To the editor:

In response to the column in The Democrat by Cameron Clark, Indiana DNR director, on Dec. 5:

I agree with Mr. Clark that the DNR has done and continues to do a great service to the people of Indiana: replanting, restoring and sustaining the forests that were devastated by early settlements; planning, constructing and maintaining a growing number of hiking, biking and equestrian trails; and offering a multitude of educational, recreational and research activities. Local DNR staff have spent a great deal of time with me and my neighbors explaining policy, responding to concerns, and working to mediate the effects of invasive species in our part of the state forest.

Clearly, by the wording of its mission statement, the DNR is allowed to manage portions of the forest to encourage and harvest commercially valuable timber. Sometimes, commercial and ecological value intersect: encouraging oak and hickory forest growth, for example, is said to benefit endangered Indiana bats.

However, the DNR also must honor prior agreements.

Logging the backcountry area of Yellowwood State Forest breaks a long-standing promise to the people of Indiana. Established in 1981, with the support of Republican Gov. Robert Orr, the backcountry was “to be enjoyed by the wilderness-seeker as a place of solace and repose.” DNR literature said the backcountry would “offer the experience of visiting a forested area looking much the same as it must have appeared a century and a half ago.”

While the 1981 backcountry plan allowed logging, it required that “the management of the timber resources within the backcountry will be compatible with all other uses permitted,” and “Timber harvesting in the backcountry area will be restricted to single-tree selection of mature, damaged or diseased trees …”

I cannot find support in this backcountry agreement for the DNR “to remove timber that has substantial commercial value,” or for the “sanitation harvest,” “salvage harvest” and “thinning and improvement harvesting” described in the DNR’s management plan for the tracts scheduled for logging.

There appear to be significant differences between the views of many Indiana residents and some DNR practices, including the true costs and benefits of logging, the effects of logging on forest ecosystems, the percentage of state forest lands that should be excluded from logging, and even what constitutes an old-growth forest

Many people are concerned that the department is not adequately funded to fulfill its mission. In 2008, the 26 percent of the DNR budget that came from property taxes was eliminated. Between 2008 and 2015, revenue from federal grants also decreased. The DNR replaced this lost income with a 50-percent increase in “forest product sales” and a 28-percent increase in state general fund contributions. It is clear that this situation favors timber sales over other uses of forest lands.

While the larger discussion of funding for the DNR and logging policy in the forest continues, the DNR should honor the clear promises made to the people of Indiana when the backcountry was established. Let’s not change “a forested area looking much the same as it must have appeared a century and a half ago” into more gravel roads, gouged earth, widely spreading invasives and trees groomed for maximum commercial value.

An additional note: Mr. Clark states that timber harvests in Indiana are only allowed from October through March to protect bat species. This is not correct. Logging is only restricted in areas where the DNR has received a documented report of a breeding endangered bat species.

Cathy Rountree, Nashville

Send letters to [email protected] by noon Thursday before the date of intended publication (noon Wednesday on holiday weeks). Letters are the opinions of the writer. Letters must be signed by the author and include the writer’s town of residence and a contact number in case of questions. Only one letter every two weeks, per writer, to allow for diversity of voices in the opinions section. Please be considerate of sharing space with other letter-writers and keep your comments concise and to the point. Avoid name-calling, accusations of criminal activity and second- and third-hand statements of “fact.”