This meeting was held by the US Forest Service (USFS) at their Seneca Rocks Visitor Center on June 24, 2000. By 9 AM about 30 people had asked to make a three minute presentation of their views on the future of existing unprotected roadless areas on the Monongahela National Forest. By 10 A.M. over 50 people had signed up to testify.

The West Virginia Highlands Conservancy (WVHC) was well represented at the meeting but many other groups were represented, too, such as Trout Unlimited, and the Sierra Club. People from these groups gave the majority of the 3-minute talks. Another 30 interested citizens choose not to speak. The Timber Industry, the Forestry Association, a Landowner Association representative, and a member of the Tucker County Commission spoke for more roads and more logging.

A really good and somewhat inspirational Teddy Roosevelt impersonator gave the first 3-minute talk. (It was "bully.") It reminded the USFS of their charge, and the importance of functioning forests today. It was a great start. Sierra Club members Beth Little and Jim Sconyers did a wonderful job next of urging the USFS to seize this "historic" opportunity to reserve these roadless areas and even smaller areas for future options as a high point of their respective talks. We can only hope to address a few of the ideas given there – none of the pathos or color.

One of the best ideas expressed was that the National Forests are "our" lands – not the Sierra Club’s, nor are they the Timber Industry’s.

The "our" extends throughout the eastern US – the city or rural citizen alike – to anyone that would use The Forest or who would only want to know that such a forest as the Monongahela is nearby.

The USFS is charged to manage "our" Forest for all. This is multiple use. As a forester pointed out – Gifford Pinchot, the "father" of American forestry, said the forest should be managed for the greatest good, for the greatest number, in the long run. Several called uncut fallen trees a waste, not use. Others noted the forest used rotting wood as a normal process of rejuvenation. Another said the Monongahela should sell timber, and be self sustaining and not a burden to the taxpayer. No wilderness, no waste. His community needs it. He wants an environmentally safe harvest. (Is this possible? Everywhere?)

The problem may be that today this traditional prescription as practiced may not be for the good of anyone but more for short-term timber industry benefit, while intolerably offending so many others. Loggers destroy the wild forests diminishing enjoyment for many. Though as many said they live in wood houses, burn wood and use toilet paper, these unroaded areas of even 1000 acres need not be where wood is obtained. Finally, it may not be sustainable as more and more are coming to believe. Moreover, as someone pointed out, we not only want sustainability but "recovery" for our forest – holistic recovery of forest and stream channel integrity, and flood control. It may be that business as usual has propelled us into today’s world without examining the ramifications of what we are doing, where the wall of unsustainability confronts us all. One time it was said, "...there are limits."

There appear to two opposing drivers of forest management. One is the corporate bottom line – profits to be made from timber, coal or oil and gas; the other is the growing number of people concerned about the forest and their perceptions. Many of these are visitors, others never even go there, but want that option. Their numbers are rapidly growing and many are coming to our National Forests. Speakers from the Eastern Panhandle made this clear. If this is an "historical opportunity," we must look to the needs of the future today while these roadless areas remain. It has much to do with how we define ourselves and our future.

One fellow, just out of college, said the stress he had as a teenager was bearable because of his trips into The Forest. Many knew this to be true. One likened it to going to church. Others noted the many needed and invaluable "free services" a Forest provides: clean air (now help with global warming) and water, flood control, etc. Forest ecosystems are productive of critical life support systems. The connection between roads and stream sediment was made many times. Others talked of recreation and the sustainable economics of it. One noted West Virginia is sitting on a great and unique attraction for millions, and we should in no way degrade it.

Forest health is a concern of all. Foresters said cutting made for a vigorously regrowing, healthy, disease free and less fire-prone forest. Logging restores the forest. Others quoting "good science" disagreed. (We must determine who is right – or most right.) The foresters, proud of their profession, were evident. There is hope for common ground with the best and brightest of them. Others noted it is not a goal to produce industry’s efficient "working forests" and that neither fire danger or disease were any problem in the East. Another said a forest is not a cash crop. One said forest health is not what you take, or put back, but what you leave alone.

A teacher of natural history and ecology said we know so little about micro fauna of the forest soil, and though at her age could not get far from roads, she thought there were plenty of them – and that they were enhanced by near-by roadless areas. Grandparents spoke of protection for posterity.

One said USFS expertise should be used on private forests where it is badly needed; and USFS management on their lands should be protection. (True watershed management of all lands in and near the Mononhahela is needed to reduce flooding and sediment loads.)

We heard such vast views that the Piedmont was made up of geological erosion of the mountains; and that this forest has "died" 16 times in its past history, and without management this forest would "die." We heard much more.

The Forest Service has all these talks on record. What they will do may depend upon what they heard. They know we can not have much of this both ways, and a middle ground is often difficult to find. We leave it to the USFS, the stewards of the Monongahela. It is their "historic opportunity" to reserve these options for future generations – or not. It is a defining moment

We can only hope that the USFS will be able to the "right thing." They identify the benefits of roadless in their literature, and they call them "reference areas for research," "aquatic strongholds" for trout and "ecological anchors in a fragile landscape." (It may be few understand at all how fragile "our forest" really is.)