Ever since I declared myself as an environmentalist I rejected the whole idea of ‘resource retrieval’ from the land as is most commonly accompanied by environmental damage. However, through the years and experience, my well-intentioned beliefs got massacred when I realize how the system works in a technolopolist society: is all about the money. So, nowadays, the overall worldwide trend is to speak in terms of productivity wherein the cheapest is generally the most profitable way, regardless if is the most ethic one, not to mention the most sustainable one. “What a misfortune”– you may think – “his heart froze with such a pessimistic view of the world”; but I assure you, sometimes a warm breeze reaches it. I was glad that, as one of these warm winds, Dr. Rea’s presentation reached me.
Even though he said some crude facts about moose and forest depletion, something that still must be considered seriously, he said something that I was totally unaware of: he explained how leaving clear cut in lodging areas can actually be sustainable at a certain extent. Not only it will respect -and I quote him- “mother’s nature decision” by respecting the natural distribution of subalpine fir in their endemic place but it would also give shelter to wildlife, such as the moose. So even though it has some impact on the environmental the three parts -humankind, flora and fauna- go back home with something on their hands and moreover the later two still have a place to call home. So yes, we live in brutal world but there are means to an end that are more respectful of the great design. I was thoroughly glad to assist to this topic. Besides all of this was topped by Dr. Rea’s charisma and greatly planed slides.
Now, do I think that any component of this research would be applicable to my program? I think that when we, grad students, decided to apply to the NRES program we made an unspoken commitment to conduit whichever professional path we take into a more sustainable one. I think of this research as a great example of the kind of conduit that is expected from us, or maybe that is just my ideal, to join common efforts into less harmful activities in lieu of this planet, our home. Who knows, maybe I’m not as grumpy as I thought.
Maybe as a possible collateral benefit I wanted to ask him how possible would it be to have a better control of wildfires by leaving these gaps. Since the fire wouldn’t spread in an even way it maybe will give more response time translated into less losses. Who knows.
Thank you for reading,