Kernel Editorial Board
Issue date: 9/25/07
Section: Opinions
In 2004, UK's Board of Trustees unanimously approved a forest sustainability study that calls for logging 800 acres of UK-owned Robinson Forest in southeastern Kentucky.
But it seems opposition to this move has reached its apex only recently as UK looks to start clearing the land over the next 12 months, according to a Kernel article yesterday.
As part of the agreement when the forest was donated in 1923, UK must use the land "for the purpose of agricultural experimental work and teaching, and for the practical demonstration of reforestation."
Environmentalists are not so sure about the university's reasoning and foresee permanent problems as a result of the cutting.
This editorial board is not qualified to judge if there will be any long-term environmental consequence as a result of logging 800 acres of Robinson Forest. But with the recent rise of opposition to the cutting, we believe UK should prolong the start of the project until it publicly shows that it is listening to those protesting the decision and is addressing their concerns.
Both sides of this conflict have valid points. Environmentalists are certainly right to be concerned about almost a tenth of Robinson Forest's 15,000 acres being used to study the effects of logging. Some environmentalists are specifically concerned about how logging will hurt watersheds, areas that drain into larger water basins and eventually reach streams.
Ann Phillippi, a biologist who graduated from UK and former president of Students to Save Robinson Forest, said in the article yesterday that the project shows how the steepness of some of the land will be affected.
"The watersheds are much too steep to log without destroying that fine, high-quality, old-growth forest ecosystem and the streams that traverse it," Phillippi said.
Proponents of the plan insist that the study is environment friendly and that there is no financial pressure pushing UK to log part of the forest. Even if there was pressure to raise money, all profit from the logging goes toward managing the forest and supporting the Robinson Scholars Program, which helps first-generation college students from Eastern Kentucky. It's hard to complain about where the profit is going.
But if UK insists there are no long-term environmental consequences, why not show evidence of it in a public venue? Why not address the concern that has seemed to culminate recently? To not address these citizens' views would be to disenfranchise people from the system of how decisions are made at UK. The university has nothing to lose and could gain allies, or at the very least, acknowledge an environmental side before moving on with the project.
A perfect opportunity for such an exchange is today, when UK Greenthumb hosts a public forum in room 102 of the White Hall Classroom Building from 5 to 7 p.m. Even if this project is safe for the environment, a dialogue should be created to facilitate the on-going discussion, especially given how much attention this issue has received.
