder to come up with alternative wilderness solutions that would be a win/win for both human and non-human life.
Traditionally, the only ones who speak to the USFS about forest use are the users, industries motivated by short-term self interest. Instead, all Oregonians need to serve as the voice speaking on behalf of the interests of wild species on public lands before it is too late.