LETTERS: HOW ABOUT SONGBIRDS AND EMPLOYMENT

To the editor:

Let's be reasonable and debate the real issues. So long as extremists state the conflict in terms of endangered species versus jobs and urge the extinction of any species that poses any economic threat (April 19 editorial, "Songbirds and trees"), reasoned debate cannot occur. We will not, therefore, arrive at solutions that promote ecologically sustainable economic activity.

You don't approve of the creation of a songbird monument in the Shawnee National Forest because it would threaten economic activity and jobs. The question you should ask is simple: Can we have employment and songbirds? The answer is yes.

Some 50 percent to 60 percent of the timber from forests in the central and eastern United States is used to produce shipping pallets. Most of these make one trip and then go to the landfill. Instead of providing subsidies to this ecologically wasteful economic activity, we could subsidize the recycling of pallets and the construction or reusable pallets from recycled plastic, an industry that exists in Southeast Missouri.

Fifty percent of the timber harvest is no longer necessary. Selective logging in a manner that would pose less threat to songbirds could then be encouraged. If the timber industry would take the lead, it could continue as the companies employ local labor and profit.

When you talk of banning hikes and hunters, you are merely resorting to idiotic rhetoric. Conservation plans for songbirds don't argue such positions.

Most Americans value songbirds as they value all endangered species, not just for themselves, but because they signify healthy ecosystems and a sustainable planet. Plantation trees offer timber but not songbird habitat. They are no substitute for healthy, sustainable forests.

RICK ESSNER

Cape Girardeau