This paper was sent to a number of political representatives shortly after I wrote it, along with a cover letter. Here is the cover letter, and responses to the letter and paper from U.S. Representative Maria Cantwell and U.S. Senator Slade Gorton. Again, as with my original paper, I would rewrite certain things a different way. Upon re-reading my letter, certain scientific "nievities" strike me. However, my intentions were good if a touch ignorant. I now know that science works a little differently than I once thought (even "observable facts, plain and simple", are subject to reconsideration and revision, and are never considered "indisputable". They are as disputable as the evidence warrants, and new evidence must always be taken into consideration). Fortunately, even though my approach may be simplistic and contain a logical fallacy here and there, I still feel that I was correct in my conclusion! ;)

The letter and responses (as well as my original paper) are all unedited in content. The only editing done was a reformatting for publication on the Web.

Incidentally, I would like to mention that I also called both of the representatives whose responses are posted here, Slade Gorton and Maria Cantwell. Senator Gorton's aide took my call, listened politely to what I had to say (which was basically a reiteration of my letter in oral form), commented briefly on Senator Gorton's postion on the issue (which is totally polar to mine), and that was that. Representative Cantwell, on the other hand, promptly returned the message that I left with her aide, and proceeded to spend a good fifteen minutes on the phone with me discussing the issue in an intelligent and informed manner. I was sincerely impressed with her apparent knowledge of the issue; if she was pulling the same con-game as many of our other political representatives, she was masterful. I do not think that was the case. Needless to say, I came away wondering why more of our elected officials don't treat their electorate with such respect, honesty, and sincerity. The answer, of course, lies in our flawed two-party system and the lazy, uninformed electorate that supports it. But that's for another page.

Currently, Senator Gorton retains his seat in the Senate, and continues his crusade against environmental protection. Representative Cantwell, on the other hand, lasted only one term in office, being voted out in the famous "Republican mutiny" of 1994, the one that was supposed to change everything. You will note, please, that of the two responses below, Congresswoman Cantwell's is far and away the more personal, obviously not a form letter. Apparently, the sleight of hand act is still at work in our political system.

Cover Letter for The Demise of the Northwest Forest

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter is being written to you in regard to my concern over the fate of the various Northwest forest ecosystems. I am enclosing an essay that I wrote for English 102 at Shoreline Community College, for which I received a 4.0. I know that you are busy (and that my essay is a little long!), but I would respectfully request that you please take the time to read it in a thoughtful manner. It is a vitally important issue that requires your attention.

In my essay, I conclude that logging in the Northwest must be drastically reduced, and that logging of old-growth and ancient forest must cease completely. As you will see, this is not a rash conclusion based on radical ideas or romantic notions. It is a conclusion with a solid scientific base. My paper is part argument and part education; I have provided a large amount of impeccable research in such a way as to educate even the most unscientific minded person. Please read it carefully and thoughtfully as there is a great deal of depth to the research presented. Keep in mind that this research has been proven time and time again, and while the forest is much too complex for the human mind to fully comprehend at the present time, the facts presented are not debatable. They are observable facts, plain and simple, and I have been careful to avoid controversial research. You are, of course, welcome to draw your own conclusions, which may differ from mine, but keep in mind that the information presented in this essay is indisputable. No honest or ethical scientist would disagree.

My essay does not present any solutions per se, but rather focuses on the fact that our attitudes must change one way or the other, and we will simply have to deal with a new way of life. The ramifications on society are certainly issues to be considered; it would be inhumane to simply cut short the livelihoods of people who have known nothing else, and they will certainly require federal, and perhaps voluntary, assistance. But these are factors to be considered on their own merits, because there is no real economic argument with regards to the forest. Nature does not care about money, and will operate its natural systems in one way or another with or without us. This concept is explained further in my essay, which will show how we can deteriorate those natural systems to the point that they will not support us or any other wildlife in a benevolent way. We can deal with economic depression and joblessness; we would probably find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to deal with the environmental catastrophes that we may face.

There is only about 10% of the original old growth forest remaining. Not a shred of this remaining forest should be cut, because it is quite obvious that the balance in the multiple use concept has tipped to one side excessively. All future logging should be limited to non-virgin forest, and the forestry technique of clearcutting should be banned altogether. The concept of balance between the economy and the environment is a more or less moot point at this time, since industry has certainly taken maximum advantage of the resource at the cost of the environment. A "compromise" is more or less impossible due to the already existing 9 to 1 ratio mentioned above. To give the environment a chance to heal itself would be only fair at this time. These assertions are adequately backed up by the relevent scientific facts, and I think that my essay will demonstrate this to your satisfaction.

Thank you for your time and attention. You are welcome to write or call me, and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Mike Kohary

Response from United States Representative Maria Cantwell (D - Washington)

November 2, 1993

Dear Mr. Kohary:

Thank you for sending me a copy of your paper, The Demise of the Northwest Forest. I, too, am deeply concerned about the future of our forest ecosystems and I appreciate having your input on this issue.

I appreciated your analysis of the impact of clear-cutting on the environment and the importance of maintaining the biodiversity contained in old growth forests. I agree with your assessment that remaining old-growth forests are critical areas and must be protected. You did an excellent job of outlining the reasons why we need to move now, more than ever, toward an ecosystem philosophy in our resource management. Achieving a balance between the sustainable use of our natural, renewable resources while maintaining -- even improving -- the overall health of the ecosystem in which we live is one of the greatest challenges facing us today. I hope you will continue your hard work on these difficult issues.

As you may know, the President intoduced (sic) his plan, The Forest Plan for a Sustainable Economy and a Sustainable Environment, on July 1, 1993. The time has come to end the current gridlock and develop a management scheme that will ensure the long-term health of the resource. I believe the President's plan is the first in a series of steps towards this end.

The President based his efforts on five basic principles. First, the human and economic dimensions must be integral components of any solution. Second, the long-term health of our forests, wildlife and waterways must be protected. Third, the efforts must be scientifically sound, ecologically credible, and legally responsible. Fourth, the plan should produce a predictable and sustainable level of timber sales and non-timber resources that will not degrade or destroy the environment. Finally, the managing agencies of the federal government must work together to achieve these goals.

The Plan is a comprehensive blueprint for forest management, economic development, and agency coordination. The Plan, is built around identifying and protecting key watersheds and old-growth forests. In doing this, there is great potential for protecting the region's drinking water, restoring a healthy salmon industry, and protecting other threatened species such as the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet and protecting our old growth forests. The plan then would establish ten Adaptive Management Areas which would provide opportunities for federal, state and local officials, industry, community, and environmental organizations, tribes, and others to work together to develop innovative management approaches. These areas will provide for intensive experimentation and innovation to demonstrate new ways to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives and allow for local involvement. A rigorous monitoring and research program will ensure the development and analysis of scientific data to assess the effectiveness and impact of these approaches.

The President's plan includes management strategies to resolve the long-standing court challenges over management of forests on the west side of the Cascade Mountains. The plan provides for a timber harvest of 1.2 billion board feet annually in those forests. In addition, the expected release of sales stopped by injunction and other measures are expected to increase that figure in the short term as the program is implemented.

I believe the time has come to move forward and work to resolve the forest crisis in the Northwest. The President's plan may not be a panacea, but he has taken the first steps towards unlocking the gridlock. I am ready to work with the Administration and the other Northwest delegation Members to see that a responsible forest plan is implemented.

Again, I appreciate your input. If you have specific thoughts or concerns in regards to the President's proposal, I'd enjoy hearing them. Thank you for taking the time to contact me on this critical issue.

Sincerely,

Maria Cantwell
Member of Congress

Response from United States Senator Slade Gorton (R - Washington)

December 1, 1993

Dear Mr. Kohary:

Thank you for providing me with your comments regarding logging in the Pacific Northwest. I appreciate hearing from you.

I found your paper on "The Demise of the Northwest Forest" to be quite interesting. Many of your views were similar to those reflected by the Clinton Administration. Though I disagree with some of your opinions regarding forest management policy, I appreciated reviewing your assessment and recommendations.

I cannot, however, ignore the tens of thousands of jobs in the Pacific Northwest which will be sacrificed under President Clinton's Option 9 proposal. This timber plan focuses on the survival of spotted owls and other species without even attempting to mitigate the economic, social, or human impacts of such drastic cuts in harvest levels.

I firmly believe that the environment and economic stability are not mutually exclusive. As such, I will continue to work towards the balanced timber solution which President Clinton promised Northwesterners.

As you may know, the deadline for the submission of a final SEIS on President Clinton's timber plan has been extended to March 31, 1994. Like you, I am eager to see how the revised findings and recommendations will affect the proposed timber plan.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to do so again on future issues.

Sincerely,

Slade Gorton
United States Senator

Back to Kohary's Cove

I'm sorry to say that my e-mail has been spammed out by lowlife spammers.  I can't provide an e-mail link here, because the spambots will simply invade my newest e-mail addy.  You can reach me manually, though - just send your e-mail to mike at kohary dot com (simply turn the bolded text into an e-mail address by inserting the appropriate symbols in the right places).  Thanks, and I'm sorry for the inconvenience.